Soapbox: Next mayor can’t slack on Atlanta’s sewer overhaul
October 26, 2009 at 3:34 pm by Web Editor in Soapbox
Sally Bethea
In addition to crime, finances and transportation, Atlanta’s next mayor has a sizable task on his or her to-do list: continue fixing the city’s antiquated sewer system. Sally Bethea, executive director of the Upper Chattachoochee Riverkeeper, reminds the candidates not to lose sight of the estimated $4.1 billion project.
Eight short years ago, Atlanta’s aging sewer system was a disgrace to its citizens and to the state of Georgia. It was also illegal.
When the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper sued the city of Atlanta in 1995 for violations of the Clean Water Act, hundreds of millions of gallons of untreated sewage were routinely dumped into our streams and the river.
Although a federal judge ruled that the city had to clean up its act, then Mayor Bill Campbell did little but stall, leaving it to the next mayor to solve the problem, even while the judge threatened a moratorium on new development because Atlanta did not have the sewage infrastructure to support such development.
When Mayor Shirley Franklin took office 8 years ago, it was a welcome change for UCR to finally find a real partner in the massive sewer repair and rehabilitation. The new Mayor even called herself “The Sewer Mayor,” and was not willing to pass on this problem to yet another generation. Mayor Franklin also undertook an aggressive program to rebuild Atlanta’s drinking water system at the same time the city overhauled its sewage system.
Both these expensive public works programs received less than half a percent of their total cost (funding) from the federal government and low-interest loans from the state. Atlantans taxed themselves to pay for it, and the work to date – done on time and within budget – has been “remarkable,” as observed by the federal judge in charge of overseeing the work. Anyone who tells you different is selling something other than clean water.
Atlanta’s next mayor must be someone who understands the progress we’ve made and who is determined to finish the job. Whatever anyone may think of Mayor Franklin’s performance on any other issue, both voters and candidates for mayor need to keep this in mind: under her leadership, with the hard work of the Department of Watershed Management, the end is in sight for Atlanta’s polluting of the Chattahoochee River and its tributaries.
This work will vastly improve water quality for Atlantans, the metro region, and downstream communities. It will be up to the next mayor to make good on the investment Atlanta has made so far by completing this work by the deadlines established in the federal consent that settled UCR’s lawsuit. Failure to finish this work in a timely basis could result in direct court supervision of its completion, with no regard to political or local economic considerations, a step the judge has made plain he will not hesitate to invoke.
(Photo by Joeff Davis)
October 26th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
HERE’S WHAT SALLY BETHEA DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW — ATLANTA IS POLLUTING AQUIFERS.
When federal Judge Thomas Thrash signed two Consent Decrees in 1998 and 1999, Atlanta was required to stop violating the Clean Water Act. The city had been allowing sewage to pollute streams, spill from neglected sewer pipes, and back-up into residences and businesses. Atlanta’s plans to fix some of the problems included building large sewage tunnel systems.
In 2001, citizens became alarmed that the projects would pollute Atlanta’s aquifers with sewage, have adverse public-health consequences, and violate the Safe Drinking Water Act. They presented their concerns to the city, Environmental Protection Agency, Georgia Environmental Protection Division, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
Before authorizing construction of the tunnels, EPA’s regional office in Atlanta prepared a memorandum. It explained that personnel in the Washington, D.C., Office of Water, numerous other EPA personnel, and independent contractors all agreed that tunnels have the potential to leak. The memo concluded that releases from Atlanta’s tunnels could not be quantified but were highly likely and that potential contamination of the water table should be considered.
Part of the Safe Drinking Water Act is designed to protect aquifers and human health. For Atlanta’s tunnel systems, the method for ensuring protection involves getting permits for the shafts, which fill the tunnels with sewage, and demonstrating that human health will not be jeopardized. This is supposed to occur prior to construction. Now, Atlanta is not only sending sewage into its aquifers but it never even applied for the shaft permits.
EPA’s memo was never released to citizens nor to Judge Thrash, and documents filed in 2003 show how the City, the Department of Justice, and the Georgia Attorneys General office misled the court. They told Judge Thrash that tunnels do not need permits but failed to disclose that the shafts do need permits. They also failed to disclose a 1997 decision from the higher 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which establishes that aquifers must be protected and that permits for the shafts must be obtained before any fluid, such as sewage, is placed underground.
Beginning in October 2006, citizens assembled more documents showing that the Court was misled. After Judge Thrash offered to receive and review new information describing what had happened, a legal opinion prepared by Mr. Hal Wright was sent to the Court. It was based on the 1997 Appellate decision and it confirms that Atlanta needs, but does not have, the required permits. The Department of Justice responded with misleading information but did not address Mr. Wright’s legal opinion. The response also pointed to additional undiscovered information.
On July 14 of this year, 22 concerned citizens wrote to Judge Thrash requesting that he review Mr. Wright’s legal opinion and Atlanta’s non-compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Department of Justice’s response introduced yet more misleading information, but again did not address Mr. Wright’s legal opinion. To view a list of the citizens, an excerpt from the 1997 decision, and a short outline of Mr. Wright’s legal opinion, go to http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ThrashDecision/. You also can sign the petition there.
The City denies there are any problems but it relies on misleading information from the Department of Justice and others. In an e-mail from Aug. 27, 2009, Mayor (Shirley) Franklin, her Law Department, and private counsel chose to remain silent rather than address Mr. Wright’s legal opinion. Atlanta might be complying with the Clean Water Act but water/sewer ratepayers are financing projects which violate the Safe Drinking Water Act and pollute aquifers.
Ratepayers deserve responsive representation and a decision from Judge Thrash, not misleading excuses or silence. City Council should pass an ordinance that requires the mayor to (a) provide the city’s legal opinion to Judge Thrash and (b) request that Judge Thrash consider the city’s and Mr. Wright’s opinions and then issue a decision regarding Atlanta’s compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Contact Atlanta’s council members and insist that they take action. If not, Atlanta will continue building sewage tunnels, violating the Safe Drinking Water Act and polluting aquifers.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
You’re kidding right?
October 26th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Bob Schreiber’s response to “lizt”.
If your question is addressed to me, the answer is I am “ABSOLUTELY NOT” kidding. It has taken three years of meticulous research and I have complete documentation.
ATLANTA’S WATER/SEWER RATEPAYERS ARE GETTING “SCREWERED” — AGAIN!
Severe adverse economic impacts do not need to occur if Judge Thrash were to acknowledge how all parties to both consent decrees and ATLANTA’S CONSULTANTS have misled the public and the Court.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
The right sewer questions are
1. Did/ Does the minimum necessary work have to cost $4bn?
2. Can the city’s population afford a program of this size?
The capital incurred so far has driven water bills close to the EPA maximum for affordability. That may force a much-needed re-think of the remaining half. There’s almost certainly a big boondoggle element in the program and its inefficiency – multiple re-digs – has been visible to everyone.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
“Cityzen” is correct.
Whoever is elected as the next Mayor of Atlanta will have the misdeeds of Campbell/Franklin to undo.
Howeeve,answers to “cityzen’s” first question can be easily manipulated by the Departmnet of Watershed Management(DWM). Many there have a vested interest in the status quo. They have been successful for 10+years at deceiving the public and the Court. The April 2009 Audit of the DWM found that there are few internal controls within DWM which means that the CONSULTANTS are really running the program. They have NO interest in changing the status quo!
“Cityzen” also refers to, “the EPA maximum affordability”. Stated officially, a new “Financial Capability Assessment” needs to be prepared. It will likely yield a result that provids the city with more time to finish the remainder of the projects.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Mr. Schreiber:
Your baseless assertions are wrong at every level. Your legal opinion is deeply flawed and your accusation that Atlanta is polluting aquifers has no basis in fact.
If you are ever properly before a court of law on these issues, which you are not now, I’m quite sure the City would be happy to make sure it shows how wrong and misguided you are in a way you will never forget.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:15 am
@ATL, $4bn is a lot of moolah. The desire to hang on to even a tiny piece of it is an incentive to adopt a strident, bullying tone and to stay away from substance. There are oodles of contractors, engineers, consultants, bond lawyers and, yes, environmental leaders around with motive. Just saying.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Aquifers are geological formations that collect, hold and transmit groundwater. Their physical structure is contains space water can occupy.
The rock formations that underlie most of the Atlanta area are aquitards, rock formations that resist the collection, holding and transmission of groundwater. What groundwater there is beneath Atlanta is either in the surficial aquifer, immediately below the surface, particularly along watercourses, or in cracks in the deeper aquitard formations, which is also where the sewer tunnels are located. These cracks do not constitute an aquifer, they are simply irregular breaks in the aquitard.
Mr. Schreiber seems to be a tard of an entirely different sort.
If “cityzen” has evidence that any environmental leader is making any of the money being spent on the sewer repairs then it ought to be reported instead of recklessly implied in a pretense at debate.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:37 am
“ATL” — Your comment seems suspiciously similar to those of “City Resident” on the Buckhead Reporter website. In one sentence,”The new West Area CSO tunnel (2008), the Intrenchment Creek tunnel (1984), and the Three Rivers tunnel (1985) are only partially lined which means fluids that are not “drinkable” are being sent directly into the Piedmont aquifer and polluting it.” Both you and “City Resident” allege that I am in error but neither of you say how. The link to the Buckhead Reporter is . At that site you or anyone else will find my responses to “City Resident” after the article that was published — remember to start at the bottom of the comments and read up the list.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:41 am
ADDENDUM to ATL – I had included the link to the Buckhead Reporter article but the CL website would not accept it. If you Google “Atlanta is polluting aquifers, violating Safe Drinking Water Act” you will find links to the article.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:57 am
“aquitard” — The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals established that (paraphrasing) “the subsurface emplacement of fluids requires a permit” whether into an aquifer, an aquitard, or even above of below either of the two. Atlanta does not have proper permits and although your explanation of an aquitard relative to an aquifer might have a
geological basis, the legal definition is different. Besides, Atlanta is on top of the “Piedmont Aquifer” not the “Piedmont Aquitard”. The distinctions that you raise would all be addressed during the application process for permits before construction begins.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Also to “aquitard” – Environmental leaders might not be receiving direct payment from the Department of Watershed Management DWM). But at least one environmental leader has received donations in the form of sponsorhip for fundraising activities from consultants who work for DWM.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:35 am
On September 28, 2007, the US EPA Headquaters considered whether a tunnel that conveys sewage to wastewater treatment plants is an underground injection well that requires a permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In that letter to EPA Region 4, the Director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water wrote the following.
The US EPA stated, “a tunnel conveying sewage to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) for treatment is NOT underground injection that is required to have a permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Regulations promulgated under Part C of the SDWA prevent underground injection from endangering underground sources of drinking water. The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program regulates the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection. Tunnels that convey sewage to a POTW do not fall within the scope of these definitions. . . Therefore, wastewater conveyance tunnels are not required to be permitted under the UIC.”
EPA Region 4 communicated this decision to Mr. Schreiber on October 18, 2007.
Nonetheless, and without any success, Mr. Schreiber continues to pursue this baseless theory before the US Department of Justice, EPA, and the US District Court.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
You used to be able to see the identity of a non-profit’s big donors on its tax return. Now that info is redacted. From a peek before the sunshine was blocked, one big nfp player in the Atlanta lawsuit got very big money from the leading tunnel engineering firm.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
To: Juliet Cohen, Esq. Some of the bloggers might not know that you are the current General Counsel for Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper (UCR). Thank you for your comment, this is the first time that you or your client, UCR, has addressed the issue, and you are making my point for me even better than I have.
The TUNNEL does not need the permit. The injection wells are the SHAFTS THAT SEND FLUIDS INTO THE SUBSURFACE. THE SHAFTS NEED PERMITS.
Your excerpt from the September 28, 2007 EPA letter says, “a tunnel conveying sewage…is NOT underground injection that is required to have a permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The…(UIC) program regulates the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection. Tunnels that convey sewage to a POTW do not fall within the scope of these definitions… Therefore, wastewater conveyance tunnels are not required to be permitted under the UIC.”
The Eleventh Circuit established, “…it is clear that Congress dictated that all underground injection be regulated under the UIC programs”. The Eleventh Circuit also said that (a) even the temporary subsurface emplacement of fluids through a well is “underground injection”; (b) the emplacement of fluids into the subsurface need not be the primary purpose or principle function of the well; and (c) EPA LACKS AUTHORITY TO REVISE THE STATUTORY DEFINITION.
EPA’s September 28, 2007 letter and the letter that EPA-R4 sent to me completely disregard the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision.
My position is based on a firm foundation – the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Dear Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper: thanks for suing the city of Atlanta and giving us the gift of crushingly high water bills that no one will be able to afford in a few years. Seriously, I can’t for water bills that are as high as the rest of my utilities combined, which is going to happen within 3 years. Thanks a ton, your service is much appreciated.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
To Mitchell: Please do not find fault with Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper (UCR) for initiating litigation for VIOLATIONS of THE CLEAN WATER ACT. EPA, EPD, and the City of Atlanta had been collectively allowing large quantities of untreated sewage to flow directly into several creeks that feed both the Chattahoochee River and the South River (southeast Atlanta). If not for Riverkeeper’s litigation, the pollution would likely be continuing today and the excuse would have been, “it’s too expensive to fix the problems – we won’t be able to attract and keep new development/business”.
The drastic escalating water/sewer bills are, in part, a result of a city government (Mayors and City Councils) which, even after UCR won a summary judgment in 1995, refused to incrementally begin increasing water sewer bills in anticipation of what had already been predicted as massive repair work. Another part occurred during the negotiations which eventually became the CSO Consent Decree. The only account of the proceedings that occurred during those negotiations that I have seen identifies the City’s position of insisting that tunnel systems would be the solution for the Combined Sewer Overflow problem. In 1998, all parties agreed to the CSO Consent Decree. And in 1999 all parties agreed to another Consent Decree, but UCR was not directly involved in that agreement.
The fact that Atlanta had neglected to repair, maintain, expand its sewer system and drinking water supply system for many years means that restoring the system to proper permitted standards is now resulting in the massive water/sewer rate increases. Today’s water/sewer ratepayers are having to bear the burden that earlier ratepayers were able to avoid.
Where I find fault with UCR is that, even when presented with indisputable information that Atlanta’s tunnel systems VIOLATE THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, it did nothing (and is doing nothing) to correct the problem. The comment that Juliet Cohen submitted to this blog is an embarrassment to UCR and its founders Rutherford and Laura Turner Seydel (that’s Turner, as in daughter of Ted Turner and board member of the Turner Foundation). Cohen’s comment is exemplary of the misleading and confusing statements that the Department of Justice presented to Judge Thrash. So too, Mayor Franklin, her CFO Jim Glass, and Marc Goncher with Atlanta’s law department have misled and confused the City’s bond rating agencies.
The whole story is too complex to be encapsulated into a blog comment. But I anticipate that water/sewer ratepayers will continue to be misled by EPA, EPD, the City of Atlanta and UCR. Protecting surface waters (streams, creeks, and rivers) does not create an excuse to pollute ground water. ATLANTA IS POLLUTING AQUIFERS (VIOLATING THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT) TO PROTECT ATLANTA’S STREAMS (COMPLY WITH THE CLEAN WATER ACT).
October 28th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Bob you are just wrong. Your legal opinion is deeply flawed. Moreover, simple rules of geology and physics will not allow the tunnel to leak and by the way, it hasn’t leaked. You have yet to show anyone on any blog or in any email otherwise. Despite the fact that (a) you are wrong (b) you are not properly before the court (c) the public is in no danger and (d) you have been told as much by attorneys, engineers, and geologists at three levels of government, you have continued to email and blog incessantly and attacked the integrity of scores of individuals who have dedicated large portions of their careers to fixing Atlanta’s infrastructure problems. To top it off, you don’t even live in Atlanta!
There is nothing complex about this story other than what it is inside your psyche that drives you to act this way.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
The Story Magazine reported the engineering firm, JJ&G, heavily entrenched with the state of GA, was one of Riverkeepers main contributors.
As a volunteer for an environmental organization I learned firsthand that Riverkeeper threatened the loss of all foundation money going to any environmental organization that went against its solution for saving the Chattahoochee.
Ga Trend Magazine reported that Harold Reheis, the director of EPD who approved sewer tunnels, was a past project manager for JJ&G.
Something stinks and it seems to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing dictating a faulty solution that flushes sewage into Atlanta’s water table.
Maybe the Governor should hire USGS (the US Geological Service) to monitor the wells along the tunnel alignment so we can know if the unproven theory of hydrostatic pressure can protect the aquifers of our state. Leaving it to the city and JJ&G threatens the future economic development of Georgia, Florida and Alabama.
Has anyone mentioned that the contents of a sewer system corrode concrete tunnel linings?
Those who benefit from tunnel projects hide the dangers behind semantics to protect a highly profitable business. But, common sense dictates you cannot hide a problem underground in a system whose protective barriers will eventually be dissolved by the problem it contains.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Bob, you are free to debate the environmental issues ad nauseum. I have no comment on those issues. The fact remains that but for the Riverkeeper lawsuit, no skyrocketing sewer rates. Case closed, indisputable.
As someone firmly in the middle class, who can barely afford to live as it is, these rates are financially oppressive. This is also something that is a necessity. It’s not like I’m complaining about my cable bill, which is a luxury. As soon as my kids are all finished with school, I will be moving elsewhere in the metro area. However, that is a few years away. While the revenue I generate for the city and county is meager, I am not alone. As a renter, I have little financial investment in these city limits. So I, and likely many like me, will soon be gone.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:03 am
So Mitchell, you would rather your untreated raw sewage be dumped straight into the river to pollute downstream communities so you can save on your water/sewer bill? Sounds pretty selfish to me…
October 29th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
TO ATLANTA RESIDENT @ 11:01 pm:
Re: “(a) “you are wrong, the legal opinion is ‘baseless’” — You have now posted two comments which say that (Hal Wright’s ) legal opinion is deeply flawed but you do not say what the flaw is. The opinion is based on the 1997 11th Circuit’s decision. So far none of the parties to either consent decree or the attorneys who represent them have pointed out any flaws with Wright’s opinion. To the contrary, they have done EVERYTHING BUT address Wright’s legal opinion. And – FYI – before joining UCR, Juliet Cohen worked as a staff attorney for the 11TH Circuit Court of Appeals.
The responsibility of demonstrating that groundwater aquifers and human health will be protected belongs to Atlanta and must be demonstrated when applying for permits BEFORE construction begins (a public hearing is required). And Atlanta would be responsible for demonstrating that there is NO leakage AFTER operations begin. It is not the responsibility of the public to demonstrate that sewage has leaked into groundwater aquifers. However, AQUIFERS ARE COMTAMINATED WHEN SEWAGE IS SENT INTO THEM and the only tunnel system in Atlanta with a full lining is the Nancy Creek Tunnel system. The fact that is has a full lining creates other problems, but even so, NONE OF THE SHAFTS THAT SEND SEWAGE INTO ATLANTA’s AQUIFERS HAVE THE REQUIRED PERMITS.
Generally, the Safe Drinking Water Act is designed to be more restrictive than the Clean Water Act since human health is at risk AND remediating a contaminated aquifer is so much more difficult than remediating surface waters. Sending fluids into aquifers unless the fluid is “drinkable” IS PROHIBITED; fluids which are not “drinkable” are PROHIBITED FROM REACHING AQUIFERS; and AN AQUIFER IS POLLUTED WHEN FLUIDS WHICH ARE NOT “DRINKABLE” REACH IT. (this is a layman’s summary of federal regulations.)
Re: (b) “you are not properly before the court” — In December/January 2007/2008, Judge Thrash offered to review anything submitted to him provided that it was in writing and that is what has happened. If the parties to the Consent Decrees would favorably entertain a motion to intervene then the matter could be properly addressed by the Court. HOWEVER (1) there is every indication that none of the parties are receptive to an intervener and (B) the only question regarding permit violations and Atlanta’s consent decrees is whether the Court will APPLY established law to Atlanta’s tunnel system projects. In the meantime, EPD and EPA Region 4 ARE ALLOWING THE VIOLATIONS TO OCCUR.
Re: (c) “the public is in no danger” — According to whom/what?
Re: (d) “you have been told by attorneys, engineers, and geologists at three levels of government…” — THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.
Re: “…you don’t even live in Atlanta!” — In May 2001 and continuing through December 2004, I was actively involved as a volunteer in a leadership position of the public participation process associated with the CSO-CD. My involvement was through Atlanta’s Neighborhood Planning Unit (NPU) process and the Atlanta Planning Advisory Board (APAB) process, both of which are officially recognized by city legislation. During that period I attended 100+ meetings with citizens from a cross-section of Atlanta at which the CSO-CD was an important topic or the sole topic of discussion. At no time were the UIC permitting requirements raised by Atlanta’s staff, its consultants, and/or high-level officials who were in attendance. I moved out of the metro Atlanta area at the end of 2004.
In October 2006, Atlanta notified EPA/EPD that it needed an additional 12 months beyond the negotiated 2007 deadline in order to complete construction of the West Area Tunnel system. After reading this letter I retrieved documents from my personal archives and realized that there were omissions and inconsistencies. Aside from the above, comments regarding federal Consent Decrees are open to anyone – even if they are not residents of the effected area.
At all times, my involvement has been related to assuring that projects associated with the city of Atlanta’s water, sewer and storm water management programs provide protection of public health, protection of the environment, and that all projects and actions comply with pertinent laws, regulations and rules. THE SUBSURFACE EMPLACEMENT OF FLUIDS REQUIRES A PERMIT (11the Circuit, 1997.)
If all parties to both consent decrees, their attorneys, the consultants, etc. had acted in accordance with established law, I would have let the whole matter go. Not only am I learning how badly other citizens and I have been deceived, I am also learning that the aforementioned intend to perpetuate the deception – all at the EXPENSE OF WATER/SEWER RATEPAYERS and to the benefit of the perpetrators especially the CONSULTANTS.
TO: TRUE OR FALSE @ 11:32 pm:
Thank you for your comment. Also, on May 1, 2003, UCR held a fundraiser. Among the sponsors were consultants for Atlanta’s consent decrees: Jordan, Jones and Goulding (JJ&G); the “Clean Water Atlanta Management Team” (Montgomery Watson/Khafra, joint venture and others); Brown and Caldwell; and CH2M-Hill.
I am pretty sure (99%) that the following is correct:
JACK RAVAN, the first commissioner of Atlanta’s Department of Watershed Management – worked as a director of business development for JJ&G during 1977 – 1980.
He was also EPA Region-4’s Regional Administrator twice.
HAROLD REHEIS – supervised staff, managed projects, and developed new business for JJ&G during 1981 – 1983.
LINDA MacGREGOR, current Director of the EPD Water Division – worked for Brown and Caldwell for many years before becoming Director.
GEORGE BARNES, DWM’s Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Engineering Services – worked for JJ&G for several years before returning to the DWM in 2002(?).
ALLEN BARNES, new Director of Ga EPD – was chief of staff during 2002-2005 for Jimmy Palmer, EPA Region-4’s Administrator.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Let’s see what else Atlanta could have gotten for $4 bn. Since the Combined Sewer Problem is a stormwater problem, the City of Atlanta could have offered incentives to citizens to install rainwater harvesting units on their homes that could have been used to water the grass, wash the car and even wash the clothes. Even in drought years this would have been a productive enterprise. No cost to the taxpayer but a rebate! It also reduces demand for potable water treatment for gardens, washing and other outdoor activities.
Rainwater harvesting is a common practice in most progressive-thinking cities, especially out west. Rainwater harvesting would have significantly reduced the volume of water running in the streets to storm drains to the CSO plants where it had to be treated. By the way, in the old system, the stormwater was treated with a super chlorinated solution that also went into the streams of Atlanta.
Then the City could have started the process of developing rain gardens,vegetated stormwater ponds, and other detention facilities to trap and treat stormwater to release slowly to the rivers. If you are curious as to what these facilities are you can visit the GA EPD website and download the GA Stormwater Manual. The Manual even has the percentage removal rates for pollutants from stormwater using natural vegetative processes. Boy citizens, wouldn’t that have had an aesthetic appeal for the money? Floodplain rehabilitation, stream bank stabilization, and wetland creation are other projects the City could have focused its $4 bn on with significant pollutant removal efficiencies and flood storage capacity. These restored areas could have been made into parks and bike paths among other uses for the taxpaying public.
Then the city could have invested in very simple, low-disturbance methods to line or rehabilitate the old sewer lines to prevent raw sewage from leaking out into the soil and shallow surficial aquifers that lead directly to local streams which feed the Chattahoochee. True, there would have been some major surface disruption to put in force mains or other larger-capacity pipes. But with the reduced stormwater from the more progressive methods of rainwater harvesting, capacity could have been achieved using simple rehabilitation methods much more cheaply. How many of these old leaky pipes have been fixed, upgraded or rehabilitated? After $4 bn, I bet not many.
There are new superior technologies known collectively as small-package treatment plants that could have served as intermediary treatment facilities before the nasty sewage made it to the plants.
All this could have been paid by the City through a small fee for stormwater treatment and through incentives to homeowners and commercial entities for rainwater harvesting. Then the cost for wastewater treatment would not have been so costly to the ratepayer because the biggest volume and pollution problem was gone: stormwater.
But, instead the City, EPA, EPD and the Riverkeeper ganged up to take all this water….a resource to most progressive-thinking cities…and flushed it all down drain pipes and into gigantic shafts into the subsurface below the water table. What a pitiful waste! Such debauched thinking. The problem here is not that the Riverkeeper may or may not have colluded with their big money donors but that they have no demonstrable leadership as an environmental group. To go along with such a scheme strips them of all credibility as an intelligent, progressive-thinking, and rational environmental group. I would demand my due back for all the years I had contributed…if I ever did contribute to such an organization.
In the New York Times today: a major gas drilling firm has pulled out of all its leases to inject chemicals, wastewater and other liquids into the aquifer that New York City uses as a drinking supply source. It is a sad day when gas companies can think more clearly than the Riverkeeper and realize the folly of injecting wastewater into the aquifer. What the City of Atlanta did was create a priceless mistake.