It is something Georgians used to take for granted, but no longer. The availability of water in the drought-stricken metro Atlanta area, including Fayetteville, continues to be problematic.

Addressing that issue at the City Council’s Jan. 8 retreat, council members discussed the possibility of Fayetteville constructing its own reservoir on the old P.K. Dixon property at the south end of Burch Road.

The city-owned site is located along Gingercake Creek and Whitewater Creek. A possibility for the area would include holding approximately 108 acres of the property for a reservoir and another 195 floodplain acres as a passive park, City Engineer Don Easterbrook said in a Nov. 15 memo.

Referencing the possible project, referred to as the Goat Mountain Reservoir Feasibility Study, Director of Water Rick Eastin said a key feature of the report evaluated several water storage reservoir options as well as the idea of declining to build the facility.

The study also reviewed issues such as construction and operations cost estimates for each option. The study reviewed water supply conditions over a 40-year period.

The study cited three reservoir options and an additional option of not building a reservoir. Perhaps surprisingly, the cost of a reservoir with the greatest water capacity would cost little more than a much smaller reservoir or having no reservoir at all.

The council concluded that, if the project were to be undertaken, the largest reservoir was probably the best alternative.

Option 1 called for a reservoir that would hold an 89-day supply of raw water with a surface area of 45 acres containing 350 million gallons and with a 40-year total cost of approximately $73,867,800, Eastin said.

Option 1 would provide a sustainable supply of raw water during some periods of drought, though it would not provide sufficient supplies for 60 days during four of the years in the 40-year study period.

A reservoir under Option 2 would cover a surface area of 49 acres containing 412 million gallons at a 40-year total cost of $72,476,750. Option 2 would provide a 122-day supply of raw water, and would provide a sustainable supply of water during most periods of drought but would fall short for 30 days during two of the years in the 40-year study period.

Option 3 called for a 67-acre reservoir containing 513 million gallons that would provide a 151-day supply or water at a cost of $73,692,700. Option 3 would provide a sustainable supply of raw water for all periods of drought studied, Eastin said.

A decision not to build a reservoir would still bring significant expense, with a 40-year total cost of approximately $68,882,000, including more than $21 million in water purchases from Fayette County and ongoing operating expenses such as water treatment plants costs, salaries and the payback of the treatment plant bond.

Eastin also noted several non-economic benefits and financial impacts associated with constructing a reservoir.

Non-economic benefits included ensuring a reliable source of raw water, improved raw water quality, lower water treatment operations by maximizing facility operations, less dependence on county water for the city’s water supply and the creation of passive recreation activities such as fishing and non-motorized boating.

A financial impact summary provided by Eastin noted that, based on the 40-year study, the no-build alternative had the least cost of all options evaluated though over a longer period of time a reservoir could be financially justified.