FORSYTH COUNTY WATER INTERESTS
(Forsyth County Republican Party presentation)
(Ron Seder 9/11/07) 

My wife, Elaine, and I live on Lake Lanier.  We live here in Georgia because Lake Lanier is here. 

Let me start by first giving some of my credentials for this talk. 

I have been involved in the preservation of Lake Lanier since 1988.  I am a past president of the Lake Lanier Association.  I served on the Governor’s Advisory Council for Tri-State Water Issues, I was a member of the lake Lanier Basin Advisory Council for the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, and I was a member of the legislatively created Lanier Watershed Governance Council.  I served four years as a Forsyth County Commissioner, and for two of those years I was the chairman of the County Commission. 

This evening I will cover an overview of the so called “water wars” that started in 1989 and now are continuing under a Minnesota judge in a Florida federal court.  I will then move into some Cumming and Forsyth County water interests. 

First, let’s consider the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system (ACF), of which Lake Lanier is a part. 

Lake Lanier is one of the reservoirs in the ACF River System.  The Chattahoochee and Chestatee rivers feed Lake Lanier.  The output of the Lake is at Buford Dam into the Chattahoochee River, which then runs across Georgia over to the Alabama border, and then flows through several other reservoirs along the Georgia/Alabama border. The Chattahoochee River joins the Flint River at the Florida border where it becomes the Apalachicola River, which discharges into the Gulf of Mexico. 

There are several reservoirs on the ACF river system with Lanier being the largest, containing about 60% of all the reservoir storage on the system.  So, Lake Lanier is the most important reservoir on the ACF river system. 

Of Course, Lake Lanier is very important to Forsyth County as a source drinking water and recreation. 

A growing Metropolitan Atlanta area, including Forsyth County, continues to increase its requirement for drinking water, and therefore for more withdrawals from Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochee River.  For example, Forsyth County has grown from about 44,000 people in 1990 to about 150,000 today. 

In 1989, at the urging of Georgia and the Atlanta Metropolitan Area, the U S Army Corps of Engineers (COE) proposed a reallocation of Lake Lanier waters to give more water to the Metropolitan Atlanta water supplies. 

Lake Lanier waters are used for flood control, water supplies, recreation, electric power generation, downstream navigation, irrigation, environmental support, power plant cooling etc.  Reallocating more of Lake Lanier waters to water supplies means reducing the availability of water for some other purposes, which causes people benefiting from those other purposes to be concerned. 

The 1989 proposed reallocation would have lowered Lake Lanier levels much below what had been historically experienced, and impact the river flows below Lake Lanier. 

Alabama and Florida objected to the reallocation and took legal action in an Alabama Federal Court. The Alabama suit also included concerns that Alabama had about the Alabama-Coosa-Talapoosa river system (ACT), of which Lake Allatoona is a part, but I will focus on the ACF river system here. 

From that court action came an initial agreement of the three states to learn more about the situation.  The three states and COE agreed to do a comprehensive study of the river systems, the COE agreed to delay its proposed reallocation of Lake Lanier waters, and the court agreed to hold the legal case in abeyance while the study was being conducted. 

The Comprehensive Study of the ACF and ACT was done to the tune of about $20 million. 

Subsequently the Three states, with the support of the U.S. Congress, agreed to reach an agreement concerning the allocation ACF waters.  That negotiation lasted several years, producing tentative agreements two times, which were later negated by Florida.  Finally, the states agreed to disagree and negotiations were disbanded. 

The case again became active in the Alabama federal court. 

Georgia sued the COE to get more water for its water supplies in the Atlanta federal court. 

In a Washington D.C. federal court the electric power generation interests sued the COE, charging that the COE was diverting too much water from power generation to satisfy water supply needs.  That case resulted in a court sanctioned agreement between the power generation interests and some of the water supply users to transfer some Lake Lanier water from power generation to water supplies.  But, this agreement was conditioned on the Alabama Court’s concurrence, which has not been given. 

The Alabama Court initiated closed-door discussions among the three states and with the help of a court appointed mediator.  Those discussions are still in process. 

Eventually all of the legal actions were put into a Florida federal court with a judge from Minnesota presiding. 

Future Lake Lanier levels and Metro Atlanta drinking water supplies are awaiting the outcome. 

Chances are that regardless of what the federal court decides the losing side will carry the issue to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

So, now we are waiting.  How long?  We do not know.  It may be many years before the issues are settled. 

But, in the meantime life goes on. Metro Atlanta continues to grow making water supplies and Lake Lanier recreation ever more important. 

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

Now, with this ACF information as a background let’s examine the Cumming and Forsyth County water supply situation. 

First, some history. 

Cumming originated the water supply in Forsyth County because of the concentration of population in and around the City of Cumming. 

In 1987 there was an agreement between the city and county, which did several things.    It determined the City and County water service areas (Cumming has much of the county outside the city limits in its water service area).  It allowed a county SPLOST tax split between the city and the county for investment in the City and County water supply systems, and the agreement described how future pricing of the water sold by the city to the county would be determined. 

The subsequent ACF Alabama federal court action in the early 1990’s severely limited any new water supply withdrawals from the ACF system, while allowing for moderate increases in existing water supply withdrawals. 

Water for both the Cumming and Forsyth County water systems came through the Cumming Lake Lanier withdrawal. 

During the early 1990s Forsyth County applied to the state EPD for its own Lake Lanier water withdrawal to become more self reliant and to save significant money by reducing its treated water purchases from other suppliers, Cumming being the principle supplier. 

The Georgia EPD denied the Forsyth County application.  Forsyth County disagreed with the application denial, hired the King and Spaulding law firm in Atlanta and took legal action against the EPD.  EPD relented before any court action took place and gave Forsyth County permission for the withdrawal. However, an agreement from the COE is also required, and that has not yet been obtained. 

During the mid 1990’s Cumming changed its pricing methodology from what it had used previously and demanded a huge price increase for the water it sold to Forsyth County.  The county objected, but eventually agreed with a large water price increase and automatic future price increases. 

The county has not yet secured its own withdrawal facility on Lake Lanier because of difficulties caused by the court ACF actions.  Instead the city and county agreed to expand the city withdrawal facility to furnish raw water to both the county and city water treatment systems.  The county also agreed to continue purchasing a minimum of about 5 MGD of treated water from the city until 2012. 

The continuing growth of Forsyth County has increased demands on the city and county water supply systems, which has caused the city and county to need an increase in its permitted Lake Lanier water withdrawals. 

There was a proposal in 2006 that the county and city go together and work with the state and the COE to increase the capacity of the common water withdrawal facility.  As part of the deal the city insisted that the county continue to buy 5 MGD of treated water from the city until 2022.  Purchasing that water from the city from 2012 and 2022 would cost the county $36 million more than if the county treated the raw water for itself. 

Obviously, because of the savings, it was desirable for the county to treat all of its own drinking water.  However, the city refused to work with the County for the common water withdrawal expansion unless the county purchased the water from the City. 

That is where it ended in 2006.  It is still the same today and we are now 1 and ½ years closer to 2012 when the city/county water contract expires. 

Time is running out.  Therefore, I believe the county should act now to secure its water supply future!  The longer the County waits the less time there will be to achieve an alternate solution before 2012.  If there is no action, eventually the necessary lead time for an alternate solution will run out leaving only the solution to agree with the city’s demands at that time, which undoubtedly will be very expensive for the county. 

I recommend that the county make a time limited formal written proposal to the city to work together to expand the common Lake Lanier withdrawal, each paying its proportional share for the expansion with no “tie-in” agreement of the county buying treated water from the city.  This would allow the county to realize the $36 million savings. 

I believe my recommended solution is fair to both the city and the county. 

But, if the city refuses in a timely manner to work for the common withdrawal expansion without a “tie-in” water sale agreement, I recommend the county appeal to the state, and if no favorable action materializes from that I recommend the county take legal action to get what the county rightfully deserves. 

There has been a continuing history of unfair agreements between the city and county that have been very expensive for the county.  It’s time for the Board of Commissioners to stand tall and produce city/county agreements that are fair to all county citizens.