Not all water systems were able to cut water production by 10%
A few months back, Gov. Sonny Perdue mandated all Atlanta-area water systems to cut their usage by 10% when compared to their monthly average from last winter. The numbers from November are in, and not everyone made it to the 10% goal. Some of the totals that were listed in the article:
- Atlanta - “about 7%”
- Cobb County - “just barely” met the 10% goal
- DeKalb - 8.3%
- Fulton County - “just made it under the new target”
- Gwinnett - Maybe, maybe not — depends on how you read the numbers.
Those that didn’t make it to the goal will likely see some fines sent their way. Those fines will likely work their way into their customer’s water bills.
I feel kind of bad for some of them. For example, as Francis Kung’u, director of DeKalb County Department of Watershed Management said — “We were very close” and that they “tried everything to get customers to conserve and even had water employees patrol at night to catch watering ban violators.” What else could they do to force their customers to conserve more?
Of course, the best way to get these goals to be met would be to simply lay down tougher restrictions. I keep thinking that they’ll tighten them pretty soon, but it hasn’t happened yet.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Atlanta has not even tried to seriously cut back water usage. DeKalb county where I reside at Stone Mountain has had outside water-restrictions since last August. But Atlanta did not do anything till October and city parks are still watered profusely. The mayor needs to inform Coca-Cola company that water use must be cut, as well as all the rest of the industry plants in the city. Atlanta must show that it is serious about water conservation, or the rest of the state residents will tell the Big Peach to go to Hell.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:35 am
So… the 30% estimate I’ve been using when working out how much the average Atlanta resident has cut their water intake by is tremendously off? :/
December 6th, 2007 at 9:39 am
There is of course a simple solution. Raise the price of water. Until that happens, people are not going to be highly motivated to conserve.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Carol,
Unfortunately several people who live in Atlanta (apartments, condos, townhouses) have their water bills based on the average use for their association/division/whatever. So people seem to have the philosophy that why should they conserve if they have to pay an average of all their neighbors anyways?
Sadly, a lot of my friends feel this way, which results in nothing ever getting done. Raising the price of water SHOULD be done, as SHOULD raising the price of gasoline, but the government would never allow that even if we get to rationing.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:48 am
I agree completely, Jeff. That’s why we can’t depend on government to take care of this problem.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:00 am
“That’s why we can’t depend on government to take care of this problem.”
How can you say that??? Sonny’s master plan of praying for more water is airtight!
December 6th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I posted this elsewhere, but wanted to make sure that people was this and it seems to fit in here.
Some early numbers that show just how much water metro Atlanta is using per day. All numbers are MDG (Million Gallons per Day) These numbers do not take into account factors such as minor tributaries feeding into the system, water returned to the system or other users that have permits to withdraw water on a daily basis.
Buford Dam Inflow for yesterday - 263 Million Gallons
Water Withdraw from Lake Lanier (Above Buford Dam):
City of Gainsville - 25
City of Cumming - 12
Forsyth County - 15
City of Buford - 2
Gwinnett County - 125
Total - 179 MGD
Buford Dam Outflow for yesterday - 842 Million Gallons
Major water withdrawals below Buford Dam:
Cobb County - Withdraw 73
City of Atlanta - 150
Atlanta-Fulton County Water Resources Commission - 75
DeKalb County - 117
Total : 415 MGD
Total Metro Atlanta Use : 594 MGD
December 6th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Hey GOOD info!
That’s about 30% less than my estimate for Metro Atlanta of 800 million gallons a day.
Are we missing any towns or municipalities with withdrawls?
(It’s certainly possible my estimate was just off - I put residental use at 550 million gallons and industrial at 1/2 of that then rounded up).
December 6th, 2007 at 11:08 am
wspurlock > notice release from the dam has gone down from 1.5 billion, so perhaps ACE is cutting discharges 40% to 50% now? Or was that just a one day lower water release?
Water release at 842 million gallons, from Buford Dam, is still 3 times the inflow into the lake. 263 million gallons from Georgia mountains flowing into the lake is a paltry amount. It used to be over 2 billion a day at times. The drought is far more serious than we all realize. If heavy spring rains fail to materialize, then Georgia is in serious trouble.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Last night I came across a article that said Ellijay and some other Georgia mountain towns have serious water shortages now and even wells are starting to go dry. When the source watershed of a lake/reservoir drys up then it means serious crisis down stream. Blue Ridge still has water because they have a large dam and lake, but is being used up fast too.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:23 am
wspurlock - Is that actual use or the amount that is permitted? I have seen lots of numbers for permitted use but not many for actual use. I would assume actual use is somewhere below what is permitted - particularly with the watering restrictions.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:24 am
More serious than you failed to realize. The rest of us knew about it - get with the program.
The recent releases are not an indication they’re cutting releases by 40-50 percent in any permanant way. That’d be great, but in fact it’s just that rain that has augmented the flow of the river, so less can be released.
During this drought, it’s not unusual to see the inflow be negative - when all factors are considered, that the inflow doesn’t cover the withdaws from the lake by other sources (municipalities, evaporation, loss to the water table, etcetera).
Seeing a difference of ten, twenty, even thirty or more times between the inflow and outflow hasn’t been abnormal.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:28 am
I drove to Alpine Helen, in the Georgia mountains, about a month ago, and the stream running through the town was reduced by 3/4ths flow. It no longer had enough water to allow people to ride tire tubes down it. Rain is failing to fall in any decent amounts in the Georgia Mountains thus very little runoff.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:37 am
wspurlock > Georgia’s entire water supply is predicated on rain falling on the mountains in sufficient quantity to fill the reservoirs. Current drought is drastically reducing rainfall in the northern part of the state. Southern half of state is still getting decent rainfall, but that flows to Florida to benefit them. Lake Seminole on the Florida border is being kept full from all the other reservoirs on Chattahoochee River. The claim that 3 billion gallons of flow is needed below Woodruff Dam for mussels is a cover for the old Scholz power plant to operate. Needs 3 billion flow so its canal can funnel water to the plant.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Sidenote: I did find out that Farley Nuclear Plant in Alabama has announced that they can still operate with a reduced flow of 2 billion gallons a day coming out of Woodruff Dam. The problem is the 50+ year old coal-fired Scholz plant.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:58 am
You did it -again- Jay.
Where do you have evidence to show that the Fish and Wildlife commission is deliberately fudging their numbers to cover for the Scholz plant? Your own words - “The claim that 3 billion gallons of flow is needed below Woodruff Dam for mussels is a cover…”
It’s not a cover. It’s dumb, yes. Oooh yes. I couldn’t give two shakes about endangered mussels. But that’s something the Fish and Wildlife commission does - they seek to preserve endangered species.
They aren’t “covering” for the power plant. They’re trying to protect mussels. Yell at them for putting a couple endangered mussel species ahead of Atlanta’s need for water, sure. Be angry at them. But for the real reason.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
rkolter > lol you love to pick fights on here, but I said nothing about Wildlife commission at all in my posts. Mussels are a cover for water needs of Scholz power plant. Before you yell at me, then go scream at AJC newspaper about it. They have posted a couple past articles about the Scholz plant not being retrofitted to handle reduced flow from Lake Seminole. If you want to believe in government agencies being 100% honest, then be naive.
Side-note: I do not believe the blog operator of this site wants fights on here like “Thinkprogress.com.” This is an opinion blog on water shortages in Georgia. Therefore I will not clutter this site with posts to refute your ideas. Keep your posts neutral and not personal please. I never attack posters on here on a personal level, so refrain from it too.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
AJC articles on power plants:
“Electricity demand guzzling state’s water”
By Kenn Foskett, Margaret Newkirk, Stacy Shelton.
Published on 11-18-07.
“THE GREAT WATER DEBATE” “Mussels’s fate could effect us, too.”
By Stacy Shelton.
Published on 10-28-07.
There are more on this subject.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
The numbers are actual numbers averaged over a month and rounded off. The only community that is not taken into account would be Baldwin which should be small, lets say under 2 million. I cannot find any good info on industrial or other use yet. Still trying to track that down.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Wspurlock & Jay Randal,
RE: Slowing water releases from Lake Lanier at Buford dam: I’ve been tracking the ACE water release programs along the entire ACF river basin system. The equation is (no surprise here) complicated, but the following factors are relevant.
First, for many environmental and industrial reasons, federal law mandates a minimum flow of approximately 5000 cfs at the point where the Chattahoochee river become Apalachicola river (at the Florida border?). However, the recent review and decision announced on November 17 decided that approximately 4500 cfs would be sufficient for the downstream purposes.
Second, various parts of the ACF river basin, including the upper portion near and above Lake Lanier, received rains. The rain gauge at Lake Lanier received approx 1.1 inches on November 15, and close to another inch up through November 26. Other areas received less rain. But some areas farther south (such as the Chattahoochee River near Columbia AL) received over FIVE (5!) inches of rain between November 15-26. That’s not a drought-buster, but it did yield a significant (though short-term) increase in stream and river flows.
3. The downstream lake storage increased slightly during the brief period of increased river flow.
The result of that rain and increased flow downstream is that there was less need to release water from Lake Lanier during the period from approximately Nov 23 to present. A look at the graph at http://water.sam.usace.army.mil/locals-7-day-chart.htm quickly shows how the river flow responded to the rain, but also shows how the lack of meaningful rain in the last 10 days has dropped the river’s natural inflow below the mandatory release amount, starting on December 3.
Finally, a look at the graph at http://water.sam.usace.army.mil/ACFstorage.pdf portrays the ACF water conservation status. You will quickly note the low, and declining trend in the system, despite the short term increase in storage between approximately November 23 to present, especially in WF George reservoir.
Obviously, a dry forecast doesn’t help. But just as obviously, any rainfall can buy additional time before we reach the “dead pool”, even though such rainfall may not end the drought.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Jay, I’ve taken nothing personal - you’ve indicated clearly and unabiguously that the required water flow for the mussels is a cover for the Scholz power plant.
That required water flow is determined by the Fish and Wildlife commission and given to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Neither of the AJC articles you have posted indicate fraudulent activities. They do suggest that the mussels aren’t as important. And they do indicate that it’s lucky the Scholz plant has the mussels to guarantee their water supply.
This is not the same thing.
Please stop posting your opinions as facts. I don’t think the government is always honest. But without proof, your opinions are opinions. Again, be angry that the mussels take priority over conserving water in the lake - that’s something to be angry about. But don’t make up stuff and spout it as fact.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Ok, maybe -that- response was a bit rude. Let me try it another way -
There is no proof that the Fish and Wildlife commission is requiring a higher water flow because of the power plant. There is clear evidence that the power plant is getting a benefit from the higher water flow though.
It’s not quite the same thing, and it worries me greatly when things we don’t know as fact, are posted as fact. It would be fairly easy for the Fish and Wildlife commission to say “We do this at a hundred water basins for a hundred different species, your claims are without basis” and suddenly the legitimate issue of water being released for mussels instead of being stored for Atlanta becomes tainted by what sounds like a conspiracy theory.
We have a perfectly legitimate, hard and fast fact we can be angry about - that the Fish and Wildlife commission is forcing the release of water for mussels when there are serious concerns about if Atlanta will have enough water in the next year. Let’s pound THAT issue.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
RKolter - you are absolutely right but I will agree with Jay in one way. I believe the primary interests downstream are power plants & economic issues. I also believe it is easy for someone like the Florida Governor to argue for more release on the basis of the “ecosystem” which sounds like a very lofty arguement - when actually he is concerned about economics.
U.S. Fish and wildlife on the other hand is concerned with mussels, sturgens, oysters, etc. They don’t care a whit about power plants nor the city of Atlanta, nor the economies involved. And they are unfortunately driving this boat right now.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Rich,
I’m not being sarcastic when I say this…I never knew the Fish and Wildlife dept had that much power.
December 6th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
lol concerned. Now we both know.
Going waaay back to the original article that started this thread……
Being that these are November numbers, I think the 10% target will be much harder to hit than during the summer. Reason being - During the summer there is normally a lot of lawn watering. Just cutting that off can make a big dent. To hit a 10% target in November means people have to flush less and take shorter showers. That’s going to be a lot harder to make happen.
Any realistic ideas of how to make it happen? I don’t see it happening just by public awareness & people voluntarily cutting back - unless the price of water goes up.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
We’ve tried fairly seriously at my house to cut consumption. Mostly, we consolidate wash loads in a way that we didn’t in the past, and we never use water outdoors. Raising the cost of water (which I’m not so against) might not have much of an effect; I can’t cut back too much more unless I stop bathing. Then people at work would compalin.
There may be some “wealthy homes” that refrain from outdoor use only because of peer pressure, not money. Not sure about that. I do think that the Southeast needs to get serious about water, though. Start treating it like a precious resource.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
You can cut back on water use for bathing without stinking. Try a Navy shower (wet down, turn off the water, soap up, turn water back on to rinse). I estimate my family of 4 is using less than 10 gallons of water per day for bathing. And we don’t smell! We catch all our grey water and use it to flush the toilet so our shower water does double duty.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Not picking on Elle but the mention of gray water brings me back to a question I was mulling over today. Let’s assume you are on a city sewer. What is the net benefit of using gray water?
If you are on sewer, you shower, flush, whatever. That water goes down the drain, gets sanitized and returned to the river. Assuming you are drawing water from ACF, and your sewage also returns to ACF (some goes inter-basin for one reason or another), the net impact is basically zero depending on how efficiently sewage is processed into clean water to be returned.(I have no idea of the efficiency, but I would assume it is very high - evaporation would probably be the only loss and it is a mostly a closed system I assume. I would think 99% of what goes into the sewer system comes back out as clean water)
This is obviously not true for outdoor watering which does not return to the sewer system, nor is it true for houses which are on septic systems. Otherwise, I think a lot of what we are talking about are “feel good” measures which actually have no impact except to lighten the burden on the city sewer system regarding how many gallons they have to purify on the way in and on the way back out.
Comments???
December 6th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
This AJC says only 1/3rd of Cobb’s water taken from Lake Allatoona is returned to the lake by sewage treatment plants.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/11/20/cobbwater_1120.html
December 6th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Richs got me wondering just where the other 2/3rds of Cobb’s sewage waste water goes. Finally came up with a link that explains some stuff. The data in this is old but I imagine things haven’t changed too drastically. It appears they are limited on the amount of treated water that can be returned. The rest is used as spray irrigation on golf courses. Is this right?
http://www.georgiaplanning.com/sdsmaps/Cobb/Cobb_sewer_text.pdf
December 6th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
The drought in Georgia is going to cause tempers to flare, perhaps even fistfights in the streets of Atlanta next summer, so I am seriously considering moving away. I feel sad because I like Georgia, but people bickering over water is too much stress for me.
rkolter > best to be civil on here and not argue about differences of opinion.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:30 am
rkolter > conspiracy is not the issue, but greed plays a big part in it. Water is becoming a precious resource, like gold once was in this state, so power industry will do anything to control its use for them. Gov. Crist of Florida would love for us to play his game, as he takes the high ground claiming to protect endangered mussels, and thus we lose and he wins. Protecting his financial holdings in Gulf Power company is the issue to expose and we win.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Jay > If you can find proof that Governor Crist has a lot of money in Gulf Power (I assume that’s who runs Scholz from your comments) then bring it forth and you’re right, we all win. But if you can’t find that proof, then claiming the link exists only hurts things.
Ditto in another thread where you say “Scholz is spewing mercury into the river and it’s being taken in by the oysters”. If you can show proof of that, you might be able to shut the plant down; but if you can’t, you are only muddying up the real issues.
Can’t argue about the potential for fist fights this summer if the drought doesn’t abate though. The water restrictions will only ratchet tighter, and that’ll piss everyone off.
Regarding gray water and the sewer system - The water is returned to the same source it came from. For Atlanta, that means the Chattahoochie river - below their intakes. So if you let water go to the sewers, it will never be available for Atlanta again. That’s why finding a second use for the water first is a good thing. If you save 3 gallons from your shower, and use it to flush your toilet, that is 3 gallons of FRESH water that you are not using.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:00 am
rkolter > I posted a link on another past thread on this blog of PROOF of Scholz plant releasing mercury from its smokestack and into the river that flows down to Apalachicola Bay.
Here is a quote from article/report on mercury emissions from Gulf Power coal-fired plants: “Southern Company, the parent of Gulf Power, which operates the Crist, Lansing Smith and Scholz power plants in Florida’s panhandle, ranked 2nd nationally among utilities with the highest mercury emissions.”
Above is from an article/report posted on http://www.environmentflorida.org > “New Report Finds Jacksonville Power Plant Is Biggest Mercury Polluter in Florida.” Published on 9/8/2005.
“In Florida, power plants emitted 2,982 pounds of mercury in 2003.”
Scholz plant spews somewhere around 500 pounds of mercury yearly.
If you know biology, then mollusks such as mussels and oysters, filter pollutants out of the water including mercury. Therefore consumption of raw oysters below the Scholz Plant in the bay is not a good idea.
As for Gov. Charlie Crist > I am researching his ties to Gulf Power company and particularly the Crist Plant being named after a family member.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Thank you for the info on the mercury release. That’s a lot of mercury. This might be a good thing to point out should Gulf Power try to claim that their plant could be adversely affected. Good catch!
If we assume every single gram of the mercury both enters the water stream, and is subsequently filtered out by an oyster (neither of which is by any means guaranteed) then the math is:
Average oyster catch: 25 million pounds of meat.
Aproximately 10% of the oyster is meat (Auburn, AL University study) That’s 250 million oysters.
Mercury: 500lbs (226,500 grams)
Mercury per oysters: 0.000906 grams, or at 453 grams per pound, that’s 20 parts per million.
Canada has a maximum safe consumption value of 5 parts per million. I’m not sure of the US limit, but I assume it’s similar, or at least, that Canadians and Americans are similar.
Even if we say only 25% of the mercury gets into the oysters, that would only just squeek by at 5ppm.
To be fair though, the lethal dose for an adult is 1-4 grams (call it 2.5 grams for an average). That’s
December 7th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Re-doing - I hit submit before I could conclude-
Thank you for the info on the mercury release. That’s a lot of mercury. This might be a good thing to point out should Gulf Power try to claim that their plant could be adversely affected. Good catch!
The mathematics backs up your assertion on the oysters too.
If we assume every single gram of the mercury both enters the water stream, and is subsequently filtered out by an oyster (neither of which is by any means guaranteed) then the math is:
Average oyster catch: 25 million pounds of meat.
Aproximately 10% of the oyster is meat (Auburn, AL University study) That’s 250 million oysters.
Mercury: 500lbs (226,500 grams)
Mercury per oysters: 0.000906 grams, or at 453 grams per pound, that’s 20 parts per million.
Canada has a maximum safe consumption value of 5 parts per million. I’m not sure of the US limit, but I assume it’s similar, or at least, that Canadians and Americans are similar.
Even if we say only 25% of the mercury gets into the oysters, that would only just squeek by at 5ppm.
To be fair though, the lethal dose for an adult is 1-4 grams (call it 2.5 grams for an average). That’s 2759 oysters at the high value. I think you’d die of over-eating before mercury poisoning.
Fortunately, I don’t like oysters.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Rkolter - where you say
Regarding gray water and the sewer system - The water is returned to the same source it came from. For Atlanta, that means the Chattahoochie river - below their intakes. So if you let water go to the sewers, it will never be available for Atlanta again. That’s why finding a second use for the water first is a good thing. If you save 3 gallons from your shower, and use it to flush your toilet, that is 3 gallons of FRESH water that you are not using
True but assuming we have to meet a minimum flow downstream - every gallon of treated sewage sent downstream (to a point) is one less gallon the lake has to release. i.e. one more gallon held back for future needs.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Elle - nice job digging deeper into where the sewage is going. If what she found is typical, maybe where we really need to concentrate is
a. getting more septic users on sewer
b. making sure the sewer water is treated up to high standards
c. getting the sewer water back to where it is needed (I’m not sure golf courses are that necessary - but hey I’m not a golfer).
The part of the problem that is Atlanta use can largely be solved by returning the water we use back to the ACF system for downstream use. I don’t think shorter showers and less flushing are going to do much.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:42 am
RichS - Not… quite. Almost though.
Lanier has to “cover” the difference between what you take in, and what you release. To save water in Lanier, you have to do one of two things:
1) Draw less water to begin with (and return it via the sewer).
If you do this, then less water has to be released from the dam to provide enough water for downstream needs.
Failing that, you must:
2) Pour more water into the sewer than you draw.
If you do this, then less water has to be released from the dam because more than normal is being returned to the river.
Ok, now here’s the mathematics. We assume that 80% of the water you put into the sewer gets back into the river.
A typical 12 gallon scenario - you intake 10 gallons for a shower, and you also flush your toilet, intaking 2 gallons to refill the toilet. That’s 12 gallons taken in, and 12 gallons in the sewer. 80%, or 9.6 gallons returned to the river.
12 gallons taken in, 9.6 gallons returned downstream. That means Lanier must “cover” 2.4 gallons of water.
Now let’s assume you save 2 gallons of your shower water to refill your toilet tank. That’s 10 gallons of intake for the shower, 0 gallons of intake for the toilet, 8 gallons to the sewer from the shower, and 2 gallons from the toilet for a total of 10 gallons taken in, and 10 gallons returned (of which, 8 gallons goes back to the river)
10 gallons taken in, 8 gallons returned downstream. Lanier must “cover” 2 gallons of water.
By using gray water to flush your toilet, you can directly assist in keeping Lanier refilled.
Some other examples:
Shower quicker. Make it a 5 gallon shower, and the math becomes: 5 gallons taken in and released for the shower, 2 gallons taken in and released for the toilet: 7 gallons in, 7 gallons to the sewer, 5.6 gallons returned to the river - Lanier only has to cover 1.4 gallons (not 2.4 as before).
Use the Gray Water for the Garden: 10 gallons taken in by the shower (8 to the sewer), 2 by the toilet (2 to the sewer): 12 gallons taken in, 10 gallons returned (of which 8 gallons are sent to the river) - Lanier now must cover 4 gallons (as opposed to 2.4 before)! Using gray water for your garden is a bad idea - unless you were going to use fresh water anyway.
Steal Water from St. Louis: Drive to my home, fill a gallon jug, drive back to Atlanta, dump it in the sewer. 0 gallons taken in, 1 gallon returned, 0.8 gallons returned to the river - Lanier can save 0.8 gallons!
There are some clear cases where using Gray water will directly assist. Those are cases where the Gray water replaces fresh water that would go back into the sewer, such as using it to fill your toilet tank. There are cases where the gray water will not assist, and may even hurt - cases where the Gray water never gets back into the sewer - like watering your lawn or trees with it instead.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Rich > too much retreated sewer water is not a good thing to flush into a river with low flow like Chattahoochee. Regardless of the treatment it can still have tiny bits of human waste in it. If a golf course can use just reclaimed water, then I have no problem with their use of it. Otherwise golf courses are huge water hogs and during drought must be shut down.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:53 am
rkolter > thanks for the info on mercury amounts getting into oysters. I never eat them, because they filter contaminates out of water, hence eating them raw is really unwise. As for safe limits of mercury: it tends to accumulate in one’s body fat and not flush out. Reason why mercury can become deadly by eating highly contaminated fish frequently. So eating a few mercury tainted oysters might not be deadly, but over time it builds up in your system. For pregnant women the mercury buildup can cause birth defects in the fetuses before birth.
Scholz Plant was granted a grandfather clause not requiring it to install mercury scrubbers, which would remove about 90% of emissions, so their smokestack spews the vaporized mercury down on their workers and the localized area and into the river. Coal itself has lots of mercury in it.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Rkolter - the assumption of your math is that 80% of water that makes it into the sewer is returned to the river system. What happens to the other 20%? If it is being used for outside watering - then I think that’s a problem which should be addressed as a separate issue. If it is inefficiency in the treatment method then there may not be much to be done about it.
Jay - I agree to a point, but there are communities that are processing sewage to a point that it is being directly used as drinking water. If we purify to that point or close to it, I don’t see a problem with increasing the ratio of sewer water going downstream. Therefore above I had point B -
b. making sure the sewer water is treated up to high standards
December 7th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
RichS - I picked 80% at random as a high percentage, but not 100%. The difference is not due to outside watering or other human uses, but due to inefficencies inherent to the system. Some is lost due to a variety of reasons - as part of the cleaning process, due to leakage, due to evaporation, due to random overflows during the period you’re averaging, and so on. A 100% efficiency is simply not physically possible. A very, very high quality system could get 95% or so back - but Atlanta isn’t a new town; it’s sewer system isn’t super-efficient, and it’s water treatment facilities aren’t at all run down, but they aren’t brand new. So, I picked 80%.
Importantly, the mathematics works out to be exactly the same, regardless of the percentage you use (except if you use 100%). Use of Grey water, so long as that usage replaces a fresh water use, and particularly if that usage involves the grey water getting to the sewer, will always help conservation.
I did another take of this in the wiki -
http://atlantawatershortage.com/wiki/index.php/Grey_Water
December 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Honestly Rkolter I think 80% is very low. I would not want to think that any more than 1% loss could be attributed to leakage. If so it would be some pretty major leaks. Again probably not more than 1% to evaporation - I think most of the process would be sealed inside pipes. If we figure 98 percent instead of 80% the numbers are much different. In that case you would have to re-use 100 gallons to save 2.
A proverbial drop in the bucket.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
RichS - “I would not want to think that any more than 1% loss could be attributed to leakage”
Not to cause any distress in your “thinking”, but according to a Feb. 2006 fact sheet by the Georgia Water Coalition, “Georgia loses approximately 10% of its water through leaky pipes, while Atlanta loses approximately 18%.”*
Perhaps the one of the best partial solutions to Atlanta’s water situation would simply be better infrastructure maintainence?
* - http://www.garivers.org/gawater/pdf%20files/GWC%20Water%20Conservation%20FS%20draft.pdf
December 7th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Regarding evaporation, the municipal supply water loss is considerable. There is significant evaporation loss just in open reservoir storage. Sound estimates are that Lake Powell on the Colorado River decreases the total water available in the river by about 6%. Of course temp, wind and humidity are important variables impacting the actual loss for any specific storage.
An article published in September makes a good case for some areas to drain their surface reservoirs and find other storage. From sciencedaily.com “Odd as it sounds, in some places the smartest way to safeguard the water supply is to let it drain out of the reservoirs and soak into the ground. That’s what been discovered in local water shortages in Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico — all of which could be microcosms of water shortage issues looming throughout the Western U.S.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060918085903.htm
December 7th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Notanumber - those are surprisingly high numbers. I know Atlanta has been undertaking a billion dollar project to repair and upgrade infrastructure over the last few years. I also know when I hear about breaks it is always a supply line - never a sewer line and I am talking strictly about sewage losses. I don’t know that sewer lines break less often - maybe they just don’t make the news when they do. Either way, there are obviously gains to be made in infrastructure. The current Atlanta mayor has done a pretty good job with that project so far. Previous administrations were a little more concerned with how they could line their pockets.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Well then that is different. There is very little pressure in waste systems. So most leak volume is into the system. Particularly in a system originally designed as a combined sewer system (waste and storm in one flow) like Atlanta’s, which uses old stream drainages, the problem is gain. Chances are very good the outflow can and often does exceed 100%. I would suspect that much of Atlanta’s sewer infrastructure improvement over the last two decades has been to separate the combined sewer system in order to improve health safety and reduce the volume of waste water needing complex treatment.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Mickey - “Of course, the best way to get these goals to be met would be to simply lay down tougher restrictions. ”
Wrong! Tougher restrictions are not the “best way” to reduce usage. The best way is to simply raise rates. Current research (July 07) reveals that, “On average, in the United States, a ten percent increase in the marginal price of water can be expected to diminish demand in the urban residential sector by about 3 to 4 percent.”
http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/070718_wp_olmstead_stavins.pdf
It is such a mystery why GA will not do anything to improve the situation. I mean other than pray. What do you think potential job expansion plans for Atlanta and related housing demand is doing while you do nothing? Except argue about Florida’s bivalves.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Good save notanumber. I was starting to agree with you for a minute until you had to throw in your slam against GA. I was getting worried. lol.
Actually you aren’t far off base with that either. The one thing that you and all the others who want to slam GA for shortsightedness, Atlanta sprawl, etc. need to understand is that water really hasn’t been a problem here like this before. We have had some droughts that we came through unscathed without the lake going nearly this low. This is something of a man-made crisis because we have a small lake trying to keep water in a river system over a long period of time. The lake has gone down ten feet in three months because of that. If you go back to the beginning of July, the lake was only five feet low. A little bit of a concern but certainly no crisis.
Maybe the worst thing Georgia politicians have done is enter an agreement with Florida and Alabama to keep a minimum flow of 5000 CFS regardless of how decimated lake Lanier becomes. That flow is why the reservoir is so low now. A small reservoir can’t keep the entire river system full of water for very long.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
RichS - “That flow is why the reservoir is so low now.” Gee, and I thought it was drought.
Thanks for the history lesson. But, I don’t care about small lakes or sprawl or lack of past problems or last summer. To me the question is, why can’t GA recognize today’s reality and take proven, established, appropiate immediate action. And ,why people like you become excusers and enablers of the inaction by diverting the discussion into areas other than how to reduce usage. The US per capita average water use is twice that of the rest of the industrialized nations, save Canada. There is much that can be done to reduce Atlanta’s water usage 20% while retaining quality of life, which would not only take the pressure of the drought off, but allow capacity for future growth. Unfortunately, it seems like the general population of Atlanta is wanting to risk it all playing chicken with the weather.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Notanumber - why can’t you realize that nothing Georgia does will make any significant difference in the short term? If Atlanta stopped using water entirely it would only slow the rate at which the lake is dropping. For every gallon consumed by Atlanta metro from the ACF basin, around ten gallons are being sent downstream to artificially keep the river full. You and many others here are really interested in the one that Atlanta takes - not very interested in the other nine. What kind of bias causes that???
I’m perfectly happy to talk about reducing Atlanta consumption - I just don’t think it’s the most important part of the equation when you look at how many gallons are going where.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
To throw a little simple math at the issue - Assuming my round number of 10% of the water being released from Lanier is being consumed (not used - there is a difference) by Atlanta. If Atlanta consumes (or uses) 20% less water as you have called for - that means a savings of 20% of 10%. 2% reduction in the rate at which we are draining Lanier.
2% is meaningful but if we compare it to the meager 5% reduction that we are asking Florida to sign on to - 5% 0f 90% = 4.5% or more than double the impact Atlanta could do with a 20% reduction. Not to get too complicated but if we figure 50% of Florida’s water at the moment is coming from below Atlanta that basically doubles the impact because all the 5% reduction is from the 50% that we are sending down.
So that means approx 9%reduction in outflow can be achieved with a 5% sacrifice by Florida or a 2% reduction in outflow with a 20% sacrifice in Atlanta.
I’m not going to argue against 2% - I only want to point out that bigger gains can be had elsewhere.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:48 am
RichS - Because I don’t know and can’t find support for the figures you use, I won’t comment on your assumptions or the math you outline. But in any case, I think that your “figuring” is only a distraction from my fundamental point which is from a community perspective; you would rather dwell on Florida and others to have them make changes, than to make ANY changes for yourself. It almost seems pathological.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:04 am
No notanumber - I want to point out where most of the water is going and where most of the problem can be solved. The problem I see is too many people look at the politically correct answers - not the answers that will make the most impact. It seems politically correct to bash Atlanta now.
The numbers are a little time consuming to come by - but you can find figures for Atlanta area usage from the ACF basin (much of the metro area is not drawing water from ACF and should be ignored for these calculations). Consumption figures are a little harder to come by, but you can figure somewhere around 40 percent of use figures. You can also easily find figures for how many gallons are being released from Lanier.
With just some rough numbers figure a daily usage of 500 million gallons = a consumption of 200 Million Gallons. If two billion gallons is being released that is a ten to one ratio - one gallon used by Atlanta - nine going downstream.
Maybe it’s pathological to want to concentrate on where the one gallon is going while ignoring where the nine go?????
December 10th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
RichS - “The numbers are a little time consuming to come by - but you can find figures for Atlanta area usage from the ACF basin (much of the metro area is not drawing water from ACF and should be ignored for these calculations). Consumption figures are a little harder to come by, but you can figure somewhere around 40 percent of use figures. You can also easily find figures for how many gallons are being released from Lanier.”
Show your references or links. Otherwise it is just so much BS.
RichS - “It seems politically correct to bash Atlanta now.”
It is not “politically correct”, it is simply correct. Effectively, Atlanta has done nothing to improve to its situation. In regards to the water shortage Atlanta seems just to be a bunch of impotent, lazy, whiners. You shouldn’t try to marginalize accurate criticism by ad hominem labels.
RichS - “Maybe it’s pathological to want to concentrate on where the one gallon is going while ignoring where the nine go?????”
When you can easily do something about the one gallon and if you are a Christian, yes it is. Mat 7:3
December 10th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Just on the sewage portion of your lovely debate Rich and NaN -
notanumber made a point - Sewage lines are not pressurized and often do collect more water provided there is water to collect - in a prolonged drought there is still a net negative effect - no storm runoff and no groundwater at the sewage level means water can leak out of the sewage lines. I have to assume the sewage lines are in no better shape than any other municipal water line.
Rich does bring up an excellent point that using the grey water for toilet water doesn’t do you much good. It does a little good, but not nearly as much as using grey water for things like watering your household plants, mopping, and any other duty that would otherwise take fresh water and effectively “consume” it.
I’ve updated the wiki.
You two need to stop fighting. That’s my .02
December 10th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Notanumber “Show your references or links. Otherwise it is just so much BS.”
Do your own research if you doubt mine. I haven’t seen that exact point made by anyone else so I can’t give you one reference. I would have to give you ten different places to look for everything. If I’m wrong it wouldn’t be hard to poke a hole in my numbers though.
“Atlanta seems just to be a bunch of impotent, lazy, whiners.”
Were we just talking about liberal hate speech on another forum? And I have no interest in debating theology with you.
Rkolter - “You two need to stop fighting. That’s my .02″ Come on - what’s the fun in that?? I think notanumber and I need to put on the gloves. lol.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
You two only get to fight if I get to pick the weapons. Electrified rusty chainsaws as thrown weapons. Think lawn darts. Only much, much worse.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
LOL - maybe that’s what the three governors need to try. Three men enter one man leaves.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
rkolter - Many of Atlanta’s larger sewer mains continually collect more water due to the fact that they are the remnants of Atlanta’s natural steams. (eg Orme Creek, Peachtree Creek etc.) These sewer mains are really just large, now antique, brick enclosures of the original stream converting the natural existing geologic drainage topographay into a combined sewer. These natural geologic streams still continue to collect groundwater even in a drought, albeit reduced.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:01 am
How does a stream encased in cement and brick collect groundwater during a drought when the rest of the system is not?
How does a stream collect groundwater during a drought when streams interact with their environments by feeding the water table when the water table is low (such as during a drought)?
Do you know for a fact that those streams are diverted into the water treatment plant’s facility, and are not simply rediverted elsewhere, as most streams are when they’re encased and buried during the growth of a city?
To put this in a different light - why would metro Atlanta accept wear and tear on their sewer system, and pay to treat water from a natural stream, before paying to pump that water into another river, gaining no benefit from that water?
I’m just not convinced.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Peachtree has a 5.5 cf/s flow north of Atlanta and 8.9 cf/s south of Atlanta - seems that while it does gather water, it’s not being redirected via the treatment center into the Chattahoochie.
If you’re right and it’s going through the sewer, it’s coming out really gross and half again as fast. >.<
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ga/nwis/current/?type=flow&group_key=county_cd
December 11th, 2007 at 11:24 am
rkolter, I think you’re are looking at the North and South Forks of Peachtree Creek in DeKalb County. The two forks come together and empty into the Chattahoochee in Fulton County. The flow there is 13 cf/s. There’s a picture of the gage site in Fulton County at http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/gawater/siteinfo.cfm?siteno=02336300&code=121 that shows it’s not encased.
However, Atlanta’s original sewer system was a combined sanitary-storm system, part of which are over 100 years old. In case of rain, sanitary sewage can overflow into storm sewers. The problem is being corrected.
See:
http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc01/professional/papers/pap722/p722.htm
http://www.atlantaga.gov/media/sewerrehab_081203.aspx
http://www.cleanwateratlanta.org/SSES/Technology/SmokeTest.htm
or just search for “Atlanta sewer system” or something similar.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Well, that’s both disgusting and explanatory.
It means that at least that particular creek doesn’t make it into the calculations when we’re talking about Grey water. It doesn’t go through the same system as the sewer for treatment and eventual re-release.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
In case anyone wants more info, notanumber mentioned Orme Creek. Orme Creek runs into Clear Creek near Piedmont Park. Clear Creek runs into Peachtree Creek. This is close to where I grew up.
There is/was a concrete flume for combined sewer overflow along the east side of the park. There’s a picture of the flume on page 18 of http://www.piedmontpark.org/pdf/NW-MP-draft.pdf and next to it a chart showing the location of underground culverts. The city built a sewer treatment center in the area recently. So treated water runs into Clear Creek and eventually into the Chattahoochee.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Although ‘water usage’ is the theme here, I find the power shortage potential more electrifying. Ahem. Has anyone on AWS investigated the anticipated power loss to Atlanta, as the FIRST major side effect of water loss? Here’s my reasoning.
Today, the AJC reported the 61 county area lessened their November water consumption by 15%. 6% of this reduction came from residences and businesses while the remaining 9% came from the shutdown of two hydroelectric plants. Both plants were reporting financial losses due to the t shutdown. One was shutdown for equipment repair, the other due to ‘drought restrictions’. They consume hundreds of millions of gallons daily when they are operating. FYI: SEPA is the entity that reroutes electrical power by the way. If you google drought summit june 2007 you will find an ACE pdf, (see page 4) where the SEPA rep is saying that Allatoona loses 25% of it’s hydroelectric generating capacity when at 828-830 ft. Well, it is now at 818 ft. On the lanier side,AWS bloggers, quoting the Corp, have stated that the two big turbines stop at 1035 ft or so….with a smaller one at 1020.
So it appears to beg a question of SEPA or other public authorities…how may power days are left and how much more will it cost in the future? I have read about the much reduced water consumption by GA Power, for instance, once they installed cooling towers. The water savings were tremendous. SAK
January 8th, 2008 at 8:39 am
[...] for December, 2007 was down by 19.1% when compared to December, 2006. Not bad, considering many water systems were unable to meet the goal in November. I’d be curious to see how the others did in December when compared to [...]