Alas, but Georgia's water

woes continue!

Three years ago, the Georgia

General Assembly established and then gave direction to the Metropolitan

North Georgia Water District to address the growing problems with water

availability, water quality and watershed management. Late this year,

three plans were finalized with the intent to fulfill that direction.

Development of those plans

was expensive, involving an impressive array of consultants and staff

of the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). Dozens of drafts were viewed

and reviewed by some of the best experts available with the assistance

of technical subcommittees. In addition, another large group of citizens,

myself included, volunteered hundreds of hours each on the six river basin

councils. We reviewed various drafts and attended dozens of meetings to

offer comments, suggestions, recommendations, and discuss the difficult

issues. The end products are pretty to look at, and contain a vast amount

of detailed data on every conceivable use of water imaginable.

The problem is that even as

the ink was drying during those preparations, high-level politicians and

others with influence were insisting on changes to those parts which impacted

their particular city, county or industry. That heavy pressure to force

change is not a surprise to anyone. The surprise, and disappointment,

is how quickly and how often those changes occurred.

Numbers magically rose or fell,

appeared or disappeared, until, well, until we have happy politicians

and "business as usual" in North Georgia. The big counties nearest

the water source get what they want and everyone else gets what's

left over. Those industries that impact our watersheds the most have been

given a get-out-of-jail free card and many impacts are not addressed.

Let me give you a current issue

as an example of what I'm talking about. Three cities in South Fulton

County have had problems with the city of Atlanta, which is their source

of drinking water. They also have constant problems with Fulton County,

which currently handles a large portion of the wastewater treatment requirements

for their area.

It would appear that a consultant

convinced Palmetto, Fairburn and Union City to band together and form

their own water and sewer authority, now known as the South Fulton Water

and Sewer Authority.

The authority soon located

a reservoir site which would produce enough water for their needs and

have applied for a permit. They also continue to work toward becoming

independent from the Fulton County sewer system.

Perhaps, knowing of Atlanta's

recent difficulties, you would sympathize with those cities and agree

that finding their own water source was a good idea. However, as of late

2002, the Metropolitan North Georgia Water District reports had calculated

that the entire area had water available from the city of Atlanta sufficient

for South Fulton County's needs through at least the year 2030.

When the plans for the Authority's

Bear Creek Reservoir were put out for evaluation, ARC staff asked their

consultants for their opinion on the need for the reservoir. Last February

they answered with a very clear e-mail message which confirmed that there

was adequate water and that the reservoir was not needed to meet projected

drinking water requirements.

When that e-mail reached the

new authority and the three cities, the response was a barrage of letters

from city staff, mayors and city council persons to the district. The

report was quickly changed to conclude that there is a water shortage

for our unfortunate friends in South Fulton County.

When I attended a public hearing

on the proposed new reservoir, I asked the obvious question: "In

February of this year, the district indicated there was adequate water

for South Fulton. Do you have an updated response from the district to

correct their earlier position and substantiate why their report now concludes

that now there is not enough water?"

If it wasn't such a serious

matter, the bureaucratic shuffle and misdirection answer I received would

be funny. I repeated the question over and over, trying to get a response,

but the quick shuffle continued.

Since the consultants couldn't,

or wouldn't, answer the question, I asked the same question of district

staff. It took two weeks and several follow-up phone calls before they

responded with � you guessed it - the identical non-answer. It was

like an echo from the public meeting which again would also be amusing

except, as I already said, destroying 300-plus acres of our environment

is a serious matter!

Since I cannot obtain a straight

answer from any of them, let me make a wild guess as to what it might

be. The notorious Feb. 19, 2003, e-mail from the district arrives at the

South Fulton County consultant's office and is sent to every city

for their information.

A wide array of politicians

immediately become involved in what they see as a disastrous conclusion

and bombard the district, ARC and their local state representatives with

demands that this "bad" information has to be changed.

The ARC/district consultant

that prepared the February e-mail soon receives a call suggesting that

if his consulting firm expects to do any further business with the district

or ARC, the numbers must be rearranged to reach the conclusion that South

Fulton County will be short of water unless they construct a new reservoir.

Remember, I said, this was

pure speculation on my part, but only some similar explanation can answer

why the report was changed so quickly. Incidentally, it also explains

why they can't respond to my simple question.

This particular issue is now

in the hands of the Savannah District Corps of Engineers who will wait

until after Jan. 5, 2004 (date when public comment period closes), to

either issue a Clean Water Act permit for the reservoir, deny the permit

or start an in-depth review of the baseline data.

Unfortunately, we are dealing

with an administration in Washington that is not kind to the budget allocations

for any federal agency that comes down on the side of protection of the

environment. Nationwide, environmentalists agree that President Bush now

has the poorest record of protecting our environment, so a decision to

deny the permit would be a surprise.

Maybe that minor miracle will

happen, or perhaps a lawsuit will be the next step by someone to keep

this unnecessary environmental disaster from taking place.

And now you know why I conclude

that Georgia's water woes continue as usual.

Dennis Chase, now retired,

was a fish and wildlife biologist with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

for more than 26 years. Since retiring, he has worked as a consultant

for Fayette County on environmental concerns, is a volunteer with the

Southern Conservation Trust Inc., and has published numerous newspaper

columns.