previous summits

SUMMIT II

Developing a Regional Water Strategy

Held April 16, 1999, at Darton College, Albany, Georgia

Response to Presentations | Small Group Results | Full Group Results | Strategy Development | Next Steps

Overview

The second Water Summit was held April 16, 1999 at Darton College in Albany. Over 200 Southwest Georgia leaders participated, representing a cross-section of the major stakeholder groups in the region: agriculture, industry, municipal, health, and conservation. The Summit was designed as a working conference which built on the results of the first Summit and provided an opportunity for participants to define the roles they will play in water use decisions facing the state and the region.

The meeting opened with a welcome by Morgan Murphy and Dr. Elizabeth Blood and introductory remarks by Governor Roy Barnes and Representative Bob Hanner. Presentations by Bob Kerr, negotiator for ACF & ACT Compact Allocation Formulas and Harold Reheis, director of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division followed.

Working sessions began immediately following the presentations. Participants worked in small groups to discuss the presentations, list critical implications for water and water use in Southwest Georgia, and identify additional trends, events, and beliefs with implications for water and water use in Southwest Georgia. Each table of participants then selected the items they felt were most important and, as a large group, generated a list of the items most critical to the future of the region.

In concluding discussion of critical trends, etc., participants strongly endorsed a cooperative effort to develop a water management strategy for the region. Participants felt the strategy should address eight elements: growth, water conservation, drought, education, incentives, organization, funding, and information. The remainder of the conference was devoted to laying out possible steps for development of this water management strategy. In closing, the Southwest Georgia Water Resources Task Force, with assistance from volunteers among the group, was asked to work toward development of a drought management strategy as a first product.

Response to Presentations: Critical Implications for Water and Water Use in Southwest Georgia

Following the opening presentations, participants worked in small groups to identify critical implications. Then, as a large group, they selected the items they felt were most important. These are listed below, grouped by the facilitator into seven themes. Detailed individual responses are listed in the appendix following this summary.

Availability of water for multiple uses:

• What can we do now to get through the dry spell?

• Need drought plan for all uses.

• Recognize significant different water uses and prioritize by value.

• Consider using surface water for irrigation.

• Compensation formula for agriculture in Southwest Georgia if someone else consumes water.

• Link between aquifer drawdown and public health issues.

Proactive strategy or management plan

• Need a water management plan for the region.

• Plan, engage, protect and manage.

• Strategy for growing conflict resolution between users.

Better information

• Develop information on efficient use of water.

• Information on resource itself as well as use.

• Make good information available to people making decisions.

• Make information accessible so it can be applied.

• More accurate information on water use.

• Need to define drought and identify data on water use.

Education

• Educate public on economic benefit of water use and how to reduce costs: agriculture prices vs. water cost.

• Need education about water cycle and conservation for all ages.

Water conservation

• Include agriculture conservation in future plans.

• It's hard to conserve in times of plenty.

• Need tax incentives for more efficient irrigation equipment.

• Research on efficient use of water irrigation, cropping systems.

Growth and development concerns

• Atlanta's needs are number one.

• Growth strategy for agricultural lands needed.

• Will Southwest Georgia suffer to meet needs elsewhere?

Other

• Agriculture is in trouble in Southwest Georgia even without a drought.

• EPD needs to develop its rules and needs more staff

Small Group Results: Trends, Events, or Beliefs with Implications for Water Use in SW Georgia.

As a second step, participants listed additional trends, events, and beliefs with implications for water and water use in Southwest Georgia. Individual responses addressed a variety of themes including periodic droughts and floods; trends of increasing withdrawal and consumption; trends of stricter monitoring and regulation of water use; insufficient information and knowledge about water resources; the need to balance competing water uses fairly and equitably, within the region and across the state; the need for water conservation and greater efficiency in use; concerns about water quality and impacts; the significance of agriculture to the region, as water user, and as a key player in future solutions; changing attitudes and beliefs about water and development in Southwest Georgia; and the need for coordination and consensus-building in developing water resource solutions for the region. . Detailed individual responses are presented in the following appendix.

At each table, participants then selected the three or four items they felt were most important to the future of the region. These items are listed below, again grouped by the facilitator into eight general categories:

Availability of water for multiple uses

• Droughts.

• Agricultural, industrial water.

• Man-made ponds for surface water irrigation.

• Need to ensure that, if a crop is planted, it has enough water (irrigation).

• Unfairly concentrating on agriculture as a problem, rather than focusing on water use on agricultural lands -- developing solutions should be the focus.

• Tourism and recreation issues.

• Reconcile water needs (agriculture, etc.) with water availability [proactive vs. reactive].

• Resolution of the tri-state compact.

• Identify recharge areas and protect them: focus on supply.

Proactive strategy or management plan(s) involving all stakeholders

• Agricultural representation in water policy.

• Be proactive now.

• Communication network concerning usage and consumption.

• Comprehensive water management plan for Southwest Georgia inclusive of all stakeholders.

• Stakeholder involvement in process.

• Stakeholder-developed regional water policy.

• Water conservation and management plan.

• Drought management plan.

• Drought management plans -- use climatology forecasting to prepare for drought events.

• Funding a regional water management plan.

• Influence decision makers: control our resource, growth, development (control destiny).

• Must start planning for water use.

• Need for proactive and in-state water planning.

• No control in Southwest Georgia.

• Planning, management mechanism for water, land use, transportation for Southwest Georgia.

• Proceed with EPD plan to formulate a formal plan of well permits.

Better information

• Better and more accessible information.

• Need "complete" and accurate data for decision makers to utilize.

• New water regulations based on sound science (no restrictions until have gotten all information on amount of water available).

• Not enough data available.

• There has to be correct information on water use and water supply.

Public education

• Dispel popular belief that water is unlimited and address constraints through technology conservation.

• Educating the public as to the use of water in the production of food and fiber for the benefit of the whole population.

• Education on conservation issues may be more difficult because of history of plentiful supply.

• Education on water use for production of food and fiber; farm practice; water properties, uses, availability, and quality.

• Education on water, water use, and conservation.

• Misconception: farms will dry up the water in times of drought.

• Public education on economic benefits of area use (agriculture).

Water conservation and efficiency in use

• Conservation and education as to the use of water through the whole population.

• Conservation of water usage: home, farm, business (comprehensive water plan inclusive of all stakeholders).

• Conservation: farming = business actions = no-till, irrigation.

• Develop greater water distribution/use efficiency.

• Economic and tax incentives for water conservation.

• Re-engineer crop plants genetically to use less water for growth.

• Tax and other incentives to encourage and support farmers to use new science and technology of conservation.

• Tax incentives to promote water conservation.

• Technical and monetary assistance to use the best irrigation practices.

Growth and development issues

• Comprehensive growth plan for state: water issues are growth issues; implications of scarcity on industry.

• Develop population growth plan to direct Atlanta development to other parts of the state (follow the water vs. directing the water to present population growth). A comprehensive growth plan for the entire state.

• EPD needs to assure Southwest Georgia that Atlanta won't pump water from the region to feed Atlanta growth -- no growth beyond the limits of the region's resources.

• Recognize growth trends and patterns and the resulting increased water needs. Update in a timely fashion.

• Resolve north Georgia / south Georgia conflicts in water use.

• Shifts in land use.

• Trend: growth in N. Georgia and Atlanta. This needs to be controlled responsibly.

• Uncontrolled growth in Atlanta: give tax incentives to move growth to other parts of the state (Southwest Georgia).

• Will new industry be encouraged to move to Southwest Georgia?

• Balance the sectors of our state's economy: agriculture, industry, and service.

Factors affecting agriculture and agricultural water use

• As declining agriculture economy goes, so goes land ownership, conservation and national security -- food is the first weapon that we have.

• Crop selection and management should dominate agricultural patterns in the future.

• Eliminate the uncertainty for agriculture by moving the permitting process ahead more rapidly.

• Profit potential in agriculture is low and risk is high, so water is a major risk management tool. Differences between drought yield -- irrigated vs. dry land -- major financing without water is unavailable.

Other

• Recognizing the importance of agriculture to the economy of the region.

• Who owns the water?

• Increased aquifer and surface water pressure will result in increased regulation.

• Protecting the finite resource (manage, gage).

• Loss of riparian zones.
  

Full Group Results: Trends, Events and Beliefs Most Important to the Future of the Region.

In discussion by the full group, participants selected the items that seem the most critical to the region's future. The following items, again grouped in general categories by the facilitator, were highlighted:

Availability of water for multiple uses

• Water for agricultural and industrial use.

• Focus on solutions to water use on agricultural land: affirming rather than negative.

• Misconception that farmers will dry up all the water in times of drought.

• Eliminate uncertainty of waiting for EPD permits.

• Perception of limited water supply--impact on encouraging new industry here.

• Identify and protect recharge areas: focus on supply.

• Proactive strategy or management plan involving all stakeholders

• Comprehensive water management plan inclusive of all stakeholders.

• Directions for how to fund more work, future summit meetings.

• Organize and seek funding for this regional water management plan.

• Planning mechanisms for water, land use, and transportation.

• Self-initiated management strategies not imposed strategies.

• Take this model to Atlanta, Savannah: state plan.

Better information

• Complete and accurate information for decision makers.

• Public education

• Educate public on use of water for production of food and fiber--real beneficiaries.

• Need for education: water, water use, conservation.

• Water conservation

• Conservation strategy for state.

• Technical and monetary assistance to use best practices.

Growth and development concerns

• Comprehensive growth plan for the whole state.

• EPD needs to assure water won't be diverted from here to Atlanta.

• Population growth plan in state: direct growth to water, not vice versa.

Other

• Loss of riparian buffers on rivers and streams.

In discussion, participants agreed that, taken together, these items highlight the need for a cooperative water management strategy for the region. They called for development of such a strategy through a process that involves all stakeholders and treats all interests fairly and equitably. They agreed that the strategy should ultimately address eight elements: Growth; Water conservation; Drought; Education; Incentives; Organization; Funding; and Information.

Development of a Water Management Strategy for Southwest Georgia

In the afternoon work session, participants were asked to identify critical people, issues, potential obstacles, and land mines that should be considered as the water management strategy is developed. Discussion was initially conducted in small groups with conclusions then reported to the full group. The first group presented items that can serve as guiding principles in strategy development. Other groups focused on critical actors within and outside the region, key issues, and tactical areas that must be addressed for successful completion and implementation of the water management strategy. The items selected as most important by the small groups are shown below (again grouped by the facilitator into general categories). Individual responses are presented in full in the appendix.

Guiding principles

• Include all stakeholders.

• Create and maintain trust.

• Limit monitoring to minimum for drought only.

• Promote good management of resources by agriculture.

• Promote proactive participation.

• Involve complete community. Do not sacrifice any group.

• Do not leave stakeholders out of strategy design and implementation.

• Southwest Georgia unity.

Interest groups and other critical actors

• State agencies involved with planning.

• Farmers but organizing is a problem: lack of central organization.

• Environmental extremists.

• Stakeholders that benefit from uncontrolled growth.

• Individuals who will bear the cost financially will be resistant (counties, agricultural interests, etc.).

• Rural vs. urban; farmers vs. farmers; farmers vs. municipalities.

• Influence of political and special interest groups.

• Voter blocks to decisions based on science.

• Local officials, media, state elected representatives need to be involved. We must all be willing to change.

• School board officials should be informed of educational importance of water issues.

• We need to cooperate among water user groups: farmers, agribusiness, adjacent states, concern with the resource, state and local officials, municipals, industry, educational efforts.

• Moneyed special interests.

• Governing bodies available at our meetings.

Actors outside the region

• Disproportionate representation in metro areas which is outside our region.

• Inadequate representation in statewide or area groups.

• Atlanta.

• Primacy of Atlanta.

• North Georgia (Atlanta area).

• Surrounding states (FL, AL) -- Supreme Court level/negotiations.

• Need to have a plan to avoid court dictates.

• Allocation formula (unfavorable).

• Courts/lawsuits: related to environmental degradation; surrounding states.

• Federal intervention (all branches).

• Who "owns" the water determines who regulates it (will be done by edict, legislation for groundwater, surface water).

• An EPD mandate without stakeholder input.

• Federal role: Fish and Wildlife; responsible wetlands regulation.

• Involve the Corps of Engineers for farm storage.

Quality of information and data

• Concern about lack of adequate data for technical decisions and solutions.

• There should be ruthless watchdog efforts to keep out propaganda and disinformation: demagoguery in the process.

• Neutral, trusted source of solid water information, so wise decisions can be made.

• No major groundwater studies -- we need one.

• Environmental change is not in the models (i.e., global warning).

Uninformed public

• Uninformed citizens -- people that want status quo.

• Inaccurate perception of value of water to this SW GA region.

• Ignorance.

• Ignorance on the issues: how do you impress on the public the importance of the issues?

• Educated public is critical.

• Educating the public on importance.

• Unconcern and/or apathy.

• Apathy of the general public.

• Apathy and "ignorance" of issues and impacts.

• Broaden education efforts.

Water quality concerns

• Focus may be narrow

• Water quality is as important as water quantity.

• Must be concerned with watersheds and not just allocation formulas.

• Not enough emphasis on water quality.

Environmental issues

• Environmental issues: fish, wildlife, wetlands, EPD, etc.

Economics

• Economic impacts of decreased water use in the agricultural industry.

• Economic downturn.

Funding

• Adequate funding.

• Who funds all these steps?

Cross-cutting

• Droughts and floods.

• No long-term vision will hurt strategy development.

• Maintaining and assigning values and priorities.

• Thankfulness for this resource and realizing where it comes from.

Takings issues -- people's property rights.

• Conflicting interests.

• Hidden political agendas.

• Politically motivated actions.

• Frustration with process.

• Plans need buy-in and implementation.

• Ensuring South Georgia has and keeps reasonable growth opportunity.

In discussion, participants noted that the investment of current users should be considered in strategy development. The needs of future generations, however, must also be considered. Finally, participants noted that there are opportunities available now that may be foreclosed if the ACF & ACT negotiations move into court. Developing a water management strategy for the region can support the state's compact negotiators by demonstrating leadership in the region on water issues; providing a consensus view on issues, limitations, etc.; improving available data and information; and completing a plan which includes conservation as a key element.

Next Steps

In the final activity of the day, participants were asked to suggest steps to be taken next and to identify who should take them. Nine specific suggestions were made to the full group:

What: Form two or more committees to work on data, goals, and objectives.

Who: Among this group.

What: What does the organization we want to put together look like? We need a structure so we know how to move toward a strategy; the next step should be to design the organization.

Who: Among this group.

What: Form a group to establish similar sessions in other areas of the state.

Who: This group, University System, elected officials.

What: Form a working group of water resource scientists and policy scientists to formalize linkages between science and policy.

Who: Cooperating research and academic units.

What: First, establish a smaller data group representing every interest to gather and analyze data. The group should determine which questions to ask about the data and then determine if the available information provides credible answers. Convene the full group to present and discuss the data group's conclusions. Then, use the same sequence of work by a smaller representative group with large group feedback to develop policy recommendations.

Who: Among this group.

What: Convene groups that care about including water quality in the process to look at available information and scientific analysis and to identify issues.

Who: Interested parties including the Georgia River Network.

What: The Task Force should state a clear goal for the water management strategy, then form subcommittees to address individual elements of the strategy (listed above). Add a technical information group to provide information as requested by the subcommittees.

Who:This group and interested parties, with oversight through the Southwest Georgia Water Resources Task Force.

What: Seek funding to conduct a needs assessment to evaluate some form of long-term water management entity and determine the appropriate structure.

Who: Southwest Georgia Water Resources Task Force and this group.

What: Develop a drought management plan as a first product. A concise drought plan for all uses is needed (including the data required to identify a drought).

Who: Southwest Georgia Water Resources Task Force with support from this group.

When: Present for discussion at a third summit in September.

In discussion, participants noted there is a lot of data already out there. What is needed is a means to get it, present it to the group in a meaningful way, and help the group use it in formulating a strategy. Similarly, a lot of planning has already been done and the work from here should build on that (e.g., the Flint River Basin Plan recently completed by EPD). Other suggestions included solicitation of local funds to support a formal needs assessment and exploration of state funding for a regional water management organization were also suggested. A process to educate local officials about the value of regional water management approaches was also suggested.

Some participants noted the October deadline for the ACF/ACT negotiations on an allocation formula and suggested that the group complete a product within that time frame. Others stressed that, while the negotiations are important, this group should take a more long-term view and focus on what it wants to do regionally without assuming that EPD will take care of regional interests.

Participants agreed that the Task Force should take steps to expand support and participation among this group. It should also decide how the group should be organized to address specific elements of a water management strategy. Some suggested that the Task Force establish a committee structure, with a Task Force member chairing each committee. Other suggestions included writing everyone who participated in the first or second Summit to outline the direction from here.

The group ultimately concluded that a draft drought management strategy would be a useful first product. Initial work on a drought management strategy to be done over the summer will provide the basis for discussion at a third water Summit, tentatively scheduled for September or October. At the close of the meeting, those participants interested in greater involvement signed up to assist the Task Force with the next steps in development of a drought management strategy for Southwest Georgia.

The University of Georgia College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences and its National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory (NESPAL), a research organization dedicated to development of environmentally and economically sound agricultural production systems, is proud to host this important forum for public discussion of water issues.

The views presented here do not represent those of NESPAL, The College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, The University of Georgia, The State of Georgia or their employees. For more information please revisit these pages for updates, or send electronic mail to Dr. Jim Hook at jimhook@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu.

Water Summit pages developed by Linsey Forlow and James Hook on April 1, 2002. This page last updated April 1, 2002.