GWINNETT COUNTY SEWER 

This is another memo responding to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division's (EPD) Proposed rule change that I believe will lower water quality in Lake Lanier

August 9, 2005 

Ms. Louise Mathis
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
2 Martin Luther King Jr., Drive
Suite 1152 East Tower
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 

Subject: EPD Proposed amendments to Georgia’s Rules for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6-.(03)2 “Water Quality Enhancement” 

I am convinced that the proposed rule change (amendments) weakens the Georgia waters antidegradation intent of the current rule.  The rule change will allow more sewer pollution of Lake Lanier and other Georgia waters. 

I am against the proposed rule change because it will allow more sewer pollution of Lake Lanier.  I believe EPD has not been honest and straightforward in its public reasons for the proposed change.  I believe one of the EPD hidden motivations for the proposed change is to allow more polluting sewer outputs to be discharged into Lake Lanier (reducing its attractiveness and recreational use) than the current rule allows.  I believe another hidden motivation for the proposed change is to negate the Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling against the previously EPD issued Gwinnett County sewer permit, which allowed the Gwinnett County Lake Lanier sewer discharge to be more polluting than the current rule dictates.  I believe the rule change will allow Gwinnett County and other future sewer discharges into Lake Lanier to be more polluting and harmful than the current rule allows. 

I have long been an advocate for Lake Lanier, including water quality.  I have been, and am, a member of several Lake Lanier Interested organizations.  I have published many thoughts and conclusions on my website at www.ronseder.com, and ask that they be considered part of this response to the proposed rule change. 

When EPD first proposed the rule change to the DNR Board EPD said the reason for the proposed rule change was that, “the DNR rules are not clear and need improvement” (EPD did not say the change would allow more pollution).  EPD recommended changing the language from “the level of treatment required is the highest and best practicable under existing technology” to “there shall be achieved the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for all new and existing point sources”.  Additionally, the proposed rule change was offered with a definition for “highest statutory and regulatory requirements”, which included sending the reader to other rule sections, and in my view complicated understanding of the rule, making the proposed rule change much less clear than the current rule.  I think it is obvious to almost every reader that “highest and best practicable under existing technology” is easier to understand than “highest statutory and regulatory requirements”. 

 A stated EPD intent of making the rule change is to  “read exactly as the EPA rule (federal consistency)”, but an US EPA letter from Director James D. Giattina to David Word, Georgia EPD Assistant Director, finds that the proposed rule change definition was very different from the EPA definition (federal consistency?), and “recommends that either 1) the definition and related provisions in the State’s proposed revisions be removed for clarity or 2) the proposed definition of the phrase be corrected to avoid an inconsistency with the scope of this provision.”  I notice that in the latest material released for the proposed change a definition of “highest statutory and regulatory requirements” has been omitted. 

There is another issue that I think should be highlighted and pinned down.  The Georgia EPD has said it has been issuing its sewer permits according the EPA rule rather than according the Georgia rule.  If this is true, why has the EPD ignored the Georgia rule for several decades?  If the EPD really has been issuing sewer permits according to the EPA rules why did the EPD not understand and use the EPA definition of “highest statutory and regulatory requirements”?  If the Georgia EPD has really been ignoring the Georgia rules and using the EPA “highest statutory and regulatory requirements”, should not the EPD be reprimanded? 

I know that protecting the purity of Georgia waters like Lake Lanier is difficult and requires special effort in the fast growing Atlanta Metropolitan area, but if we are not conscientious in protecting the waters, future generations will pay a larger price than the near in savings realized by some from allowing more pollution now. 

For the reasons stated here I ask that the rule not be changed. 

Sincerely,
 

Ronald E. Seder

Georgia has proposed a change to its antidegradation rule for Georgia waters.  The proposed rule change can be seen on the web at http://environet.dnr.state.ga.us/6. Below is my response to the proposed rule change, as well as information taken from the state website.

June 2, 2005 

Ms. Louise Mathis
Environmental Protection Division 
2 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr.,
Suite 1152 East
Atlanta, GA 30334 

Subject: Comments on the draft amendment to the rules for Water Quality Control, 391-3-.03(2) entitled “Water Quality Enhancement”. 

I have been working for the preservation of Lake Lanier for the past 15 years.  I am a member of the Lake Sidney Lanier Watershed Governance Council (LSLWGC), the Lake Lanier Basin Advisory Council (LLBAC) of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD), and the Lake Lanier Association (LLA) where I have previously been a Board member, Vice President and President.  I was also a member of the “Governor’s Advisory Council for Tri-State Water Issues”.  I participated in the early considerations of the Gwinnett County sewer discharge into Lake Lanier, and have learned much about Lake Lanier water quality and Lake level threats during my 15-year effort.  Some of my past thoughts and conclusions about Lake Lanier water quality including the water quality standards are documented on my website www.ronseder.com at “Gwinnett Sewer” and “Standards” in the “Lake Lanier” section of the website, and I would like that to be considered as part of my response. 

I believe the effort to redefine the antidegradation rules is meant to allow more pollution of Georgia waters, and therefore I am against the change. 

The current rule has been in place for three decades and did not require a change until the Georgia Supreme Court found that the sewer permit given to Gwinnett County by the Georgia EPD did not follow the rule, and allowed too much pollution.  I believe that now the GA EPD wants to relax the rule so it can issue sewer permits allowing more unnecessary pollution in the receiving waters. 

Experience has convinced me that the EPD has a practice of trying to persuade the public that it is protecting water quality while actually allowing more water pollution.  A glaring example is the water quality standards established for Lake Lanier five years ago.  One of the EPD charts shown to the Board of Natural Resources to get approval of the standards said an objective of the standards was: “Allow no increase of phosphorus loading and nitrogen and chlorophyll a concentrations above historic levels”.  However, the EPD then asked for and received Board approval for water quality standards that do allow more of these substances in Lake Lanier to further pollute the Lake. 

It has been said that one of the reasons for the new rule is because the current rule is not well understood.  To me the current rule is much easier to understand than the proposed change.  The current wording is: “the level of treatment required is the highest and best practicable under existing technology to protect existing beneficial uses.”  That says to me that if there is an established practical technology that produces better output the permit issued by EPD should set pollution limits accordingly. 

The proposed rule says: “the state shall assure that there shall be achieved the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for all new and existing point sources” (same as the EPA rule?).  I and many others are unable to decipher the meaning of that phrase, and apparently EPD came to the same conclusion because EPD felt obligated to define the phrase, which still leaves me confused and sends us out to another section to further confuse the issue.  I doubt that all of that definition still leaves the rule the same as the EPA rule.  Apparently the two phrases are the same, but when EPD adds words of explanation that are several times more numerous than the original phrase we should not assume we have the same rule as the EPA.  Also, the EPA sets the federal minimum requirement, and I think Georgia should have more restrictive rules to protect some of its best waters, such as Lake Lanier. 

To protect Georgia waters and do what is best for the State, I think the current rule should be preserved.  The Georgia Supreme Court has decided the Gwinnett Sewer case to help define the rule, and I think many fewer words than are in the proposed rule definition could eliminate any remaining doubt about the meaning of the current rule. 

In addition to preserving the current Georgia rule, I further ask that the Georgia EPD really do what is necessary to allow no degradation of waters covered by he rule.  However, if the EPD does intend to allow more pollution of the waters please level with the public rather than trying to disguise the real intent.

Sincerely,
 

Ronald E. Seder

---------------------

April 18, 2005 

Dr. Carol Couch
Director, Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S.E.
Floyd Towers East
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 

Subject: F. Wayne Hill Water Resources Center NPDES Permit 

Dear Dr. Couch, 

I have been working for the preservation of Lake Lanier for the past 15 years.  I am a member of the Lake Sidney Lanier Watershed Governance Council (LSLWGC), the Lake Lanier Basin Advisory Council (LLBAC) of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD), and the Lake Lanier Association (LLA) where I have previously been Board member, Vice President and President.  I was also a member of the Governor’s Advisory Council for Tri-State Water Issues.  I was involved with the early considerations of a Gwinnett County sewer discharge into Lake Lanier and I have learned much about Lake Lanier water quality and Lake level threats during my 15-year involvement.  Some of my past thoughts and conclusions about the Gwinnett Sewer Lake Lanier discharge are documented on my website at www.ronseder.com at Gwinnett Sewer in the Lake Lanier section of the website, and I would like that to be considered as part of my response to the most recent draft NPDES permit of the F. Wayne Hill Water Resources Center. 

I do not agree with Gwinnett County being allowed to discharge its treated sewage directly into Lake Lanier, but because of past Georgia Supreme Court rulings my comments here assume Gwinnett County will be allowed the 40 mgd sewer discharge into the Lake. 

I believe phosphorus to be the most important consideration in the sewer discharge, so I will first concentrate on it. 

Court Testimony by a court recognized expert, Dr. Jack Jones, shows that the release of phosphorus going into the photic zone of the Lake will cause algae growth and pollute that portion of the Lake. 

Dr. Jones testified that phosphorus released at the permitted 33-foot depth would enter the photic zone and cause pollution.  Therefore, there must be a focus on the amount of phosphorus in the discharge, and the depth at which it is released. 

First, the amount of phosphorus permitted in the discharge.  The Gwinnett sewer plant uses a technology that can be expected to routinely produce a sewer effluent at less than one half the 0.1 mg/l 30 day moving average allowed by the draft permit.  In 1999 Gwinnett County representatives told us that the sewer plant was designed to produce no more than 0.05 mg/l, and the actual phosphorus output would be less than that. 

The history of the 20 mgd operating section of the sewer plant shows that the plant mostly produced a phosphorus discharge at less than .05 mg/l until almost the end of 2003.  For some reason, operation since that time has produced a somewhat higher phosphorus output, but still mostly below .06 mg/l.  For all of these reasons I believe a phosphorus permit limit of .06 mg/l is justified. 

Second, the permitted sewer plant discharge is at a depth of 33 feet, and that is when the Lake is full.  Of course when the Lake is less than full, which is most of the time, the sewer discharge is even closer to the Lake surface.  As was pointed in Dr. Jones’ testimony, the release of the phosphorus rich discharge at the 33-foot depth will rise into the photic zone promoting algae growth, and obvious and significant Lake pollution.  Releasing the sewer effluent much deeper in the Lake will allow less phosphorus to reach the photic zone, therefore the sewer effluent depth should be much deeper than 33 feet, perhaps at the original depth proposed in the first draft permit (somewhere around 140 feet). 

Next, Let’s look at some of the other pollutants in the proposed sewer discharge.  Again I am looking at the history of the currently operating F. Wayne Hill sewer plant (and treating its late 2004 performance as not quite right).  Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) has been less than 13 mg/l, and I recommend a permit limit of 13 mg/l.  Total Suspended Solids (TSS) have been less than 1 mg/l, and I recommend a permit limit of 1 mg/l.  Ammonia (as N) has been less than 0.10 mg/l, and I recommend a permit limit of 0.10 mg/L.  Turbidity (NTU) has been less than 0.30, and I recommend a permit limit of 0.30. 

The Lake Lanier polluting components of the Gwinnett Sewer Plant discharge should be held to the lowest practicable amount that the technology can reliably produce.  I believe that past information from Gwinnett County representatives and the history of the currently operating section of the F. Wayne Hill Sewer Plant show the limits I have recommended here to be realistic. 

Sincerely,
 

Ronald E. Seder

THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT ISSUES ITS RULING FAVORING LANIER
(Ron Seder 11/24/04) 

On November 23, 2004 the Georgia Supreme Court issued its ruling (a 6 to 1 vote of the Court) on the Gwinnett County Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit. 

The Georgia Supreme Court reversed some of the Appeals Court rulings in favor of the Lake Lanier Association's (and others) legal challenge of the Lake Lanier treated sewage discharge permit issued to Gwinnett County by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. 

Briefly, the Court denied the permit because the permit did not have stringent enough limits on pollutants in the sewer discharge.  The Court also ruled that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the original case erred in denying to hear a part of the case challenging the issuance of the permit without another public notice and comment period, following a change in Lake location and depth of the permitted sewer discharge. 

The Georgia Supreme Court Said: 

“The undisputed facts show that the discharge will degrade the water quality in Lake Lanier.  Before a permit will issue to allow the degradation of water quality in Lake Lanier, the clear and unambiguous language of Georgia’s anti-degradation rules require the permittee to utilize the “highest and best [level of treatment] practicable under existing technology.”  Because the treatment plant at issue, the Hill Plant, is capable of removing more pollutants from the discharged water than the permit requires, the permit violates the anti-degradation rules.  Accordingly, we reverse.
            On August 4, 1999, Gwinnett County applied for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit to discharge treated wastewater into Lake Lanier.  On August 8, 2000, the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources issued a draft permit for public comment.  The EPD issued a final permit allowing the discharge on November 9, 2000.  The permit authorized a different discharge location and depth from that which was indicated in the draft permit.
            Terrence D. Hughey, a local landowner, together with the Lake Lanier Association and other entities (collectively “the challengers”), administratively appealed the EPD’s permit issuance, and Gwinnett County intervened to defend the permit.  After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge found in favor of EPD and Gwinnett County, and affirmed the issuance of the permit.  The Challengers appealed to the Hall County Superior Court, which reversed the ALJ.  Gwinnett County and EPD in turn appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed the superior court’s order and re-affirmed the issuance of the permit.  This Court then granted the challengers’ petition for a writ of certiorari, and we now reverse the Court of Appeals.” 

“The challengers also argue that the EPD failed to comply with the required public notice and comment rules.  Agency actions, such as the issuance of the permit in this case, undergo a public notice and comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for meaningful participation in important agency decisions.  Under the Georgia and federal regulations, the discharge point is an element of the permit that the agency must submit to the notice and comment process.  “The public is precluded from a meaningful opportunity to participate in the comment process if the agency makes available on version of a guideline… provides the opportunity to comment on that version, and them adopts a completely different approach in its final guideline without having provided an opportunity to the public to comment on the adopted version.”
            In this case, the EPD submitted a draft permit for public notice and comment that showed the discharge point to be over 145 feet below the surface of the lake in the area of Buford Dam.  After the comment period ended, however, the EPD issued a final permit containing a different discharge point, one that was only 35 feet below the surface and in a different ebayment more than a mile from Buford Dam.  The final discharge point has never been subjected to public notice and comment, and the challengers argue that it should have been.
            It is unclear from the record whether or not the changes in the final permit were significant enough to require a renewed public notice and comment period, because the ALJ summarily disposed of this issue and thus deprived the challengers of the opportunity to present evidence supporting their claim that the changes in the permit were significant enough to require a renewed public notice and comment period.  Because those issues involve a factual determination, the ALJ should have held an evidentiary hearing on the issue.  Additionally, as the superior court correctly noted, the ALJ utilized an improper legal standard when it granted summary judgment to the EPD on the basis that the draft permit “had included the name of the [receiving] body of water in the fact sheet attached with the draft permit.”  Under that reasoning, the public notice and comment requirement  would be satisfied even if the final permit authorized a discharge more than forty miles from the one submitted to the notice and comment process, so long as it still discharged into Lake Lanier.  Plainly, more specificity is required if the public is to have any meaningful opportunity to participate in these decision.  Because the ALJ improperly granted a summary judgment on this issue, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the superior court’s determination of that issue.”

      STATUS OF THE PERMITTED GWINNETT COUNTY  
 TREATED SEWAGE DISCHARGE INTO LAKE LANIER
(Ron Seder 3/11/03)  

On March 4, 2003, a Superior Court judge ruled in favor of disallowing the 40 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit, issued by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) to Gwinnett County. 

Let us review some of the history leading to this Superior Court decision. 

During November 2000, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division gave Gwinnett County a permit to discharge 40 MGD of treated sewage into Lake Lanier. 

The Lake Lanier Association, the Upper Chattahoochee River Keeper, the Sierra Club and Terrence Hughey (which I will name the “LL Group”), convinced that the permitted discharge would add pollution to Lake Lanier, challenged the permit issuance in the Administrative Law Court, as required by law.  During the winter and spring of 2002, Administrative Court Judge Jessie Altman presided over several days of hearings while both sides presented their case.  In October 2002 Administrative Law Judge Jessie Altman found in favor of Gwinnett/EPD, supporting the legality of the permit. 

Because the LL Group disagreed with Judge Altman’s findings, the LL Group appealed the findings in the Hall County Superior Court.  Hall County Superior Court Judge John E. Girardeau reversed some key findings of Administrative Law Court Judge Jessie Altman. 

First, Judge Girardeau found that the EPD did not comply with the requirements for public notice and comment for issuing the permit, because EPD changed the location and depth of the Lake Lanier sewer discharge after the public comment period ended. 

Second, Judge Girardeau found that the permit did not comply with Federal and State antidegradation regulations, because the permit would allow unjustified degradation of Lake Lanier water quality.  Judge Girardeau’s conclusion says, “Respondents concede that the discharge authorized by the Permit will degrade the existing level of water quality in Lake Lanier by raising the level of pollutants.” (The respondents are EPD and Gwinnett County). 

I think Judge Girardeau’s ruling, preventing Lake Lanier water quality degradation, also emphasizes the need to change the Lake Lanier water quality standards.  In January 2000 the Georgia Board of Natural Resources established water quality standards for Lake Lanier, as proposed by EPD.  Prior to the standards being accepted by the Georgia Board of Natural Resources, EPD insisted that the Lake Lanier water quality standards would not allow the quality of Lake Lanier water to degrade.  One of the objectives of the proposed standards, shown in the EPD presentation given to obtain the Board of Natural Resources’ approval, was, “Allow no increase of phosphorus loading and nitrogen and Chlorophyll a concentrations above historic levels.”  Neither the Gwinnett County sewer discharge permit nor the Lake Lanier water quality standards satisfy the stated objective. 

As previously stated, the Gwinnett County Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit would allow degrading the quality of Lake Lanier water.  However, that degraded water quality would satisfy the established Lake Lanier water quality standards.  Therefore, the Lake Lanier water quality standards allow Lake water quality to degrade. Logically then, Judge Girardeau’s antidegradation ruling should cause the Georgia Board of Natural Resources to tighten the Lake Lanier water quality standards. 

During the process of permitting the Gwinnett 40 MGD Lake Lanier treated sewage discharge, Gwinnett and EPD insisted that the permitted discharge would not degrade the quality of Lake Lanier water.  In fact, things were said that caused much of the public to believe that the sewer discharge was purer than Lake Lanier water, and that the sewer discharge water was drinking water quality.  Both of these conclusions are incorrect. 

It is important to recognize that the scope of Hall County Superior Court Judge Girardeau’s review was limited by law.  The Appeal could not be conducted as a new trial.  Judge Girardeau had to confine his review to evidence presented to Administrative Law Judge Jessie Altman and how she applied the law to that evidence.  However, Judge Girardeau did have some other observations. 

Regarding the Fecal Coliform limits (fecal coliform is used as an indicator of human health risks) in the permit (the Gwinnett County permit allows 23/100 ml fecal coliform), Judge Girardeau said, “Petitioners’ argument that the Permit allows a loading of more than 23/100 ml fecal coliform during short periods of time addresses itself to the reasonableness of the rules permitting the discharge and not the issue of whether the Permit is valid under the Rules.” 

A geometric mean of a few samples during a thirty day period is to be used to determine compliance with the permitted fecal coliform limit.  A geometric mean is very different from an arithmetic mean.  For example, a geometric mean would allow seven days at 230,000/100 ml fecal coliform during that thirty day period, while still satisfying the permitted 23/100 ml fecal coliform.  However, an arithmetic mean would not allow even one day of more than 700/100 ml fecal coliform to meet the permit limit.  As one can see, using the geometric mean to determine compliance allows very high exposures to human health hazards. 

While ruling in favor of Gwinnett/EPD on the LL Group challenge of the permitted Lake Lanier phosphorus discharge, Judge Girardeau also observed, “Petitioners have raised some reasonable concerns on this issue, particularly in light of the apparent weakness in and difficulty of enforcing this statute and Rule: However, this is not the forum for satisfying such concerns.” 

Well, that is where things stand now.  The next move is up to Gwinnett/EPD.  They can ask the Georgia Court of Appeals to review the case, and the Court of Appeals would then decide whether or not to review it. 

The fight is not over.  There is a lot of “development community” and resultant political pressure to discharge much more than just this Gwinnett County 40 MGD of treated sewage into Lake Lanier.  I think the Gwinnett County 40 MGD discharge is just the tip of the iceberg.  If the Gwinnett permit is ultimately allowed to stand it would be the precedent that eventually would cause hundreds of millions of gallons of polluting treated sewage to be discharged into Lake Lanier. 

Saving Lake Lanier requires citizens to tell their political leaders where they stand on this issue.  For the sake of our children and grandchildren we must not allow Lake Lanier to be destroyed.

LAKE LANIER AT RISK
(Ron Seder 3/14/02)

During November 2000, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) issued to Gwinnett County a permit to discharge 40 million gallons per day (MGD) of treated sewage into Lake Lanier.  The Lake Lanier Association, Inc. (LLA) is convinced that this permitted treated sewage discharge will pollute Lake Lanier, and therefore opposes the discharge. 

The LLA pursued all alternatives to protect Lake Lanier from this permitted discharge, without success, leaving two options: end the LLA active opposition to the discharge, which will result in additional pollution of the Lake; or take legal action to prevent the permitted discharge. 

In December 2000, the LLA, the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc., the Sierra Club, Terence D. Hughey and Save Our Communities Now, Inc. initiated an appeal of the permit issued by EPD to Gwinnett County.  Gwinnett County sided with the EPD and is taking the lead in defending the permit. 

During the past few years, the public has been told that this Gwinnett County sewer discharge will not degrade the quality of Lake Lanier water.  That is untrue!!! 

When EPD proposed, and the Georgia Board of Natural Resources accepted, the water quality standards for Lake Lanier in January 2000, the LLA was told that the standards would not allow degradation of Lake Lanier water quality.  That is untrue!!! 

When EPD proposed the Lake Lanier Water Quality Standards to the Georgia Board of Natural Resources, one of the objectives listed was “Allow no increase of phosphorus loading and nitrogen and chlorophyll a concentrations above historic levels”.  However, during court testimony Alan Hallum, the Chief of the Water Protection Branch for the Georgia EPD, agreed that “the water quality in Lake Lanier is better than the level set by the water quality standards for Lake Lanier”. 

Mr. Hallum testified, concerning whether or not to allow degradation of Lake Lanier water quality to accommodate the Gwinnett County sewer discharge, “we have to make sure that there is going to be a trade off, a socioeconomic evaluation done to ensure that for whatever amount of decrease in water quality over the current amount, whatever that drop is, there is a socioeconomic benefit associated with that drop in water quality”. 

Mr. Hallum also testified that he would not recommend swimming within 35 meters of the Gwinnett County sewer discharge. 

Mr. Hallum’s testimony leaves little doubt that EPD intends to allow degradation of Lake Lanier water quality to accommodate additional Lake Lanier sewer discharges. 

Prior testimony by Dr. Jack Jones, a respected expert on lakes and reservoirs, shows that Lake Lanier would be polluted by the permitted Gwinnett County sewer discharge, particularly in the area of the discharge. 

For a long time, because of Gwinnett County and EPD promotions, much of the public believed that the Gwinnett County sewer discharge would not harm Lake Lanier.  Much of the public believed that EPD would not allow the Lake water quality to be degraded. 

The public has been told that the same kind of sewer plant is discharging into the Occoquan Reservoir in Virginia, encouraging the public to believe that the Occoquan Reservoir has water quality similar to Lake Lanier water quality.  A visit to the Occoquan Reservoir and discussions with experts proved that to be false.  In fact, it has been discovered that chemicals are sometimes used to reduce the algae growth in the Occoquan Reservoir. 

The public has also been encouraged to believe that the permitted discharge from the sewer plant would be as pure as drinking water, and purer than the Lake water into which it would be discharged.  Both of those claims are false. 

The future well-being of Lake Lanier is threatened by the Gwinnett County permitted 40 MGD treated sewage discharge into the Lake.  As the legal action opposing the permitted discharge moves forward, testimony under oath further confirms the threat to the water quality of Lake Lanier.  For the sake of future generations’ use and enjoyment of the Lake, we must not allow it to be destroyed.

During November 2000, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) issued a permit to Gwinnett County to discharge 40 million gallons per day (mgd) of treated sewage into Lake Lanier. 

The public has been told by Gwinnett County and the EPD that the permitted 40 mgd discharge will not pollute or otherwise harm the lake.  That is not correct.  The permitted sewer discharge will pollute Lake Lanier.  The permit allows the treated sewage discharge to contain much larger concentrations of pollutants, including phosphorus, total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand and mercury, than the Lake Lanier water into which it is to be released.

Legal Action 

The Lake Lanier Association, Inc. (LLA) is convinced that the preservation of Lake Lanier water quality requires the repeal of this Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit. 

In December 2000, the LLA, the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc., the Sierra Club, Terence D. Hughey and Save Our Communities Now, Inc. initiated a lawsuit against EPD for issuing the permit.  Gwinnett County sided with the EPD and is taking the lead in defending the permit. 

The lawsuit is now in the State Administrative Law Court with the Honorable Judge Jessie R. Altman presiding.

Dr. Jack Jones, Lake And Reservoir Expert Testimony 

Expert testimony during the trial by Dr. Jack Jones showed that the permitted 40 mgd treated sewage discharge will pollute a portion of Lake Lanier. 

Dr. Jack Jones is a Professor of Limnology (the scientific study of life and phenomena of fresh water, especially lakes and ponds) and chair of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, School of Natural Resources at the University of Missouri.  Dr. Jones is an internationally experienced and respected limnologist who teaches undergraduate and graduate classes in limnology, does research in reservoir limnology and has authored approximately 75 peer reviewed articles in his field of study.

Phosphorus, Algae and Chlorophyll Pollution 

During his court testimony on November 15, 2001, Dr. Jones explained that the permitted sewer discharge allows a phosphorus concentration several times greater than the phosphorus concentration of the lake water into which the treated sewage is to be discharged.  The permitted phosphorus allowed in this treated sewage will add about eight (8) tons of phosphorus to the lake each year. 

Dr. Jones further explained that the temperature of the treated sewage discharge, compared to the water temperature at different depths of the lake during the warmer months of the year, will cause the discharge to form a “sewage sandwich” at a depth in its portion of the lake that will promote algae growth, and cause the Lake Lanier chlorophyll standard to be violated.  During the cooler months of the year when the lake surface water is cold, the treated sewage will rise to the surface like a sewage icing. 

Dr. Jones testified, “it (Lake Lanier in the proximity of the sewer discharge) is going to look like a different lake.”  When Dr. Jones was asked, “will the algae blooms interfere with swimming” Dr. Jones stated that “algal blooms can cause dermatitis.  People are hesitant to swim in water that is turbid with algae.  Algae degrades the aesthetics.  They degrade real estate values.”  Dr. Jones also explained that the Lake below the area of the algae blooms “will have lower oxygen and so it will limit the habitat, particularly for the deep floor fishermen, the bass, white crappie, etc.” 

Dr. Jones testified, “You will have algae on the beaches, you will have algae in the center of the lake.  People will boat into that area of the lake and they will just see green, it will be turbid”.

Offset Gwinnett County Sewer Discharge Phosphorus Increases By Reductions Elsewhere? 

With a hint of a possible attempt to counteract the increased phosphorus added to the lake by the Gwinnett County sewer discharge, EPD has said that reducing phosphorus discharges in one part of the lake will allow larger phosphorus discharges in another part of the lake (e.g. the Gwinnett County 40 mgd discharge).  Dr. Jones explained that reductions of phosphorus in another part of the lake would not reduce the water pollution caused by the Gwinnett County treated sewage discharge into its area of the lake. 

Undoubtedly there are portions of the lake that should have phosphorus concentrations lowered, but accomplishing that would not counteract increased pollution in the Gwinnett County discharge portion of the lake.

Fecal Coliform As An Indicator Of Public Health Safety? 

Dr Jones also testified about the Fecal Coliform permitted in the Gwinnett County sewer discharge. The LLA, during the formation of the Lake Lanier water quality standards in 1999, suggested using E. coli instead of fecal coliform as a measure of public health safety for swimming in the lake.  However, the EPD chose the customary fecal coliform measurement for the lake standards and for the Gwinnett County sewer discharge. 

The Gwinnett County Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit allows a monthly fecal coliform count of 23, as determined by a geometric mean of several lake water samples taken during a month.  Most of us do not know much about the geometric mean calculation and our eyes gloss over when someone tries to explain it, so you will be spared an explanation attempt here.  But, some of the potential negative consequences of using the geometric mean, included in Dr. Jones’ testimony, are important for us to consider.  Dr. Jones explained that the geometric mean allows individual samples of lake water to have very high fecal coliform counts.  The monthly 23 fecal coliform count allowed by the permit could be satisfied with 7 days of 230,000 and 23 days of 2, or 9 days at 23,000, or 12 days at 2,300 or 17 days at 230. 

Certainly, no one should want to swim in waters with fecal coliform counts of 230,000, 23,000, 2,300 or 230. Obviously, the geometric mean calculation is not an adequate indicator of public health safety on any given day.

Mercury 

Now lets look at the results of Dr. Jones’ testimony regarding mercury discharges into Lake Lanier.  Gwinnett County’s permit contains no limit for mercury.  Dr. Jones testified that mercury accumulates in fish tissue.  Currently there are fish eating advisories for certain species of fish in Lake Lanier because of the amount of mercury in their tissues.  Dr. Jones testified that if there is any mercury in the Gwinnett County sewer discharge it will add to the accumulation of mercury in fish.

Summary 

Dr. Jones’ testimony makes it clear that the permitted Gwinnett County treated sewage discharge into Lake Lanier will pollute Lake Lanier water.  The permitted Gwinnett County treated sewage discharge allows pollutants that will impair current and legitimate uses of the Lake, particularly in the treated sewage discharge area of the lake, including bodily contact with the water.

Your Help Is Needed To Win The Battle To Preserve Lake Lanier 

The Lake Lanier Association remains convinced that the deterioration of Lake Lanier water quality and the impairment of current and legitimate lake uses should not be tolerated, and that the current permit allowing Gwinnett County to discharge 40 mgd of treated sewage in the Lake should be reversed. 

The LLA tried, while the Lake Lanier water quality standards were being determined, and while the Gwinnett County Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit was being considered, to negotiate satisfactory results to protect Lake Lanier.  The LLA was unable to successfully negotiate with the EPD or Gwinnett County to have appropriate Lake protection alterations made to the Lake standards or the sewer permit, and the sewer discharge permit was issued.  After exhausting all other alternatives, legal action was the only option left for the protection of Lake Lanier. 

The legal battle is expensive.  The cost runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Donations are needed to finally win protection for Lake Lanier water quality. 

Please help the Lake Lanier Association in its Lake Lanier preservation efforts.  Your contributions can be sent to: Lake Lanier Association, Inc., P.O. Box 1777, Buford, Georgia 30515-8777, or you can make credit card donations by calling 770-831-1819.

LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC

January 9, 2001 

Letter to the Editor
The Times
P.O. Box 838
Gainesville, GA. 30503 

Dear Editor: 

I am writing to correct some errors in an article, “Water debate flows on”, in the January 7, 2001 issue of the times. 

A statement in the article says: “water from the sewer plant has a much lower level of toxic contaminants than water drawn from the lake.”  That statement is incorrect.  The Lake Lanier sewer plant discharge permit issued by the EPD to Gwinnett County, and data supplied by Gwinnett County, confirm that the statement is wrong.  The Gwinnett County sewer plant discharge is permitted to contain up to 26 times as much Phosphorus, 6 times more Total Suspended Solids, 15 times more Total Dissolved Solids, 7 times more Chemical Oxygen Demand and more Fecal Coliform than the Lake Lanier water into which it is to be discharged.  In addition there are many other chemicals in the discharge that result from residential, commercial and industrial waste, and very little is known about their long-term harm to a lake like Lanier. 

Another statement in the article, referring to Lake Lanier water quality standards, says: “EPD designed standards to maintain the lake without repairing the environmental damage from years of pollution.”  Not only do the standards not maintain the lake at current quality levels, they allow significant additional pollution to be added to Lake Lanier without violating the standards EPD created. 

There have been many myths perpetuated about the proposed Gwinnett County sewer plant discharge, such as, the sewer plant discharge will be as pure as drinking water or that the water will be purer than the lake water into which it will be discharged. 

These claims are false.  If the claims were true would it not make sense to send the treated sewage directly to the drinking water plant rather than pay the expense of pumping it to the lake, or pay the cost of treating lake water for drinking water? 

The Gwinnett County sewer plant discharge into Lake Lanier will add to the pollution of the lake and should not be allowed.  That is why the Lake Lanier Association has taken legal action to disqualify the permit. 

Sincerely yours,
 

Ron Seder
Vice President

770-889-1088

(2/3/01) You might also be interested in the Lake Lanier Association's response to another newspaper article almost two years ago.

LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC

March 26, 1999
 

Letters to the Editor
Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
Gwinnett Extra
Best Friend Road
Norcross, Georgia 30071 

Dear Editor: 

In his March 14, 1999 article, Elliot Brack encouraged Gwinnett County's intended discharge of huge quantities of treated sewage into Lake Lanier.  It is obvious that Mr. Brack knows little about the subject.  His article is filled with errors. 

Contrary to Mr. Brack's assertions, the sewage discharge would not be purer than the water in the lake, dead and decaying trees in Lake Lanier do not filter/clean the water and the lake turning over twice a year would not cleanse the sewer discharge. 

If the treated sewage were to be so pure why not run the output of the sewage treatment plant to the input of the drinking water plant.  That would avoid the cost of pumping the water to and from Lake Lanier and would also reduce Gwinnett County's need to withdraw as much water from the lake. 

Sincerely,
 

Jacqueline A. Joseph
President

(2/4/01) Last week the we were made aware of the following 1999 letter from the Director of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Harold Reheis, to a member of the Georgia Natural Resources Board, James E. Butler, Jr.  The letter also discusses some of the false claims.  The bold colored emphasis is mine.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources
205 Butler St. S.E., East Floyd Tower, Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Lonice C. Barrett, Commissioner
Harold F. Reheis, Director
Environmental Protection Division
404/656-4713

 
June 1, 1999

Mr. James E. Butler, Jr.
Butler, Woolen, Overlby, Pearson, Fryhofer
    and Deughtery
Post Office Box 2766
Columbus, Georgia 31902

Dear Jim; 

This is in response to your May 25 letter to me regarding Lake Lanier. Some of your questions and comments are regarding Mr. Elliott Brack’s commentary from the Gwinnett Section, Sunday, March 14 edition of the Atlanta newspapers. I had not seen that article until you sent it to me with your letter. I don’t know where Mr. Brach got his Information, but some of it is really bad. 

Yes, Gwinnett County does propose to treat wastewater to a very high degree in their North Wastewater Treatment Plant which is currently under construction. They are required to treat it to that degree due to the permit that EPD Issued to them. Contrary to what Mr. Brack says, the effluent will not be better than the quality of the water coming to Gwinnett County in its Lake Lanier water intake, nor will it be better than the quality of the water in the river below Buford Dam. It will be the cleanest wastewater discharged in Georgia, but it still will not be as clean as the lake or the river. 

Yes, it is technically feasible to do direct reuse of the treated sewage. Nobody in Georgia is doing direct reuse, of treated sewage back into the potable water System, and there are very few places in the United States where this is done. Our current thinking in EPD is that it is preferable to have treated effluent diluted with some natural water, such as in a lake or river, before treating it for potable use. 

Yes, If Gwinnett County can build such a facility others can also. Gwinnett County is currently leading the way in Georgia in terms of having the most highly treated effluent at their Crooked Creek plant which does discharge into the Chattahoochee River. I expect that EPD will require nearly all metro governments who discharge treated wastewater into the Chattahoochee River to attain standards comparable to what Gwinnett is now achieving at their Crooked Crick Plant. The Gwinnett North Plant, currently under construction, will do even better than the Crooked Creek Plant. 

Your next question is regarding the safety of direct reuse, and you ask if it is not safe to drink, how can it be safe to swim in and swallow? Dilution, as you suggest, is part of the answer. Nowhere In Georgia is anybody swimming in a stream or lake that is 100% treated wastewater. There is natural dilution in all bodies of water where wastewater is discharged. Part of the answer to your question is, that is what ambient Water quality standards are about. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a variety of scientists around this country have spent a lot of time studying the issue of what water quality standards should be for fishable/swimmable waters. For fecal coliform bacteria, the number is 200 colonies of bacteria per 100 milliliters of water. We adopted that standard in Georgia ten years ago, making a more strict standard than what we previously had. The scientific presumption is that if fecal coliform colonies are less than 200 per 100 milliliter the water is safe to swim in. Most people who swim don’t swallow a lot of water. You certainly don’t swallow as much swimming, as you do drinking out of your tap at home or at the office day in and day out over the course of your life time. 

I agree that those people who swim and fish in Lake Lanier are entitled to a choice too, just like people are entitled to a choice as to whether or not they want to drink their own sewage directly. Under the federal Clean Water Act and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and their corollary acts in Georgia, people who drink water from public water systems are entitled to safe water, and people who swim in waters of the United States are entitled to swim in waters that meet water quality standards. 

You asked whether there is a facility anywhere in the United States that discharges treated wastewater cleaner than water withdrawn from the same source. I don’t know of any; certainly there are none in Georgia. We’ll do some research and see what we can find for you on that. 

You asked how clean the proposed discharge from Gwinnett County will be going into Lake Lanier. The answer is we have a pretty good idea now, that the quality of effluent that Gwinnett County will be producing at its North Wastewater Treatment Plant in that it is permitted to discharge into the Chattahoochee River, will be sufficient to protect the quality of Lake Lanier. However, it is my intent not to make a permit decision on Gwinnett County’s application, or anyone else’s application that discharge into Lake Lanier, until such time that we have completed our additional water quality standards rulemaking for Lake Lanier. This is scheduled to happen at the December 1999 Board Meeting. After those new standards are adopted, EPD will work with Gwinnett County and any other government around the lake which wishes to discharge treated wastewater back to the lake, to determine whether and under what conditions we can issue permits for such discharges. 

You ask how far along Gwinnett County is in planning to discharge into the lake. They have purchased a large tract of land between Interstates 85 and 965, and are building a sewage treatment plant there. This is the North Plant. That plant will be expandable to a larger size. Gwinnett County is permitted to discharge 20 million gallons a day (mgd) from that plant, when it is completed, to the Chattahoochee River. Gwinnett County also hopes for subsequent expansions of the plant, and hopes to be able to return treated wastewater to Lake Lanier from there. I do not know whether or not Gwinnett County has actually acquired any land or rights-of-way for discharging a treated effluent back into the lake. If they have done so, they have done so at their own risk, I have told Gwinnett County Commission Chairman Wayne Hill that EPD will not be making any permit decisions until after the additional water quality standard rulemaking for Lake Lanier is completed in December. They understand that any actions they are taking prior to getting a permit are done so at their own risk. 

You asked about the General Assembly’s amendments in 1990 that required more stringent water quality standards to be adopted for Lake Lanier. The law required lake standards to be adopted for all the large public lakes in the state, and we are getting around to them as quickly as we can. We do, us you surmised, have a shortage of resources. EPD has developed and the Board has adopted standards for Lake Jackson and West Point Lake. In December, we intend to bring proposed standards for Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier to the Board. Both Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier have had large complex water quality studies being done on them for years, funded by state, local, and federal monies. The study done on Lake Lanier has been headed up by a team from the University of Georgia, and we will be using their Clean Lakes Study report and other information as we develop proposed standards to bring to the Board in December. Each of the clean lakes studies that has been done thus far has certainly taken longer than anybody expected that it would. 

More money and more personnel would certainly help these things to happen more quickly. However, we are using our resources in adopting the standards in order of priority. West Point Lake end Lake Jackson have both historically had significant water quality problems. We wanted to adopt new standards for those two lakes first, so that we can get any new protective actions underway that needed to be done. Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona have historically had very good water quality, but both are threatened by rapid development around them and upstream and their watersheds, and we want to provide protections necessary to keep those lakes in good shape, so those are our next priorities after West Point and Lake Jackson. 

I will be getting the Board a very clear picture of the money and resources EPD needs in the near future. We are in the process of developing our budget, and we need more people in the water quality program than in any other branch of EPD. 

Now we can get to what you say are your “over-arching” concerns. These are related to the statement in my letter of May 11 which says allowing discharges into Lake Lanier will minimize consumptive use and inter-basin transfers and allow finite water resources of Lake Lanier to last longer for public supply as growth inevitably continues to occur. I probably made an inadequate choice of words this statement. I agree with you that the water resources of Lake Lanier must not just last longer, but forever and it is my belief that they will. It is certainly my intent. However, if we want the lake to have a full, stable level which the folks who enjoy the lake definitely want, then there are limits as to how much can be taken out of the lake and not put back. EPD Intends to manage the lake quality so that it will last forever, and whomever is using the lake as water supply will continue to be able to use their permitted amounts long after the time that we cap those permits and issue no new permits. In that regard, the water supply is also forever. If we determine that no new permits can be issued after the Year 2030, everybody who has a permit can continue to use it essentially forever. It’s just that the lake won’t necessarily supply water for the new growth that occurs after 2030, only for the number of people that are using it when 2030 occurs. 

Second, you state, that you are unaware of any policy decision to allow any Inter-basin transfers. You do not believe that inter-basin transfer is a reasonable use. To my knowledge, we do not have laws that prohibit inter-basin transfers of water in Georgia. In fact, inter-basin transfers have been going on at east since about the turn of the century when Atlanta first developed its sewer system. Atlanta, Clayton County, Cobb County, DeKalb County, and Gwinnett County all create inter-basin transfers, and have been doing so for decades. Many other cities and counties are recipients and beneficiaries of these inter-basin transfers. EPD has made a policy decision that we want to minimize future Inter-basin transfers, but we do recognize that some additional inter-basin transfers are inevitable, simply due to the geography of the metro Atlanta area and its water supplies. 

Third, you state that growth does not “inevitably continue to occur”. I agree that growth does not inevitably continue to occur forever, but for the foreseeable future, at least the next 20 or 30 years, I believe metro Atlanta is going to continue to grow. I also agree with you that there are environmental constraints. Environmental resources are limited, and so far, growth is not. At some point, the cost of meeting the environmental standards may become so costly that growth will stop. Another option is that before the metro Atlanta governments run out of water in this area, may choose to go someplace and get some more. At this point, given the negotiations we are involved in with Alabama and Florida, our course is to secure what water supplies we can from the Coosa, Tallapoosa, Chattahoochee, and Flint River Basins for Georgia and for metro Atlanta. We believe that that will take us out to at least 2030 once we determine that we have an agreeable allocation formula with Alabama and Florida. Then It will be time for the metro Atlanta governments to start working on developing water supplies for themselves that can begin to be used after the time that they have reached their limits from the Chattahoochee, Lake Lanier and other resources in the Atlanta area. As you surmise, the Ocmulgee and the Oconee River watersheds might well be a part of the ultimate solution for metro Atlanta, but there is little if any study going on of those options right now. 

Finally, you ask a couple of questions about statements made by Mr. Brack and his column that was mentioned earlier. He says that the dead standing timber at the bottom of Lake Lanier filters the water. He is wrong. That Is an absolutely outlandish claim. 

He Is correct that the lake turns over, just like almost every other large lake In the world. Lakes get thermally stratified in the summer, with cold waters in the deep layers and the warm waters in the other layers. Cold layers become oxygen-starved, the warm layers are oxygen-rich by comparison. The turnover is natural in the spring and the fall and lakes become well-mixed from top to bottom; however, I am not aware of any cleansing that that does in Lake Lanier or any other lake. 

You’ve asked a number of good, thoughtful questions and made a number of interesting comments. I look forward to further discussions with you on these matters. 

Sincerely,

 
                                                                        Harold F. Reheis
                                                                        Director

HFR:ypf

Cc:   Lonice Barrett
        DNR Board Members  

GWINNETT COUNTY
SEWER VIOLATIONS LISTED ON GEORGIA EPD WEB SITE
http://www.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/
(click on enforcement and fill out search information)
(February 5, 2001)

 I did a search on the Georgia EPD web site to find the executed orders, since January 1999, for Gwinnett County sewer violations.  I did this to show that Gwinnett County has paid numerous financial penalties for known sewer violations.  It is important to understand this considering that we are being told by some that the proposed Gwinnett North Sewer Plant would not fail and pump unpermitted effluent to Lake Lanier.

Executed orders

Date: January 9, 2001
Cause of Order: NPDES Permit violations/effluent limits and unpermitted discharges
Settlement Amount: $55,600

Date: April 12, 2000
Cause of Order: Unpermitted discharges to state waters
Settlement Amount: $10,300

Date: January 28, 2000
Cause of Order: NPDES Permit violations/unpermitted discharges
Settlement Amount: $13,750

Date: August 6, 1999
Cause of Order: Sewer overflows/unpermitted discharges
Settlement Amount: $11,800

Date: June 16, 1999
Cause of Order: Unpermitted discharges/spills
Settlement Amount: $40,000

The following is my personal letter written in response to Gwinnett County's request to discharge 40 MGD of treated sewage into Lake Lanier.

 
September 25,2000

Harold F. Reheis
Director, Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
East Floyd Tower
205 Butler Street, SE
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

            Subject: Gwinnett County proposed 40 MGD treated sewage into Lake Lanier

 Dear Harold:

 I am writing to ask that the Gwinnett County request to discharge treated sewage into Lake Lanier be denied.

 Following are pictures of the Occoquan Reservoir in Virginia.  This is not the kind of water quality or recreation restriction that should be imposed on Lake Lanier.

Occoquan Reservoir and sewer discharge

Several years ago, before the Limno-Tech study, and several times since, I have been told, by Gwinnett County and Atlanta Regional Commission leadership, that the Gwinnett County request should be allowed, without any study, because it was modeled after the Occoquan Reservoir in Virginia, which had a sewer plant discharging into that reservoir, while protecting water quality like we have in Lake Lanier.  That statement is not true.

As can be seen from the Occoquan Reservoir photographs on the prior page, taken during my visit to the Occoquan Reservoir last year, the Occoquan Reservoir water quality is much worse than Lake Lanier, and certainly is not what we should desire for Lake Lanier.

The Occoquan Reservoir water is brown. There are spots of brown foam floating on the Reservoir. Near the shore where the bottom can be seen there is green stuff on the bottom. No swimming signs are posted all around the Reservoir.

For the past couple years Gwinnett County has been asked repeatedly to provide a factual comparison between Lake Lanier and Occoquan Reservoir water quality, and they have not produced it.  Therefore, my conclusion is that the facts do not support their claims. 

We have also been told by Gwinnett County that there are other places in the United States where large amounts of treated sewage are being discharged into, and protecting, Lake Lanier “like” water quality.  We have repeatedly asked Gwinnett County to identify some of those locations, and again they have failed to do so.  Consequently, I believe there is no other place where large, proposed Gwinnett County “like”, treated sewage discharges are protecting water quality comparable to Lake Lanier.

Other misleading claims of benefit 

We are told that the proposed Gwinnett County sewer plant would put cleaner water into Lake Lanier than is in the lake.  We have been told that out of specification sewer effluent could not reach the lake.  We are told that this sewer system would reduce the number of septic systems with the implication that this is good for the lake.  We are told that the sewer discharge will produce higher Lake Lanier levels. 

Sewer plant discharge cleaner than Lake Lanier water? 

I believe this statement is meant to convey that the water would be purer than Lake Lanier water, and that is not true.  The water may be clearer because of fewer suspended solids than Lake Lanier water, but battery acid is also clear while being unsafe for human contact.  The treated sewage water will not be purer than lake water.  The sewer discharge will add pollution to the lake and have concentrations of more phosphorus, dissolved solids, chemical oxygen demand and many other compounds than currently in Lake Lanier water.  And, the consequence of many of these for lake water is unknown.

Out of specification sewer plant discharges would not get to the lake? 

Not true.  I do not believe an independent reliability analysis of the proposed sewer system has been done.  However, all sewer plants fail.  Failure, both mechanical and human, is part of sewer system operations.  There are numerous past and continuing examples of sewer systems discharging bad output.  What would millions of gallons of raw sewage do to the lake?  It certainly would make the lake unsafe for human contact. 

Lake Lanier will benefit because the new sewer plant would avoid the installation of many septic systems in Gwinnett County? 

Not true.  First, factual knowledge of the impact of septic tanks on Lake Lanier is unknown, and some experts think it is not much.  Second, Gwinnett County contains only about 3 square miles of the 1040 square miles of land that has natural drainage to Lake Lanier; therefore the proposed Gwinnett sewer would provide virtually no reduction of septic system contamination of the lake. 

The sewer discharge would produce higher Lake Lanier levels? 

Probably not true.  I have been on the Governor’s Advisory Council for Tri-State Issues since it was created in 1992.  Therefore, I have some knowledge from the negotiations thus far, and that shows that more water into Lake Lanier would be released at Buford Dam to produce higher flows than to be kept in the lake to produce higher levels 

Other Considerations 

EPD will not allow the sewer discharge directly into the Chattahoochee River 

Sewer discharge contaminants released to the lake eventually end up in the Chattahoochee River anyway, unless they stay in the lake to accumulate for future lake harm.  We are told that the reason the EPD will not allow the proposed sewer to discharge into the Chattahoochee River is that the dissolved oxygen content of the river water is too low.  Of course the water released to the Chattahoochee River from Buford Dam has almost zero dissolved oxygen most of the year because the water is released from the bottom of the lake, below the thermocline, where there is very little dissolved oxygen.  The proposed Gwinnett County sewer output is supposed to have a high level of dissolved oxygen.  Would not that help to improve the dissolved oxygen content of the river water? 

A sewer discharge into a river is safer than a discharge into a lake because moving water does a better job of cleansing normal treated sewage, as well as being much more effective in correcting sewer discharge mistakes. 

A river discharge would put more water into the river, thereby requiring lower Buford Dam releases to provide the same quantity of water in the river. 

Water quality standards established for Lake Lanier allow more pollution 

The Lanier water quality standards established this year for Lake Lanier allow more pollution of Lake Lanier while satisfying the standards.  The lake water quality should not be allowed to degrade.  Instead there should be a goal of improving the lake water quality for the millions who use the lake. 

The quality of the proposed sewer plant discharge relies on self monitoring and reporting

This is reminiscent of the fox watching the chicken house.  There are numerous examples of municipalities knowingly releasing bad effluent to its receiving waters.  Look at what Atlanta continues to do to the Chattahoochee River.  There are examples of municipalities not reporting problems.  Look at what became known last year about the false reporting of the Dalton Utilities.  More reliable monitoring would be done by a qualified unbiased independent (not influenced by Gwinnett County or the Georgia EPD) entity. 

EPD does not and cannot enforce the permit required sewer discharges

The Georgia EPD has the responsibility to enforce the provisions of the sewer discharge permits it issues.  That does not mean that sewer systems will not discharge bad effluent.  Like law enforcement does not stop all crime.  And, like law enforcement, allocated resources and motivation of the leadership determine the degree of enforcement effectiveness.  There are continuing examples of sewer systems failing.  One example is presented in the University of Georgia Clean Lakes Study.  While the study was being conducted in 1998 it was found that six of the nine municipal plants, that the study sampled, had permit busting bad discharges.  I have seen nothing to indicate that those six bad discharges have been corrected. 

The consequences will not be seen for many years 

The negative consequences of the decisions made today would not be realized for many years.  The proposed sewer plant would be expected to be operational in five years.  It would not be processing 40 MGD of sewage for decades.  For the first few years the sewer plant output will be much less than the 40 MGD, and the sewer plant output is to be discharged very deep in the lake, so that the cause of resultant lake water quality problems will be difficult to pin down to the discharge.  It would be many years before a lake problem could be pinned down to the sewer discharge. 

Even if the people responsible today are determined to do their best and live up to their promises they would not be able to do so, and they will not always be there.  How many of today’s decision makers will be there in ten years, twenty years or more?  How conscientious will those to follow, who have not made the promises, be?  Would future governments underfund this sewer system like several governments are underfunding their current systems?  Would future problems be promptly corrected?  Who would be around to be held accountable for bad decisions made now? 

Growth and sewer 

Those who benefit from the growth are waging the push for the least expensive sewer solution most vigorously.  I am not antigrowth, but I am against spoiling Lake Lanier to provide the least expensive sewer solution.  Most of those in favor of the proposed Gwinnett County sewer discharge into Lake Lanier say they do not want to harm the lake, but I think many are not nearly as concerned about Lake Lanier as they are about having the least expensive sewer solution.  There are sewer solutions that pose less risk to Lake Lanier and the environment in general, and one of those solutions should be chosen. 

Conclusion and Recommendation 

There are too many unknowns to allow the proposed Gwinnett County treated sewage discharge into Lake Lanier.  There is no other location that is discharging treated sewage into a body of water while protecting water quality like we have in Lake Lanier.  There are reasonable alternative sewer discharge solutions. 

For the future health of Lake Lanier I ask that you deny the Gwinnett request to discharge 40 MGD of treated sewage into the lake. 

Sincerely,

Ronald E. Seder
 

Copy: Alan Hallum

E-MAIL REGARDING GWINNETT TREATED SEWAGE DISCHARGE INTO LAKE LANIER
(Ron Seder 3/20/00)

Jackie Joseph, President of the Lake Lanier Association, received the following e-mail on March 18, 2000, and she forwarded it on to me. I found out after writing the response that the e-mail transmission did not contain the e-mail address of the writer.  I am putting the e-mail and my reply to on my web site.  Others may hear similar comments and this response may help them.  Also, maybe the writer will see it, respond and make himself/herself known to us.

----------------

----------------

Hello e-mail writer. Jackie Joseph passed along to me the 3/18/00 e-mail you sent to her regarding the Gwinnett County requested discharge of 40 Million Gallons per Day of treated sewage into Lake Lanier.

First, let me respond directly to some of your comments, and then request that you read other published material that covers much more about the Gwinnett County requested Lake Lanier treated sewage discharge. We do correctly call it treated sewage because it is the major output of a sewer plant after raw sewage is treated. The treated sewage would add pollutants to Lake Lanier. The treated sewage would have concentrations of some pollutants several times greater than the lake water into which it would be discharged. The treated sewage would degrade the quality of the lake. The sewer plant would sometimes release worse than permitted effluent to the lake. If you objectively review the facts you can verify what I say here.

I have written quite a bit about this, some of which has been published in newspapers, and much more of it published on my web site at http://ronseder.home.mindspring.com. Look at the Gwinnett Sewer and other subjects in the Lake Lanier section of the web site. You will also see there some of the correspondence we have had with Gwinnett County.

One point I would like to highlight is the Occoquan Reservoir in Virginia. We were told five years ago by Gwinnett County leadership that Gwinnett County should be allowed to discharge its treated sewage into Lake Lanier because the Gwinnett sewer plant would be modeled after a sewer plant in Virginia that discharged into the Occoquan Reservoir, and the Occoquan Reservoir was in great shape like Lake Lanier. We have been trying for more than half a year to get Gwinnett County to give us the facts on the Occoquan reservoir, and we have yet to receive the facts. I visited the Occoquan Reservoir last summer and saw water that we would not want in Lake Lanier. Gwinnett County paid for citizen visits to the Occoquan Reservoir sewer plant last summer without showing the Occoquan Reservoir to the visitors. I wonder why? I suspect that if the water in the Occoquan Reservoir were visually pleasing, viewing the Reservoir would have been part of the visit agenda. Can you get the Occoquan Reservoir water quality facts for us? Can you get the facts for us on any reservoir like Lake Lanier in the United States, receiving the proposed quantity of treated sewage, that has the quality of Lake Lanier water? We certainly would appreciate anything you can do for us. We need to have the facts to help us be wise in our pursuits. So far, after my Occoquan Reservoir visit and asking Gwinnett County for the facts, all we have gotten from Gwinnett County are reasons why the Occoquan Reservoir can’t be expected to have good quality water like Lake Lanier. A different story than five years ago.

Let me also point out that the Lake Lanier Association is not anti-growth. However, we believe growth should pay its own way. We think less expensive growth for the cost of losing Lake Lanier water quality is too great a price to pay.

E-mail writer, thanks for your interest and input. Our only interest is the preservation of Lake Lanier. I ask again that you read the material on my web site and contact us at least once more. We are most interested in any facts that will enforce or dispute what we have concluded so far. We do not know it all, and we still have a lot to learn. But, we have learned much so far and that is the basis for our opposition to the 40 MGD Lake Lanier treated sewage discharge requested by Gwinnett County.

My strong desire is that the final decision will be based on facts rather than emotion, political influence or pro sewer spin from those hired by, and/or those who seek the favor of, Gwinnett County.

Ron Seder

Vice President
Lake Lanier Association, Inc.

LLA Meeting 2/29/00
Gwinnett County Sewer Request
(Ron Seder)

Gwinnett County has experienced tremendous growth and now has a population in excess of 500,000, heading to an ultimate population of about 1,000,000.

Gwinnett County has a continuing need for increased sewage disposal. They are currently building a 20 million gallon per day (mgd) sewer plant that will discharge into the Chattahoochee River. Gwinnett County sees more future sewer need and they have been denied any further treated sewage discharge into the Chattahoochee River. Therefore, Gwinnett County has requested permission to discharge 40 mgd of treated sewage into Lake Lanier. Your Lake Lanier Association is opposed to that discharge and in this article I will briefly explain why.

This sewer plant would contribute additional pollution to the lake, and if allowed to establish the precedent, would probably lead to another 300 mgd of treated sewage discharges into Lake Lanier within the next few decades.

We are told that the output of the sewer plant would not harm the lake. We are told that it would put cleaner water into the lake than is in the lake. We are told that out of specification sewer effluent could not reach the lake. We are told that the sewer plant is being modeled after a sewer plant on the Occoquan Reservoir in Virginia that has been discharging into the Occoquan reservoir for years without harming the Reservoir. We are told that this sewer system will reduce the number of septic systems with the implication that this is good for the lake. We are told that the sewer discharge will produce higher Lake Lanier levels. All of these statements are incorrect or misleading.

The sewer plant proposed by Gwinnett County is a high quality sewer plant, but we believe that even that sewer plant discharge would cause significant deterioration in the quality of Lake Lanier water. The output of the sewer plant would contribute additional pollution to the lake. The water may be clearer than lake water, but it is not purer than lake water. Good sewer plant operations would produce sewer effluent that would contain more phosphorus, dissolved solids, chemical oxygen demand and a host of other compounds about which little is known as to their long term impact on a lake.

At times the sewer plant would fail and discharge very bad effluent into the lake. All sewer plants fail. Failure is not abnormal, it is normal and t