W o r k s i n Pr o g r e s s Winter 2004
Water Issues Converge, Déjà Vu Threatens, Hope Rises
When last year’s session of the General Assembly ended with responding to “developments of regional importance” and
an 11th hour victory for those of us wanting protection of water protecting “regionally important resources.”
as a public resource, many Georgians understandably exhaled Yet, nearly fifteen years later, despite the admitted technical
with relief. In the meantime, the Georgia Water Coalition has advancements in local and state planning, all too many of the
rallied support from dozens of cities and counties that passed same problems raise their fearsome heads. We still suffer from
resolutions expressing similar concerns. As a result, we now the cumulative effects of many small acts of negligence, and a
look forward to a state water management bill, likely to pass few huge ones, produced by erratic use of plans, regulations,
this year, establishing a rational procedure for meeting future and procedures.
needs.
For example, DNR’s Environmental Protection Division (EPD)
As promising as this may be, Georgia is hardly out of the has long noted that the biggest single threat to water quality is
woods with regard to responsible water management. Inherent non-point source pollution – water runoff carrying silt, yard
in effective water planning will be some very tough choices chemicals, automotive toxins, farm and septic waste, and
that require hammering out compromises, ideally guided by the numerous other contaminants into our rivers. But attempts to
best possible science available. control these pollutants through the Soil Erosion and
Some of these choices have enormous implications for the Sedimentation Act have proven elusive, primarily due to a lack
interests of coastal Georgia. For instance: of consistent enforcement by state and local officials.
► How much water can be diverted from coastal river
Powerful, often misleading, incentives have driven decisions
systems to supply the needs of rapidly urbanizing Atlanta, approving resource use (and abuse of procedures), while no
Macon, Augusta, and other cities without harming the motives of comparable clout have protected the long-term
productivity and health of our tidal estuaries – essential public interest. Consider that EPD already requires local water
fish habitat worth billions annually to the coastal supply plans in the 24-county area using the Floridan aquifer,
economy? but these plans have been seldom used by EPD when
► If farm irrigation continues to skyrocket, how will water
approving water withdrawal permits. Under such circum-
supplies for other purposes be affected, and at what cost to stances, we should ask if rationality is even possible.
non-agricultural users?
► To what extent does the use of groundwater and filling of Georgia’s economic goals simply must be linked to our
wetlands harm the health and diversity of wildlife habitat, environmental realities so that we achieve accountable use of
including coastal marshes and swamps, especially during resources within the natural capacity of our ecosystems. As we
drought? move ahead, it is imperative that responsible economic
► How feasible is it to conserve water by improving the interests, as well as public health and environment, are
efficiency of major industrial water users, how much included in a unified calculus of decision-making. Likewise,
would this cost, and should the public subsidize it? we must be willing to budget far more for environmental
► Can Georgia’s rapid urban and rural development continue research and its consistent application in refining and enforcing
while still protecting our public health and quality of life? regulations. Above all, Georgians must be willing to share
nature’s wealth with future generations, realistically
Every one of these sweeping questions (and many others) must recognizing both the potential and the limits of our bountiful
be answered, and doing so begs for at least three things that state.
have been lacking in Georgia’s regulatory history: (1)
consistent objectivity, (2) disciplined adherence to plans, With the recent appointment of Carol Couch as the new
regulations, and procedures, and (3) dedicated application of director of the Environmental Protection Division, we are
science, with proper precaution when science is inconclusive hopeful that these worthy goals will be pursued with
and risks significant. unprecedented commitment. The Center will continue working
with our members and the Georgia Water Coalition toward that
In the late 1980’s the state’s growth policies took a promising important objective. - David Kyler, Executive Director
turn, leading to the adoption of the Planning Act (Growth
Strategies Program) in 1989. This ambitious undertaking set The Georgia Water Coalition is a diverse group of 72 organizations
representing over 160,000 Georgians, working to ensure that Georgia’s
forth statewide planning standards to be used by all cities and surface and ground waters continue to be a public resource, managed
counties for them to remain eligible for receiving many state in the public interest. For more information about water issues or to
funds. The bill also provided procedures for analyzing and become a partner organization, please go to www.georgiawater.org.
“Conserving Our Natural Heritage … Investing in Our Children’s Future”
Works in Progress Winter 2004 CENTER FOR A SUSTAINABLE COAST
Renowned Scientist Discusses
Barrier Islands at Center’s Annual Meeting
On December 6, 2003 geologist, Pilkey advised
noted author, lecturer, and that the current proposal to
environmental scientist, artificially “nourish” the
Dr. Orrin Pilkey, spoke to beach here was
an attentive audience of unwarranted. Further, he
more than 60 people at the warned that such a venture
Center’s annual meeting. would cost millions, last no
His presentation, richly more than three to five
enhanced with numerous years, and could
color slides, described the significantly detract from
fascinating variety, the beach’s appeal due to
environmental complexity, the composition, contour,
and ever-changing nature and movement of materials
of barrier islands applied.
throughout the world. Accompanying Dr. Pilkey
The event was held at the and also speaking to the
Coastal Heritage Center on group was his colleague,
St. Simons Island. Dr. Orrin Pilkey Mary Edna Fraser, who
Orrin H. Pilkey is James collaborated with Pilkey on
B. Duke Professor Emeritus of Geology and director of the his latest book about barrier islands. Fraser displayed
Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Duke slides showing a dazzling array of her artistic renderings of
University. He is the recipient of many awards, including barrier islands and related subjects done in batik, an ancient
the Francis Shepard Award for Excellence in Marine method of transferring colors to cloth.
Geology, and the author or editor of many books, including
The Beaches Are Moving: The Drowning of America's Mary Edna Fraser is a renowned artist specializing in the
Shoreline, Living by the Rules of the Sea, and The Corps production of large-scale batiks, many based on aerial
and the Shore. His latest book, A Celebration of the photographs. Her work has been exhibited at the
World’s Barrier Islands has been widely acclaimed for Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, the Duke
both its beauty and content. University Museum of Art, the National Science
Dr. Pilkey emphasized the importance of protecting the Foundation, and the National Academy of Sciences.
“sand-sharing” system that naturally carries sand from Following their presentations, the authors signed copies of
offshore shoals and sandbars to ocean beaches. Audience their book, A Celebration of the World’s Barrier Islands,
members asked several questions about a recent county which were available for sale. Center members, board
proposal to add sand to the beach on St. Simons Island. members, and guests mingled over light hors d’oeurvres
Based on his observations of the St. Simons beach earlier and wine while sharing comments about the evening’s
in the day and his years of experience as a coastal presentations and related coastal issues.
2
“Conserving Our Natural Heritage … Investing In Our Children’s Future”
Center Comments on Coastal Permitting
Center executive director David Kyler testified at a public Kyler further elaborated to justify the need for greater
hearing called by Georgia General Assembly Representative environmental enforcement efforts.
Jerry Keen, who represents District 174. The reason for the ► In proportion to the coastal region’s growth, Coastal
hearing was to gather comments about delays allegedly Resource Division’s scale of operation is barely keeping
being incurred by permit applicants (mostly developers) pace. Population has doubled in the past 30 years and
under the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act (CMPA). will double again to a million or more by 2030. Though
About forty people attended the meeting, and of the ten who the state budget has increased, funds for environmental
gave testimony, all but Kyler were developers. protection have fallen way behind Georgia’s growth,
according to a recent report by Georgia State University.
Note: The Center for a Sustainable Coast has been
► The number of docks permitted in the past eight years
represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center in
alone is 1,688, over 200 annually on average. In just 3
appealing two CMP permits:, Emerald Pointe in Chatham
years (1999, 2000 & 2001), over 10,000 homes were
County, and Man Head Marina in Glynn County. In both
built in the coastal region, with various adverse
these cases, the objective was to improve the standards used
implications for natural resources.
by the state in reviewing the application.
► Moreover, as the density of development increases,
Rep. Keen explained that he intends to correct alleged analyzing impacts of proposed projects becomes more
problems through legislation that would create a requirement complex due to the rising potential for actions of one
for those appealing a permit to post a bond to cover expected property owner to adversely affect the interests of
costs of the state and permit applicant. Under this proposal, another.
if an appeal were denied, the appellant’s bond would be used
Budgeting limitations and funding alternatives
to pay for the legal fees, added staff costs, and delays
Given Georgia’s constitutional limitations on budgeting (no
incurred by the state and the permit applicant.
deficit spending), and increasingly vocal complaints by
Rep. Keen’s opening remarks and claims made by various developers about the cost of delays caused by CRD review
developers asserted that permit appeals have been increasing of applications for Coastal Marshland Protection permits, it
in recent years. Susan Shipman, director of the Coastal seems perfectly reasonable to adopt a practice of imposing
Resources Division (CRD) of the Georgia Department of fees to assist in offsetting DNR costs of review and
Natural Resources (DNR), reported that there had been only enforcement. These fees should be based on proportionate
eight active appeals when she became director in 2002, and costs incurred by DNR in processing and enforcing permits
that two new appeals have been filed since then. (if approved) under the CMP program.
In his testimony, Mr. Kyler not only underscored the very Although fees would add slightly to the cost of development,
limited number of appeals actually being filed compared this amount would be minor compared with the cost of
with the number of permits issued, but also stressed the need delays for some project permits. One developer reported that
for more complete review of permit applications by CRD he incurred over $750,000 in interest due to delays in
staff. Investing more in state review would reduce the receiving his CMP permit for a project of 600 acres; a per-
likelihood of future appeals, he reasoned, and could also acre fee of $100 would generate $60,000, much lower than
speed up the review process, helping to lessen further delays. his interest cost.
Referencing comments made by a local developer, Kyler Whatever the amount of a proper fee, it would be negligible
noted that adopting a reasonable processing fee charged to compared with the cost of the land and structures built on
permit applicants could help generate added funds needed proposed project sites, adding little to the homebuyer’s
for expanded review capacity. “Compared with the cost of burden, assuming the project gets built. Revenues generated
delays for permit review reported by developers, such fees by such fees could be used to expand and train DNR/CRD
would be minuscule,” said Kyler, “and could help both sides staff, thereby reducing the time required to properly review
of this issue with faster and more complete review.” permits, set permit conditions, and enforce these conditions.
These remarks paralleled a series of statements that Kyler Another likely benefit is that with sufficient funding the
has made on the Center’s behalf at recent permit hearings, public would receive more consistent and thorough analysis
where he urged the Coastal Marshlands Protection of information, essential to improving protection of coastal
Committee to raise revenues to cover escalating permit resources through both permit review and enforcement.
review, monitoring, and enforcement costs by imposing a Continued next page…
proportionate application fee.
5
Works in Progress Winter 2004 CENTER FOR A SUSTAINABLE COAST
If so, adopting commensurate fees would reduce the need to state’s capacity to evaluate the effectiveness of permit
appeal permits, thereby avoiding legal costs and project conditions, and to upgrade environmental protection by
delays, assuming regulations are carefully followed. The refining such conditions, could also be enhanced. D
The Costs, Benefits and Implications of
Appealing Environmental Permits
At the public hearing it was alleged that
“Permit appeals cost developers and the state
money.”
While this statement is true, if permit appeals
have merit (and recent court decisions make it
clear that they do), the public ultimately
benefits by rulings that strengthen how the law
is interpreted and applied.
In other words, the long-term costs of not
appealing may actually be greater than Wetlands Protection in Georgia, continued…
appealing, but of course this cannot be Other states have adopted special measures to help
documented because things not done are safeguard freshwater wetlands because of the supreme
inherently unobservable.
importance of wetlands in flood control, protection of water
quality, replenishment of water supply, and their great value
Resources protected by successful permit as wildlife habitat for a wide diversity of fish and birds.
appeals have tremendous social and economic Lacking such state regulations, Georgia depends solely on
value. The coastal public, including 40,000 federal enforcement of the Clean Water Act, principally
people working in nature-based activities worth under Section 404 governing the filling and dredging of
over a billion dollars annually (mostly in the wetlands.
private sector), depend on the protection of These federal regulations are administered by the Army
Georgia’s coastal environment. Corps of Engineers, with varying degrees of effectiveness,
Thus, while appeals cost money, with merited and by most assessments, produce erratic, unreliable results.
judicial findings properly implemented, they can One major issue of concern is the Corps’ response to a 2001
produce a substantial and lasting net benefit, Supreme Court decision, which has led to the unjustified
which has never been documented and even abandonment of controls protecting so-called “isolated”
seldom considered. wetlands.
Such areas, described as unconnected to wetlands
If the proposed bonding requirement is adopted
immediately adjacent to rivers and streams, are in fact often
into state law, such benefits would be less likely
interlinked to waterways by way of groundwater. Though
because there would be a substantial financial
these areas are now left unprotected by the Corps as isolated
burden imposed on those seeking to protect the wetlands they provide many if not all the same functions as
public interest through future permit appeals. “jurisdictional” wetlands that remain protected.
Because wetlands functions are
About Wetlands Protection in Georgia
extremely important to water quality
and water supply, and of enormous
A common misconception is that Georgia has state economic value to our coast, we
regulations that protect all wetlands. Because Georgia has a
nationally known program for managing salt-water (tidal)
strongly believe that Georgia should
marshes under the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, it is adopt and enforce measures using
often assumed that similar state laws are in place for state authority to protect all wetlands
freshwater wetlands. Yet, despite the vital need for such in the public interest.
state protections, none exist in Georgia.
Continued at rightυ
4
“Conserving Our Natural Heritage … Investing In Our Children’s Future”
The following article was forwarded to the Center by the National Wildlife Federation on Monday, 2 Feb 2004. Excerpts selected by Center staff.
Report Hits at Failure to Manage Wetlands
By Amanda Brown, Environment Correspondent, PA News frequently justified by over-confident production
Goods and services worth [at least] 70 billion dollars could figures, ignoring the long term environmental and
be at risk annually if governments around the world fail to economic arguments to manage wetlands properly.
manage wetlands sustainably, according to a report today. Poor management and the destruction of wetlands has led
The report, the Economic Values of the World's Wetland, is to increased flooding, water contamination and water
the first comprehensive overview of the economic values of shortages worldwide and costs governments large amounts of
the world's wetlands. time and money to repair the damage or build and maintain
huge unsustainable flood defenses.
It analyses the 89 existing valuation studies and uses a
database covering a wetland area of 243,000 square miles, Dr Kirsten Schuyt, World Wildlife Fund International's
putting the annual value of wetlands at a very conservative Resource Economist and co-author of the report, said:
[absolute minimum of] 3.4 billion dollars. "Decision-makers often have insufficient
But the report says that extending this figure using [an understanding of the value of wetlands and fail to
alternate] global wetland area estimate of 4.9 million square consider their protection as a serious issue.”
miles, the annual global value of wetlands could be worth as
"Wetlands are often [incorrectly] perceived to have little or no
much as 70 billion dollars.
economic value compared to land use activities which may
The report shows that amenity, recreation, flood control, yield more visible and immediate economic benefits."
fishing and water filtration are the most valued functions of
The report highlights that more than half of the world's
wetlands.
wetlands have disappeared since 1900 as a result of human
Asian wetlands have an economic value three times greater population increase and development.
than those of North America despite the fact that the total area
For example in the Everglades in Florida rapid population
of Asia's wetlands analysed in this report is less than half of
increase, development, and urban sprawl have destroyed half
North America's. This is due to a higher population density,
of the original wetlands.
which means high demand for wetland goods and services.
Managing wetlands sustainably will significantly
However, according to the report,
contribute to reaching the targets set at the World
billions of dollars are spent each year on the draining Summit on Sustainable Development of halving the
of wetlands for irrigation, agriculture and other land number of people without adequate water and
uses for immediate short-term economic benefits, sanitation services by 2015.
Center for a Sustainable Coast
Works to Defend & Sustain Coastal Georgia’s Natural Resources,
which account for:
• At least 20% of our regional economy
• More than 40,000 jobs vital to coastal communities
• $1 billion a year in business activity
• Billions in property value
• Our priceless quality of life
W If you care about coastal Georgia, support our work! X
Please become a sponsor by sending a tax-deductible donation today.
Special Thanks to all
who have already contributed!
5
Works in Progress CENTER FOR A SUSTAINABLE COAST
Impaired Waterways within the Coastal Georgia Watershed
4 6
Works in Progress CENTER FOR A SUSTAINABLE COAST
“State of the Coast”
UPDATE
Impaired Waters in Our Coastal Watersheds
Last year, with the help of a start-up grant from The Savannah Presbytery, the Center began a comprehensive analysis of coastal Georgia’s
environment, development trends, and forecasted future, which we will publish as a “State of the Coast Report.” The purpose of the project
is to educate the public, elected officials, and other decision-makers about important aspects of our region’s conditions, trends, and
development alternatives.
Based on information provided in this report, we will advocate policies and actions that reflect the interests of current and future
generations in choices made by policy-makers, voters, consumers, investors, businesses, and property owners. Until the final report is
ready next year, we are releasing segments of particular interest as they become available. Presented here is an important aspect of the
State of the Coast Report describing conditions of one of the region’s most vital resources, upon which so much else depends: WATER. We
encourage your careful review of this information and welcome your comments about it.
The map on page 6 shows the waters • Since only cities and counties
known to be “impaired” within the can directly control land use
watersheds that drain through the (zoning, building location and site
coastal region and into Georgia’s tidal design), the state has only limited
wetlands, estuaries, and other inter- authority for controlling many
tidal and marine waters. “Impaired aspects of non-point source
waters” are defined as those that fail pollution.
to support (entirely or partially) their • State authority for protecting
“designated uses” for fishing, and/or tidal marshes under the Coastal
swimming, and/or drinking. These Marshlands Protection Act is
findings are reported by EPD to EPA exercised within the Coastal
every two years. The red line Resources Division of DNR,
segments depict impaired waters – which also has authority over
again, based on only limited ocean beachfront development
sampling. It is obvious that water quality problems need to be under the Shore Protection Act. The Environmental
addressed in future efforts to improve protection of coastal Protection Division in Atlanta administers all other
ecosystems. environmental protection regulations. Although there are
What is not clear, from either this mapping or any sources we “recommended” policies for coordinating these two
have yet discovered, is the extent to which water quality has authorities through the Coastal Management Program, they
changed since sampling records were first kept over 30 years have been seldom used.
ago. There are a number of reasons for this ambiguity: • Even within EPD, those concerned with point-source
• Sampling methods and targets (areas and contaminants or pollution permitting under the National Pollution Discharge
impairment types) have changed. Elimination System (NPDES) of the Clean Water Act tend to
• New regulated materials have been introduced and some view non-point source problems as unrelated, even when
earlier ones are now prohibited. some of the same contaminants may affect the identical
water body.
• Though the portion of regulated (permitted) discharges is
far greater now, there are many more discharges than in the
past – therefore the cumulative amount of contaminants Please support this project—
released may be higher. make your tax-deductible donation
According to EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, the amount of
toxic materials entering Georgia waters through permitted and help us complete
activities increased by more than 80% between 1989 and the extensive work ahead
1998, not including the release of new contaminants that were
unregulated in 1989. on our
• The challenge of evaluating and improving water quality
is also complicated by the relationship between local and “State of the Coast”
state government, and between designated authorities within
state government agencies.
Report.
Special thanks to the Georgia Water Coalition, Georgia Center for Law in the Public Interest, and the Turner Law Clinic for help with this
7 summary.
