Comments on the DRAFT Coastal Georgia Water & Wastewater Permitting Plan January 2006 - by David Kyler, Director Center for a Sustainable Coast Submitted to EPD on January 12, 2006 As the director of a non-profit organization representing the public interest in issues related to coastal Georgia's development and environment, I was pleased to see the results of the Sound Science Initiative, which is the basis for the plan prepared by Georgia's EPD. We are especially encouraged by the inclusion of wastewater considerations in this plan, which is a long-overdue direction in the state's environmental policy. By integrating analysis of several types of activities affecting water resources, EPD will be moving toward a more systemic basis for managing Georgia's water resources. Some of my comments repeat points made by others, including those of the Georgia Water Coalition, since we have collaborated with other Coalition member organizations in preparing those remarks. At the risk of being redundant, I would like to emphasize several issues of particular interest to the Center for a Sustainable Coast. 1. Water management is a far wider issue than simply water supply EPD should stress in the final permitting plan that the plan's purpose was narrowly conceived to address a single issue, and that all those who use the plan must account for many other factors in making decisions affecting water quality, use, and quantities in all related resources and ecosystems. For example, as we have witnessed in the aftermath of two types of significant natural events - the 5-year drought in Georgia and last year's hurricane damage in the Gulf States - we need to carefully manage water resources to ensure the health and stability of wetlands, which are invaluable sources of income as well as property protection. A conservative estimate of the annual value of coastal Georgia's tidal wetlands alone is 3.5 billion dollars - including support of burgeoning recreational fishing activities as well as flood protection. Planning for water supply is important, of course, but planning would be incomplete and imprudent if it neglected related natural systems that require sufficient quality and flow of freshwater to retain their valuable functions in support of human needs. This includes riverine systems as well as intertidal estuaries and marine areas, since their health and productivity are highly interconnected. An additional factor in this post-Katrina period of enhanced clarity is the highly important function of healthy wetlands in providing protection against storm surge and flooding. Effective water resource planning, especially in the coastal area of Georgia, must include thorough analysis of the effects of proposed policies and practices on such vital functions, which can greatly reduce risks to lives and property caused by major storms. 2. Plans must be consistently applied at all levels in decisions affecting resource use and condition, and adapted as justified to achieve long-term resource management objectives Too often, the coastal public has seen plans under various state and local programs prepared and then summarily ignored in subsequent actions affecting critical resource management objectives, for which planning was ostensibly done. This is particularly true when decisions such as land use are made by local government, while protection and allocation of natural resources are under the authority of the state. If we are to succeed in implementing responsible, reliable public policies needed to achieve sustainable management of Georgia's natural resources, there must be consistent adherence to plans and, equally important, to the findings of emerging environmental science upon which these plans must be based. In light of the nature of this evolving information about the functions of natural systems and human dependency on them, we must view our resource management plans as an integral part of a comprehensive process of adaptive management. Instead of allowing development decisions to drift away from rational planning, we must deliberately guide plans and related decisions in the directions governed by emerging science. Moreover, we must dedicate public funding to practical environmental research that is vital to ensuring responsible protection, conservation, and use of vulnerable natural resources that are, and will remain, the lifeblood of our prosperity. 3. Water conservation standards should be adopted and applied in future permitting decisions In Georgia's coastal region, industrial water users still dominate the extraction and consumption of the state's water resources. Though in relative decline, industrial users are permitted to withdraw about 70% of the total water withdrawals that are regulated by EPD in the eleven counties that comprise the coastal management area. In light of this dominant role, we urge EPD to adopt more rigorous performance standards for industrial users. Instead of using the national industry average in determining "appropriate use" for a given industrial permittee, we recommend that EPD require industrial users to achieve efficiency that places the permit applicant in the top 25% of industrial water users for the corresponding industrial group. Consistent with this priority in state policy, we also suggest that the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority be authorized to issue grants to existing and new industry, as needed and justified (both financially and environmentally), to enable industrial activities to meet the new standards. If further analysis substantiates it, the same thinking should be applied to other user groups. 4. Consistency in enforcement of all existing laws affecting these resources Although not part of the plan, the resolve to improve enforcement of existing regulations is essential for the plan to achieve its intended purposes. EPD does not have complete authority over all regulated activities related to responsible management of water resources, but within the realm of its authority EPD could improve certain functions to accomplish more using existing laws and within budget limitations. For example, in the coastal region we witness many uncorrected violations of Georgia's Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Act. This means that eroded soil and other contaminants are unlawfully entering Georgia's waters, with untold but cumulatively significant adverse impact on water quality and aquatic habitat. This major source of non-point source pollution increases the environmental burden on coastal rivers and creeks, not only impairing fish productivity and health, but also increasing the cost of water treatment for systems using surface water. Furthermore, by adding biological stressors and reducing dissolved oxygen, this kind of pollution exacerbates the impacts of other human activities that divert or remove fresh water from aquatic, estuarine, and marine ecosystems. The same compounding of adverse impacts is a factor in worsening the effects of both drought and heavy rain events. As with land use, much of the problem lies with a lack of coordination, inadequate technical capacity, and ineffective incentives (often with dubious political resolve) in local government activities, which include the administration of ordinances such as locally delegated responsibilities for state erosion controls. State officials must re-examine the administrative procedures for enforcing erosion control regulations and make sure that reforms are adopted that correct major problems that persist. Because of the value of clean water and the ecosystems supported by it, investment in water management and regulatory enforcement will be repaid many times over. We estimate that the region's nature-based business is at least one billion dollars annually, and statewide the amount is in the range of $15 billion a year. Beyond these amounts are the tremendous value of flood control, water filtration and storage provided by the freshwater systems that are protected by properly enforced regulations, including soil erosion controls. As Georgia's growth continues, these ecosystem services will become even more valuable, and investment in environmental management will be increasingly critical and economically self-replenishing. 5. Dispersion and location of new wells The Glynn County Water Supply Management Plan, developed according to the requirements of the Interim Strategy and approved by EPD some five years ago, clearly concludes that the best approach for meeting future water needs is to locate well-fields further west and to disperse them geographically. This recommendation appears to be further substantiated by all related intervening research done through the Sound Science Initiative. If this is true, we recommend that EPD clarify the validity of this finding in the text of the water permitting plan under review, and adopt it as a specific guideline to be used in future permitting decisions. Likewise, if this approach merits support through public policy, we urge EPD to pursue appropriate options for using state funding programs to help municipalities and other eligible applicants to implement it through grants and loans, such as those administered by the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority. Equally important, since location of wells and water lines is a major inducement for development, we urge EPD to develop rules to help ensure that such decisions are consistent with other environmental criteria, such as those meant to protect wetlands, critical habitat, and flood-prone areas.