Written 6/5/2007
Why We Don't Need Staggered Terms
Oconee County voters who turn out to vote on June 19 for the 10th Congressional race may be surprised to find another issue on the ballot.
Voters also will be asked if they want to stagger the terms of the members of the Board of Commissioners, instead of choosing all five members of the Board at the same time, as is now the case. In a given election year, two or three members of the Board would be up for election; two years later, the remainder would be elected.
The goal of the initiative is to keep voters from turning out all five members of the Board at any election.
Proponents are seeking consistency and predictability in Board decision-making.
Opponents aren’t afraid of change. They trust the voters.
The issue is on the ballot because the current Board said it was afraid of big changes. The resolution calling for staggered terms passed unanimously by the Board on October 4, 2005, said a “lack of continuity and loss of institutional knowledge would cause harm detrimental to the citizens of Oconee County.”
Oconee County Commissioners have talked about moving to staggered terms since at least 2001.
The Board finally decided to initiate the change after Jim Luke defeated incumbent Johnny Pritchett and Chuck Horton defeated incumbent Bubber Wilkes in the primary in 2004 and two other incumbents, Don Norris and Margaret Hale, were forced into a runoff. Hale and Norris survived the runoff (Norris by only 129 votes), but for the three weeks between the July 20 primary and the August 10 runoff, it appeared that Chairman Melvin Davis could be facing four new Commissioners.
Oconee County has a very strong Chairman system, and the four members of the Commission are the only real week-to-week check on the Chairman’s activities.
Davis has been particularly strong in arguing for staggered terms. He was quoted in the Athens Banner-Herald just before the Board voted in 2005 saying “One advantage of having staggered terms is that it provides continuity and experience on the Board.”
Had voters tossed out Norris and Hale, as they nearly did, they would have sent a strong signal that they didn’t want that kind of continuity and were seeking a different kind of expertise.
Expertise is of many sorts, of course, and one of them is expertise in how the system operates. If citizens toss out all the Commissioners, they are saying they want things done differently. They want “outsiders,” rather than “insiders,” making the decisions.
Commissioners get training in the basics of governance from the Carl Vinson Institute of Government, the Association County Commissioners of Georgia and other sources once they are elected. They learn how things are done locally from the other Commissioners and from the County’s department heads.
Chairman Davis likes to point out that a majority of Georgia’s counties have staggered terms. He’s right. Of the 150 counties with more than one member on the board, 108 have staggered terms, according to statistics compiled by the Association County Commissioners of Georgia for 2006.
All that says is that other Boards of Commissioners also don’t trust the citizens who elect them.
Davis doesn’t like to mention that an even larger majority of those counties (128 of 150) elect board members by districts. “We will not have districts,” Davis was quoted as saying in The Oconee Enterprise in September 22, 2005.
Davis and the Board did not hold a public hearing to ask voters how they felt about districts or staggered terms. They simply asked local state Rep. Bob Smith and then Sen. Brian Kemp to introduce legislation setting up staggered terms.
The legislation that was drafted in 2006 didn’t include the post of Chairman, for some reason, and it was never passed. Rep. Smith and current Sen. Bill Cowsert started over again this year.
Neither Smith, nor Kemp, nor Cowsert sought input from citizens.
The bill introduced in the state House of Representatives by Smith put the issue on the ballot in November of this year and is to take effect January 1, 2008. Cowsert moved the election date to June 19 in the Senate. That bill passed on April 10 and was signed by Governor Sonny Perdue on April 19.
The Commission Posts held by Hale and Norris would be filled for two years in the 2008 elections, according to the legislation; the Chairman and the Commission Posts held by Horton and Luke would be filled for four years.
A special election for the staggered term vote in November probably would have had low turnout, since only those favoring or opposing staggered terms would make the effort to vote. That could have led to its defeat.
The June 19 Congressional election is drawing a lot of attention, particularly among Republicans. Ten candidates--six Republicans, one Libertarian and three Democrats--are seeking the seat that was held by deceased Republican Congressman Charlie Norwood.
When the Oconee County Board of Education put a similar staggered term vote on the ballot in November of 2006, it was approved by 90 percent of the voters. It was tucked in with 11 other amendments and referenda at the end of the busy ballot.
Both Cowsert and County Attorney Dan Haygood said the switch to the June 19 ballot was made to save money.
Both the Banner-Herald and the Enterprise last wrote about staggered terms when they reported that the governor had signed the bill. Both noted that the U.S. Justice Department still needed to review the legislation to make sure it did not violate the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
According to County Attorney Haygood, the County still has not heard from the Justice Department.
The County ran legal notices in the Enterprise on May 10 and 17 announcing the election. The sample ballot on the County web site includes the question on staggered terms.
Haygood said if the Department of Justice does not approve the legislation in time for the June 19 election–he said he expects to hear two or three days before that–the vote on staggered terms on June 19 will be “void.” The County then will hold the election in November, as originally planned.
People who come out to vote in the hotly contested Congressional race may well pull the lever for what seems to be an innocuous change in the voting for members of the Board of Commissioners.
But a vote in favor of staggered terms weakens the hands of citizens by making it impossible to bring about big changes all at once.
It is a right we should retain.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Monday, April 02, 2007
Written on 4/2/07
EPD Grants Permit for Discharge into Barber Creek
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division has granted a permit to Oconee County to begin discharging 1 million gallons per day of treated wastewater into Barber Creek.
As expected, the EPD made its decision on narrow technical grounds. Now the Oconee County Board of Commissioners must decide whether to build the Rocky Branch sewage plant for which the permit was issued.
The Commissioners can make a decision to address some of the key concerns citizens voiced about the plant. The Commissioners can decide to treat the water to a higher standard so that people can come into skin contact with it without danger. They also can agree to restrict the discharge into Barber Creek to times when it will not contribute to flooding.
It is pretty clear that the concerns raised by citizens did have impact on the EPD. First, it agreed to hold a hearing on December 12, 2006, after more then 60 of us requested that it do so.
Second, it announced its decision on March 30, or three and a half months after the hearing. County officials indicated they expected to get the permit four to six weeks after the hearing.
Third, the EPD stipulated that the County must discharge the treated wastewater directly into Barber Creek, which is about a mile from the plant site, rather into the small, unnamed tributary that flows along the back of the property line of the plant site.
In an email message to me on September 6, 2006, Assistant Utility Department Director Chris Thomas said: “The discharge will be into the feeder creek.” He copied the memo to Director Gary Dodd.
The EPD did not address one of the objections the Friends of Barber Creek raised about the application procedure. We provided the EPD with the advertisements the County used for its public hearing back in March of 2006. The County did not even identify the receiving stream (Barber Creek) for the treated sewage water discharge.
In addition, the EPD did not fully address the issue of the fecal coliform standard. The EPD said Barber Creek is not listed as an impaired stream by the state. But the data the County itself presented at the hearing, as well as data collected by others, indicate the stream has violated state standards for fecal coliform on more than one occasion in the past.
We also asked the EPD to conduct independent sampling of Barber Creek below the plant at least once every three months. “Due to resource constraints, the frequency of these sampling events cannot be as frequent as once every three months,” the EPD said in the documentation it provided explaining it decision. In other words, the EPD doesn’t have the resources to do its job.
The document justifying the decision also had some interesting observations about the difference between drinking water and the water that will come out of the treatment plant.
It confirmed that those who use the treated sewage water must post signs and use other means to inform the public that the water is coming from a sewage plant and that one should not drink the water or come into contact with it.
It also said that treating the water to “drinking water quality” would not be a good thing to do because drinking water contains chlorine and would be “toxic to small aquatic organisms in the creek.”
At the hearing on December 12, EPD officials acknowledged, however, that Gwinnett County is treating its sewage plant effluent to a standard that is higher than what Oconee County is being required to do because that Gwinnett water is going into Lake Lanier, where people swim and from which drinking water is drawn.
Oconee County could be required–or could agree on its own–to meet that standard.
I’ll be talking with legal advisers about whether we can force the EPD to reconsider its decision.
In the meantime, the spotlight is on the Board of Commissioners. We’ll need to do everything we can to keep it there.
EPD Grants Permit for Discharge into Barber Creek
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division has granted a permit to Oconee County to begin discharging 1 million gallons per day of treated wastewater into Barber Creek.
As expected, the EPD made its decision on narrow technical grounds. Now the Oconee County Board of Commissioners must decide whether to build the Rocky Branch sewage plant for which the permit was issued.
The Commissioners can make a decision to address some of the key concerns citizens voiced about the plant. The Commissioners can decide to treat the water to a higher standard so that people can come into skin contact with it without danger. They also can agree to restrict the discharge into Barber Creek to times when it will not contribute to flooding.
It is pretty clear that the concerns raised by citizens did have impact on the EPD. First, it agreed to hold a hearing on December 12, 2006, after more then 60 of us requested that it do so.
Second, it announced its decision on March 30, or three and a half months after the hearing. County officials indicated they expected to get the permit four to six weeks after the hearing.
Third, the EPD stipulated that the County must discharge the treated wastewater directly into Barber Creek, which is about a mile from the plant site, rather into the small, unnamed tributary that flows along the back of the property line of the plant site.
In an email message to me on September 6, 2006, Assistant Utility Department Director Chris Thomas said: “The discharge will be into the feeder creek.” He copied the memo to Director Gary Dodd.
The EPD did not address one of the objections the Friends of Barber Creek raised about the application procedure. We provided the EPD with the advertisements the County used for its public hearing back in March of 2006. The County did not even identify the receiving stream (Barber Creek) for the treated sewage water discharge.
In addition, the EPD did not fully address the issue of the fecal coliform standard. The EPD said Barber Creek is not listed as an impaired stream by the state. But the data the County itself presented at the hearing, as well as data collected by others, indicate the stream has violated state standards for fecal coliform on more than one occasion in the past.
We also asked the EPD to conduct independent sampling of Barber Creek below the plant at least once every three months. “Due to resource constraints, the frequency of these sampling events cannot be as frequent as once every three months,” the EPD said in the documentation it provided explaining it decision. In other words, the EPD doesn’t have the resources to do its job.
The document justifying the decision also had some interesting observations about the difference between drinking water and the water that will come out of the treatment plant.
It confirmed that those who use the treated sewage water must post signs and use other means to inform the public that the water is coming from a sewage plant and that one should not drink the water or come into contact with it.
It also said that treating the water to “drinking water quality” would not be a good thing to do because drinking water contains chlorine and would be “toxic to small aquatic organisms in the creek.”
At the hearing on December 12, EPD officials acknowledged, however, that Gwinnett County is treating its sewage plant effluent to a standard that is higher than what Oconee County is being required to do because that Gwinnett water is going into Lake Lanier, where people swim and from which drinking water is drawn.
Oconee County could be required–or could agree on its own–to meet that standard.
I’ll be talking with legal advisers about whether we can force the EPD to reconsider its decision.
In the meantime, the spotlight is on the Board of Commissioners. We’ll need to do everything we can to keep it there.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Written on 3/21/07
A Wild Guess and a Bet
A positive outcome of the Board of Commissioners 3-2 vote on March 6 to join Walton County in the Hard Labor Creek reservoir project is that Chairman Melvin Davis was forced to vote.
Davis does not like voting, which he only does in the case of a tie. When Commissioners Chuck Horton and Margaret Hale voted in two different motions against joining with Walton County in the $350 million project, Davis voted with Don Norris and Jim Luke to create the majority.
So Davis, Luke and Norris now will have to defend this decision going in to the 2008 elections.
Davis had been pushing hard for the BOC to select one of two massive reservoir projects, and the only reason for any decision at this time was the desire on the part of those behind the Walton County project to get Oconee County on board.
Davis said the County needed to act because it was running out of water, but that claim is based on estimates of growth in water demand that are tied to what are almost certainly overestimates of population growth.
The County estimated that Oconee’s population will grow by 30.6% from 2005 to 2010 and again by that same percentage from 2010 to 2015. This is a high-end estimate that ignores the more modest growth rate of 13.4% that the Census Bureau has used to project the County’s 2005 population based on the actual count in the 2000 Census.
If the 30.6% growth rate is used, the County would have 67,065 residents in 2015. If the more modest–and realistic–growth rate of 13.4% is used, the County would have 38,275 residents in 2015. The County was estimated to have a population of 29,748 in 2005.
The County estimated water demand by multiplying the current usage figures by the 30.6% growth rate figure. Estimates of the County’s ability to pay for the new reservoir are based on selling that much water. This means the County either needs to find customers for the water or to find some other source of revenue–such as taxes–to pay for the reservoir project.
A second positive outcome of the BOC meeting on March 6 was a unanimous vote to deny a rezone request for a gas station and convenience store on US441 in southern Oconee County. One reason this project made no sense was that the County doesn’t run water lines into the southern part of the County.
As significant as the rezone denial was, it almost certainly will be rendered meaningless in the long run because of the vote on Hard Labor Creek. The County almost certainly is going to have to run water lines down US441 to encourage development and pay for the Hard Labor Creek decision.
In the weeks before the Hard Labor Creek vote, Davis and Luke argued that the County needed to build a big reservoir even if the population growth rates were inflated because of expected commercial and industrial demand. No effort was ever made to estimate that demand, however, though it certainly is possible to do that.
On February 25, 2007, I sent an e-mail message to Davis asking him for information that could be used to make such a projection. Specifically, I asked for the following:
1. Audited figures for the number of water customers of the Oconee County Water Department since its creation, broken down by category of residential, industrial and commercial user.
2. Audited figures for actual water usage by customers of the Oconee County Water Department since its creation, broken down by category of residential, industrial and commercial user.
3. Water rates for residential, industrial and commercial customers of the Oconee County Water Department for each year since creation of the department.
4. Sources of water sold by the Oconee County Utility Department since its creation, broken down by year.
5. A map of the service area for water of the Oconee County Utility Department and the proposed service areas as far into the future as such projections exist. If possible, please provide this map as an overlay of the 10 census blocks in the County.
On February 27, Davis sent me the following note:
"Your request is very detailed and frankly, I do not think we can provide that detail without significant research. We are required to keep records for a certain period of time by EPD. Audits are financial audits including revenues and expenditures, etc."
The grammar is his, as is what I take to be an acknowledgment that the County has never made projections based on anything other than population projections.
I’ve never heard more from Davis on the topic.
Among the data that were not used by the County are those on the web site of the Oconee County Planning Department. The Planning Department shows population trends and projections for each of the 10 Census blocks. The Census Bureau projects growth from 2005 to 2010 of 10.0% for the County, rather than 13.43% growth rate from 2000 to 2005. In other words, even before the current slowdown in the housing market, the Census Bureau was projecting a slowdown in County population growth.
Davis did find the time on March 5 to send a two-page, rambling response to a one paragraph note from County resident Luke Naeher written on February 26. In that message, Davis said:
"I believe our water need estimate is accurate. The RDC (Regional Development Center with the Department of Community Affairs) assists the Oconee region (12 counties) with regional planning. One of their responsibilities is to prepare population projections for planning purposes. For Oconee County long range planning purposes, we have consistently used the high population projections. (We prefer to err on the side of excess rather than on the side of shortfall). Remember, the population projections that are used to plan for future water needs do not include commercial, retail, industrial, institutional, office or school use."
As I read this, Davis is saying "we made a wild guess."
Unfortunately, Davis, Norris and Luke also made a "bet" based on that "guess." And they used taxpayer money to make the bet.
This is a decision that Davis, Norris and Luke deserve to be asked to defend come election time.
A Wild Guess and a Bet
A positive outcome of the Board of Commissioners 3-2 vote on March 6 to join Walton County in the Hard Labor Creek reservoir project is that Chairman Melvin Davis was forced to vote.
Davis does not like voting, which he only does in the case of a tie. When Commissioners Chuck Horton and Margaret Hale voted in two different motions against joining with Walton County in the $350 million project, Davis voted with Don Norris and Jim Luke to create the majority.
So Davis, Luke and Norris now will have to defend this decision going in to the 2008 elections.
Davis had been pushing hard for the BOC to select one of two massive reservoir projects, and the only reason for any decision at this time was the desire on the part of those behind the Walton County project to get Oconee County on board.
Davis said the County needed to act because it was running out of water, but that claim is based on estimates of growth in water demand that are tied to what are almost certainly overestimates of population growth.
The County estimated that Oconee’s population will grow by 30.6% from 2005 to 2010 and again by that same percentage from 2010 to 2015. This is a high-end estimate that ignores the more modest growth rate of 13.4% that the Census Bureau has used to project the County’s 2005 population based on the actual count in the 2000 Census.
If the 30.6% growth rate is used, the County would have 67,065 residents in 2015. If the more modest–and realistic–growth rate of 13.4% is used, the County would have 38,275 residents in 2015. The County was estimated to have a population of 29,748 in 2005.
The County estimated water demand by multiplying the current usage figures by the 30.6% growth rate figure. Estimates of the County’s ability to pay for the new reservoir are based on selling that much water. This means the County either needs to find customers for the water or to find some other source of revenue–such as taxes–to pay for the reservoir project.
A second positive outcome of the BOC meeting on March 6 was a unanimous vote to deny a rezone request for a gas station and convenience store on US441 in southern Oconee County. One reason this project made no sense was that the County doesn’t run water lines into the southern part of the County.
As significant as the rezone denial was, it almost certainly will be rendered meaningless in the long run because of the vote on Hard Labor Creek. The County almost certainly is going to have to run water lines down US441 to encourage development and pay for the Hard Labor Creek decision.
In the weeks before the Hard Labor Creek vote, Davis and Luke argued that the County needed to build a big reservoir even if the population growth rates were inflated because of expected commercial and industrial demand. No effort was ever made to estimate that demand, however, though it certainly is possible to do that.
On February 25, 2007, I sent an e-mail message to Davis asking him for information that could be used to make such a projection. Specifically, I asked for the following:
1. Audited figures for the number of water customers of the Oconee County Water Department since its creation, broken down by category of residential, industrial and commercial user.
2. Audited figures for actual water usage by customers of the Oconee County Water Department since its creation, broken down by category of residential, industrial and commercial user.
3. Water rates for residential, industrial and commercial customers of the Oconee County Water Department for each year since creation of the department.
4. Sources of water sold by the Oconee County Utility Department since its creation, broken down by year.
5. A map of the service area for water of the Oconee County Utility Department and the proposed service areas as far into the future as such projections exist. If possible, please provide this map as an overlay of the 10 census blocks in the County.
On February 27, Davis sent me the following note:
"Your request is very detailed and frankly, I do not think we can provide that detail without significant research. We are required to keep records for a certain period of time by EPD. Audits are financial audits including revenues and expenditures, etc."
The grammar is his, as is what I take to be an acknowledgment that the County has never made projections based on anything other than population projections.
I’ve never heard more from Davis on the topic.
Among the data that were not used by the County are those on the web site of the Oconee County Planning Department. The Planning Department shows population trends and projections for each of the 10 Census blocks. The Census Bureau projects growth from 2005 to 2010 of 10.0% for the County, rather than 13.43% growth rate from 2000 to 2005. In other words, even before the current slowdown in the housing market, the Census Bureau was projecting a slowdown in County population growth.
Davis did find the time on March 5 to send a two-page, rambling response to a one paragraph note from County resident Luke Naeher written on February 26. In that message, Davis said:
"I believe our water need estimate is accurate. The RDC (Regional Development Center with the Department of Community Affairs) assists the Oconee region (12 counties) with regional planning. One of their responsibilities is to prepare population projections for planning purposes. For Oconee County long range planning purposes, we have consistently used the high population projections. (We prefer to err on the side of excess rather than on the side of shortfall). Remember, the population projections that are used to plan for future water needs do not include commercial, retail, industrial, institutional, office or school use."
As I read this, Davis is saying "we made a wild guess."
Unfortunately, Davis, Norris and Luke also made a "bet" based on that "guess." And they used taxpayer money to make the bet.
This is a decision that Davis, Norris and Luke deserve to be asked to defend come election time.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Written 2/22/2007
Commissioners Given Options for Future Water Needs
The Oconee County Board of Commissions received three alternative proposals at its meeting Tuesday night to the two $100 million reservoir projects already under review.
I also presented to the commissioners my analysis of water demand, which shows that the County’s estimates almost certainly significantly overestimate water demand.
About 70 people attended the meeting at the courthouse, which lasted about 90 minutes and ended without any decision by the Board.
Ken McMichael, a member of the Jasper County Water and Sewer Authority, invited the Commissioners to partner with his county in a project on the South River. Jasper County is southeast of Atlanta.
Oconee County resident John Washington, an expert on subsurface water, recommended that the County consider drilling additional wells to tap available water.
Trey Thompson, another Oconee County resident, briefed the Commissioners on a proposed reservoir on Jack’s Creek in Walton County. Jack’s Creek flows to the Apalachee near southern part of Oconee County.
All three of these alternative sources would provide Oconee County with water at a much cheaper rate than either of the two reservoirs the County is considering, according to the presenters.
The consultant Oconee County hired to review water options, Jordan Jones & Goulding, recommended the County either build a reservoir in the County on Barnett Shoals road or join with Walter County in a reservoir project on Hard Labor Creek. Both projects would cost more than $100 million in 2007 dollars.
Three of those who spoke on Tuesday night, including Oconee County Chamber of Commerce President Charles Grimes, applauded the Commissioners for seeking additional water to accommodate future growth of the County. None recommended a specific project.
No one who spoke at the meeting criticized the County for being concerned about future water needs. Critics challenged the idea that the decision had to be made urgently.
Oconee County Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis said at an earlier hearing on water on January 17 that the County needed to make a decision quickly because Walton County wanted an answer to its request that Oconee partner with it.
The Walton project has been plagued by controversy. McMichael referred to it as a "real estate project" rather than a water reservoir on Tuesday night. Thompson provided the Commissioners with a letter from retired president and founder of Jordan Jones & Goulding, Charles Jones, criticizing the reservoir.
Thompson also gave the Commissioners letters from the city manager of Social Circle and the city manager of Loganville raising questions about the cost of water from the Walton reservoir and expressing interest in a Jack’s Creek option. Both cities are in Walton County.
I summarized for the Commissioners my analysis of population growth, which shows that the County’s estimates of growth are more than likely high by about 29,000 persons. Oconee County had only 29,748 persons living here in 2005, according to the Census Bureau estimates.
My analysis is in my posting below of 2/18/2007.
At the meeting on Tuesday night night, Commissioner Jim Luke asked me if my projections took into consideration that most of the people moving to the County would be using County water.
In fact, my projections assume everyone moving to the County would be using County water. I do not believe that is a correct assumption, since the County has said not all parts of the County will have water service in the near future. But it is the assumption the County has made in its projections, and I followed that lead.
In justifying its argument that there is urgency, the County used population projections for growth in each of the next five year periods (2005 to 2010, 2010 to 2015, and 2015 to 2020) at 30.65%. My argument is that a much more reasonable estimate is 13.43%, which reflects estimated growth over the last five years.
The 30.65% rate would mean that the population of the County would be 67,065 in 2015, or more than double what it was in 2005.
I then used the more reasonable growth rate of 13.43% and multiplied it by the current water use of 2.7 million gallons per day. From that, I reach an estimate of needed water at 3.1 MGD in 2010, 3.5 MGD in 2015, and 4.0 MGD in 2020.
This was exactly the same procedure used in creating the Water Supply/Demand Projections by the County. The County started with 2.7 MGD of water being used currently and use the growth rate of 30.65% to get its estimates, namely 3.5 MGD in 2010, 4.6 MGD in 2015, and 6.0 MGD in 2020.
So my assumption, which I think even exaggerates use, was exactly the same as the one the County used.
Commissioner Luke next asked me if I took into consideration industrial use. My answer is that the County will have 6 MGD of water starting in 2014 or 2015, and in 2020 the County will have a demand for only 4 MGD.
If we add in the 1 MGD from the Rocky Branch sewage plant, which the County says will be in the system (as reuse water to replace lawn watering), the County actually will have 7 MGD of water.
The largest likely industrial user would be one at the Orkin tract at SR 316 and US 78. Utility Department Director Gary Dodd said on Tuesday night that had the pharmaceutical firm Novartis located its plant at the site, as the County had hoped it would, at the end of its fifth and final stage of projected growth, it would have needed 1 MGD. It would have needed only 200,000 gallons per day at start-up.
Mr. Luke also asked me if I took into consideration growth rates for water usage. Mr. Dodd is quoted in The Oconee Leader issue of February 15, 2007, as saying the County is experiencing growth rates of 6-7 percent per year in water usage.
The County’s consultants apparently did not believe this figure, for they did not use it in their projections.
Commissioner Luke told me after the meeting that he also believed the County’s population estimates were exaggerated. He said his concern was with industrial and commercial growth.
The population estimates are important, however, as they are the basis for projections on how the County will pay off the debt for whatever project it selects.
According to stories in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Athens Banner-Herald on July 19, 2006, when the state announced Novartis was not coming to the Orkin tract, the state and local governments had offered $61 million in incentives to the firm to get it to locate here.
Of that amount, $20 million was for local tax breaks. Oconee and Clarke counties also offered incentives in terms of water, sewage and roads.
Russ Page, a local farmer who has worked to protect farmland in the County, reminded the Commissioners on Tuesday night that a growing population not only needs more water. It needs more of almost every kind of service, including roads, sewers and schools.
If the County decides to spend more than $100 million on a reservoir, it is only the beginning, because the only way to pay for the project is to make sure the County grows enough to keep up with the projections that were used to justify it.
That, in turn, will require more spending on roads, sewers, schools, and other services. The list goes on.
Commissioners Given Options for Future Water Needs
The Oconee County Board of Commissions received three alternative proposals at its meeting Tuesday night to the two $100 million reservoir projects already under review.
I also presented to the commissioners my analysis of water demand, which shows that the County’s estimates almost certainly significantly overestimate water demand.
About 70 people attended the meeting at the courthouse, which lasted about 90 minutes and ended without any decision by the Board.
Ken McMichael, a member of the Jasper County Water and Sewer Authority, invited the Commissioners to partner with his county in a project on the South River. Jasper County is southeast of Atlanta.
Oconee County resident John Washington, an expert on subsurface water, recommended that the County consider drilling additional wells to tap available water.
Trey Thompson, another Oconee County resident, briefed the Commissioners on a proposed reservoir on Jack’s Creek in Walton County. Jack’s Creek flows to the Apalachee near southern part of Oconee County.
All three of these alternative sources would provide Oconee County with water at a much cheaper rate than either of the two reservoirs the County is considering, according to the presenters.
The consultant Oconee County hired to review water options, Jordan Jones & Goulding, recommended the County either build a reservoir in the County on Barnett Shoals road or join with Walter County in a reservoir project on Hard Labor Creek. Both projects would cost more than $100 million in 2007 dollars.
Three of those who spoke on Tuesday night, including Oconee County Chamber of Commerce President Charles Grimes, applauded the Commissioners for seeking additional water to accommodate future growth of the County. None recommended a specific project.
No one who spoke at the meeting criticized the County for being concerned about future water needs. Critics challenged the idea that the decision had to be made urgently.
Oconee County Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis said at an earlier hearing on water on January 17 that the County needed to make a decision quickly because Walton County wanted an answer to its request that Oconee partner with it.
The Walton project has been plagued by controversy. McMichael referred to it as a "real estate project" rather than a water reservoir on Tuesday night. Thompson provided the Commissioners with a letter from retired president and founder of Jordan Jones & Goulding, Charles Jones, criticizing the reservoir.
Thompson also gave the Commissioners letters from the city manager of Social Circle and the city manager of Loganville raising questions about the cost of water from the Walton reservoir and expressing interest in a Jack’s Creek option. Both cities are in Walton County.
I summarized for the Commissioners my analysis of population growth, which shows that the County’s estimates of growth are more than likely high by about 29,000 persons. Oconee County had only 29,748 persons living here in 2005, according to the Census Bureau estimates.
My analysis is in my posting below of 2/18/2007.
At the meeting on Tuesday night night, Commissioner Jim Luke asked me if my projections took into consideration that most of the people moving to the County would be using County water.
In fact, my projections assume everyone moving to the County would be using County water. I do not believe that is a correct assumption, since the County has said not all parts of the County will have water service in the near future. But it is the assumption the County has made in its projections, and I followed that lead.
In justifying its argument that there is urgency, the County used population projections for growth in each of the next five year periods (2005 to 2010, 2010 to 2015, and 2015 to 2020) at 30.65%. My argument is that a much more reasonable estimate is 13.43%, which reflects estimated growth over the last five years.
The 30.65% rate would mean that the population of the County would be 67,065 in 2015, or more than double what it was in 2005.
I then used the more reasonable growth rate of 13.43% and multiplied it by the current water use of 2.7 million gallons per day. From that, I reach an estimate of needed water at 3.1 MGD in 2010, 3.5 MGD in 2015, and 4.0 MGD in 2020.
This was exactly the same procedure used in creating the Water Supply/Demand Projections by the County. The County started with 2.7 MGD of water being used currently and use the growth rate of 30.65% to get its estimates, namely 3.5 MGD in 2010, 4.6 MGD in 2015, and 6.0 MGD in 2020.
So my assumption, which I think even exaggerates use, was exactly the same as the one the County used.
Commissioner Luke next asked me if I took into consideration industrial use. My answer is that the County will have 6 MGD of water starting in 2014 or 2015, and in 2020 the County will have a demand for only 4 MGD.
If we add in the 1 MGD from the Rocky Branch sewage plant, which the County says will be in the system (as reuse water to replace lawn watering), the County actually will have 7 MGD of water.
The largest likely industrial user would be one at the Orkin tract at SR 316 and US 78. Utility Department Director Gary Dodd said on Tuesday night that had the pharmaceutical firm Novartis located its plant at the site, as the County had hoped it would, at the end of its fifth and final stage of projected growth, it would have needed 1 MGD. It would have needed only 200,000 gallons per day at start-up.
Mr. Luke also asked me if I took into consideration growth rates for water usage. Mr. Dodd is quoted in The Oconee Leader issue of February 15, 2007, as saying the County is experiencing growth rates of 6-7 percent per year in water usage.
The County’s consultants apparently did not believe this figure, for they did not use it in their projections.
Commissioner Luke told me after the meeting that he also believed the County’s population estimates were exaggerated. He said his concern was with industrial and commercial growth.
The population estimates are important, however, as they are the basis for projections on how the County will pay off the debt for whatever project it selects.
According to stories in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Athens Banner-Herald on July 19, 2006, when the state announced Novartis was not coming to the Orkin tract, the state and local governments had offered $61 million in incentives to the firm to get it to locate here.
Of that amount, $20 million was for local tax breaks. Oconee and Clarke counties also offered incentives in terms of water, sewage and roads.
Russ Page, a local farmer who has worked to protect farmland in the County, reminded the Commissioners on Tuesday night that a growing population not only needs more water. It needs more of almost every kind of service, including roads, sewers and schools.
If the County decides to spend more than $100 million on a reservoir, it is only the beginning, because the only way to pay for the project is to make sure the County grows enough to keep up with the projections that were used to justify it.
That, in turn, will require more spending on roads, sewers, schools, and other services. The list goes on.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Written 2/18/2007
County Uses Inflated Population Figures to Justify Water Needs
Oconee County officials, in an effort to justify spending more than $100 million on a new reservoir, are using population growth estimates for the County that are certainly too high.
If the County estimates were correct, 37,317 more people would be living in Oconee County in 2015 than lived here in 2005, bringing the total population for the County to 67,065. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 29,748 lived here in 2005.
A more likely figure for 2015, based on the estimated rate of growth in the County since 2000, is 38,275. From 2000 to 2005, the Census Bureau estimates that the population of Oconee County grew 13.43%.
If that same growth rate is used to calculate the rate of growth in water demand–which seems reasonable given that Oconee County has almost no industrial users–Oconee County would need 3.1 million gallons of water per day in 2010 and 3.5 million gallons of water per day in 2015.
The County will have 6 million gallons of water per day available to it in 2015, or nearly two times as much as it needs. In 2020, supply would exceed demand by 2 million gallons per day.
The County is using only about 2.7 million gallons per day of water at present.
The County, by using the much higher estimate of population growth, has projected that Oconee County’s demand for water will equal the supply in 2020. This is the justification for proposing that the County spend more than $100 million for one of two reservoir projects, one in Walton County and the other in Oconee County.
The County also is using the high population growth and demand figures to argue that it can afford to pay off the debt associated with these new projects. If the population figure are wrong–as they almost certainly are–the projections about the County’s ability to pay for the $100 million reservoirs are wrong as well.
The consequence for the County could be significant.
The estimates of population growth I’ve calculated for the 2000 to 2005 period are based on data the County put on its web site after the February 8 meeting on the proposed reservoirs. I also have gone back to the original source–the U.S. Census Bureau–to make sure the data are correct and to obtain additional information.
The high end estimates of population growth the County is using to justify the reservoir projects are shown on the County’s web site.
Russ Page, who has been active with a number of citizen groups, including Friends of Barber Creek, challenged the County on the population growth estimates at the first meeting on the reservoirs the County held on January 17, 2007. Russ said he thought the growth projections, which come from Northeast Georgia Regional Development Center, located in Athens, already have proven to be inaccurate.
William Martello, with County consulting firm Jordan Jones & Goulding, said the RDC provides three population projections, offering low, moderate and high estimates. He said the County was using the high projections because it did not want to underestimate demand.
The data on the County web site show that the low population estimate for 2005 was about 5,000 people below the Census Bureau estimate for the County that year, while the moderate estimate was about 1,400 higher than the 2005 figure. The high estimate, however, overestimated the County’s population by 9,500.
The reason for the projection error is simple. Both the moderate and high estimates are based on percentage increases in population in the County when it had very few people. Consequently, the addition of even a small number of people represented a large percentage of growth. As the population base has increased, the addition of new residents has represented smaller percentage growth rates.
In 1990, the Census Bureau counted 17,618 persons living in Oconee County. In 2000, the count was 26,225, an increase of 8,607 people, and a growth rate of 48.9%. If that same number of people is added to the County by 2010, the population would be 34,832, for a growth of 32.8%.
If this growth rate of 32.8% is used rather than my estimate above, the population of Oconee County in 2015 still would be below the moderate estimate and significantly below the high estimate the County is using to project water needs.
The Census Bureau estimated of the Oconee County population for 2005 based on birth rates, death rates, and estimates of migration to the County. The population estimates for larger counties also include new field sample data. Oconee County does not qualify for this kind of additional data, but neighboring Clarke does.
Since the Census Bureau makes new estimates for counties each year, it is possible to compare projected growth for each year from 2000 to 2005, the most recent data for which estimates are available. Growth rates actually were slightly lower in 2005 and 2004 than in 2003, but, in all three years, they round to 3%.
There is no evidence of dramatic change in growth rates in recent years, and there is evidence that the rate can decline year-to-year. The slowdown in the housing market at present might well result in a decline in the growth rate.
The population estimates, of course, are for the whole County, but only part of the County is provided water by the County Utility Department. At the January 17 meeting, one member of the audience asked if the County took this into consideration in making the projections. The answer was that it did not. The data the County put on the web site also do not reflect this fact.
The County has stated, in responses on the web site to questions posed at the February 8 meeting, that it does not plan to offer water in the future to the southern part of the County.
Consequently, the estimates of demand for water used by the County and used by me above exaggerate the actual demand.
These estimates of growth, as noted, are tied to estimates of income from water the County sells to its customers. In an article in the February 15, 2007, issue of The Oconee Leader, the County said it is projecting growth of 6 to 7 percent (presumably per year) in its customer base in making calculations of the County’s ability to pay for the proposed reservoirs.
Such a figure, as indicated above, would be more than twice the rate of population growth in the County in recent years.
The County, on the web site, indicated it has approximately 7,800 customers at present.
The County web site also contains a number of other surprises. Despite the lower price tag for a reservoir on Jack’s Creek than the other two projects, the County says the Jack’s Creek site exceeds "affordability," while the others do not.
The County also labels suggestions that it integrate planning for its wastewater treatment facility and drinking water treatment facility as a "toilet to faucet" proposal. The proposed wastewater plant on Rocky Branch road will produce 1 million gallons per day of water treated to "reuse" standards.
Friends of Barber Creek has asked the state Environment Protection Division to require the County to treat the water to drinking level standards. The County plans to sell the "reuse" water for use in lawn and other irrigation as an alternative to fully treated water. As a consequence, it should be subtracted from the estimates of the County’s need for water.
Go to http://www.oconeecounty.net/ and click on Oconee County Future Water Sources Information for details of the County’s case for its new reservoirs.
Please write to your Commissioners and tell them how you feel about the proposed reservoirs. The contact information is below:
Melvin Davis, mdavis@oconee.ga.us
Jim Luke, jluke@oconee.ga.us
Don Norris, dnorris@oconee.ga.us
Margaret Hale, mshale@oconee.ga.us
Chuck Horton, chorton@oconee.ga.us
And please attend the meeting at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 20, at the Courthouse in Watkinsville.
County Uses Inflated Population Figures to Justify Water Needs
Oconee County officials, in an effort to justify spending more than $100 million on a new reservoir, are using population growth estimates for the County that are certainly too high.
If the County estimates were correct, 37,317 more people would be living in Oconee County in 2015 than lived here in 2005, bringing the total population for the County to 67,065. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 29,748 lived here in 2005.
A more likely figure for 2015, based on the estimated rate of growth in the County since 2000, is 38,275. From 2000 to 2005, the Census Bureau estimates that the population of Oconee County grew 13.43%.
If that same growth rate is used to calculate the rate of growth in water demand–which seems reasonable given that Oconee County has almost no industrial users–Oconee County would need 3.1 million gallons of water per day in 2010 and 3.5 million gallons of water per day in 2015.
The County will have 6 million gallons of water per day available to it in 2015, or nearly two times as much as it needs. In 2020, supply would exceed demand by 2 million gallons per day.
The County is using only about 2.7 million gallons per day of water at present.
The County, by using the much higher estimate of population growth, has projected that Oconee County’s demand for water will equal the supply in 2020. This is the justification for proposing that the County spend more than $100 million for one of two reservoir projects, one in Walton County and the other in Oconee County.
The County also is using the high population growth and demand figures to argue that it can afford to pay off the debt associated with these new projects. If the population figure are wrong–as they almost certainly are–the projections about the County’s ability to pay for the $100 million reservoirs are wrong as well.
The consequence for the County could be significant.
The estimates of population growth I’ve calculated for the 2000 to 2005 period are based on data the County put on its web site after the February 8 meeting on the proposed reservoirs. I also have gone back to the original source–the U.S. Census Bureau–to make sure the data are correct and to obtain additional information.
The high end estimates of population growth the County is using to justify the reservoir projects are shown on the County’s web site.
Russ Page, who has been active with a number of citizen groups, including Friends of Barber Creek, challenged the County on the population growth estimates at the first meeting on the reservoirs the County held on January 17, 2007. Russ said he thought the growth projections, which come from Northeast Georgia Regional Development Center, located in Athens, already have proven to be inaccurate.
William Martello, with County consulting firm Jordan Jones & Goulding, said the RDC provides three population projections, offering low, moderate and high estimates. He said the County was using the high projections because it did not want to underestimate demand.
The data on the County web site show that the low population estimate for 2005 was about 5,000 people below the Census Bureau estimate for the County that year, while the moderate estimate was about 1,400 higher than the 2005 figure. The high estimate, however, overestimated the County’s population by 9,500.
The reason for the projection error is simple. Both the moderate and high estimates are based on percentage increases in population in the County when it had very few people. Consequently, the addition of even a small number of people represented a large percentage of growth. As the population base has increased, the addition of new residents has represented smaller percentage growth rates.
In 1990, the Census Bureau counted 17,618 persons living in Oconee County. In 2000, the count was 26,225, an increase of 8,607 people, and a growth rate of 48.9%. If that same number of people is added to the County by 2010, the population would be 34,832, for a growth of 32.8%.
If this growth rate of 32.8% is used rather than my estimate above, the population of Oconee County in 2015 still would be below the moderate estimate and significantly below the high estimate the County is using to project water needs.
The Census Bureau estimated of the Oconee County population for 2005 based on birth rates, death rates, and estimates of migration to the County. The population estimates for larger counties also include new field sample data. Oconee County does not qualify for this kind of additional data, but neighboring Clarke does.
Since the Census Bureau makes new estimates for counties each year, it is possible to compare projected growth for each year from 2000 to 2005, the most recent data for which estimates are available. Growth rates actually were slightly lower in 2005 and 2004 than in 2003, but, in all three years, they round to 3%.
There is no evidence of dramatic change in growth rates in recent years, and there is evidence that the rate can decline year-to-year. The slowdown in the housing market at present might well result in a decline in the growth rate.
The population estimates, of course, are for the whole County, but only part of the County is provided water by the County Utility Department. At the January 17 meeting, one member of the audience asked if the County took this into consideration in making the projections. The answer was that it did not. The data the County put on the web site also do not reflect this fact.
The County has stated, in responses on the web site to questions posed at the February 8 meeting, that it does not plan to offer water in the future to the southern part of the County.
Consequently, the estimates of demand for water used by the County and used by me above exaggerate the actual demand.
These estimates of growth, as noted, are tied to estimates of income from water the County sells to its customers. In an article in the February 15, 2007, issue of The Oconee Leader, the County said it is projecting growth of 6 to 7 percent (presumably per year) in its customer base in making calculations of the County’s ability to pay for the proposed reservoirs.
Such a figure, as indicated above, would be more than twice the rate of population growth in the County in recent years.
The County, on the web site, indicated it has approximately 7,800 customers at present.
The County web site also contains a number of other surprises. Despite the lower price tag for a reservoir on Jack’s Creek than the other two projects, the County says the Jack’s Creek site exceeds "affordability," while the others do not.
The County also labels suggestions that it integrate planning for its wastewater treatment facility and drinking water treatment facility as a "toilet to faucet" proposal. The proposed wastewater plant on Rocky Branch road will produce 1 million gallons per day of water treated to "reuse" standards.
Friends of Barber Creek has asked the state Environment Protection Division to require the County to treat the water to drinking level standards. The County plans to sell the "reuse" water for use in lawn and other irrigation as an alternative to fully treated water. As a consequence, it should be subtracted from the estimates of the County’s need for water.
Go to http://www.oconeecounty.net/ and click on Oconee County Future Water Sources Information for details of the County’s case for its new reservoirs.
Please write to your Commissioners and tell them how you feel about the proposed reservoirs. The contact information is below:
Melvin Davis, mdavis@oconee.ga.us
Jim Luke, jluke@oconee.ga.us
Don Norris, dnorris@oconee.ga.us
Margaret Hale, mshale@oconee.ga.us
Chuck Horton, chorton@oconee.ga.us
And please attend the meeting at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 20, at the Courthouse in Watkinsville.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Written 2/15/2007
Most Important Decision Since 2002
No other decision the Oconee County Board of Commissioners has made since it decided to begin offering residential sewage service in late 2002 is likely to be as important as the decision the Board will be considering on Tuesday, February 20.
At that meeting, the Board, it now appears, will be asked to join Walton County in a reservoir project on Hard Labor Creek that will cost more than $100 million in 2007 dollars.
The 2002 decision on sewers has led to the hyperdevelopment now taking place in the County, with the 900-home Parkside master plan development project now coming online a prime example. Parkside, which lies between Mars Hill and Hog Mountain roads, will funnel even more traffic onto those already stressed thoroughfares and send more students to overcrowded schools.
A decision to spend more than $100 million on a reservoir will spur more development, probably along U.S. 441, since the corridor between Hog Mountain Road and SR 316 now is nearly built out. This new development, in turn, will further stress County resources, such as the schools, the sheriff’s office and the volunteer fire service.
Huge infrastructure projects such as the planned sewage plant on Rocky Branch Road and the reservoir are billed as a response to development, but they are actually the cause of it. In order to pay for the sewers, the County passed a master plan development ordinance to encourage high-density development.
I remember a conversation I had with Wayne Provost, then head of planning in the County and now director of strategic and long-range planning, when the MPD was being discussed. "Not everyone wants a house with a three-quarter acre lot," he said. The County needed to allow higher density projects in order to continue to develop, the argument went.
The sewers were to spur development, not respond to it.
In order to pay for the water reservoir to be discussed on Tuesday night, the County will have to run water to parts of the County not presently served, such as to the south along U.S. 441. The water lines will be to encourage future development, since only with such development will the County be able to pay for the reservoir.
County officials don’t like to talk about infrastructure development in this way. They always say development is inevitable and they must respond to it. My guess is they know most people are not in favor of the break-neck pace of development they have brought to the County.
Elected officials also know that few voters like tax increases, which infrastructure projects usually require.
At the January 17 meeting held to discuss water options, no one could–or would--answer questions about how the projects would be financed. In an article in the February 15 edition of The Oconee Leader, Board Chairman Melvin Davis offered only options, including the spending of special interest tax revenues, rather than a specific plan.
A glance around the County gives a sense of how quickly tax revenues are being spent. We have a new jail under construction. A new recreational facility is in the works. If the County gets its permit to begin dumping treated sewage water into Barber Creek, it will begin construction of a new sewage plant.
The February 15 issue of the Athens Banner-Herald indicates that the County may be asking for tax increases in the future to spend on much needed road improvements.
To lessen the burden on those of us already living here, County officials will encourage construction of even more residential units, even though residential development does not produce tax revenue sufficient to offset its demand for services.
The cycle will then continue. The increase in water coming into the County will bring about the need for larger sewage plants and more roads and more schools and more jails and a larger courthouse and bigger roads. And more sewage water being dumped into such streams as Barber Creek.
The irony is that most of us moved to Oconee County in the hopes that some of the rural character and quality of life that brought us here would be retained.
Melvin Davis, who is both the chief County executive and chairman of the legislative body, the Board of Commissioners, is the one pushing for a decision now on the reservoir project. In fact, he has been the chief advocate for most of the development projects in the County. The article in The Leader makes it clear he wants the Board of Commissioners to join the Hard Labor Creek reservoir project in Walton County.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the four members of the Commission told him it was time to slow down, consider all the options, examine some of the smaller reservoir projects on the table, and give some serious thought to water conservation?
I urge you to write to the Commissioners immediately and encourage them to show some independence. One option would be for them to appoint a citizen group to review the different reservoir plans. The County at present is relying on the advice of consultants who stand to gain most from big projects.
Here is the contact information for the Commissioners:
Jim Luke, jluke@oconee.ga.us
Don Norris, dnorris@oconee.ga.us
Margaret Hale, mshale@oconee.ga.us
Chuck Horton, chorton@oconee.ga.us.
If at all possible, attend the meeting on the 20th and tell the Commissioners how you feel about the pace of development in the County and the need for a go-slow approach to such a mammoth project. Bring a neighbor or two if you can. The meeting starts at 7 p.m.
Most Important Decision Since 2002
No other decision the Oconee County Board of Commissioners has made since it decided to begin offering residential sewage service in late 2002 is likely to be as important as the decision the Board will be considering on Tuesday, February 20.
At that meeting, the Board, it now appears, will be asked to join Walton County in a reservoir project on Hard Labor Creek that will cost more than $100 million in 2007 dollars.
The 2002 decision on sewers has led to the hyperdevelopment now taking place in the County, with the 900-home Parkside master plan development project now coming online a prime example. Parkside, which lies between Mars Hill and Hog Mountain roads, will funnel even more traffic onto those already stressed thoroughfares and send more students to overcrowded schools.
A decision to spend more than $100 million on a reservoir will spur more development, probably along U.S. 441, since the corridor between Hog Mountain Road and SR 316 now is nearly built out. This new development, in turn, will further stress County resources, such as the schools, the sheriff’s office and the volunteer fire service.
Huge infrastructure projects such as the planned sewage plant on Rocky Branch Road and the reservoir are billed as a response to development, but they are actually the cause of it. In order to pay for the sewers, the County passed a master plan development ordinance to encourage high-density development.
I remember a conversation I had with Wayne Provost, then head of planning in the County and now director of strategic and long-range planning, when the MPD was being discussed. "Not everyone wants a house with a three-quarter acre lot," he said. The County needed to allow higher density projects in order to continue to develop, the argument went.
The sewers were to spur development, not respond to it.
In order to pay for the water reservoir to be discussed on Tuesday night, the County will have to run water to parts of the County not presently served, such as to the south along U.S. 441. The water lines will be to encourage future development, since only with such development will the County be able to pay for the reservoir.
County officials don’t like to talk about infrastructure development in this way. They always say development is inevitable and they must respond to it. My guess is they know most people are not in favor of the break-neck pace of development they have brought to the County.
Elected officials also know that few voters like tax increases, which infrastructure projects usually require.
At the January 17 meeting held to discuss water options, no one could–or would--answer questions about how the projects would be financed. In an article in the February 15 edition of The Oconee Leader, Board Chairman Melvin Davis offered only options, including the spending of special interest tax revenues, rather than a specific plan.
A glance around the County gives a sense of how quickly tax revenues are being spent. We have a new jail under construction. A new recreational facility is in the works. If the County gets its permit to begin dumping treated sewage water into Barber Creek, it will begin construction of a new sewage plant.
The February 15 issue of the Athens Banner-Herald indicates that the County may be asking for tax increases in the future to spend on much needed road improvements.
To lessen the burden on those of us already living here, County officials will encourage construction of even more residential units, even though residential development does not produce tax revenue sufficient to offset its demand for services.
The cycle will then continue. The increase in water coming into the County will bring about the need for larger sewage plants and more roads and more schools and more jails and a larger courthouse and bigger roads. And more sewage water being dumped into such streams as Barber Creek.
The irony is that most of us moved to Oconee County in the hopes that some of the rural character and quality of life that brought us here would be retained.
Melvin Davis, who is both the chief County executive and chairman of the legislative body, the Board of Commissioners, is the one pushing for a decision now on the reservoir project. In fact, he has been the chief advocate for most of the development projects in the County. The article in The Leader makes it clear he wants the Board of Commissioners to join the Hard Labor Creek reservoir project in Walton County.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the four members of the Commission told him it was time to slow down, consider all the options, examine some of the smaller reservoir projects on the table, and give some serious thought to water conservation?
I urge you to write to the Commissioners immediately and encourage them to show some independence. One option would be for them to appoint a citizen group to review the different reservoir plans. The County at present is relying on the advice of consultants who stand to gain most from big projects.
Here is the contact information for the Commissioners:
Jim Luke, jluke@oconee.ga.us
Don Norris, dnorris@oconee.ga.us
Margaret Hale, mshale@oconee.ga.us
Chuck Horton, chorton@oconee.ga.us.
If at all possible, attend the meeting on the 20th and tell the Commissioners how you feel about the pace of development in the County and the need for a go-slow approach to such a mammoth project. Bring a neighbor or two if you can. The meeting starts at 7 p.m.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Written 1/30/2007
Psst! Wanna buy some sewage water?
It’s not fit to drink or touch, but it is cheap!
Psst! Wanna buy some sewage water?
It’s not fit to drink or touch, but it is cheap!
Oconee County plans to charge customers who use treated sewage water from its Rocky Branch waste treatment plant, rather than give the water away, officials said at the January 17 meeting called to discuss the County’s plans for water reservoirs.
The County will maintain separate meters for use of the treated sewage water and plans to recover some of the costs of pumping the water to customers through a usage fee.
Wayne Provost, the director of strategic and long-range planning for the County, made the announcement about fees for use of the sewage water in response to a question at the meeting. Utility Director Gary Dodd elaborated.
"There will be a minimal charge for the reuse water because it is being pumped, it is being piped, it is being metered to those homes or facilities that are using it, so there has to be a charge," Mr. Dodd said.
The County did not mention plans to charge for use of the sewage plant effluent at either the March 14, 2006, or December 12, 2006, public hearings on the proposed upgrade of the Rocky Branch Plant.
Developers are running separate water lines, one for drinking water and the other for treated sewage water, in some subdivisions, such as the mammoth Parkside with its nearly 900 home sites. The reuse water is to be used for fertilizing lawns.
The County ordinance, passed in March of 2005, stipulates that reuse water should NOT be used for the following: "drinking, food preparation, hand washing, automobile washing, or irrigation of fruits and vegetables."
EPD regulations specifically recommends against any use that brings the treated water into contact with the skin and prohibits the use of the water for consumption by humans or animals, sprinkling of edible crops, body contact recreation, or filling of swimming pools.
At the December 12 hearing, an EPD officer said the EPD recommended anyone who touches the reuse water wash his or her hands before touching anything else.
At the January 17 discussion of reservoirs, the County touted the scheme to distribute reuse quality water as a cost-saver. Rather than treat the water from the sewage plants to drinking level quality, which is technologically possible, the County will save money by treating it to a lesser standard.
By using the treated sewage water, rather than drinking water, for watering lawns, the customers will save both themselves and the County money.
It is an open question whether people living in the subdivisions will choose to use the treated sewage water rather than drinking water, even if it saves them some money. It is common for children and pets to play in sprinklers and for customers to water both their vegetable gardens and fruit trees when they water their lawns.
Privately, County officials have recognized that a reuse market for the water may not develop quickly. In an email message Mr. Dodd wrote to Jim Sunta of Precision Planning on December 20, 2005, he said "I agree with your assumption that the reuse customer base will be slow to develop."
If the reuse market doesn’t materialize, the effluent of Rocky Branch sewage plant will be dumped into Barber Creek, if the County is given a permit to do that by the state Environmental Protection Division. That permit is pending.
The County also has not openly discussed other costs associated with the plan to develop the reuse market. While some developers are being encouraged to build the dual distribution system, when the developers complete their subdivisions, they will turn over the infrastructure, including the two water distribution systems, to the County for future maintenance.
The cost of maintaining dual distribution and metering systems has not been discussed at the two public hearings.
The promotion of use of the treated sewage water for irrigation also is at odds with current EPD plans to encourage water users to return as much water as possible to the streams from which the water has been taken.
The Bear Creek Reservoir, from which Oconee County is currently drawing most of its water, draws that water from the Middle Oconee River. Barber Creek flows to McNutt Creek and then back to the Middle Oconee.
Petitions signed by Friends of Barber Creek asked the EPD to require the County to treat any water it returned to Barber Creek to drinking water quality and to restrict the release to periods of normal water flow. In addition, we asked the EPD to do independent monitoring.
Jordan Jones and Goulding, the consulting firm the County hired to develop a wastewater treatment plans for the County, actually recommended that the County phase out its two existing waste water treatment plants–on Calls Creek and on Rocky Branch Road–and build a new plant on the Middle Oconee.
The January 17 meeting was about water, but, County officials acknowledged, at least implicitly, the linkage between the waste water treatment and drinking water treatment.
The amount of water the County brings in for drinking water increases the amount of water the County will have to treat at its sewage plants.
Both waste water treatment and drinking water treatment are functions of the County’s Utility Department. The debt the County takes on for water treatment and sewage treatment will have to be retired by that department and will be the responsibility of the County overall.
Both treatment of water for drinking and treatment of sewage water for discharge is done by plants using the same basic membrane filtrate technology.
It is quite possible to treat sewage water to drinking level quality. It is being done at a sewage plant in operation in Gwinnett County. And it is done many places around the world, as Jimmy Parker, from Precision Planning, acknowledged at the January 17 meeting.
So why won’t we do that in Oconee County?
"We don’t mind drinking other people’s waste water," Mr. Parker said in response to my question on this topic. "We just don’t want to drink our own."
One of the two reservoirs proposed would be downstream from an Athens sewage treatment plant. The other would be downstream from Monroe’s sewage treatment plant.
In fact, if the County gets its way and is given permits to discharge treated sewage from the Rocky Branch Waste Treatment plant into both Barber Creek and the Apalachee River, both proposed reservoirs would be downstream from Oconee sewage treatment plants.
So we may not like drinking our own waste water, but that is exactly what the County is proposing. It just doesn’t want to talk much about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)