Center Water Quality Petition and Memo sent to the
Georgia Board of
Natural Resources
TO: Georgia Board of Natural Resources
FROM: David Kyler, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Georgia Water Quality Petition (attached) and Comments on Regulatory Enforcement
DATE: November 26, 2001
We ask that you consider the following remarks in addressing Georgia's water quality problems.
(1) Adopt recommended actions for improving enforcement of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation regulations.
We are encouraged by your recent actions based on the state audit of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation regulations.
The findings of this audit parallel and confirm critical observations made by concerned coastal residents about
problems with local enforcement of the Georgia soil erosion program.
We would reinforce these findings by pointing out that both local government staff and EPD enforcement officials
seem to be either ill informed about the program's requirements or unwilling to correct identified violations.
Having well-defined levels of authority and rigorously enforced rules will undoubtedly help remedy these problems,
but the public must also be kept informed about the program and its significance. Unless local and state elected
officials and their constituents have a clear understanding of the importance of this law in protecting water
quality, it is unlikely that enforcement will ever be satisfactory.
(2) Make more extensive use of information and scientific expertise in evaluating environmental permits under various
programs. Because of budgeting limitations, the expertise needed to sufficiently evaluate complex permitting
situations is often unavailable on the EPD staff, and stress tends to be placed on reaching expedient decisions.
In such cases, assumptions have been made that were intuitive and unsubstantiated, and which could place important
resources in jeopardy without more complete analysis and assessment.
Moreover, due to the demands of daily operations, it is difficult for EPD staff to keep up with emerging analytical
techniques that are more familiar to many of those who work in academic and research institutions. We believe
there are promising opportunities for bringing valuable expertise and better information to bear on permitting
decisions that affect, or could affect, Georgia's water quality.
Using staff of other organizations and institutions would have several kinds of benefits. First, it could help
upgrade and integrate the use of information by EPD staff through new research findings and methods. Reports by
research teams on various facets of hydrology, geology, ecology, and biology, for example, would also raise public
awareness about the limits and implications of available information, and the inherent risks of issuing permits for
proposed activities prematurely. By making the terms of such trade-offs more explicit, decision-makers, with
appropriate technical advice, would be in a better position to impose and monitor conditions under which permitted
activities should be conducted and properly tracked through targeted data collection and assessment. Involvement
of researchers in questions related to permitting would also bring much-needed realism and relevance into the
planning, synthesis, and application of new research. Field studies in environmental research could be specially
designed to help resolve pressing problems raised in permitting decisions, and scientific studies would
therefore become more useful in resolving important issues.
We realize that funding constraints are a serious problem in implementing the alternatives available for resolving
water quality issues. Certainly, the attached petition helps further substantiate the public's concern about the
critical importance of providing adequate budgeting and staff to ensure better enforcement of existing state laws.
There may be additional federal funds and/or federal agency staff that could be used to help augment state
resources, including possible support of scientific expertise as described above. Imposing reasonable permit
processing fees also seems quite justifiable as a means for generating needed revenues.
Protecting existing jobs and businesses that depend on the diversity and health of natural resources must be viewed
as an essential function of government, which is even more critical during periods of reduced economic prospects.
If Georgia is to attain its economic potential over the long term, it must do so within the sustainable capacity of
natural systems. This can only be realized with adequate agency staffing, which in turn requires the vision and
resolve of key decision-makers, such as the members of this board. The Center urges you to take whatever steps
necessary to improve enforcement of all applicable Georgia laws - not only to safeguard the public interest in
natural resources, but also to enhance our common economic future.
(3) In particular, we bring to your attention the following goals that should be considered as critical in your
efforts to improve resource protection under existing environmental regulations and authorities, using the wide
discretion granted to enforcement staff under these laws.
Minimize flow disruptions in river systems. Withdrawing water from one river system and discharging it into another
(so-called 'inter-basin transfers), and 'consumptive use' of water (such as evaporation loss from spray irrigation,
steam-generated energy production, or reservoirs) should be minimized as much as possible. Even before the current
period of drought, salinity in the inter-tidal areas of coastal rivers had been increasing, putting various species
of fish at risk in their earlier life stages. Increased salinity is believed to be due to several historic
factors, including (1) conversion of wetlands by ditching for forestry, agriculture, and other land uses, and
(2) reduced groundwater outflow resulting from the great decline in artesian pressure caused by excessive and
concentrated water withdrawal for industry. Remaining fresh water flowing into Georgia's estuary system is
needed to retain the function of this highly valuable habitat, which supports thousands of jobs in commercial
fishing and seafood processing. Moreover, marine biologists estimate that some 80% of marine species depend
on the estuary ecosystem to sustain it, either as habitat or through the food web. The economic importance of
these coastal resources is on the order of $1 billion annually, and putting them at further risk by reducing
river flow is directly contrary to the public interest.
Restore wetland functions and provide adequate buffers to protect water quality. Complete restoration of the natural
flow of our river systems is not possible for a number of reasons, but there are alternatives for achieving at least
partial recovery of water resource functions. For example, critical water storage and flood protection functions of
swamps that were drained and filled could be restored through selective acquisition of undeveloped land, enhanced
with appropriate landscape contouring and replanting of certain native species. Likewise, along waterways with
impaired water quality or impinging activities that threaten non-point source pollution, land could be acquired
to serve as additional buffer areas. This would not only add water filtration and flood-protection benefits, but
it would enhance nature-based tourism and commercial recreation activities within these waterways, supporting and
diversifying income and business growth potential. Long-term public interests will be best served by state and
local governments learning to regulate the use of resources within sustainable limits of natural processes.
The
sooner these actions are taken, the less Georgia taxpayers will ultimately have to pay for improved water
resources.
Consider potential impacts on all down-stream users when making permit decisions by applying the precautionary
principle. Water withdrawal and discharge permits should be based on decisions that encompass full analysis of
the consequences to others users of the same resource systems. Such impacts may include increased health risks
(with associated medical costs), as well as damage to businesses that depend on resource quality and productivity.
If current scientific understanding does not support a conclusive assessment, the relative risk should be
determined using the best available information and expertise. Delay of an action pending more complete
information, consistent with the precautionary principle, should be seen as the most acceptable alternative
when risks are potentially significant. Presently, a permit may be issued because there is no conclusive
or overwhelming evidence of public threat, even though uncertainty is great and risks are reasonably
substantiated. The more we consider system-wide environmental factors in making decisions about economic
development and other human activities, the greater the benefits for future generations. When risks are taken,
monitoring must be extremely reliable and openly evaluated.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Your thoughtful response to our remarks will be appreciated.
"Conserving Our Natural Heritage, Investing in Our Children's Future."
Click HERE for Water Quality Petition
Please print, sign & FAX to the Center 912-638-3615
|
