As expected, Monday night's Peachtree City Water and Sewerage Authority meeting featured an update on the ongoing watershed assessment along with a detailed explanation of the permitting process for increasing the system's capacity.

WASA general manager Larry Turner reiterated his previous statements that his department has no position one way or the other on annexation or any similar issues, but he must be prepared for whatever happens.

“There is a misconception about how the water and sewer system can dictate growth issues,” he said. “We're no different from Georgia Power - we're here to serve. And when there is a demand, we must provide service.”

Turner also showed the board a videotape of a recent television news report that pointed out the frequency of spills during the recent winter storms and accompanying power outages.

According to the WSB-TV story, a total of 31 spills and more than 600,000 gallons in the metro Atlanta area were attributed to the weather of the past three weeks, and a spokesman for the state's Environmental Protection Division was quoted as saying that total was not all that harmful.

Turner said he showed this to let the board see what his office sees on a daily basis. A small spill into Lake Peachtree within the last two weeks was the result of a power failure at a pump station.

“This is not a local problem or a state problem,” said Turner. “This is a national problem.”

As for spills that occurred during 1999, Turner reported that he has received no comment so far from the EPD about its consent order and the city's response.

While no actual permit application has been made, the authority has been investigating what would be necessary to get approval for increased capacity and just how much would eventually be needed. Turner said a few weeks ago that no matter the outcome of the recent annexation debate, during which the City Council voted to continue its annexation moratorium, the sewer system would need to be increased somewhat.

An application is now being processed that would renew the city's current permit, as is required every five years. The current allotment is 4.9 million gallons per day, and the system's average flow is about 3.6 mgd.

A study of the city's possible future needs yielded the following estimates of how the flow could rise:

” Current requested industrial use — 0.4 mgd.

” Future industrial growth — 0.4 mgd.

” Future commercial growth — 0.1 mgd.

” Residential buildout — 0.5 mgd.

” Replacement of existing septic tanks — 0.3 mgd.

” West Village use — 0.5 mgd.

That adds up to 5.8 mgd, including the West Village, whose annexation was most recently discussed. If all of those categories are considered at once, Turner said, the requested figure sent to EPD would be rounded up to six mgd for planning purposes.

Turner stressed that the system cannot be extended outside the current service area without City Council approval. As for annexation, “I think they've [council] been very strong in their stance,” Turner said, citing the most recent vote.

Turner also pointed out that the septic tank total takes into account every single tank in the city, and many of those may not need to be replaced for a long time.

But when deciding what the flow amount should eventually be for a permit application, “a lot of money is involved,” Turner said. If a request is sent in and then the city decides in the future to go back and ask for more, the extra flow capacity may not be there.

Turner will send a letter to the City Council asking for some direction. His current recommendation is not to consider the proposed West Village in future plans, but he repeated that it might be difficult to change that later.

The process has taken some two years to get to where it is now, which is the midst of the watershed assessment. After that is completed, there will be public hearings to consider the findings.

If any application is made for expansion, the completion of the process is probably three years away, Turner said.

As for the watershed assessment itself, Turner addressed recent public statements which he said insinuated that the project was not being done correctly. He named several of the key people involved in the study, pointing out their credentials and qualifications to perform the work as mandated by the state.

Turner said that the public's accessibility to the details of the watershed assessment had also been called into question. In response to that, he laid out the timetable the project has followed over the past year:

l At the May 4, 1999 regular WASA meeting, the watershed assessment was discussed and Turner pointed out the need for a watershed advisory group.

l The advisory group met Sept. 1 in a public meeting that was posted outside City Hall, which is the city's normal procedure, Turner said.

l The Nov. 1 regular WASA meeting included an update on watershed assessment.

l WASA officials met Jan. 5 with EPD representatives, who Turner said were pleased and satisfied with the city's progress.

l Another advisory group meeting was held Jan. 11, and that meeting was also posted.

Turner showed the board a number of documents from the federal Environmental Protection Agency and other groups that say the methods being used in the watershed assessment are “clearly accepted.”

Asked by the board about the possible time frame for the next step in the process, after the watershed assessment is completed, Turner said he hopes to go to the EPD by this fall, but that part could take more than a year.

Back to News Home Page | Back to the top of the page