Introduction

The Stakeholder Advisory Committee (“SAC”) and the Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”) members were welcomed by Rob McDowell, Flint River Basin Plan Coordinator for the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (“EPD”). Rob thanked Sandy Wexler for all her work on the GIS maps that were displayed at the meeting, and commended meeting participants for the positive energy and the spirit of collaboration that characterized the first meeting. The minutes from the October 13 meeting were reviewed and no suggestions were tendered for revision.

Answers to Questions

Rob distributed a handout entitled “Flint River Basin Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan November 19, 2004 – Answers to EPD permit-related questions from October 13, 2004 meeting”. This document has been posted on the Flint River Basin Plan website, www.gadnr.org/frbp and is shown below.

Flint River Basin
Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan
November 19, 2004

Answers to EPD permit-related questions from October 13, 2004 meeting:

1.How many permits are active in the Flint River Basin and how many are being proposed?

Total number of ag. permits in the Flint River Basin = 8511
Total number of ag. surface water permits = 2053
Total number of ag. groundwater permits = 6143
Total number of ag. well-to-pond permits = 315
Total num. of ag. groundwater permits in Subarea 4 = 4302

Total irrigated acreage = 714,739 ac
(For details of irrigated acreages, please see attachment (Table 1)).

Total number of proposed ag. surface water permits = 360
Total number of proposed ag. groundwater permits (Sub4) = 1104
Total number of proposed permits = 1464

Total proposed additional surface water acreage = 10,308 ac
Total proposed additional groundwater acreage = 132,678 ac
Total proposed additional acreage = 142,986 ac

Total num. industrial surface water permits = 5 (49 mgd permitted monthly avge.)
Total num. municipal surface water permits = 20 (139 mgd permitted monthly av.)

Total num. industrial groundwater permits = 24 (33 mgd permitted monthly avge.)
Total num. municipal groundwater permits = 34 (52 mgd permitted monthly avge.)

2. How many inactive permits are there?

Total number of inactive groundwater permits = 284
Total number of inactive surface water permits = 33
Total number of duplicate permits = 177

3. How many unpermitted wells are pumping and how much?

Total number of known, unpermitted surface water pump locations = 304
Total number of known, unpermitted well locations = 382
Total of acreage irrigated by known, unpermitted wells and pumps = 40,784 ac.

5.Surface water – Total Volume Pumped, Flint River Basin

For drought year 2002: 190,372 acre X 7.66 in/acre = 220 mgd (180-day season)
For year 2003: 190,372 acre X 2.64 in/acre = 75 mgd

Ground water – Total Volume Pumped in Subarea 4 only

For drought year 2002: 462,368 acre X 10.69 in/acre = 746 mgd
For year 2003: 462,368 acre X 5.90 in/acre = 412 mgd

Unpermitted acreage (combining sw and gw, using annual average depths)

For drought year 2002: 40,784 acre X 9.27 in/acre = 57 mgd
For year 2003: 40,784 X 4.50 in/acre = 27 mgd

6.Can it be determined when a well or pump is no longer pumping?

EPD does not have the authority to revoke an agricultural permit for non-use once initial use has commenced. In some cases, farmers have volunteered that a permit is inactive (e.g. it is now in planted pines) but because of the highly variable nature of agriculture EPD considers those to be active permits unless they are no longer associated with agricultural land (e.g. an irrigation well is now in a subdivision). In the latter case, it is not clear that EPD can summarily revoke the permit.

7. What is being done with continued permitting in adjoining states?

Alabama has a “registration program” that requires agricultural withdrawals to be registered if they exceed or have the capacity to exceed 100,000 gpd. Alabama does not issue “permits”, but instead issues “certificates of use”. These certificates have an expiration of 5-10 years; require annual reporting of water use (although there is no metering program in Alabama); and any changes made to withdrawal capacity must be registered. The registration program is run by ADECA, which stands for Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs.

ADECA has the authority to declare a “Capacity stress area” when they believe that the water resources of an area are over-utilized. If this occurs, ADECA can restrict the amount of water used by an agricultural certificate of use. At present, there are no capacity stress areas in Alabama.

The Northwest Florida Water Management District in Florida has a very complicated and detailed agricultural irrigation withdrawal permitting system. In some areas, “Individual Water Use Permits” are required for wells or combinations of wells that withdraw more than 100,000 gpd; more than 1,000,000 per day; wells that have a diameter greater than 6”; and wells that are used for any public supply regardless of well diameter. In some areas, the threshold limits are 1,444,000 gpd and a diameter of 10”. Permits have an expiration of 5, 7, or 10 years depending on what part of the State they are in. Florida also imposes permit processing fees that range from $100.00 to $3000.00, depending on the average daily withdrawal amounts. Permit transfers are charged a processing fee of $50.00. Flow meters are required, and annual reporting is required also. The Board of the Northwest Florida Water Management District may evaluate competing applications when two or more permit applications are “pending for a quantity of water that is inadequate for both or are in conflict for any other reason”.

The Northwest Florida Water Management District may declare Water Resource Caution Areas if they believe that the resources is threatened by overuse that would cause long term water level declines, saltwater intrusion, threaten flora and fauna, or the inability of the resource to meet projected demands. Within Water Resource Caution Areas, permit thresholds and “limiting conditions” may be established. There are currently two such areas in the Northwest Florida Water Management District, covering Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties on or near the Gulf Coast; and Upper Talogia Creek Drainage Basin in Gadsden County. Gadsden County adjoins Georgia.

8.How will permits be regulated (new or grandfathered)?

All new and grandfathered permits will continue to be regulated according to existing Statutes and Rules unless these are changed by the General Assembly or Board of Natural Resources.

9.Does a grandfathered permit keep status if the land is sold?

Yes. And in those circumstances in which a tenant farmer who is also a grandfathered permit holder loses his or her lease, and refuses to relinquish the permit to the new land owner, EPD will revoke the permit and issue a new permit that is likewise grandfathered.

10.How far north does this Plan go?

The Plan will apply to the entire Flint River Basin from Atlanta to Lake Seminole. However, the upper half of the basin north of the Middle Flint and Kinchafoonee-Muckalee watersheds will be treated as a single hydrologic entity. Most of the focus of the Plan will be on the lower Flint River Basin and especially Subarea 4.

Rob also reviewed several maps: Alabama, Florida, and Georgia Subarea 4, Groundwater Withdrawal Permits in the Lower Flint Basin, and Surface Water Withdrawal Permits in the Lower Flint Basin.

SAC members engaged Rob and Technical Assistance Committee members in questions and dialog about the responses. The following points were raised during that discussion:

• Groundwater pumping outside of Subarea 4 does not significantly impact the flow of the Flint; therefore, many of the statistics provided are particular to Subarea 4, which is the primary focus of concern. It will be up to the SAC if they want to equalize restrictions along the Flint (from north to south).
• The total number of proposed permits represents the current backlog, but the backlog may be larger because some people may not have bothered to apply with the moratorium in place and others may be pumping without a permit. The current backlog represents an additional 143,000 acres of irrigated land if all of the applications are granted.
• Inactive permits refer to backup wells and limited use wells (i.e., planted pines).
• Some of the backlog permits may be speculative and the acreage indicated on the permits may not actually be available to applicants – EPD has not investigated this issue but is aware that this situation may exist.
• There may be duplication between unpermitted use and backlog. EPD has not received applications for the unpermitted wells, but they are assumed to be pumping. EPD has told them that they continue to pump at their own risk.
• Many more acres could be irrigated in the northern part of the Flint River Basin (however, they may have a higher value as development property than as irrigated farmland) – but from the Ichawaynochaway south, there is not much room for irrigation expansion.
• More than 90% of Flint River Basin permits and associated irrigated lands have been mapped – the figures for basin-wide water use are based upon statistical sampling derived from Ag Water Pumping Study by Hook, et. al., and applied to mapped acreage.
• Water use needs to be determined – the existing permits were issued based on the maximum capacity of the pump (capacity per hour multiplied by 24 hours by 365 days). The levels for these permits need to be evaluated, especially from streams that are tributaries of the Flint. Some streams have permitted capacity that exceed stream capacity.
• A SAC member noted that in 1954, the Flint River was at a lower level than at any point in recent history (including 2000), and this preceded the implementation of irrigation systems. However, the Flint was still flowing during both droughts. USGS would be capable of verifying this, and USGS members later noted that this was prior to building Lake Seminole.
• Georgia law currently states that EPD cannot revoke a permit for nonuse.
• Farm ponds are not required to be permitted.
• In response to whether there are enough observation stations for stream levels, TAC members responded that sufficient monitoring and data exists. However, there are not enough groundwater monitoring points. Stream flow monitoring may need to be enhanced in areas where endangered, threatened species are an issue.
• The website http://ga.water.usgs.gov/ has data for Georgia that may be of interest to committee members.
• Both Florida and Alabama have expiration dates on permits, and Florida offers “interruptible permits”.
• SAC members are concerned that Georgia is losing agribusiness development to other states in the south due to the fact that permits could be obtained in other states.
• Groundwater is much more reliable than surface water and most high water use crops are irrigated with ground water. Surface water is often utilized for cotton, peanuts, and often to ‘get by’ until groundwater can be obtained.
• EPD, generally, will allow farmers to increase their acreage (even during the moratorium) as long as they don’t change/increase their pumping.
• The surface water moratorium on new agricultural permits covers the entire Flint River Basin, but the focus is on the southern part of the state. Groundwater efforts will be specific to Subarea 4, as the amount of groundwater being pumped from the Floridian aquifer and other acquifers outside Subarea 4 is either minimal or has no impact on streamflows.
• The Flint River Basin Plan will include the entire basin for surface water but only Subarea 4 for groundwater.

The group then discussed representation and involvement from the northern part of the Flint River Basin. These issues are relative to surface water discussions. The group agreed to invite a representative from the North Metro Water Planning District to present information to the SAC about their water planning efforts and inform them about this process.

David Eigenberg with the Soil and Water Conservation Commission then spoke about HB 579 and the Commission’s efforts to implement the agricultural monitoring requirements of that bill. The state will purchase and install meters and will maintain data from more than 21,000 permitted sites, although the initial focus will be in the lower Flint River Basin because of the need for data in that area. Farmers are responsible for paying for meters and installation for systems put in place after July 2003. While the permit holder is notified after the water readings, information is reported to the public on a Sub-basin approach. Mr. Eigenberg distributed a brochure, which is available on request from the Commission. The Commission’s website is found at www.gaswcc.com.

Dr. James Hook then presented information on surface and groundwater irrigation over the year by month. He and his colleagues go out to each of the 400 monitoring sites every month to collect this information. He also discussed consumptive and non-consumptive use, noting that the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Society of Agricultural Engineers both define the terms. Non-consumptive use includes runoff and water that never reaches the plant root zone. Dr. Hook believes the group needs to focus on issues of efficiency rather than just consumptive vs. non-consumptive use.

SAC members asked questions about how long it took rainwater to penetrate to groundwater. Dr. Hook noted that ¼ inch per day is lost to evaporation in sandy soil – all water can be lost in 2-3 days. The depth of the groundwater and the soil composition affect how quickly rainwater reaches the groundwater. In the Dougherty Plain, for example, water is 7 to 50 years old. In other areas of the state, it may be hundreds or even thousands of years old.

Woody Hicks briefly discussed the new USGS model and how different it would be from the current model. It will be utilized as a primary tool for determining where pumping may and may not be permitted in the future. Mr. Hicks discussed the concept of “losing reach” – this doesn’t mean that the stream goes dry, but that it has an overall loss. The group agreed that they need to devote significant time to this issue at a future meeting, and that the focus needed to be in layman’s terms on understanding the parts that comprise the model and how it will be applied.

Bob Bomar, deputy attorney general from Attorney General Baker’s office, responded to several questions posed in the first meeting. He noted that Attorney General Baker was grateful to the committee for its work and that he considers water use to be one of the preeminent issues that the State of Georgia faces.

Mr. Bomar noted that the moratorium ends “upon adoption of the Plan”, but that may not be immediate in reality because each new permit application will need to be thoroughly reviewed according to the Flint River Basin Plan. Agricultural permits must be issued to provide new users/applicants with “reasonable use” of their property – the state cannot deny a permit. Under current law, grandfathered permits may be modified to allow new users “reasonable use”. If the EPD Director declares a severe drought emergency, the state can interrupt permits. However, farmers may continue pumping while they appeal the declaration. Transfers can be made, but they cannot be transferred to a non-agricultural use. EPD can condition the permit. One of the shortcomings of the permitting process is that the permits are not tied to volume – only capacity.

The SAC then discussed which questions had been answered and which ones needed to be addressed at a future meeting. SAC members combined many of the unanswered questions into the broad category of “model” and agreed to address the model at their next meeting in January.

Future Meetings

The SAC will meet on a monthly basis in 2005. The next meeting will be January 13, 2005 at George T. Bagby State Park. The February meeting will be Friday, February 18, with the location to be determined. Meetings will continue to rotate at sites along/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.