Georgia Water Coalition

Legislative Update:
‘Green Georgia Wins’ with amended SB 190!

On March 24, after a long day of heavy lobbying, both the proponents and opponents of SB 190 reached a compromise. The bill, which would have limited the stay following permit appeals to just 90 days, now allows that stay to be extended by the judge for another 60 days or by consent of the parties. Regardless of the number of days, the stay rule is now intact through the administrative hearing process plus another 10 days to give citizens time to petition to Superior court for an injunction if the case continues past the administrative process.

HB 53 ‘Water Resources; Interbasin and
Intrabasin Transfers’ pros:

1) Requires the regulation of interbasin transfers to be informed by scientific knowledge, to respect natural systems, and to protect the basins of origin and receipt;

2) EPD must meet a checklist of 22 factors in evaluating a proposal for an interbasin or intrabasin transfer (for example, stream ecology, cumulative impacts, climatic conditions, and whether the applicant has implemented conservation efforts;

3) Contains a parallel provision for transfers of ground water;

4) Prohibits all new interbasin transfers of water out of the Etowah River above Lake Allatoona, as of the effective date of the statute;

5) Once the statewide water plan is adopted any exemptions for the Metro District shall not be considered or adopted;

6) Extends the public notice of interbasin transfers from 7 days to 30 days prior to the allowance of a transfer;

HB 53 Cons:

1) Restricts interbasin and intrabasin transfers of water by county (interbasin transfers cannot travel more than two counties, and intrabasin transfers cannot travel more than four counties). This is better than nothing, but county restrictions are not well-tailored to natural systems, which do not follow political boundaries.

2) The Metro District is exempted from these distance restrictions, although as stated above this exemption is limited.

3) Although the statute provides a long checklist for EPD to use in evaluating interbasin transfer applications, they are only for consideration purposes and will be difficult to use to block an undesirable transfer.

HB 55 ‘River Basin Protection Act’ Pros:

HB 55 is set up somewhat differently from HB 53. HB 53 uses existing statutory framework to regulate interbasin transfers. HB 55 creates a separate act, known as the River Basin Protection Act.

1) It contains very strong policy language about natural river systems and safe yield, and the state's intent to approximate natural flow levels and minimize consumptive uses of water. It also does not refer to county lines, unlike HB 53;

2) It contains the same 22-part list of considerations for EPD to evaluate;

3) It sets up a separate permitting system for interbasin transfers of more than 100,000 gallons of water per day, which will make the transfers easier for the public to monitor; and

4) It forces the Board of Natural Resources to enact a permanent instream flow policy within three years.

HB 55 Cons:

1) Does not regulate intrabasin transfers (those transfers within the same basin);

2) Exempts the current Metro District plans (those approved in 2003), although any revisions to those plans will be subject to this law;

3) Does not contain the Etowah River prohibition in HB 53; and

4) Again, the 22-factor checklist is for consideration purposes only.