Introduction

The Stakeholder Advisory Committee ("SAC") members reviewed the meeting summary from May 26 and had no changes or additions to make. Dr. Carol Couch, EPD Director, welcomed the group and thanked them for their investment of time in the process. She reiterated her continued support of the process and its importance to Georgia.

Joe Williams, stakeholder representative to the Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC") reported on the TAC meeting. The meeting focused on the groundwater and surface water models. Joe indicated that, after attending this TAC meeting, he better understood the importance of the models to the decision-making process. He suggested to fellow SAC members that they all consider how the models can best be used in the decision-making process. A written summary of Joe’s comments from the TAC meeting will be distributed to the SAC members by e-mail.

Rob provided an overview of the groundwater and surface water model presentations and told the SAC that today’s presentations would provide the first part of the model discussion. The groundwater data has not yet been factored into the surface water model, and the groundwater scenarios will be available when the low threshold flows have been determined for each sub basin. All of this information will be completed and presented at the July SAC meeting. Rob emphasized that these models will be one of several tools in the decision-making process, and he underscored the importance of the group’s understanding and comfort with the model’s accuracy.

One SAC member asked about the other tools that will be used in the decision-making process. The statutes and rules that govern the permit process (the Groundwater Use Act of 1972, the Water Quality Act and the Drought Protection Act) are examples of the other tools EPD will use to make decisions on permits.

Surface Water Model Presentation and Discussion

Dave Hawkins with EPD presented flow analyses showing pre/post irrigation flow analysis of the Flint River at Newton, the Ichawaynochaway, and Spring Creek. Copies of the PowerPoint presentation, the map provided to SAC members and the modeling glossary explaining modeling terms can be found at the Flint River Basin Plan website at www.gadnr.org/frbp.

The SAC members asked for interpretation of the graphs and wanted to know whether the data shows areas of concern. Dave referred to the biologists, who will be determining the applicable thresholds for each area. The group discussed the difference in the amount of industry and irrigation in the various basins and the resulting impacts on creeks and groundwater. SAC members also noted that a ‘one size fits all approach’ would not work and indicated their desire to have a plan that addresses the specific needs of each sub basin. In response to several questions, Dr. Couch noted that one size is not likely to fit all, and as we gain more knowledge, we have to determine if all areas are under the same risk or not. We need to develop water withdrawal strategies that allow for different rules if the risks are different. There will likely be variances, but EPD has an obligation to provide all water users with reasonable use of the water.

SAC members reiterated their need to know when and where low flows become problematic.

Ground Water Model Presentation and Discussion

Elliot Jones with the United States Geologic Survey ("USGS") provided the SAC members with an overview of the new groundwater model. He discussed the differences between the new model and the existing model and noted that the revision of the lower Flint River Basin model used the agricultural water pumping data provided in the study by Jim Hook and Kerry Harrison. That information included approximately 192 systems, about 5% of the 4,000+ permitted systems in the lower ACF area. Based on 12 monthly estimates of precipitation, the infiltration rate to the aquifer is only 10% in summer and up to 30% in winter.

Elliot also discussed the model’s parameters, including hydraulic conductivity of the upper Floridian Aquifer and the precipitation. The models uses precipitation from March 2001 through February 2002. The monthly rain flow in that time period varied from just over an inch to over 10 inches (in March). He also provided an illustration of the pumping nodes, displayed by variable sizes based on acreage associated with the nodes. A graph of Monthly Average Irrigated Depth illustrated that the peak average irrigated depth was 2.24 inches in July.

Preliminary results on the calibration of the transient model demonstrate that the model is closer to estimating water levels within 5-10 feet than previous tests indicated. Earlier, the model was simulating water levels too low; however, some modifications to better calibrate the model were effective in helping it meet the 5-10 feet window.

Elliot next showed a map illustrating gaining stream reaches, shown in red and pink, and losing streams, shown in shades of blue and purple. In response to a question about the lag time in the model, Elliot responded that the conductivity in the upper Floridian aquifer is such that there is not significant lag time. There could be a lag time of as much as a month, but the model does not have any physical reason to incorporate that information.

The group then had a discussion about the transient simulation. The simulation showed that March 2001 was a very wet month, so an infiltration rate of 30% was assumed. In April, some stream segments become losing reaches as ground water levels are dropping. In June they recover a bit, and then drop back. By August 2001, Spring Creek below the Iron City guage is gaining, while all reaches upstream from that point become losing reaches. In response to a question about Lake Seminole’s effect on Spring Creek, Elliot allowed that the dam may be keeping the creek levels higher, as it raises ground water levels by as much as 25 ft. in some areas of Seminole and Decatur Counties.

SAC members again asked whether USGS had made a judgment about the point at which the flow is detrimental to the environment. Elliot noted that that would be a judgment call based on the best available information. Elliot completed his presentation by briefly addressing several areas of uncertainty with respect to the groundwater model.

Rob spoke to the group and clarified that the essential function of the groundwater model is to show the amount of water pumped that would have discharged into the streams. The group noted that the graph considers storage and pumping for the entire year, but that it should focus on the growing season (May through September).

The stakeholders inquired as to the availability of the maps presented by USGS. Elliott explained that the maps utilized in today’s presentation were still under review and would be available for distribution in approximately two weeks. A suggestion was made to e-mail copies of these maps to the individual stakeholders in addition to posting the maps to the website.

Small Group Discussion of the Model Presentations

The SAC members then discussed the models in small groups to determine their comfort level with the information presented and elicit remaining questions. Some of the questions discussed in the small group sessions are as follows:

• What is the threshold where we say enough water has been pumped and the area is at risk?

• What happens if a sub basin or other area is currently over-extended?
• Can we put a temporary moratorium on a specific area and then lift it when the stream levels rise?
• Should we be considering the water that timber uses?
• What about withdrawals north of the fall line? They must be affecting this.
• How does pumping affect Flint stream flow?
• How close does a well have to be to affect a stream?
• When the model says we are in a critical time, what are we going to do about it?
• We need to continue to protect the status of existing permits when we’re looking at new permits.
• How would the subunits be divided under the plan?
• We think we have heard enough about the models – we would like to work on the plan.
• There is some have some increasing confidence in the models that they are headed in the right direction.
• Need to determine plan based on the new information – headed in the right direction with the model.
• Group members were generally positive about what they’re seeing in the models, but they understand that it will be an evolving process.
• Models will change as they get more data.
• How will we compensate people if we decide they can’t have any more water?
• The biologists’ decision on where the thresholds are is the ‘most critical judgment that will be made in Georgia’.
• Some SAC members trust the models and EPD generally, but they are concerned about what the biologists are going to say and do.
• Would like to have independent analysis/objective review of all the scientific data presented.
• Need to better understand the difference between a plan developed under current law and the legislative proposals – a lot of time is being spent on legislative proposals.
• Need to understand what the other tools are besides the models and the current laws. Are there other recommendations EPD wants for decision-making, or are these the only criteria.

Legal Presentation and Discussion

Bob Bomar, Deputy Attorney General with the Georgia Attorney General’s Office, answered questions that had been submitted by stakeholders subsequent to the May stakeholder meeting. Mr. Bomar reminded stakeholders that his responses to these questions refer to farm-use permits only, which encompass a different set of decisions and criteria than other types of permits.

1. Who owns the water – the permit holder or the state? With the enactments of the Groundwater Use Act of 1972 and the surface water allocation provisions of the Georgia Water Control Act, the question of who owns the water is irrelevant with regard to those persons who use more than 100,000 gallons per day on a monthly average.  This is because these statutory enactments supercede prior law on the subject.  Although prior to these enactments certain property owners had a property interest in surface waters and groundwaters, the enactments now supercede such interests.  The only question would be whether such enactments run afoul of the "taking" provisions of the Georgia and U.S. Constitutions.  In Mr. Bomar’s opinion, the answer to this question is quite simply "no."  This is because these enactments are firmly grounded in the State's police powers and they still provide a reasonable use of such waters to the riparian owners and owners of property located above aquifers.
   
   
2. Does EPD currently have the authority to modify existing permits? Yes, grandfathered permits can be modified to allow everyone reasonable use.
   
   
3. Does EPD currently have the authority to revoke permits? As to surface water farm use permits, EPD may revoke same for any material false statement in an application; for willful violation of any condition in the permit; for violation of the surface water allocation provisions; and for failure to use permit during first 2 years of issuance;  As to ground water farm use permits, EPD may revoke same for failure to use permit during first 2 years of issuance.
   
   
4. Can EPD apply stricter water allocation standards in areas that are more stressed because of less water?  Yes, if allowed by law.  Under present law, grandfathered permits are fixed unless modified to meet reasonable needs of other farm use applicants.  Such modifications will vary depending on water availability.  Amounts allowed new farm use applicants will vary depending on water availability.
   
   
5. Can EPD issue permits for a lesser amount than requested by the applicant? Yes, as to new applicants.  Amounts allowed for grand-fathered permits are fixed by law but may be modified to allow for a lesser amount when necessary to allow new farm-use applicants a reasonable use of water.  In such cases, water may have to be allocated on a pro-rata basis.
   
   
6. Can EPD issue a permit from a different source than that requested by the applicant? No, EPD cannot decide by itself what kind of permit an applicant wants. EPD must act on the application it receives. A new application would need to be filed for a new source.
   
   
7. Can EPD issue conditional permits under current law? Yes.  As to farm use permits, the only purpose allowed would be for farm-use.  As to restrictions on withdrawal time periods, this could be done during emergency periods of water shortage.  During the development of regional regional water development and conservation plans, applicants for new farm-use permits may be subjected to what ever conditions EPD deems appropriate including moratoriums.

With regard to commerce clause problems, Mr. Bomar stated that if legislation authorized the sale of water rights in state, sale of such rights out-of-state might well be authorized by the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Presently, neither the Ground Water Use Act nor the surface water allocation provisions authorize the sale of water rights.

Draft Technical and Legal Strawman

The SAC members decided to review the latest strawman at home before the July meeting since they had only received it by e-mail over the weekend. Rob also asked the group to review the plan outline and help him determine if there may be topics/information that might not need to be included in the plan.

Public Comment and Future Meetings

A member of the public, Oscar Jackson, distributed a folder to SAC members and public participants and asked that the information be submitted into the public record. Copies of these materials are available by contacting Dr. Jackson at 1039 College Street, Bainbridge, GA, phone 229/246-3238.

The meeting adjourned at 1:45. The next SAC meeting dates are:

July 26 - 7:30am to 3pm, Albany
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.