Georgia’s map modernization scoping effort

This paper discusses the Georgia Flood Map Modernization Program and the associated study scoping effort. Georgia is partnering with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to create, update, and republish the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs) for all 159 counties and 531 communities in the State. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division (EPD) has taken responsibility for the program for the State of Georgia. This project will benefit virtually every citizen of the State by creating more accurate and more easily accessible flood maps. Through this process, local governments in Georgia may contribute mapping data to the process. With Georgia having the most local government jurisdictions per state in FEMA Region IV, the identification and assembly of local data is an enormous effort. The EPD contributes contractor services, technical support and eventually map production services and other tools to benefit local governments. The technical assistance provided by the EPD encompasses all aspects of the FEMA map modernization effort, including project scoping, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, floodplain delineation, QA/QC, DFIRM production, outreach and eventually long-term map maintenance.Sponsored by: Georgia Environmental Protection Division U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Water Science Center U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Water Resources Institute The University of Georgia, Water Resources Facult

Lessons Learned from a Comparison of the 1998-2000 and 1986-1988 Period Droughts in Georgia

Proceedings of the 2001 Georgia Water Resources Conference, April 26 and 27, 2001, Athens, Georgia.The State of Georgia experienced one of the worst hydrologic droughts of record during the period from 1998 to 2000. Prior to this, the drought of 1986 to 1988 had been widely viewed as the worse drought of record in the northern portion of the state. This paper examines the data from surface water records, ground water records, rainfall data, reservoir elevations, minimum instream flows, and actual water supply experiences to compare the two periods of drought. Rainfall and population growth cannot be directly managed. In Georgia, the state cannot manage water rate schedules or land use, either, because these are traditionally managed at local government levels. The State of Georgia's role in drought has been one of regulatory and technical, and to some extent financial, assistance to the local goverments. In general, the State permits the local government water withdrawals with limits on the amount of water used in any given month or year, and with other conditions. The conditions require drought contingency plans and water conservation plans and other actions of each local government. The local governments then implement both the supply and demand management efforts required to minimize the impacts of lack of rainfall or actual growth rates exceeding population projections. Depending upon the region of the state, they either provided extra wells, water supply reservoir storage, or multiple connections either to alternate sources of water or to other public water systems for supply management. For demand management, the systems may follow their water conservation or drought contingency plans. Following the 1986-1988 drought, the State of Georgia implemented several large-scale actions toward minimizing the impacts of future droughts. Although not considered a statewide initiative, these actions were targeted to regions of the state that seemed most vulnerable to droughts. Some actions, such as demand management efforts aimed at water quality issues in southeast coastal Georgia, provided a dual benefit for minimizing drought impacts. The Flint River Drought Protection Act efforts were initiated for Southwest Georgia, as a result of issues identified during the ACT/ACF Comprehensive Study of the 1990's. In the Piedmont region of the state, the intended plan called for water supply storage and other infrastructure or supply management efforts such as interconnections with nearby public water systems. In the 1998 to 2000 drought, the state initiated mandatory outdoor watering restrictions for demand management. A fifteen county metro Atlanta area was placed on a twelve- hour alternating even and odd schedule, and the rest of the state was mandated a similar six- hour restriction. These efforts assisted several systems in managing peak water use during the June - August 2000 period. The State took other administrative actions in 1998-2000 to protect public health and safety and to keep water-using industry viable to the extent possible. As for the federal role, there were noticeable differences in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's operations of the Federal reserviors for the two drought periods also. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of some of these efforts in minimizing drought impacts in the State of Georgia.Sponsored and Organized by: U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service, The University of Georgia, Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of TechnologyThis book was published by the Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2202. The views and statements advanced in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not represent official views or policies of The University of Georgia, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Georgia Water Research Institute as authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-397) or the other conference sponsors

Cumulative impact analysis: a simple model for local government reservoirs and withdrawals in Georgia

Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 23-24, 2003, at the University of Georgia.A simple model is presented for consideration in the evaluation of cumulative impact analysis of water supply reservoir projects and other local government water supply projects proposing transfers out of basin or for consumptive use within Georgia. The approach is presented for Georgia’s Altamaha, Oconee and Ocmulgee River Basins, but could be used for other river basins within the state

Environmental Considerations for Evaluating Interbasin Water Transfers in Georgia

Proceedings of the 2007 Georgia Water Resources Conference, March 27-29, 2007, Athens, Georgia.Maximizing water returns to river basins by managing interbasin transfers is one of several major objectives guiding the ongoing development of Georgia’s first Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Plan. Interbasin water transfers currently play a significant role in meeting water supply needs throughout the metropolitan Atlanta area. Continuing population growth across northern Georgia has heightened concern over the continuing use of interbasin transfers as a primary water management tool because of potentially negative environmental and economic impacts to the river basin of origin. This paper investigates the availability and quality of relevant environmental information for assessing the potential adverse environmental effects of interbasin transfers to river basins of origin in Georgia. Existing information describing environmental attributes of 14 sub-basins in seven river basins is compiled using GIS, and subbasins are ranked and analyzed with respect to natural resource values, common trends, data gaps, and its ability to support water planning efforts and decisions regarding interbasin transfers.Sponsored and Organized by: U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service, The University of Georgia, Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of TechnologyThis book was published by the Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2202. The views and statements advanced in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not represent official views or policies of The University of Georgia, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Georgia Water Research Institute as authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-397) or the other conference sponsors

PANEL DISCUSSION: Lead and Copper in Drinking Water

Proceedings of the 1993 Georgia Water Resources Conference, April 20-21, 1993, Athens, Georgia.Panel Discussions: Population Exposure to Lead and Copper, Henry Abadin, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 Cliffton Road, Mailstop E29, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Government Programs Addressing Lead and Copper in Potable Water Supplies, Nolton Johnson, Water Resources Management Branch, Georgia Dept of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Suite 1266, E. Tower, 205 Butler Street, S.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Local Implementation of Federal and State Programs, Michael Patton, Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority. Relating Water Test Results to the Public, Susan Waters, Cobb County - Marietta Water Authority, 680 South Cobb, Marietta, Georgia 30060.Sponsored and Organized by: U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, The University of Georgia, Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of TechnologyThis book was published by the Institute of Natural Resources, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 with partial funding provided by the U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, through the Georgia Water Research Institute as authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-242). The views and statements advanced in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not represent official views or policies of the University of Georgia or the U.S. Geological Survey or the conference sponsors

Emerging Water Resources Management Issues in the Savannah River Basin

Proceedings of the 1997 Georgia Water Resources Conference, March 20-22, 1997, Athens, Georgia.The Savannah River basin is an important natural resource for the States of Georgia and South Carolina, due to both its valuable ecological and economic resources. In recent years, agencies, organizations, and industry from both states have begun an effort to cooperatively manage the resources of the Savannah River basin to conserve, restore, enhance, and protect its ecosystems in a way that allows the balancing of multiple uses. To that end, the Savannah River Basin Watershed Project was initiated in 1993 to begin a process for cooperative and comprehensive management of the basin. Basin stakeholders have been identifying and prioritizing resource issues in the basin, and a structure has been put in place to address these issues. Additionally, each agency and organization involved in the project is utilizing the project structure and process to address issues pertinent to their individual organization. This panel of basin stakeholders will express their views on the important emerging issues for their agency or organization and the relevance of the Savannah River basin Watershed Project for addressing these issues.Sponsored and Organized by: U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, The University of Georgia, Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of TechnologyThis book was published by the Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 with partial funding provided by the U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, through the Georgia Water Research Institutes Authorization Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-397). The views and statements advanced in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not represent official views or policies of the University of Georgia or the U.S. Geological Survey or the conference sponsors