IDS-Water - White Paper
     
Title:
Georgia ’s Statewide Water Management Plan: The Need for Strategic Water Conservation and Reuse Mechanisms and Measures  
Author:

Georgia Conservancy

 
Designation:
Georgia Conservancy  
Company:

Georgia Conservancy

 
 
 
           

I. Introduction

Water conservation, or the beneficial reduction of water use, waste, and loss, is a critical management tool to meet future water demand needs in Georgia. Water conservation can help Georgia ensure enough clean water for future generations, for sustainable economic development, and for maintaining healthy aquatic systems. Georgia is rich in freshwater capital. However, our water demand is increasingly becoming a critical issue as our population grows, as demand increases, as two areas of the state are under water withdrawal moratoria, and as our aquatic systems are becoming more stressed. Our ever-increasing need for clean water today threatens our ability to have enough water for future generations and to maintain the health of our rivers, lakes, streams, and aquifers. This paper addresses the need for a strategic water conservation program in Georgia and suggests mechanisms and measures to reduce water supply demand.

II. Background

We have been living under supply-driven water management in Georgia. In other words, we allow water users’ consumption to drive the State to rely on technological solutions for new sources of water, rather than managing our demand for water. Demand management is the best way to extend our water supply, and it is crucial because water supplies are fixed. Technological solutions, such as reservoirs, come at a high cost to the aquatic environment and to local government coffers. Reservoirs alter natural water flow and change the timing, amount, and duration of flows, upon which native fish species and Georgia wildlife depend (Cowie 2002). Often overlooked are the social impacts on downstream communities. Reservoirs affect their drinking water supplies, their ability to grow and meet their municipal wastewater permit limits, their ability to attract new industries or for their existing industries to meet wastewater discharge limits, and the reduced flows from upstream reservoirs can negatively impact recreation, tourism, and commercial fishing—all of which translate into millions of dollars for Georgia’s economy. Although reservoirs store water for when it is needed, they do not create or conserve water. Instead, they result in a net loss of water due to more surface water evaporation (Cowie 2002). Water conservation, efficiency, and reuse together will reduce excessive demand and allow us to look beyond engineered ways to increase the availability of a finite resource.

Considering that the average Georgian consumes 10% more than the average water user nationally, reducing our demand for water is an obvious first step in finding “new” supplies of water (Fanning 2000). Managing demand is typically best done on a regional basis and is geared to the largest type of water use. For instance, residential water use, which is the largest water use in the 16-county, Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (the “Metro District”), is the focus of conservation efforts in the Atlanta area. Likewise, agricultural irrigation would be the focus of conservation efforts in southwest Georgia, and municipal and industrial use would be the primary focus in coastal Georgia.

The Metro District predicts that its 16-county area will not be able to meet its water supply demands by 2030 if there is no change in our current levels of water consumption. The Metro District has set a goal of 11% reduction in water demand through water conservation, and has implemented several conservation mechanisms, but other metropolitan areas like Seattle and Albuquerque have reduced their per capita demand since the 1990’s by 20% and 30% respectively. Conservation plans in Atlanta could and should be much more aggressive.

Below the Fall Line, both southwest and coastal Georgia are feeling the impact of over pumping groundwater. In some river basins in southwest Georgia, agricultural irrigation comprises as much as 90% of the water used during the April-September growing season (McDowell 2005). In 1999, the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) placed a moratorium on new agricultural groundwater withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer in the lower Flint River basin in response to a combination of a prolonged drought, dramatically increased agricultural irrigation since the late 1970’s, and scientific studies that predicted severe impacts on stream flows due to excessive groundwater withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer.

In the Coastal Plain region, industry and mining are the largest groundwater consumers, using 53% of the groundwater withdrawn. The second largest sector is public supply, which consumes 23%, and irrigation accounts for 13%. Thermoelectric (fossil fuel and nuclear facilities) power production accounts for 83% of surface water use (Fanning 1999). In 1997, EPD adopted the interim strategy for the 24-county Coastal Plain due to continued lowering of the groundwater table and saltwater intrusion. In addition to research, the interim strategy called for restrictions on new groundwater withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer in Glynn, Chatham, lower Bryan, and lower Effingham counties and additional limits on the surrounding area. In 2002, EPD was obliged to place absolute restrictions on new water withdrawals from the Upper Floridan aquifer. This cap was triggered by EPD’s analysis that they had gone beyond the withdrawal limitations by an estimated 30% due to the upwelling of demand by the agricultural and industrial sectors.

III. Regulations, Rules and Policies Relating to Water Conservation

In the most general sense, Georgia’s regulated riparian law promotes water conservation, because it requires that all potential users be guaranteed the right of reasonable use. Therefore, water resources cannot be so over-allocated that potential legitimate downstream water users do not have sufficient water for their needs. Users are not entitled to waste water, because wasteful use is not “reasonable.”

Two specific Georgia laws influence water conservation: the Georgia Water Quality Control Act (O.C.G.A §§ 12-5-20 et seq.) and the Ground-water Use Act (O.C.G.A. §§ 12-5-90 et seq.). Under both statutes, permits are required for withdrawals of surface or groundwater, respectively, in excess of 100,000 gallons per day. Both statutes also require the applicant to prepare water conservation plans for all non-farm use permits. The Rules for Groundwater Use (Ga. Comp. R. & Regs, § 391-3-2) and Water Quality Control (Ga. Comp. R. & Regs, § 391-3-6) include guidelines for submitting specific components under the water conservation plans including details regarding system management (e.g. 12-months of data on unaccounted for water), treatment management (e.g. water metering details), rate making policies, plumbing ordinances and codes, recycling or reuse, and education programs (Keyes 2005a).

In the last ten years, Georgia has taken a few steps toward improving its water conservation policy. In 1994, the Board of Natural Resources adopted federally mandated municipalities to adopt efficient energy standards, which included low-flow plumbing standards for new construction (Keyes 2005b). In 2001, the Georgia General Assembly passed the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning Act, which created a planning entity to comprehensively manage water supply and quality in the 16-county metropolitan region. The Act called for both water supply and water conservation plans and required the EPD Director to ensure compliance (or good faith efforts by local governments) with the Metro District plans prior to approving any new or expanded water supply withdrawal or wastewater discharge permit application. In 2003, the DNR Board adopted the statewide Drought Management Plan, which included outdoor watering schedules based on both drought and non-drought conditions, and in 2004, the Board passed permanent outdoor watering restrictions that apply year-round. Also in 2003, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 579, which called for the metering of agricultural water use, which is a first step in being able to measure the effects of water conservation in the agricultural sector. Finally, EPD proposed a Statewide Water Conservation Plan in 2004, but it was never adopted.

In addition to these initiatives, two federal laws contain provisions that encourage water conservation under specific conditions: the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)(16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq.). In order for municipalities and businesses to comply with their obligations under the CWA, a certain level of instream flow is needed to assimilate waste (from both point source and non-point source pollution) and to maintain water quality. Under the CWA, a certain level of instream flow is needed to assimilate waste (from both point source and non-point source pollution) and to attain water quality standards. Under the ESA, governments could face severe penalties if permitted withdrawals do not leave sufficient water levels to support the viability of an endangered species. In 1999, sufficient surface water levels required to support four species of federally protected fresh water mussels became an issue in the Flint River Basin due to the extended drought of 1999-2002 and increased agricultural irrigation since the 1970’s.

IV. Key Components of a Statewide Water Conservation Plan

Because water conservation is the state’s first and least expensive means of providing adequate water supply, the state should aggressively implement effective water conservation mechanisms and measures across all sectors including residential, industry, agriculture, landscapes, government, and water utilities. As an initial matter, a statewide water conservation plan should be based on river basins, not political boundaries, and should consider both aquifers and surface waters in an integrated way. At a minimum, the following eight components are needed for a successful statewide program (adapted from Keyes et. al. 2004).

  1. Existing policies at the state, regional, and local levels must be reconciled and integrated to address water conservation and reuse on the river basin scale. Such policies include the drought plan, the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, interbasin transfer policies, and instream flow policies.
  2. Political leadership and “buy-in” are critical to the implementation of water conservation measures and mechanisms statewide. Our political leaders must demonstrate a water conservation ethic and champion water conservation and reuse as an untapped water supply source, and they must put conservation and reuse first before looking to conventional water supplies that are costly and damaging to our environment. All state agencies and facilities should implement water conservation plans and serve as models for conservation and efficient use of water.
  3. Stakeholders from all sectors must be involved in the planning process.
  4. Efficient timing and detailed and specific objectives, goals, and benchmarks are crucial to implementing water conservation measures and mechanisms statewide and achieving the water savings results needed to handle Georgia’s projected future population growth and to protect our natural heritage.
  5. Central to a statewide water conservation and reuse plan is to utilize a demand forecasting approach that would provide water resource managers and decision makers with information on future water demand and the potential effects of demand management and alternative water supply options. Demand forecasting can provide an assessment of water demand under baseline, conservation, and reuse scenarios. Forecasting of both potable and nonpotable water demand and the displacement of potable water demand with these nonpotable alternative supplies are needed. These demand forecasting scenarios will help water managers calculate how much water is going to which sector (i.e. specific uses) and how efficiently systems are functioning. The demand scenarios must then be tied back into a comprehensive analysis of any considerations of the development of water supply reservoirs and interbasin transfers. Successful, sound water planning through these types of studies will hinge upon data from sophisticated meter reading, data logging, and technologies that trace consumptive and non-consumptive water use of random water users across sectors.
  6. There must have a dedicated source of funding for a Water Conservation and Reuse Program to be successfully implemented.
  7. EPD must have sufficient staff and resources to ensure implementation statewide.
  8. School education programs and public education programs that reach all sectors and counties must be broad in approach through literature, training, and workshops. One of these approaches alone does not constitute an effective conservation outreach program.

Statewide benchmarks for water conservation and reuse measures must be established through the statewide planning process. At a minimum, the following benchmarks should be adopted statewide:

  1. The current industry standard for unaccounted-for water is 10% or less. Unaccountedfor water includes loss occurring after treatment either through leaks or theft. However, a new standard should be investigated. For example, an innovative method for detecting and reducing water loss is the Infrastructure Leak Index (ILI) measure, a volumetric accountability approach recommended by the International Water Association (IWA) (Lambert and McKenzie 2002). The ILI is the ratio of current annual real losses to unavoidable annual real losses. This approach helps managers to assess the least cost, highest beneficial strategy in water loss reduction. The Halifax Regional Water Commission (HRWC) implemented the ILI methodology in 2000 and was successful in reducing the ILI from 9.0 in 1998 to 3.8 in 2005 (Yates 2005).
  2. Single-family (indoor) water use should not exceed 50-70 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) (Mayer et al. 1999).
  3. Multi-family (indoor) water use should not exceed 50-60 gpcd (Mayer et al. 1999).
  4. Outdoor watering should not exceed15 gpcd (Solley 1998).
  5. All turf and landscape irrigation water users should improve their efficiency by at least 10% by implementing rainwater sensor shut-off devices, adopting waterwise landscaping, or harvesting rainwater (consider that pricing, audits, redesigned landscapes, and improved irrigation can have a 5-40% water savings (Vickers 2001)).
  6. Industrial, commercial, and institutional sectors should increase their efficiency by at least 15% (consider that Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) potential savings is anywhere from 15-90% (Vickers 2001)).
  7. Agricultural water users should improve their efficiency by at least 10% (consider that potential farm water savings can be anywhere from 10-40% (Vickers 2001)).

V. Strategic Mechanisms for Water Conservation and Reuse in Georgia

“Mechanisms” are either mandates or incentives to reduce demand that are implemented through regulation, education, or funding.

A. Regulation. Examples of regulatory mechanisms include water-efficiency policies and ordinances, laws and plumbing codes for water-efficient fixtures and appliances, standards for landscape design, irrigation scheduling, penalties for outdoor water waste, pollution prevention requirements, and water demand offset requirements for builders (Vickers 2001). At a minimum, 11 regulatory mechanisms ought to be established statewide.

  1. Watering Restrictions. Although ‘Even/Odd’ watering schedules are widely implemented and relieve supply pressures in the short term, they have been shown to actually lead to increased water use because homeowners will change their original watering practice to a more frequent, every other day schedule (Vickers 2001). The rules on outdoor water use during non-drought periods should be changed to include one of the following strategies to limit the amount and/or time of watering: (1) water only every four to five days; or (2) include a time period in which watering should occur. For example, the times in the Drought Response Level One include 4:00 pm to midnight and midnight to 10:00 am.
  2. Moratoriums. Comprehensive studies should be completed and effective management policies should be developed before lifting moratoriums on groundwater withdrawals.
  3. Water Withdrawal Permitting. Conservation plans should be included as enforceable provisions of new, renewed, or expanded permits. All permitted users should maintain a standardized record of their water use. No new permits should be issued until the impact on the resource is known and the applicant has a conservation program in place. New permitees should be required to use the most water-efficient practicable technology available. No increase in existing water withdrawal permits should be issued until the impact on the resource is known and the applicant has already implemented specific conservation goals. Unused portions of existing permits should be revoked to conserve the resource.
  4. Local Water Supply Plans. Local governments should be required to prepare water supply plans that, develop, invest in, and implement aggressive water conservation programs (i.e., Best Management Practices) to reduce the demand for water prior to applying for approval of new supplies such as reservoirs and increasing existing withdrawal permit capacity.
  5. Residential Water Audits. All water providers should be required to conduct water audit and leak detection every 2 years for the top 25% of their water users to evaluate water savings and conservation measures.
  6. Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) Water Audits. Water providers should be required to conduct water audit and leak detection every 2 years of all commercial water users and provide feasibility reports to outline the changes needed to their processing and operations in order to reduce their water usage.
  7. Water Metering. All local jurisdictions should require sub-unit meters in new multi-family buildings and a retrofit program for all existing buildings.
  8. Conservation Pricing. All local jurisdictions should adopt a water conservation pricing ordinance. A conservation pricing system is one that has water rate structures that encourage consumers to reduce water use by charging the consumer more for increased use. A 2003 assessment of North Georgia Regional Water Supply Needs found that the Metro District could reduce water consumption by 13.75 mgd through conservation pricing (CH2MHill 2003). Conservation pricing benefits local governments by providing funds needed for the maintenance and construction of wastewater treatment plants, better water treatment standards, and the expense of planning and developing new water sources.
  9. Retrofit Old Plumbing Fixtures. All local jurisdictions should adopt a ‘retrofit of old plumbing fixtures’ ordinance that would require local water providers to offer a direct install program (customer retrofits older toilet for a low-flow toilet with discounted or free installation through the local water provider), a rebate incentive program (customer receives a credit on water bill, cash, or voucher offsetting the cost of a new low-flow toilet), a requirement at change of service program (upon hook-up of service, customer provides evidence of low-flow fixture), or some other program that will get similar results.
  10. Permitting Coordination. The General Assembly should pass legislation that gives EPD power to condition new or expanded water withdrawal permits on local providers’ implementation of aggressive water conservation goals, their compliance with their local water supply plan, and their obligations under a statewide water conservation program.
  11. Retrofitting Irrigation Systems: The Metro District made progress by passing the rain sensor shut-off switches on new irrigation systems (SB 1217) in 2004. However, rain sensor shut-off requirements should be passed statewide and efforts need to be made to retrofit existing irrigation systems statewide.

B. Educational. It is critical that the State fund DNR’s Statewide Water Conservation Program to lead comprehensive education and technical programs statewide to help create public awareness and a conservation ethic. Public understanding and support are critical to the ultimate success of a statewide water conservation plan, because changing behaviors is key to affecting water demand management.

Educational outreach and technical assistance should target both public and private sectors and address Georgia’s water supply condition, water efficiency devices (hardware that provides better or same level of service with less water), wise water-use or water conserving behaviors, and curtailment (certain water uses limited or prohibited) and alternative supplies such as water recycling, rainwater harvesting, and wastewater reclamation and reuse. The state should set a benchmark for a percentage of citizens to be reached in a certain period of time. Coordination and partnerships with governmental agencies (P2AD, ARC, DCA, GEFA, and SWCC), local water providers, and non-profit organizations will be essential to the programs success. Examples of educational outreach should include direct-mail literature, bill inserts, redesigned bills that include historical water consumption information, television and radio advertisements, demonstration gardens and projects, school curricula, and conservation checklists for permitees (Vickers 2001).

C. Financial. A variety of financial incentives exist that local governments can use to provide financial relief. For example, conservation pricing can provide needed funds for such programs as rebating or replacing old plumbing fixtures. Two regulatory incentives previously mentioned, address rebate programs for retrofitting old plumbing fixtures and conservation rate structure pricing. Other examples include bill credits, surcharge fees, cost-sharing with other utilities and businesses, and performance contracting (contractor compensation based on water savings achieved) (Vickers 2001).

VII. Strategic Measures for Water Conservation and Reuse in Georgia

Measures, or “tools”, include hardware and technology or the behavior associated with hardware and technology that reduce the amount of water a particular use consumes. A total of 5 general measures, at a minimum, should be promoted throughout Georgia.

  1. Limiting Septic Tank Developments: Local jurisdictions should reduce consumptive uses (water that is not returned to a water body) by restricting new septic tank developments and connecting existing septic tanks to sewer systems wherever practicable.
  2. Fixing Urban Leaky Pipes: Water efficiency is a problem throughout the nation with average unaccounted for water ranging from 15-25% due to leaks in system lines, hydrants, connections, etc. Georgia loses approximately 10% of its water through leaky pipes, while Atlanta loses approximately 18% (CH2Mhill 2003). Efforts should be made to reduce the percent of water loss by moving beyond the current industry standard of no more than 10% unaccounted-for water loss and by adopting a new approach such as the Infrastructure Leak Index accountability method recommended by the International Water Association (IWA).
  3. Agricultural Water Efficiency: Elimination of leaky pipes and Variable Rate Irrigation. Agricultural water efficiency (or the measure of the percentage of water taken from a water source that is actually utilized by the crops) is critical to conserving water in south Georgia (Davis 2005). Water use is inefficient when water does not reach the crop but rather is applied to non-cropped areas (e.g., roads, forests, other irrigated fields, or wet areas). Typically, only 35-50% of water withdrawn for irrigation reaches crops because of leaky pipes or evaporation. Examples of more efficient irrigation systems that are being tested in Georgia include drip irrigation that can reduce water use by 40-60% and low-energy precision application that can have up to 95% efficiency ratings compared with gravity systems. However, in the lower Flint River basin, the elimination of leaks in pipes along with general maintenance of irrigation equipment and Variable Rate Irrigation (VRI) were the top two efficiency practices thought to be the most effective and feasible at conserving water (Davis 2005). Most of the irrigation equipment in the area is over 20 years old and fixing leaks is an easy, low cost method to increase efficiency. VRI conserves water by adjusting application rates to areas of fields according to the soil type, slope, wetlands, and other factors affecting infiltration and crop water use. An efficiency benchmark must be established for agricultural irrigation, which at a minimum, cuts in half the current inefficient water use percentages.
  4. Alternative Water Supplies: Wastewater reclamation and reuse, water recycling, rainwater harvesting, and graywater recovery systems. The use of alternative supplies is not technically a conservation measure; however, alternative water supplies perform similar functions to conservation measures in that they can reduce the need for the development of new conventional supplies (reservoirs, direct withdrawals, etc.).
    • Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse (WRR): Industrial, commercial and institutional, and landscape sectors should be required to consider WRR before increasing water withdrawals from new water supply sources. WRR is the reuse of treated municipal wastewater for redistribution to serve needs that can be satisfied by lower quality water standards, such as landscape irrigation and toilet flushing.
    • Water Recycling: This practice involves reusing the water before returning it to a wastewater treatment plant. WellStar Health System in Marietta, Georgia for example, installed a filtration system in its Cobb County laundry facility. This $260,000 high-tech system will disinfect and clean nearly 42 million gallons of laundry wastewater per year, decreasing their city water use by 85% and sewer discharge by 95%. Because the recycled water maintains its high temperature, less natural gas and heating costs are required. WellStar expects to save up to $355,000 in annual water, sewer, and energy costs (Keyes et. al. 2004). Levels of water withdrawals and water consumption for producing energy either by fossil fuel or nuclear power plants depend upon what types of cooling technologies are used (Barczack and Kilpatrick 2005). Although once-through cooling (no cooling towers) systems withdraw very large volumes of water, little water is actually consumed due to the limited amount of evaporation. However, systems that use cooling towers do not need to withdraw large volumes of water, although they do have high rates of consumption due to evaporation. Compared to coal and gas facilities, nuclear power plants have higher rates for both water withdrawal and consumption. Nuclear power plants in Georgia should consider adopting a combination of once through condenser cooling water and a part-time oncethrough cooling tower; although the mechanical draft cooling towers currently in use withdraw less water comparatively, they consume well over half of the volume of water withdrawn (Barczack and Kilpatrick 2005). Water recycling initiatives in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sectors should be implemented statewide.
    • Rainwater Harvesting: This practice involves the collection of precipitation from rooftops and the storage of this precipitation both above and below ground. Rainwater harvesting is a good way of balancing out water supply needs for outdoor water use, particularly during the summer season. In addition, rainwater harvesting reduces stormwater runoff, which is a major cause of pollution in local streams and rivers. The cost of harvesting rainwater varies enormously depending whether the water will be for potable use or for irrigation. A complete system for potable use with filtering and purification components can cost approximately $5,000. The main cost for a rainwater harvesting system for irrigation is the storage tank. The cost of storage tanks depends on the size and material, however it can be as low as $100 for a rain barrel (Krishna 2005). Eventually, Georgia should require a rainwater harvesting system in place for all new residential and commercial buildings and require the retrofitting of old buildings. Until it is required, the state should provide financial incentives such as property tax exemptions, sales tax exemptions, or rebate programs to ensure that progress is being made in the residential and commercial sectors to adopt rainwater harvesting systems.
    • Graywater Recovery Systems: The American Water Works Association estimates that these systems allow for the reuse of approximately 40% of residential “waste” water to irrigate lawns and to flush toilets. Graywater use helps to reduce water bills because it allows the reuse of water that has already been metered. It is also a more reliable source of water compared to rainwater harvesting. The most economical way to install a total graywater system in a house is to plan it into the construction of the house. All new commercial and residential buildings should eventually have a graywater recovery system in place, and Georgia law ought to be changed to at least allow for, if not require, full use of graywater in residential and commercial buildings. In addition, the state should provide financial incentives to help encourage the adoption of these systems in the residential and commercial sectors.

VII. Our Future Depends Upon Water Conservation

The development of a comprehensive Water Conservation Plan through the statewide water planning process can get Georgia where it needs to be if the plan utilizes a range of mechanisms (regulatory actions, education and technical programs, and financial incentives) and measures that reduce water consumption and demand. Water conservation and the efficient use of existing water supplies must always be treated as the highest priority in planning to meet the needs of Georgia’s citizens and ecosystems prior to increasing water supplies. Comprehensive water conservation planning has the potential to improve water quality and instream flow levels, decrease the need for new capital investments, reduce vulnerability to drought, and provide additional benefits to people and ecosystems. The Georgia DNR and the public must be committed to protecting the integrity of Georgia’s aquatic resources for the longterm benefit of humans and other species. Healthy, naturally functioning rivers, streams, wetlands, aquifers, and estuaries are vital to all life and to the state’s economic success.

Now is the time to shift the current water supply paradigm from trying to increase a finite supply to reducing our excessive demand. Now is the time for our citizens, state and local governments, as well as the private and industrial sectors, to make a commitment to conserve surface and ground waters by reducing our water consumption, by supporting water reuse and recycling, and by providing economic incentives to sustain the health of our population, our economy, and our ecosystems.

References

Barczack, S. and R. Kilpatrick. 2005. Water Conservation Opportunities Through Energy Efficiency in Georgia. Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference (April 25-27), The University of Georgia, Athens.

CH2MHill. 2003. North Georgia Regional Water Supply Needs Assessment. Report for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Atlanta, Georgia.

Cowie, G., Ed. 2002. Reservoirs in Georgia: Meeting Water Supply Needs While Minimizing Impacts. University of Georgia River Basin Science and Policy Center, Athens, Georgia.

Davis, M. 2005. Agricultural Water Conservation in the Lower Flint River Basin. A Nature Conservancy product of the Lower Flint River Basin Agricultural Water Conservation Meeting held March 2, Albany, Georgia.

Fanning, J.L. 1999. Water use in coastal Georgia by county and source, 1997; and water-use trends, 1980-97: in Proceedings of the 1999 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held March 30-31, 1999, at The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, Kathryn J. Hatcher,editor, Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Fanning, J.L. 2000. Estimated Use of Water in the US in 2000. USGS website -
water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/figure13.html and “Water Use in Georgia, 2000; and Trends, 1950-2000.

Keyes, A.M., M. Schmitt, and J. Hinkle. 2004. Critical Components of Conservation Programs That Get Results: A National Analysis. American Water Works Association – Water Sources Conference Proceedings. Jan. 2004: 15 pgs.

Keyes, A.M. 2005a. Current Requirements for Water Conservation in Georgia. Compiled by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division.

Keyes, A.M. 2005b. Building a State of Water Conservation: Georgia EPD Strengthens Water Conservation in Policy and Planning. Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference (April 25-27), The University of Georgia, Athens.

Krishna, H. 2005.The Texas Manual on Rainwater Harvesting. Third Edition. Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas, 88 pp.

Lambert, A.O. and R.D. McKenzie. 2002. Practical Experience in using the Infrastructure Leakage Index. Proceedings of the International Water Association Conference ‘Leakage Management: A Practical Approach’, Cyprus.

Mayer, P., W. DeOreo, E. Opitz, J. Kiefer, W. Davis, B. Dziegielewski, and J.O. Nelson. 1999. Residential End Uses of Water. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association: Denver, CO.

McDowell, R. 2005. Recommendations for the Flint River Basin Water Development and Conservation Plan. Draft report by the Flint River Basin Stakeholder Advisory Committee, presented to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division Director, September 30.

Solley, W. B., R.R. Pierce, and H.A. Perlman. 1998. Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. U.S. Geological Survey circular 1200. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.

Vickers, A. 2001. Water Use and Conservation. WaterPlow Press, Amherst, MA.

Yates, C.D. 2005. Water Accountability – The New Way. In, Leakage 2005 - Conference Proceedings, held from September 12-14, Halifax: 7pp.