PROTECTING LAKE LANIER REQUIRES SPECIAL ACTION
(Ron Seder 11-22-04)

The purpose of this paper is to present the case for why the preservation of Lake Lanier for water supplies, recreation and other quality of life benefits, deserves priority and special attention. 

Projections are that Metropolitan Atlanta will continue its rapid growth.  Much of that growth will push Metropolitan Atlanta northward.  The Lake Lanier watershed is in the path of that northward expansion, therefore, rapid development on the Lake Lanier watershed will continue.  Continuing development of the Lake Lanier watershed will promote more water pollution.  Unless some things are done differently, water runoff from a more developed watershed into Lake Lanier will pollute the Lake, and the push for more treated sewage discharge into Lake Lanier will also increase Lake pollution. 

There are mixed and sometimes opposing motivations among people that prevent significant actions to protect the Lake.  In some cases inexpensive and carefree development on the watershed commands a much higher priority than the preservation of Lake Lanier.  Property rights and property development are used as reasons for not taking proper precautions for Lake Lanier preservation, and those motivations are forced into the political process because the development community contributes heavily to political campaigns of candidates who think like the majority of the development community. 

The general public does not contribute nearly as much to local political campaigns as the development community.  The motivation of the general public, which is more concerned about preserving Lake Lanier, really is only significantly peaked when the Lake level is greatly lowered or noticeable pollution occurs in the Lake, rather than by future considerations.

Another of the difficulties in producing unified Lake Lanier preservation actions is that portions of seven Counties and several municipalities, each with its separate and largely independent governments, make up the Lake Lanier watershed.  If any one government acts on its own to preserve Lake Lanier it has only a small impact on overall Lake quality, and it has to pay a price (pay more for sewage disposal and controls on development) than the other governments that do not act as conscientiously to preserve the quality of the Lake. 

The Georgia EPD could be the advocate for protecting the environment, including Lake Lanier, but the EPD is more influenced by the development community through the politicians responding to development community lobbying and political campaign contributions.  The EPD issues point source discharge permits allowing pollution of Georgia waters, and is largely ineffectual in controlling the pollution of runoff waters. 

The Lake Lanier preservation interests and watershed development interests should be able to reach mutually agreeable Lake Lanier preservation actions if done in a spirit of common purpose and equality, but the current political motivations do not produce a level playing field. 

There have been historical attempts to give Lanier some special consideration, producing at different times the Lake Lanier Advisory Council (LLAC) and the Lanier Watershed Regional Council (LWRC).  Membership of both of these organizations was largely from the political community on the Lake Lanier Watershed.  These organizations produced nothing significant for the preservation of the quality of Lake Lanier because they had no overriding mission to preserve Lake Lanier.  They had no responsibility to produce a plan to preserve Lake Lanier, and they had no authority to implement actions for Lake Lanier preservation. 

The forgoing supports the notion that if Lake Lanier is to be protected it must be a number one priority, and an organization needs to be established to make it happen.  The organization should have the responsibility to produce timely Lake Lanier preservation plans and the authority to get those plans implemented. 

Current laws do not allow creation of the described organization; therefore, legislative action will be required to make it happen.

LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC.

October 4, 1999

 
Representative Ben Whitaker
Post Office Box 295
East Ellijay, Georgia 30539

Dear Representative Whitaker:

Thank you for your September 30, 1999 response to our previous letter.  From the content of your response it appears that you may not have read the September 20, 1999 letter we also sent to you.  You will notice that letter (copy enclosed) already addressed many of the accusations and points raised in your letter.  We are dealing with the real facts.  You should also observe that our September 20 letter contains more than just opinions, as the letter directs the reader to many of the findings in the professional reports by page number.

In this letter I will address some of your other points as well expand on some things in our previous letters.

I would like to begin by explaining that several of the members of our Board of Directors have been deeply involved with Lake Lanier considerations since the 1980's.  One of our Board members was appointed to the Governor's Advisory Council for Tri-State Water Issues (distribution of the waters from the ACF and ACT river systems, which of course include Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona) when it was formed in 1992, and he is still a member.

We take responsible positions on the issues considering the science, professional studies and our own experience.  You say "we (meaning you and some others I guess?) have been concerned long before you folks (LLA I guess?) ever got involved".  Perhaps you are correct, but the Lake Lanier Association has been dedicated to the preservation of Lake Sidney Lanier since 1960, so we too know a lot about Lake Lanier and what is important to preserve it.

We try very hard to consider all things important to having a healthy Lake Lanier, including reported spills, unreported spills, houseboats, etc.  That is why we have been pushing for a Lake Lanier Watershed Authority responsible for protecting Lake Lanier.  We helped guide the Limno-Tech study, which gave us the first professional findings as to the bleak future of Lake Lanier unless something different is done to better address pollution that can be caused by future growth on the watershed.  We have scoured the Clean Lakes Study, which indicates the same thing.

For counties to enforce the law they must be given the proper tools and be motivated to enforce the law.  It has been demonstrated by Governor Barnes' GRTA that there are situations (air quality) where local governments will not cooperate to do what is necessary without being forced to.   We believe that the situation with Lake Lanier water quality is similar to Metropolitan Atlanta's air quality situation.  Other special interests have more influence on local politicians than does Lake Lanier water quality, and unless forced to pay more attention to Lanier's water quality the lake will significantly degrade as predicted in the Limno-Tech report.  By the way the 15% septic system failure in the Limno-Tech report is the result of professional expertise and not some number we dreamed up, as you seem to indicate.

You say, "Some of our group wants to point fingers at farmers, poultry growers, dairy farmers, timber cutters".  Because we have 4,000 free thinking members I would think you could find just about every opinion supported by one of them.  The Lake Lanier Association, however, has not accused any of these for causing increased future pollution of Lake Lanier. You might note that we spoke to that point in the 4th paragraph on the 2nd page of our September 20 letter.  In fact, we were surprised in the public hearing during your last meeting that so many from the agriculture industry felt threatened.  It was almost like someone might be trying to unjustly rile them up to help defeat a valid effort to protect Lake Lanier.

Lastly, I want to express my disappointment in your disdain for some of the citizens of Georgia.  You said at the last meeting of the Committee that you instructed the Post Office not to deliver mail to you unless it was perfectly addressed, even though the Post Office obviously knew where to deliver it.  You also ridiculed form letters.  You apparently believe that unless people take enough time out of their busy lives to write you an original letter you should disregard it.  However, the people who sent the form letters were convinced enough about the issue to take the time and effort to mail their thoughts to you, and these are thinking people.  I suggest that you treat their input seriously if you are truly trying to represent all of the citizens of Georgia in your appointment to this Committee.

I am taking the liberty of sending your letter, and our response to it, to the other members of the Committee for their information.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline A. Joseph
President 

House of Representatives
BEN WHITAKER, REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT  7

September 30, 1999

Lake Lanier Assoc., Inc.
P.O. Box 1777
Buford, Ga. 30515-6777

Attn:   Jacqueline A. Joseph

Dear Ms. Joseph:

In answer to your letter and approximately 75 more who wrote similar in your request.  Most were form letters.

First, there is no problem agreeing, everyone will agree that Lake Lanier has a water quality problem.  You say that you know Lake Lanier water quality is degrading.  What you may not know is what the real facts are.

We have very capable personnel at the State level to enforce the laws already on the books, if given the money necessary to do so.  The missing piece of the puzzle is the local governments role that must be put in place.  Local governments must play a major role in regard to regulations and enforcement.

Some of the less informed people would have us believe that Lake Lanier is much worse off than it really is.

What we don't need is another level of bureaucracy (Authority) to further target whomever they might choose to place the blame on.

Yes, we all know about the problems on the Chattahoochee River.

What your association don't want to talk about is the unreported spills, the houseboats, the lake traffic and the Counties inability to enforce the laws already on the books.

Your study groups assumed 15 percent septic tank failure, that figure is debatable.  Some of your group wants to paint fingers at farmers, poultry growers, dairy farmers, timber cutters and the least bit of silt from a mountain stream (which some of you would like to stop).

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot get excited about your idea.  I don't believe an Authority is the answer.

I do believe we have the authority at the State level to take care of the problem---give us some time to coordinate our efforts between the State and Local level.

Another thing, form letters is no the answer.  So save your postage.  We have been concerned long before you folks ever got involved

Sorry, I can't help you create the Authority.

Rep. Ben Whitaker         

LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC.

September 20, 1999 

Lake Lanier Water Quality Study Committee

Honorable Carl Rogers, Chair                             Mr. Tommy Furlow
Honorable Clint Smith, Vice Chair                       Ms. Katherine Baer
Honorable Renee Unterman, Secretary                Dr. Diane Findley
Honorable Bob Hanner                                      Dr. Jim Kundell
Honorable Ben Whitaker                                    Dr. J. B. Sharma

Dear Committee Members:

We are writing to urge you to recommend a State Lake Lanier Watershed Authority with the mission to protect Lake Lanier, the responsibility to create a plan to protect the lake, the authority to get the plan
implemented and properly funded to carry out its responsibilities.

First, there must be an agreement that there is a Lake Lanier water quality problem.  As you know, effective problem solving requires recognition that there is a problem and a definition of what the problem is.  We know that Lake Lanier's water quality is degrading.  Limno-Tech in their modeling of future water quality found that the scenarios run through their model showed a problem, (page 3) "all eight scenarios resulted in significant water quality degradation."  Also on page 25 their report says, "These results demonstrate that all eight scenarios considered result in a noticeable degradation of water quality compared to existing conditions."  The Clean Lakes Study implies similar conclusions.

The problem is largely caused by continuing rapid development of the Lake Lanier Watershed.  The Limno-Tech report on page 4 says: "it is possible to allow additional development in the Lake Lanier watershed without seriously affecting water quality.  However, this will require implementation of very stringent runoff controls, stringent wastewater treatment controls, and/or a lesser degree of development than is currently envisioned."

A contributor to the problem is sewer discharges.  The Limno-Tech report, page 25 states: "The primary source of degradation will be excessive algal growth due to nutrient runoff from future developments.  Nutrient loadings from additional wastewater treatment plants flows and septic systems are of less importance."  But sewer discharges are not unimportant.  Sewer plant discharges can contain many compounds about which little is known as to their long-term impact on the lake, however, the Limno-Tech study concentrated on nutrients loadings of the lake.  The Limno-Tech report on page 2 says: "The primary water quality issues to be addressed by the model were those associated with excess nutrient loading, which causes an increase in aquatic plants, a decrease in water clarity, and a decrease in dissolved oxygen."  The Limno-Tech report showed that increasing sewer discharges into the lake would elevate nutrient loading of the lake.

Sewer discharges are even more dangerous than might appear because many sewer discharges do not meet the quality objectives assigned to them.  Let me cite just a few examples.  We all know about the long past and continuing fouling of the Chattahoochee River by the Atlanta sewer system.  There have been two known large Gainesville raw sewage spills into Lake Lanier this year.   Recently a gooey substance has been appearing in the Flat Creek area of the lake, as reported in The Times of Gainesville on August 28, 1999.  An Augusta sewer plant had a million gallon sewage spill in December of 1998.  According to the September 10, 1999 issue of the Atlanta Constitution, Dalton Utilities recently "pleaded guilty Thursday in federal court to criminal charges that it lied about discharges of polluted water from its sewage treatment plant."  The Lanier Beach South sewer plant that discharges into Lake Lanier has been known to be out of compliance for one and one half years, and they are still out of compliance.  Gwinnett County has had several sewer system infractions during the past year for which it has agreed to pay fines.

The Clean Lakes Study, talking about nine Lake Lanier discharged municipal sewer plants monitored in their study, points out on page 1-17: "Three of the nine municipal WWTP met their permit conditions, but the other six had average effluent concentrations in violation of the permit limit for one or more conventional parameters".  And, then later in the report one might conclude that sewer plants are not really expected to meet their requirements because on page 5-55 the Clean Lakes Study says: "In general, the wastewater treatment facilities seem to be meeting their permit requirements and the sampling results are in agreement with the discharge monitoring reports (DMR's)."

Failing septic tank systems can also be a nutrient contributor.   However, one must be cautious when looking at septic and sewer loading in the Limno-Tech report.  For example, the report says on page 24:  "The Status Quo scenario maintained an assumed septic tank failure rate of 15% throughout the watershed.  The limited extension scenario assumed that public management of septic systems in Hall and Forsyth counties would reduce the septic tank failure rate to 5%."  Therefore, one must take this into consideration when viewing and comparing scenario conclusions because some are not apples to apples comparisons due to this difference not being exposed on the table of scenario results.  The Clean Lakes study states on page 5-53: "abandoning septic tank/soil absorption systems along the shorelines will seldom result in significant change in lake trophic status" (EPA, 1983).  The Clean Lakes study also says on page 5-55: "The pollutant loadings calculated from septic tanks did not appear to contribute significantly as compared to the other sources investigated".

There are also nutrient contributions to the lake by other sources (industry, agriculture, etc.), but these have not been identified as contributors to the future worsening of Lake Lanier's water quality.  One might speculate that the agriculture contribution to nutrient loading of the lake will naturally diminish as continuing development of the watershed escalates land prices so as to make agriculture use of the land a less desirable economic alternative.

When there is a conclusion that there is a Lake Lanier water quality problem, and that we must protect the lake's water quality, potential actions can be considered.  Obviously, doing nothing significant to protect lake water quality is not an acceptable alternative.

As you all know, there are many governmental jurisdictions on the Lake Lanier watershed.  It has been our observation that it is impossible to get all the government entities to initiate common and effective action to protect Lake Lanier.  The reasons for this are many, not the least of which is that protecting Lake Lanier is not a top priority when it conflicts with the special interests that heavily influence local elected officials.  Therefore, something has to be created to ensure the protection of the lake.

During past years voluntary cooperative efforts by the Lake Lanier watershed governments have been tried, but produced no significant actions to protect the lake.  One group was the Lanier Watershed Regional Committee (LWRC) and the other was the Lake Lanier Advisory Council (LLAC).  Both of these groups' membership contained Lake Lanier watershed governments, but motivations, other than protecting Lake Lanier, prevented significant lake saving action.

Because of the lack of significant action to protect Lake Lanier we, several years ago, concluded that Georgia should create a Lake Lanier Watershed Authority with a mission to protect Lake Lanier.  The Lake Authority would have the responsibility to produce a plan to protect the lake and have the authority to get the plan implemented through local governments.  The quality of Lake Lanier's water mostly depends on the quality of the water coming to it from the watershed, therefore, the lake protection plan would undoubtedly influence land use and other measures to improve the quality of runoff.

Of course, it is also important to ensure that the Authority has sufficient funding to carry out its responsibilities.  The Lake Allatoona Authority, created by the Georgia legislature during the last session has some significant weaknesses.  It has no funds even to satisfy its legal obligations and therefore has to depend on donated funds, which makes it potentially overly influenced by the donator(s).  The Lake Allatoona Authority also has no authority to influence land use planning on the watershed, and we conclude that seriously diminishes its potential effectiveness.

There was recent mention in the Atlanta Constitution of authorities being considered for West Point and Jackson lakes.  Perhaps you can also learn from the considerations about them.

The health of Lake Lanier, or lack of it, has serious implications for north Georgia.  Although there are some differences in quantification, it is generally agreed that poorer quality Lake Lanier water will impact Lake Lanier recreation, detract from the quality of life and be an economic blow to our area.  A study done for the Marine Trade Association in 1994 shows an annual Lake Lanier economic benefit of $2 billion.  The Clean Lakes Study report (page 7-13, relying on extrapolation from other lake estimates, says: "Lake Lanier's contribution to the regional economy provides a range of $164 to $641."   And, based on other estimates (page 7-14) the study report says: "Consequently, the value of Lake Lanier to the economy is estimated to exceed one billion dollars".

In closing I would like to summarize some of our conclusions.   Lake Lanier's water quality has been degrading and professionals predict significantly more degradation unless actions are implemented to protect the lake's water quality.  Lake Lanier is a significant contributor to our quality of life and the economy of our area.  Past voluntary organizations aimed at protecting Lake Lanier did not produce important results.  A properly commissioned State Lake Lanier Watershed Authority is needed to protect Lake Lanier from further significant degradation as we face the growth challenges the future is sure to bring us.

Ladies and gentlemen, the future of Lake Lanier is in your hands.   Please insure that the Legislature takes appropriate action to protect the lake.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline A. Joseph
President

WE NEED A STATE LAKE LANIER AUTHORITY
(Ron Seder 1/12/99)

We need Georgia to make a commitment to protect Lake Lanier, and we need a regional state authority to make it happen. This article will review some of the threats to Lake Lanier and then further discuss the suggested Lake Lanier Authority.

The future of Lake Lanier is in serious doubt. There are currently many forces at work that could destroy Lake Lanier as we know it today. All of those forces result from the tremendous growth in the Atlanta Metropolitan area. The Atlanta Metropolitan Area is growing at a rate of more than 100,000 people per year. Gwinnett County is now at a population of 500,000 and is projected to grow to a population of as much as 1,000,000. Cobb County has similar experiences and outlooks. Other counties on the fringe of the Atlanta suburbs are also experiencing huge growth rates. For example, Forsyth County has doubled its population since the 1990 census.

The growth demands greater water withdrawals from our river and lake systems for municipal and industrial water supplies, which also creates the need for disposal of more wastewater. Many of those demands find their way to Lake Lanier. Lake Lanier is the largest water storage reservoir on the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system.

A Tri-state (Alabama, Florida, Georgia) effort has been in process for almost ten years trying to determine how to distribute the waters of Lake Lanier for its various purposes (water supplies, recreation, power generation, navigation, irrigation, environmental considerations, Apalachicola Bay oysters, etc.). The three states were to come to a conclusion by the end of 1998, but that date has now been extended to the end of 1999. Initial water allocation proposals by Alabama would cause Lake Lanier to be frequently drawn down to the 1035' msl level, 18 feet lower than the Lake experienced during the worst draught, or 28 feet lower than the Lake's current low level of 1063' msl. Of Course 1035' msl is a level that would devastatingly impact if not destroy the significant economic and quality of life benefits generated by Lake Lanier.

The Georgia negotiating team has so far withstood the preposterous Alabama bombardment on future Lake Lanier levels, but I think it is important for us to continually inform our Georgia team about the importance of a full Lake Lanier to our part of Georgia. One of the concerns I have about the negotiations among the three states is that Georgia is the only one of the three in dire need of increased input to its water supplies. That puts the time pressure on Georgia for a resolution. Florida and Alabama have not experienced a large population growth in these river basins, and therefore do not feel pressure for a timely resolution of the water allocation debates. Might Georgia reach a position where it is so anxious to avoid a court battle that it would be tempted to sacrifice Lake Lanier levels to obtain an agreement?

Another threat to Lake Lanier is the continuing development on the Lake Lanier watershed. A qualified professional organization, Limno-Tech, Inc., was hired to do an assessment of the future water quality of Lake Lanier. The University of Georgia was also hired, under the Clean Lakes program, to assess the future of Lake Lanier. The conclusion of both of these organizations is that Lake Lanier water quality will seriously degrade unless the management of development on the watershed is changed. Runoff from development and wastewater increases will cause that lake degradation.

A mixed-use development, recently approved in Hall County, will put 450 housing units, a 30-unit hotel, a commercial area and a boat storage area on 280 acres on the shores of Lake Lanier. The Hall County Board of Commissioners also decided that this development could have 176 housing units on septic tanks with the septic tank effluent draining into a common 20 acres. Expert input convinces us that this concentration of septic effluent is too risky for human health, and because of its proximity to Lake Lanier is also too risky for the health of the lake. The final approval allowed a development downsized from the original request, so the Lake Lanier Association, Inc. (LLA) might take some satisfaction from its contribution to that downsizing, but we are convinced that the resultant approved project and others like it will contribute to the degradation of lake water quality

The LLA had discussions with the developer, presented its rational suggestions and documented them several different times. However, the developer chose to aggressively and unjustly criticize the LLA rather than working with it to produce a more lake friendly result.

Now we find Lake Lanier assaulted on another front. Gwinnett County, at the encouragement of the Director of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), has asked for an immediate permit to discharge sewer plant effluent into Lake Lanier at a rate of 40 Million Gallons Per Day (MGD), with the probability of eventually increasing it to 90 MGD. Gwinnett County claims the sewer effluent will not harm Lake Lanier. They say they will have state-of-the art sewer treatment that will put water into Lake Lanier that could be used for input to a drinking water treatment plant. We are very skeptical. Would you like to swim anywhere near the vicinity of the Gwinnett County lake sewer discharge? If Gwinnett County is convinced that the sewer effluent is so pure we suggest they direct the output of their wastewater treatment plant to the input of their drinking water treatment plants. This would eliminate the worry of millions of people who depend on Lake Lanier for their recreation, quality of life and economic well-being.

Even if in normal operation the wastewater could be treated to the quality professed by Gwinnett County, might not equipment failure, human error or human frailty allow damaging wastewater to reach Lake Lanier? We are ripe with examples of damaging wastewater reaching our lakes and river systems today.

We all know the story of the crud the City of Atlanta is dumping into the Chattahoochee River, and how EPD seems to be powerless to stop it. EPD has levied fines on Atlanta, but apparently the City of Atlanta finds it more cost effective to pay the fines than to improve the sewer system.

Last year a private wastewater treatment plant discharging into Lake Lanier was found to be discharging high bacteria effluent water into the lake. That discovery was made by the LLA rather than by sewer plant personal or the EPD. As a consequence of the LLA discovery there was an EPD visit to the plant that resulted in a $5,000 fine and a consent order to correct problems. EPD tells us that they do not have the staff to frequently visit these sewer plants to determine if they are in compliance with their permit, so EPD relies on reports issued by the plant operators.

In a January 10, 1999 newspaper article there was a report that the City of Augusta had a one million gallon raw sewage spill into the Savannah River on December 1, 1998. The EPD has determined there are "significant compliance problems" and "major deficiencies" throughout the system. The state ordered the city to take steps to correct deficiencies ranging from malfunctioning equipment to illegal dumping of sewage sludge within plant boundaries. How long has the City of Augusta been operating a substandard wastewater treatment facility? Doesn't this pose an immediate health risk? How long will it take the City of Augusta to make the corrections? How many more illegal raw sewage and sewage sludge dumpings will there be before the corrections are made? Even after the sewer plant is up to par there still is the risk of some error or malfunction releasing more raw sewage into the Savannah River. This is just one more example of how a plant can operate differently than was promised when permitted.

If Gwinnett County is successful in getting an EPD permit to discharge huge amounts of sewer effluent into Lake Lanier others will follow. Assuming that growth will continue as the experts predict, one can envision a Lake Lanier completely surrounded by Metropolitan Atlanta. Subdivisions and commercial establishments as far as the eye can see and then some. How much treated wastewater could then be deposited in Lake Lanier? If Gwinnett would eventually discharge a portion of their wastewater, 90 MPG, into the lake it seems to me that others might have discharges totaling more than 200 MGD. What would Lake Lanier be like if several large wastewater treatment plants discharged a total of 300 to 400 MGD into the lake?

So, there we are. Lake Lanier is seriously threatened by the Tri-state water deliberations, continuing development on its watershed and increasing direct sewer discharges into the lake.

Why isn't protection of the Lake given more consideration today? First, there is a lot of money at stake. Some uses of the lake or its watershed have huge financial implications. Sometimes the financial gain from a use is not in concert with protecting Lake Lanier. Much of the development industry is driven by its short-term profits and that drive will frequently cause inadequate consideration of Lake Lanier. And, many in the development industry, knowing the financial implications for them, have obtained a position of significant influence with many of our elected officials.

Second, there are numerous counties and municipalities on the Lake Lanier watershed, and that makes it difficult to obtain common agreement on plans and actions to protect Lake Lanier. There certainly are legitimate differences of opinion, but there are also strong political considerations on the part of the elected officials. Actions to protect Lake Lanier are sometimes at odds with what is desired by others who have significant political influence.

Some suggest that voluntary cooperation among the different governments on the watershed should be able to properly protect Lake Lanier. But, there have been two past voluntary Lake Lanier Watershed organizations, the Lanier Watershed Regional Committee (LWRC) and the Lake Lanier Advisory Council (LLAC). Both of these organizations failed to produce meaningful Lake Lanier protection for the reasons expressed here. That experience with the lack of voluntary cooperative action should convince us that a voluntary organization will not produce meaningful results for Lake Lanier.

We believe there is a requirement for a Lake Lanier Georgia State Authority. We are convinced that the Georgia State Legislature should pass legislation to establish a Lake Lanier Authority. The Authority should have the responsibility, with appropriate input and assistance, to produce a Lake Lanier Watershed Protection Plan, and then it should have the authority to get the plan implemented through local governments.

We really do believe the quality of the lake will not survive unless something similar to our recommendation is accomplished. We ask that LLA members contact their Georgia State Legislators and urge the creation of a Lake Lanier Authority. We need an officially sanctioned and recognized authority looking out for Lake Lanier. The prosperity of our part of Georgia poses serious immediate threats to Lake Lanier and we know that our volunteer LLA cannot accomplish its goals for Lake Lanier without significant official action.