Policies For Identifying And Reacting To Regional Areas Of Water Scarcity: Case Studies In Selected Eastern States

Transcription

1 Policies For Identifying And Reacting To Regional Areas Of Water Scarcity: Case Studies In Selected Eastern States Water Policy Working Paper # Prepared by Jennifer Adams and Ronald Cummings North Georgia Water Planning and Policy Center Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Georgia State University February, 2004 *The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support for this work provided by the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission ( GSU1001) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture ( ).

2 Policies For Identifying And Reacting To Regional Areas Of Water Scarcity: Case Studies In Selected Eastern States Executive Summary This study examines the process by which four states, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, designate local areas wherein surface and/or groundwater resources are under stress as special areas capacity use areas in North and South Carolina; water resource caution areas in Florida, and groundwater management areas in Virginia and the nature of management policies established in such designated areas designed to protect the sustainability of the resource system. Typical policies observed in special areas designated in these four states include such things as stringent requirements for the monitoring and reporting of water use, the preparation of water management plans, required consideration of alternative water supplies, required considerations related to water reuse, and aquifer storage and recovery systems. Hopefully the survey given in this study will be helpful to Georgia s legislators, as well as the general public, in their considerations of effective and efficient means by which its water resources are to be protected in future years. i. Policies For Identifying And Reacting To Regional Areas Of Water Scarcity:

3 Case Studies In Selected Eastern States I. Introduction It surely makes just common sense that, within any given state, when ground and/or surface water sources come under stress as a result of, as examples, excessive use and/or pollution or can be reasonably expected to come under stress, the state would wish to manage the resource differently. Just what differently might mean is a matter for in-depth study. But clearly scarce resources would reasonably be managed differently than those that are not scarce. While some Eastern States have been forced to deal with pollution-related interstate water issues for almost half a century, usually through mechanisms involving interstate compacts and commissions, stress on ground and/or surface water supplies arising from increasing scarcity, in turn arising from growing demands on water supplies from population and economic growth, is a relatively recent phenomenon. Following a tradition established decades ago in Western States, a number of Eastern States have adopted policies wherein an area with water supplies found to be under stress, or expected to come under stress within a ten-to-twenty year future time, is designated as some kind of a special area, and special planning and management practices are promulgated for the area. Georgia s experiences with regional areas with water supplies under stress are seen in the Flint River Basin (water scarcity) and in coastal areas of the state (overuse of the Floridan aquifer with associated intrusion of sea water). Thus far, Georgia s approach to dealing with regional water sources under stress has been somewhat ad hoc: a moratorium was placed on the issuance of new water use permits for a time during which sound science studies are to be -1-

4 completed which will hopefully clarify the nature of stress. Lacking legislative guidance in terms of setting out a process for identifying and reacting to conditions of stress, the moratorium process is one that was put together by the Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division (EPD). Stakeholder involvement in this process arose from public meetings held in the affected areas by the EPD and interactions between the Director of the EPD and interested legislators. It may be the case that Georgia s interests might be well served by its consideration of a more formal and well-defined process by which vulnerable water sources are given a special designation, and then treated differently, with a clearly defined role for stakeholder involvement in the designation process as well as in the post-designation development of management policies. It should be made clear that the adoption of such a process is not a substitute for a state-wide water basin planning process, a process that is presently under discussion in the state. Given that stress conditions within a water basin may differ from one watershed or groundwater formation to another, a designation process may well be an important part of the basin planning process. In any case, ongoing discussions of state-wide water planning may benefit from an understanding of how special areas facing stresses on water supplies are treated in a few of Georgia s sister states. The purpose of this study is to contribute to such an understanding. To this end, the designation process that has been adopted in four states Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia are described in sections II through V. Concluding remarks are offered in section VI. -2-

5 II. North Carolina s Designation Processes 1 In 1967, North Carolina adopted a Water Use Act that allows the state s Environmental Management Commission to...declare and delineate from time to time, and may modify, Capacity Use Areas (CUA s) of the State where it finds that the use of groundwater or surface water or both require coordination and limited regulation for the protection of the interest and 2 rights of residents or property owners of such areas or of the public interest. The Act defines a CUA as...one where the Commission finds that the aggregate uses of groundwater or surface water, or both, in or affecting said area (i) have developed or threatened to develop to a degree which requires coordination and regulation, or (ii) exceed or threaten to exceed, or otherwise 3 threaten or impair, the renewal or replenishment of such waters or any part of them. The declaration of an area as a CAU triggers a number of actions, including the regulation of water withdrawals by state-issued water use permits and the initiation of planning efforts designed to assure adequate water management in the affected area. The first (to our knowledge) application of the 1967 Act began in 1998 when new monitoring data indicated significant dewatering of aquifers in the state s central coastal plain area particularly in the Black Creek and Upper Cape Fear aquifers. While the 1967 Act would appear to allow the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to declare the area as a Capacity Use Area without consultation with stakeholders, the DWR held a workshop with 1 The following is taken from information given in North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Fact Sheet, available at Use/Central_Coastal_Plain/cc, 11/5/ Ibid at page 2. 3 Ibid. -3-

6 stakeholders in Greenville, N.C., in March 1998 for the purpose of reviewing monitoring data and discussing reasonable responses to the apparent mining of groundwater. The result was the declaration of 15 central coastal plain counties as a CUA, and the initiation of efforts to develop water supply plans for all affected communities in the Area. The end sought in these plans were to: carefully manage groundwater to use its sustainable yield; and to explore options for additional sources of water supply including (a) use of surface water; (b) use of aquifers 4 which are less stressed; (c) water conservation and reuse; and (d) aquifer storage and recovery 5 programs. A number of studies have since been commissioned to study these alternatives, along with methods for balancing surface and groundwater utilization through conjunctive use programs. 6 Interestingly, as a part of the rules established for the Central Coastal Plain CUA, a permitted water user may sell or transfer to others any portion of his permitted withdrawal; the original permittee must request a permit modification to reduce his permitted withdrawal and the proposed recipient of the transfer must apply for a new or amended withdrawal permit (which 7 must be approved by the state). However, discussions with DWR personnel reveal that as of December 3, 2003, no transfer under this provision had taken place, although one proposed 4 A high yielding aquifer, the Castle Hayne aquifer, was identified in the eastern portion of the affected area; the composition of the CUA was then proposed to be expanded in March, 1999, to allow use of water from the Castle Hayne aquifer. New, approved rules became effective August 1, 2002 (see Title 15A-Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Chapter 2, Subchapter 2E, Section.0100). 5 Aquifer storage and recovery programs typically involve the storing of water available during periods of heavy rainfall in aquifers via artificial recharge techniques, and then pumping the stored water for use during periods of drought. 6 See, as examples, WRRI, Univ. Of N.C., Project will examine costs of integrating surface and groundwater use in the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area, www2,bcsy,edy.ncsu/cil/wrri/annual/ 0203CCPCUA.html, 12/3/03; and USGS, Reduced Cost Strategies for Regional Integration of Surface and Groundwater Use, Project 2002NC2B, 2/29/04 (G.W. Characklis, PI). 7 Title 15A-Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Chapter 2, Subchapter 2E, Section.0502(o). -4-

7 transfer was, at that time, under consideration. The proposed transfer is a temporary transfer from Lenoir County to communities in neighboring counties for 5 years; financial arrangements related to this transfer, if indeed such arrangements exist, are unknown. Our information suggests that North Carolina s DWR may have serious concerns about the transfer provisions of the rules based on the perceived difficulty of managing such transfers in the case of ground water, and the potential for adverse localized effects and the high level of uncertainty that appears to surround any groundwater analysis. Given the DWR s substantial regulatory authority over such transfers, we are told that future trades, if any, will likely be very limited. 8 8 Based on communications between Ms. Kristin Rowles, GSU, and Mr. Nat Wilson, N.C. DWR, December 3,

8 9 III. Florida s Designation Process Under Florida s law, Chapter 62-40, F.A.C., Florida s Water Management Districts (WMD) are required to designate portions of their district as Water Resource Caution Areas (WRCA) for areas that have, or are expected to have within the next 20 years, a critical water supply problem. For any declared WRCA, plans must be developed that demonstrate how water shortages are to be managed. Such plans must consider the feasibility of reusing reclaimed water from domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Other alternatives considered by Florida s WMD s with WRCAs include: desalination; conservation and increased water use efficiency (particularly by agriculture and industry); water-saving household fixtures (primarily toilets and showers), xeroscaping, and aquifer storage and recovery. The WRCA designation subjects most new applications for water withdrawal permits to rigorous scrutiny to ensure that the proposed withdrawal will not result in unacceptable impacts on the resource. Permittees in a WRCA have increased water use reporting requirements, must implement water conservation measures and improve efficiency, and must perform an evaluation of the feasibility of providing water for reuse. 10 To date, of Florida s five WMDs, WRCA s have been designated in parts of the Northwest and Southwest Florida WMDs. The entire St. Johns River WMD and approximately 90% of the South Florida WMD have been designated as WRCAs. Only the Suwannee River WMD has no WRCA. Stakeholder involvement in the declaration of a WRCA in Florida is assured by the fact 9 Discussions in this section draw heavily from Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Water Resource Caution Areas, available at and Norwest Florida WMD, Water Supply Assessment, 11/13/ Ibid. -6-

9 that residents of a WMD are elected members of the WMD s governing board. -7-

10 IV. Virginia s Designation Process Based on Virginia s Groundwater Management Act of 1992, if groundwater levels in an area are declining or are expected to decline, and/or if available groundwater supply has been or may be overdrawn, the State s Water Control Board can...upon its own motion, or in its discretion, upon receipt of a petition by any county, city or town within the area in question initiate a groundwater management area proceeding. If the conditions above are found to exist, and the Board finds that public welfare, safety and health require that regulatory efforts be initiated, the Board is required to declare the area as a groundwater management area (GWMA) and to establish appropriate regulations designed to protect the groundwater resource. Provisions are explicitly made for stakeholder involvement in the establishment of such regulations by the requirement that Such regulations shall be promulgated in accordance with the agency s Public Participation Guidelines (9VAC et seq.) and the Administrative Process Act ( et seq. of the Code of Virginia). 13 Once an area has been declared to be a GWMA, any application for a new or expanded water use permit (permits are required for all uses in excess of 10,000 gpd) is subject to extraordinary scrutiny by the state. Among other things, the applicant must demonstrate that: the level of water use requested is reasonable, serves beneficial uses, and is the lowest quantity needed for the intended use; and that alternative sources of water, including reclaimed water, do not exist. The applicant must also provide an extensive water conservation and management 11 Virginia Administrative Code, 9VAC Or other conditions: wells of two or more users are interfering or the groundwater in the areas has been or may become polluted. 13 Virginia Administrative Code 9VAC (B). -8-

11 plan that includes such things as a water loss reduction program, an evaluation of potential water reuse options, and mandatory water use reductions during periods of water shortage emergencies. A wide range of conditions are imposed on all permits within a GWMA, including (as examples): the duty to mitigate all adverse impacts from the permittee s water use; allowing entry to permittee s property for inspections; and a duty to sample or monitor any substance, parameter or activity for the purpose of assuring compliance with the conditions of the permit or conditions otherwise authorized by law Ibid. at 9VAC

12 V. South Carolina s Designation Process South Carolina only recently enacted legislation that calls for the designation of an area as a capacity use area (CUA) in cases where...excessive groundwater withdrawal presents potential adverse effects to the natural resources or poses a threat to public health, safety, or economic welfare or where conditions pose a significant threat to the long-term integrity of a 15 groundwater source, including salt water intrusion. The designation process can be initiated by the Department of Natural Resources, local government authorities, other government agencies, or even groundwater users in the affected area. To assure the opportunity for stakeholder involvement in the process, a notice and public hearing must be designated by the DNR so that the public can offer comments regarding the designation process. Once an area is designated as a CUA, the DNR is charged with coordinating the development of a groundwater management plan for the area by affected governing bodies and 16 groundwater withdrawers. In instances where these entities are unable to develop a plan, the DNR is charged with its development. It would appear that South Carolina has yet to designate a CUA we could find no reference to a CUA designation in the DNR s home web page. Thus, other than the legislative 17 requirement that state-approved permits be required for groundwater use in a CUA, and principles set out in the statewide groundwater management plan, we have no information as to special conditions and/or requirements that will be imposed on permits with a CUA designation. 15 S.C. Code Ann (A) (2002). 16 Ibid., at (B). 17 Ibid., at (C). The law simply states that The department shall issue groundwater withdrawal permits in accordance with the approved plan. -10-

13 VI. Concluding Remarks The designation of special areas capacity use areas; water resource caution areas, and/or groundwater management areas used in Georgia s sister states appear to represent effective means for dealing with local areas wherein water resources are under stress, or equally important, are expected to come under stress. The principle underlying these designation processes is straightforward: special problems require special efforts to assure that the sustainability of the state s resources is preserved. The careful monitoring of a resource system, as well as the enforcement of conditions imposed on resource use, can be very costly. The designation process assures that such costs are incurred only in areas where they are required to protect a resource system. Hopefully the survey given above will be helpful to Georgia s legislators, as well as the general public, in their considerations of effective and efficient means by which its water resources are to be protected in future years. -11-