Water Savings and Conservation Act of 2010

I was specifically requested to read SB 311, David Shafer’s Water Savings and Conservation Act of 2010, and give my comments on it, so here goes:

I have no problems at all with the first two things listed as findings of the General Assembly – that local governments cannot account for roughly 18% of “surface water removed for public use” and that a significant factor in this water loss “is due to aging, faulty, or poorly maintained water infrastructure”. Those two appear to be basic facts to me, from what I have heard from talking to a variety of people across the State, including some who work in local water departments.

However, the remedy proposed per the remainder of the findings is a State-based regulatory solution. The third finding specifically states that “Repair of water infrastructure is in the interest of the state”, which I cannot agree with. It is in the interest of the citizens, and repair of water infrastructure is best left with the levels that installed said infrastructure – namely, the local governments. It is not in the State’s interest to repair Atlanta’s water system, it is in Atlanta’s. They are the ones losing the water, and they are the ones who are having problems getting enough water – problems that could be fixed, or at least significantly improved, by repairing their infrastructure. (I use Atlanta only as one of the more prominent examples, though there are many others.)

Furthermore, while the bill states that the Assembly finds that “Repair of the infrastructure responsible for such water loss is an undertaking that will likely cost millions of dollars”, it isn’t as if this expense wasn’t unplanned. Indeed, part of the consideration of any infrastructure project should be, and hopefully is, the cost of maintenance, repair, and eventual replacement. After all, ALL infrastructure eventually has these needs, no matter how well the system was originally designed. It is only due to short-sightedness on the part of the local governments that these massive costs “spring up” on them, and at that point their lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on the part of the entire State. The fifth legislative finding states that “An unfunded mandate that local governments make the repairs will likely result in substantially higher water rates or local tax increases”. Should not the users of the water pay for the repairs to the infrastructure needed to get them that water?

Finally, the coup-de-grace of the legislative findings, number 8: “A regulatory system should be created…”. This, written by the Honorary Chairman of the Georgia Republican Liberty Caucus. Wow.

On the substance of the bill, it basically does this: It orders the State Environmental Protection Division to figure out how much water each governmental withdrawing entity is losing due to leaky infrastructure. It will then have to notify each entity of how much water it is losing, and each entity will have 90 days to come up with and submit a plan to fix these leaks. Entities can make agreements to fix each other’s infrastructure, and the “salvaged” water may be used as payment.

But then it allows one governmental entity to effectively steal water allocated to another entity. It does this by saying that if the entity with the leaky pipes does NOT submit a plan to fix them within 90 days, another entity can propose an alternative plan. If the alternative plan is approved by the EPD and the original entity does NOT itself make the repairs described in the alternative plan, then the second entity can make the repairs and be entitled to any water “salvaged” as a result. We’re talking about, per the legislative findings, potentially one out of every five gallons the original entity was entitled to!

Let me use an example with that last paragraph to make it easier to understand: Let’s say Atlanta has a permit to withdraw 100,000 gallons of water per day, but they have leaky pipes that lose 18% of the water – 18,000 gallons per day. Atlanta doesn’t submit a plan to fix those pipes within 90 days of being notified, but the City of Duluth submits an alternative plan to fix Atlanta’s pipes within those 90 days. If EPD approves Duluth’s plan and Atlanta doesn’t want to follow it – for whatever reason-, the City of Duluth can fix Atlanta’s pipes and claim that 18,000 gallons as its own, effectively stealing it from the citizens of Atlanta, who originally had the permit for that water.

I agree that something needs to be done about water issues in this State. I do not agree with a “solution” that puts even more power in the hands of the State and that allows effective theft.

Please, Senator Shafer – or anyone in the General Assembly -, give me a plan I can support. This isn’t one.