Introduction

The Stakeholder Advisory Committee ("SAC") members reviewed the meeting summary from April 20 and had no changes or additions to make. Members were informed that Rob McDowell was unable to attend today's meeting due to a scheduling conflict as he was asked to brief Governor Purdue's staff on the Flint River Basin Plan process the same afternoon as this meeting. Members asked to be given a copy of the information Rob presented to the Governor's staff. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation prepared for the Governor's Office staff has been posted to the Flint River Basin Plan website at www.gadnr.org/frbp.

Update on Application Backlog Reduction

Cliff Lewis with the Agricultural Permitting Unit, Georgia EPD, updated the group on responses received by EPD to the questionnaires mailed to the approximately 1,300 permit applicants who are awaiting action by EPD and are affected by the current moratorium. The numbers as of May 19 (following the same categories as described in the April 20 meeting summary) were:

Members asked what EPD planned to do with applicants who did not respond to the first letter or those whose letters were undeliverable. Cliff responded that they would continue to look for ways to reach those individuals in case EPD had incorrect information on any of the individuals. Members also asked about wells that had been drilled without a permit. Cliff responded that EPD had forwarded a memo to the attorney general's office requesting input on how they needed to treat these and other applicants.

Cliff also gave a brief overview of the possibilities of GIS software for the Plan using an example on ArcView software. EPD would ultimately like to have layers of where different criteria are located that can then be overlaid on each other and viewed together. Members asked if this could be downloaded, and Cliff responded that it could all be accessed on the internet and downloaded if the computer had the proper GIS/ArcView software.

SAC members then raised questions about the mapping of the Flint River Basin. EPD and TAC members estimated that 90-95% of the Flint River Basin is mapped. EPD compares the maps to information received with applications to continue to improve the numbers of correct well locations. The information also helps EPD calculate acreage, delineation of watersheds, and location of water.

In response to a question, Cliff noted that this software could help people see where water is coming from, but only with respect to surface water. It enables viewers to see surface features such as pivot points and pivot tracks but it cannot 'see' underground features such as aquifers. Cliff affirmed that the aquifer source is written into all groundwater permits. He also acknowledged that the existing maps and databases are due to the cooperation and involvement of farmers.

A stakeholder asked about the accuracy of the current information. Cliff noted that the most problematic issue is tying the number of a permit to a specific location; original permits did not contain the exact location. Each year EPD is able to obtain a more accurate database, particularly with respect to duplicate filings. In response to discussion on the accuracy of the current maps, David Eigenberg with the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission stated that the accuracy depends on the issue we're studying. With respect to permit accuracy, he estimated the 'low end' at 80%. With respect to the number of wells identified, the percentage is significantly higher. The Soil and Water Conservation Program uses information obtained from EPD on legally permitted sites and installs measuring devices on those sites. In response to a question, Mr. Eigenberger noted that field observers make a note or record if they see an extra pivot. SAC members generally agreed that the accuracy is high on wells, but not as high on other features such as pivots.

Jim Hook commented that they are able to see the pads where the pumps are located, but they are not always able to see things that are back in the woods. He estimated that 95% of the permitted wells could be accounted for, but a few cannot. There are also some permitted systems which were never installed.

Issues from April 20, 2005 Meeting

The SAC then had a discussion stemming from issues raised in the meeting notes from April 20. The group again discussed the use of the 300,000 acre number (representing maximum potential area that could possibly be put into agricultural use). Members continue to be troubled by the use of that number and would prefer to look at a number representing "potentially available" land or land that could "likely" be put into irrigation. SAC members believe we need to try to identify buffer areas, state forest, easements and right of ways and other categories such as plantations and forested lands that are much less likely to be irrigated. Jim Hook asked the group to think about how they want to treat the information. It is not feasible to delineate some of this information (such as corners for pivot systems), particularly on a large scale. Woody Hicks reminded the group that the water is the limiting factor, not the acreage to which water can be applied. In discussion, it was noted that if water is available and soils are suitable for the production of crops or forages, there is a high likelihood that the land is currently under irrigation.

A final question on this topic focused on whether tax parcels can be viewed in GIS. Group members believed land use maps would be the closest thing to this, but they will not provide the level of specificity needed. A tax assessor can provide some basic information about a specific piece of property, but does not have a substantive amount of data. Tax assessor's information varies by area, but they generally don't have the software and technical support necessary to provide detailed information.

Review and Discussion of Draft "Strawman" Plan

Copies of a revised draft "strawman" plan were distributed 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 currently includes only the Ichawaynochaway watershed, one of five watersheds that will ultimately need to be included in the final Flint River Basin Plan. The disclaimer on the document clarifies that the draft is only a concept draft at this point:

"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."

The group began its discussion by discussing the impact of drought on mussels and the possibility that the Endangered Species Act may be rewritten. The group asked about mussels that were listed as endangered in the broader Flint River Basin and were informed by TAC members that there is a federally threatened mussel that only occurs in the Flint. However, they may be at less risk in the Flint River itself than in some of the tributary streams because of stream flow levels. Mussels are the most significant legal liability because they are federally protected, although the state may protect some of the fish.

With respect to specific comments on the revised draft, group members noted that the concept of over allocation makes a huge assumption that all withdrawals are due to irrigation. Members would like the plan to use neutral terminology such as 'water use' rather than focusing only on irrigation. With respect to criteria for over allocation, members believe the plan must be clearer on whether this is an AND or an OR requirement. Must both criteria be met, or would either one constitute over allocation? Also in discussing allocation, it was noted that we need to keep downstream users (and potential legal challenges) in mind. We need to understand how this concept fits into the definition of and criteria for over allocation.

SAC members liked the glossary and would like to see a map at the beginning of the plan with the sub areas defined. (We discussed HUC-8 last time but this plan talks about HUC-6. We need to be consistent.)

One member asked how EPD decides when they will recommend additional permits. The current description appears looks arbitrary.

Members asked why the draft Plan limits withdrawals from the main Flint River while allowing withdrawals from the tributaries. Most believe this is counterintuitive, and they would like Rob to explain the thought process behind this at next month's meeting. TAC members noted that tributaries into the Ichawaynochaway are the issue, not the Ichawaynochaway itself. They also asked the SAC members to remember that the statistics and numbers in this draft are still hypothetical. Jim Hook asked SAC members to think about the types of information that would be helpful, such as a monitoring program for the tributaries. If we say we don't want to stop permitting in an area, then the area may require additional monitoring to ensure adequate and accurate water levels.

SAC members noted the high level of the discussion and encouraged each other to read information prior to each meeting so that the SAC will be able to accomplish more in its short meeting time.

The italics utilized to denote the first time that a term that is included in the glossary are helpful, but it was noted that some of the Latin scientific words are also in italics and that these are not included in the glossary. We may need to use boldface print for this signifying purpose or to simply include the Latin terms in the glossary.

Review and Discussion of Draft Technical and Legal Background "Strawman"

Group members asked if future drafts could be submitted to them prior to the meeting so that they didn't need to use so much time at the meeting for reading. Some specific questions included:

• Page 11 – middle paragraph – "rather than create individual_______" - there appears to be a word missing.
• Pages 3 and 4 – we need a more thorough explanation of these concepts.
• Bottom of page 4 and top of page 5, under the definition of "farm use" – it either is or is not recreational. We may regulate it more in the coastal counties because of saltwater intrusion, but we can't change statutory language.
• Put long statutory quotes into the appendix, and use the body of the report to provide succinct summaries.
• Georgia, Florida, and Alabama historical information is important background, but we should probably include most of this in the appendix rather than using it upfront.
• Page 1 –"condition of the water" – this has never been a consideration in granting a permit in any of the information the SAC has been given, but this quote appears to consider it. Should EPD be looking at the condition/quality of the water when it is allocating permits? SAC members want to address this issue now if they need to. The use of the term "condition" here is utilized in a context that infers quantity, not quality, but this needs to be clarified so as to avoid confusing the reader.
• In general, we don't need an executive summary for each part of the plan. A brief summary at the beginning of each section may be appropriate, but not a 2 or 3 page executive summary.
• Mean annual discharge blanks need to be completed.
• End of second paragraph on page 12 – need an "of" instead of or.
• Last sentence on page 12 – "under conditions" - should this say "under normal conditions"?
• All acronyms need to be in the glossary, with a brief description.
• On basin hydrography, include less in the body of the report and more in the appendix. Other members thought they needed to see the whole report, and then things can be delegated to the appendix. A concise summary will help only at the very end.
• A map at the beginning of the plan could be the most useful part to assist the reader in understanding the plan.

Members then discussed language in the draft which appeared to suggest that grandfathered or existing permits could not be modified. According to Bob Bomar's discussion with the SAC, existing permits can be modified. Is there a difference between 'partial revocation' and 'modification of the existing permit'? TAC members reasoned that revoking is permanently taking it away, while modification of an existing permit is temporary. The group's understanding was that the grandfathered permit could be permanently altered across the board. We need to get a clarification on this and how it relates to reasonable use. According to the meeting minutes from the group's conversation with Bob Bomar, he said that the Director can interrupt the permit. This needs to be clarified on page 5.

We need to remember that this is a background piece and reflects how things are done now. They can change in the Plan so long as they are consistent with current law.

Timeline

Members discussed the remaining meetings and the proposed scope of work for those meetings. Members agreed that the "final" draft deadline needed to be at the September meeting to allow for review and changes. Members agreed that changes needed to be done in person as a group rather than via e-mail. Members want the plan and the accompanying legislative recommendations reviewed by someone outside of the process and from a political/legal perspective. SAC members mentioned legislators, the Farm Bureau, and the Department of Agriculture as possible groups/representatives they would like to review the draft. Members also wanted an independent person to review the draft for clarity, spelling, and grammar. Discussion centered on the idea that the Plan will go through the Director of EPD and the DNR Board before it would be implemented. Members also discussed solicitation of additional public input and the necessity of meeting with key legislators and other individuals prior to that time.

Surface Water Model Discussion

Wei Zeng discussed progress on surface water modeling in the Flint River Basin. He noted that data collection and model assembling are complete, and that the model compares two sets of statistics: the first set is simulated for the pre-irrigation period, and the second set is observed statistics post 1970. The years 1950 – 1970 were used for calibration purposes because they are deemed to be pre-irrigation. The 1970-1995 phase is the validation phase, and the testing phase began in 1995 and extends through the present.

Wei emphasized that EPD wants stakeholder input into the process. In response to a question about the geographic area that should be used, the group decided that the areas should be the Ichawaynochaway, Spring Creek and the Lower Flint sub basins, not the entire Flint Basin. The parameters for different sub basins such as the Ichawaynochaway and Spring Creek are different; in the driest year, Ichawaynochaway never went completely dry, but Spring Creek was dry for a significant amount of time. SAC members wanted to know how long Spring Creek was dry.

Stakeholders asked if they were going to have to make a decision on the Lower Flint River Basin based solely on Ichawaynochaway data. Wei believes they will have a model for the Lower Flint basin. Woody reminded the group that this discussion relates to surface water only, and there is very little surface water available in the Lower Flint River Basin. The group then had a discussion about the accuracy of the model and expressed concern that the actual low AND HIGH flows be as close to the model as possible. Wei responded that the model doesn't cover all the variables, and low flow is the most significant concern. The group wanted to see if high flows could also be captured. They also asked how the responses from the model would be broken down.

Wei said they would be given by sub basin level, and there are currently 44 sub basins.

The group also wanted assurance that Wei had read the strawman drafts and that the descriptions and divisions of geography in the strawman made sense and would be consistent with the model results. They again stressed the need for an overall map to help then understand the level at which the model would be addressing issues. Woody clarified that the model will be definitive enough so that they could predict the flow within those 44 subbasins. SAC members would like to see (on a map) those sections.

Groundwater Modeling – Initial Discussion

Jim Hook made a brief presentation to help SAC members prepare for the groundwater modeling discussion that will be held at their next meeting June 27. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation "Typical and Drought Irrigation Scenarios for Flint River Basins" has been posted to the Flint River Basin Plan website at www.gadnr.org/frbp.

Jim first discussed the type of information that will be included in the scenarios and then reviewed some of typical crop irrigation amounts for the region. The group discussed the importance of aggregate numbers for crop requirements in terms of acreage and water use. Jim said they have weighted the model toward types of crops, amounts of water and number of acres to produce a "weighted aggregate average". Eventually, all of the major sub basins will be modeled. For the Ichawaynochaway, for example, they used distance weighting and developed an average for each of the sub basins. Table 1 on page 2 of the handout provides an average weighted water use for each of the major sub basins during typical and drought years.

Most of the people who are irrigating high value crops have irrigation systems that are based on groundwater withdrawals. Surface water users are typically producing field crops with lower costs of production where the producer is willing to take the risk of running out of surface water.

At the HUC-12 level, the model applies the irrigation density. These are identified at the HUC-12 level because sampling of endangered species has demonstrated that we need this level of specificity. For every HUC-12, we are asking how much rainwater; how much runoff; and how much withdrawal? This information is utilized to run a water balance to determine how much water is in the stream each month.

In response to a stakeholder question about measuring these amounts in gallons, Jim noted that they can take the acres times the monthly irrigation amounts and that can be converted into gallons. Stakeholders also asked that the data presented to them next month include information for the lower Flint River Basin. Wei was optimistic that it could.

Public Comment and Future Meeting Dates

A member of the public, Oscar Jackson, distributed a folder to SAC members and public participants entitled "Southwest Georgia ACF Concerns Including Documentation." Copies of these materials are available by contacting Dr. Jackson at 1039 College Street, Bainbridge, GA, phone 229/246-3238.

Another member of the public commented on the meters on his pumps and noted that he could feed a person tomatoes for a whole year with 150 gallons of water. He also emphasized the need to "be able to transfer our permits" and expressed the concern that "the water will wind up in Atlanta." He noted that transfers should be "within the county, which will keep the water here".

Another member of the public agreed that the SAC needs to present this information to the Farm Bureau, as it is a key organization in this process.

After public comments ended, Gene Hendrix, Vice President of Economic Development for Bainbridge College, thanked the group for having their meeting at Bainbridge College. The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:45. The meeting dates for the remaining SAC meetings (established by group consensus) are as follows:

June 27 – 7:30 am to 3 pm at the Depot in Camilla, GA.
July 26 - location to be determined
August 25 – location to be determined
September 22– location to be determined
October 6– location to be determined

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.