Posted on 05/04/2003 12:10:54 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
ATLANTA - It was supposed to be popular - a new water bill for Georgia that had farmers and environmental officials saying years of study had resulted in the state's first comprehensive water plan.
Farmers were OK with the idea of meters on farms. Conservationists liked the movement toward science-based management of water on a state level. The state Environmental Protection Division helped craft the plan and liked it, too.
So why did the bill fail?
In the closing moments of the Legislature, the House rejected the water bill, even after approving it once before. The Senate wouldn't take it up again. The water bill sunk for at least a year.
The unexpected finish showed water officials how tough it's going to be to manage a resource that's so ubiquitous most people don't think about it.
Divvying up the state's water is no small matter. It determines how many farmers will grow crops, where a factory will go and whether a new subdivision in metro Atlanta can go up.
"Ever heard the old saying, 'You don't miss your water till the well runs dry?' Well, that's exactly where we are right now," said Rep. Tommy Smith, a blueberry farmer from rural Alma.
A surging population and a four-year drought inspired lawmakers to study long-term water plans. The plan was ready for passage this year, but a wide range of complaints from both parties doomed it.
The biggest complaint was a new rule about permit trading. In parts of the state with little water, the bill would allow someone with a water permit to sell it to someone else.
Rural lawmakers said permit trading is sorely needed in underdeveloped areas. If water is scarce, new companies couldn't come in unless they could buy a permit from a farmer who's not using all his water.
"Who's going to just give up a water permit?" asked Rep. Bob Hanner, a Democrat from rural Parrott who sponsored the bill. "If a new industry wants to come in, and there's a water moratorium, then they just can't come in. This is real problem in rural Georgia."
Environmentalists screamed about permit trading, warning of disastrous consequences if water is sold to the highest bidder. Nobody owns the water, they said, and the people's government should decide the best uses for scarce water.
The environmentalists made little headway with rural Democrats, but they found allies in north Georgia Republicans. Water scarcity is quickly becoming a top concern in the surging suburban areas.
"We could not allow an open market for buying and selling water permits," said Sen. Casey Cagle, R-Gainesville. "Any type of private market for water is a very, very scary road to embrace. The resource is too important."
Another sticking point for the water negotiations was so-called interbasin transfers, where water is pumped from one river to another area that needs water.
Both sides agreed the transfers needed to be capped, fearing environmental damage if huge quantities of water are sucked out of one river and dumped somewhere else. The disagreement centered on the 16 counties in metro Atlanta, which got broad permission for interbasin transfers in the bill.
"The natural system works pretty well. We must be very careful when we authorize interbasin transfers. We need to consider what the consequences might be," said John Sibley, president of the Georgia Conservancy.
Now that the bill has failed, lawmakers have a year to see if they can broker an agreement for next session. Both sides hope the squabbles over permit trading and interbasin transfers don't derail even a basic plan to oversee water use.
"We have to do something. We know it," said Smith, the blueberry farmer. "Water is economic development. Water is industry. It's everything."
I think it was a wise decision.
I see no practical need for development of a "water rights" market as a separate commodity.
If anything, water rights should only be transferable in conjunction with sale of the land with which the water is associated.
Concern over fresh water supply is becoming increasingly common in our nation due to pressures from drought and population growth. Our coastal states are frequently evaluating the viability of desalination systems to provide their fresh water needs. Desalination is an energy intensive process, so it is quite common for these facilities to be built in close proximity to electric power plants. For this reason, it is also reasonable to consider the use of nuclear desalination as a potential option.Sunday, May 4, 2003
AccessNorthGa.com/WDUNATLANTA - Atlanta will spend up to $250,000 in state money to explore removing salt from ocean water as a possible water supply.
The money will be used to hire consultants to study building three desalination plants along the coast to treat water and ship it north to booming Atlanta.
The money was awarded to Atlanta late last week in the closing hours of the Legislature.
``Atlanta is taking the lead ... because Atlanta's water supply is precarious,'' said Janet Ward, public information manager for the city's Department of Watershed Management.
Even the projects' backers say it would be years before the city began sucking water out of the Atlantic Ocean. Scientists warn the cost could be too steep to be practical, and environmentalists say it makes more sense to conserve the fresh water north Georgia already has.
Rick Brownlow of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District said the initial plans call for pipes running from the desalination plants to Lake Lanier, where 16 metro Atlanta counties get most of their water.
``Sitting here at 1,000 vertical feet, the cost to lift that water here would be tremendously expensive,'' Brownlow told Morris News Service.
Neil Herring, an environmental lobbyist whose clients include The Sierra Club, warned that desalination plants require huge amounts of energy and that the brine left behind could become a pollutant if not carefully disposed.
Lawmakers who brokered the desalination deal say it's an option worth looking into. Tampa, Fla., opened a desalination plant in March, and desalination projects are being developed in southern California and along the Texas Gulf Coast.
State Sen. Eric Johnson of Savannah, the chamber's top-ranking Republican, said the desalination plants would provide water for thirsty Atlanta and jobs for struggling coastal towns.
``As water becomes more and more scarce, I think the economics are going to make more and more sense,'' Johnson said.
Ward, the Atlanta water official, said the $250,000 study money is a good first step toward finding a water source other than Lake Lanier.
City officials are ``tired of being the laughingstock of the country,'' Ward said. ``We want to set the standard.''
Additional reference thread: Treasure from the Deep: Drinking Water
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.