Introduction

The SAC members thanked Dan Bollinger, Executive Director of the Southwest Georgia RDC, for hosting the meeting and providing refreshments for the group. Members reviewed the meeting summary from March 18 and asked that future meeting summaries be sent to them well in advance of the subsequent meeting. No other changes were noted.

Update on Application Backlog Reduction

Cliff Lewis with the Agricultural Permitting Unit, Georgia EPD, updated the group on the questionnaires that the SAC had reviewed to assist in reducing the backlog of permit applications in the Flint River Basin. Questionnaires and letters were mailed to approximately 1,300 permit applicants who are awaiting action by EPD and are affected by the current moratorium. EPD had received 269 responses by 4/18/05, approximately two weeks after the letters were mailed. Of the 269 responses:

1. 54 were undeliverable because of an incorrect address, no forwarding address, the recipient was deceased, the recipient had no mail receptacle, or the address was insufficient. EPD will continue to attempt to locate these individuals.
   
2. 37 responses were received indicating that the applicants have not installed the well or pump system and that they are no longer interested in obtaining a permit.
   
3. 37 responses were received indicating that the applicant has an existing irrigation system but the system has never been permitted. In the future, these applications will be verified using current Flint River Basin permit maps and mapped.
   
4. 68 responses were received where an irrigation system has not yet been installed but the applicant would do so upon receipt of a Letter of Concurrence from EPD. These applications will be compared to current Flint River Basin maps to reduce duplicate permits.
   
5. 65 of the responses received were duplicates, where the applicant did not know that a permit already existed for the well or pump. EPD is using current Flint River Basin permit maps to verify existing permits and duplications. No further consideration will be given to the application if a well is already permitted.
   
6. Eight of the responses received were primarily related to recreation, including applications for home wells and to fill ponds for recreational use. EPD will verify applications that listed “recreation and irrigation” as a response, and applications which are primarily recreation will be assigned a reduced priority.

Cliff clarified that letters were sent to all applicants for whom EPD had received an application since the moratorium took effect, but that EPD could not send letters of concurrence for these applications while the moratorium was in effect.

Timeline

Members next reviewed and discussed a draft timeline for completion of the draft Flint River Basin Plan. The draft plan and any recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes must be completed by October 14, at which time it will be available for formal public comment. A hard copy of the timeline was distributed to SAC members, and a copy of the timeline may be found on the Flint River Basin Plan website, www.gadnr.org/frbp.

Review and Discussion of Draft “Strawman” Plan

Rob McDowell distributed copies of a draft “strawman” plan which, at the request of SAC members, provides concepts for the SAC to discuss in the context of how an eventual plan may look. This draft plan includes only the Ichawaynochaway watershed, one of five watersheds that will ultimately need to be included in the final Flint River Basin Plan. Rob read the disclaimer on the document, which stated:

“This document is a ‘strawman’ report that attempts to consolidate provisional data, conclusions, and discussion topics into a suggested format for a final Flint River Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan. The conclusions and methods described herein are intended to stimulate discussion and further evaluation only. They do not necessarily represent the opinions of EPD or the Flint River Basin Stakeholder Advisory Committee, or any scientific results that will ultimately be incorporated into the final plan. The conclusions and methods described in this ‘strawman’ report may be changed in whole or in part prior to completion of the final Flint Rive Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan.”

Rob explained that the majority of the information in pages 1-11 came from the Flint River Basin Plan website and from the technical reports that the SAC has reviewed. For the purpose of discussion, Rob asked the group to begin reading carefully on page 12 (impact to mussel populations) and read through the end of the document. He explained that text shaded in grey is hypothetical and was only given to them for discussion purposes. Rob indicated that the surface water modelers reviewed this draft and concluded that the final plan can discuss numbers in these terms; however, the numbers at this point are still hypothetical.

The SAC, TAC and members of the public were given copies of the draft strawman to read and review. SAC members also reviewed larger maps and discussed issues in the plan in small groups of three. After discussion in small groups, the SAC members discussed their initial impressions of the draft concept plan.

With respect to the plan’s readability, members noted that the plan needed an executive summary that understands who the customers are. They emphasized that the reader should not need a Ph.D. to understand the executive summary. They asked that the summary have colored maps and language that is simple and easy to understand. Many readers should be able to get the information they need from the executive summary.

SAC members also suggested that the Plan include a glossary of terms. Some members who believe they are knowledgeable on this topic believed that the current draft includes highly technical terms that are not easily understood. They also asked that the plan be edited for grammar and clarity by a reviewer that is not a scientist. Overall, SAC members were complementary on the progression and flow of the current draft.

One member asked that plan drafters take care to not target any particular sector when making generalizations. One example of this was noted on page 16, in the discussion of “over allocated and under allocated.” The document says that “irrigation” is the reason for over allocation, while “existing users” are given as the reason in other areas. However, if the data clearly shows that a cause can be attributed solely to a particular user, members would want the data to include that level of specificity.

A question was raised about the origin of the statistic 300,000 available acres of land which could potentially be irrigated. Jim Hook responded that his group reviewed soils that are potentially available for irrigation and existing uses, but they did not consider land ownership. In response to another question, he clarified that pine forests were included in acreage that could possibly be irrigated. Members asked if a second category could be added, further describing acreage that would be easily or practically irrigated separate from that which was not. A second category could be added only with (1) substantial work, and (2) numerous variables (such as type of irrigation, location, etc.). The group noted that much of the discussion depends on the economics - farmers will irrigate fencerow to fencerow if they are receiving top price. The group also felt that, in this area, almost everything that is suitable for irrigation is already irrigated. There is less irrigation in the upper watershed, where there is less water. In Crisp and Dooly Counties, there may be some potential for increase in irrigation.

In response to a question, Jim Hook noted that it would be equally difficult to remove land under conservation easements and buffer land from this 300,000 acre equation. He emphasized that overall irrigated percentages, rather than acreage, was the issue. He stated that 50% irrigation is near maximum and recommended that the SAC address the possibility of irrigation growth by sub area based on requests for additional irrigation and growth patterns. Assessing growth possibilities rather than overall acres potentially available may help process permits. The 300,000 acre figure is a placeholder in the draft strawman to simulate a worst-case scenario.

Jim Hook recommended using HUC12 area sizes but removing woodland acres. SAC members discussed timbered lands and the majority agreed that, while some farmers may have woodlands waiting to be cut, recreational use is increasing and is more lucrative. They believe more acres are being converted into timber and recreational use than the other way around. One member noted that water consumption is also an issue for woodlands, with trees taking the water they need and utilizing higher volumes of water than traditional row crops, pasture, turf grass, and vegetable crops. Another member noted the impact of urban encroachment, with the resulting reduction in overall agricultural permits but simultaneous increased water use by homeowners.

The group discussed reasonable assumptions for maximum possible use. One member expressed concern about the assumptions the SAC is currently reviewing, but noted that everyone agrees that they don’t want the creeks to dry up. Members asked whether the model could help tell them when to decline an application. Rob clarified that, in terms of water use, the model be fairly accurate. However, it will likely not be sensitive enough to react to small, individual landowner decisions. Surface water modelers are considering 10%, 20% and 30% increases over current statistics. The group agreed that this would be much more relevant than using a figure like 300,000 potential acres. The group also believes that the permit applications EPD has already received can help provide additional information about growth areas.

Members then discussed the concept of a priority permitting system for supplemental requests and whether is appropriate for the plan? SAC members agreed that it is easier when everyone knows the rules and plays by the same rules. EPD has a legal precedent for denying access to the Clayton Aquifer, but EPD cannot deny reasonable use. The plan must be according to existing laws – recommended changes to the current laws may be given in the recommendation section.

The groups then discussed a scenario where EPD denies access to surface water but allows deeper groundwater access. SAC members speculated about sources of funding for compensating farmers for drilling deeper (and more expensive) wells (i.e. OneGeorgia, Flint River Drought Protection Plan funds). Members noted the highly competitive nature of OneGeorgia funding. Equity issues arose with respect to farmers who have already been required to dig deep wells and were not compensated to do so.

Rob emphasized that there are different scales of thinking among members of the group, including ideas about individual properties vs. the entire river basin. Rob asked the group to review all parts of the draft strawman plan carefully from both perspectives and to send him comments by e-mail prior to the next meeting. SAC members asked if there would be a way to quickly overlay various maps in GIS format. Rob responded that he wants the final plan to be in this format, but it takes a time and is complex to organize.

One SAC member asked if an area is already over allocated, how does existing law direct us, and can the law be changed? The law can be changed, and if the permitting agency has over-permitted the resource, the agency must find a way to correct it so that it is no longer over allocated. The group briefly revisited Bob Bomar’s legal discussion on takings. A question arose whether areas which are under-allocated could be used to balance the over-allocated areas? Under current statutes, this is not permissible. Rob noted that he did not address transferring permits because the law does not allow it.

SAC members asked that the final plan include information addressing the legal limitations and implications of the plan. The group believes the most effective way to do this would be to address issues section by section as they arise rather than in one individual “legal section.” Questions were also raised about codifying this plan, how it would become effective, and the possibility of the DNR Board not accepting all of the recommendations in the plan.

SAC members returned briefly to the topic of provisional permits. If a farmer is growing grass and raising chickens, could he obtain a permit where he agrees not to use water in August? Members noted that this would also work with sweet corn. Even if the crops change year to year, members agreed they would rather have a permit where they know the restrictions up front rather than be required midseason to reduce water use. Current Georgia law does not provide for provisional permits. The group generally agreed that provisional permits are a good idea and wants to include them in the recommendations to the DNR Board. The group also discussed timing and how quickly provisional permits could be incorporated into law, and also as to how to best insure that applicants are complying with the conditions of the permit.

Compliance with provisional permits led to a broader discussion of enforcement, with questions about the level of enforcement if this is truly going to be a regional plan.

Several members emphasized that the plan needed “teeth” in the form of permit revocation, fines, and/or jail time.

SAC members again discussed measuring volume/use rather than capacity in issuing permits and measuring over or under allocation. They noted that the majority of farmers do not use all the capacity and these amounts are “counted” as water being used. Some members expressed concern about limiting their water during “special circumstances” in drought conditions. Others suggested that farmers be asked to provide a number representing two times their worst-case scenario.

One member asked whether, once the moratorium is lifted, EPD must then grant all permit applications. Rob explained that once the moratorium is lifted, all new permits must be consistent with this plan. If the plan recommends continuing the moratorium in some areas, EPD would have the authority to continue the moratorium. The moratorium will not be automatically lifted until completion of the plan. Rob compared this to the draft strawman plan, where no one was denied a permit, but some applicants did not get exactly what they wanted.

Another member asked about an ongoing study referenced in the law, and Rob indicated that he would review the statute and respond to the question.

One SAC member asked whether the law could be changed to allow farmers with grandfathered permits to pay a neighbor not to pump and trading or selling that right. The group briefly discussed SB 237, which was introduced two years ago in an attempt to address this issue. The group noted that a different statutory approach would be needed and that it would need to be sensitive to geographic area (i.e. trading among users in the same area).

After a brief break, the group reconvened and discussed the appropriate scale of management for the plan and the possibility of a Flint River Water Management District. Most agree one management approach for the entire basin doesn’t make sense. While the whole lower Flint River Basin is probably too large an area, how do you minimize the numbers of people who would be ‘on the line’ with very small scales. Rob recommended flexibility for each of the 5 sub basins in the Flint River Basin (the HUC 8 level). The group may ultimately agree to a broad recommendation and with more specifics in the sub basins. The specifics would need to consider direction and speed of groundwater flow and contrast that with surface water, among other things.

Woody asked whether this plan should provide some protection for current users and anticipate changes in the agriculture market (i.e. more water-demanding crops in the future). Members generally agreed that the plan should incorporate this scenario, as should the groundwater models.

Conservation

Alice Keyes, Conservation Policy Specialist with Georgia EPD, discussed water conservation in the State of Georgia and possibilities for the Flint River Basin. Water conservation efforts include industry, homeowners, municipal systems and agriculture. Conservation is not just for drought conditions but includes practices and management tools that can be implemented to reduce water use, waste and loss. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation and a summary of the applicable statutes and regulations can be found at the Flint River Basin Plan website at www.gadnr.org/frbp.

Alice discussed “Building a State of Water Conservation” – a three-pronged approach to (1) restructure EPD operations and administrative facilities; (2) finalize a statewide Georgia water conservation plan; and (3) develop an ongoing process to implement water conservation statewide. The water council that will oversee the creation of the statewide water plan agreed that conservation will be an important part of the statewide plan.

All water users are being integrated – golf courses, municipal users, and recreational users are all being asked to conserve even in non-drought conditions.

With respect to residential and municipal use, a family of 4 will use between 8,000 and 12,000 gallons of water a month. By comparison, the entire City of Camilla uses approximately 1.7 million gallons a day, although much of that is used by Equity Group). SAC members noted that peanut farmers have a scheduling program, and cotton and corn farmers are starting similar programs. One member noted that the Planning and Policy Center has all of this data on cities and how much they’re pumping. Ten percent (including flushing) is a generally accepted goal for water loss in a municipal water system, while 20-25% loss on municipal systems is typical. There are some communities that do not have water meters; others don’t bill regularly. Communities are required to report water loss, but unless they are asking for a new or modified permit, there are no repercussions for losing excessive water.

Municipal and industry use constitutes approximately 18% of water use in the Flint River Basin. One SAC member noted that many industries in the area include water conservation as an important cost-saving component of their overall plan and have been doing so for some time.

Jim Hook presented complimentary information on agricultural conservation. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation can be found at the Flint River Basin Plan website at www.gadnr.org/frbp. He asked SAC members to consider conservation measures which are appropriate and desirable for implementation as part of the Flint River Basin Plan, both during a drought (considering the Flint River Drought Protection Act) and during wet periods.

Legislation that required conservation plans specifically exempts agriculture from having to produce plans for conservation.

Metering, water loss control (eliminating leaks and off-target application, minimizing evaporation loss), education and outreach, technical assistance and watering schedules already help conservation. SAC members mentioned a tracking system utilized in Europe, and current work in the development of more drought-resistant varieties of crops.

Another member asked the group to consider the role counties play in this arena. There are a few county water systems, including Lee County. Counties need to be involved in the periphery of this discussion since they have historically been given enforcement responsibilities.

Members then discussed possible conservation elements that would be appropriate for inclusion in plan. Some SAC members noted that little opportunity for conservation exists during extreme drought. Others noted that they need to ensure that the water is being used efficiently. One SAC member is experimenting with two systems retrofitted with variable rate sprinkler packages; others are turning off the sprinklers in low areas of the field which require less water. Members agreed that end gun issues are more complex.

Members noted that it would be easier to get support for the final plan if the conservation issues are ones that farmers can live with and ones that convey positive conservation measures about farmers. Members believe farmers are not getting credit for certain conservation measures such as breaking the hard pan of compacted soils that exist within many fields. By ripping the hard pan, permeability of fields are enhanced insuring less evaporative loss, sheeting, and runoff as water is able to move more efficiently into the root zone for utilization by the crop.

One SAC member expressed desire that the final plan be dynamic in nature and able to incorporate and encompass common sense ideas and future changes.

Rob asked the group how much of the overall goal (if any) can be achieved through water conservation. The group thought they would not be able to do much in drought years, when they can’t pump fast enough. Furthermore, nearly 80% of the old systems have been upgraded to low pressure systems already. However, most of the group agreed that measures such as conditional permits and variable rate systems would help. Additionally, the members noted that there may be fewer drought years if conservation measures are implemented. By doing so, the area’s sensitivity to drought situations would be reduced, and droughts would be shorter and less threatening. It would also provide cushion for catastrophic, unexpected things that will eventually happen over the course of the plan (i.e. lost reservoir). Additionally, the more broadly conservation is defined, the more significant the impact of conservation measures on threatened species, particularly during drought situations.

One SAC member commented that the business goal of a farmer is to maximize revenue, not yield. By demonstrating cost effective conservation measures, politically and socially the region as a whole will be able to demonstrate better stewardship of the water.

The group gave Rob two requests for the final plan: (1) the plan must have a mechanism for review, particularly to help determine if conservation efforts had an impact; and (2) the plan needs to be managed locally.

Public Comments

The meeting adjourned at 11:45. The next SAC meeting dates are May 26 from 7:30am to noon in Bainbridge and June 27. Meetings will continue to rotate at sites along or near the Flint River and all meeting dates, times and locations will also be posted on the Flint River Basin Plan website, www.gadnr.org/frbp.

The website and e-mail for the project are as follows:

WEBSITE: www.gadnr.org/frbp

E-MAIL: frbplan@dnr.state.ga.us

**Any questions about or corrections to these meeting notes should be directed to Courtney Tobin (706) 542-7149 (tobin@cviog.uga.edu) or Dennis Epps (706) 542-6244 (epps@cviog.uga.edu), meeting facilitators, Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia.