A recent survey conducted by FoodProcessing.com helps shed some light on what the food and beverage industry landscape might look like in the near future. The survey polled 200 plant operations professionals from various food and beverage backgrounds including dairy, non-dairy beverages, meats and poultry, snack foods, and frozen foods, amongst others.

The survey shows a great deal of optimism with a tinge of uncertainty. It also gives indications of goals, market drivers, and challenges facing the industry. While the survey is certainly not a crystal ball, it does highlight key trends, uncover the drivers behind the trends, and give insight into what the industry is working on.

The first piece of information is the challenges the industry expects to face in 2012. The majority of respondents saw their top five challenges as:

• Food Safety (53% of respondents ranked this the top challenge or concern) 
• Cost Control (29.5%) 
• Inspections/Regulations (20.5%) 
• Automation (12.5%) 
• Sourcing and Materials (12.5%)

That food safety is the highest priority on the list for food and beverage manufacturers should come as no surprise. With growing consumer awareness, tighter governmental regulations, and competitive pressure, food safety is one aspect no company can afford to miss on. In 2011, one small cantaloupe farm in Colorado sparked a nationwide listeriosis outbreak, causing 15 deaths, the most lives lost by a U.S. food borne outbreak in nearly 15 years. In response, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is targeted at reforming food safety laws in our country. Woodard & Curran is equipped to provide preventative solutions for the industry such as inspection and compliance assistance, prevention-based controls, and response programs.

Another survey result was that a staggering 94.5% of the respondents said they expected their plant’s production to either increase or stay the same. This is good news for the industry, indicating that the economic strain felt in the last few years may have loosened a bit, opening the opportunity for more capital projects because increased production can equate to a need for updated processes and equipment.

Nearly half of the survey respondents (47.2%) said their company's capital budget was due for an increase in 2012 from the previous year. This echoes the sentiment that the food and beverage industry is poised to spend on production facilities.

When asked what portion of their facility is automated, 53.8% of respondents said sections of their production line were fully automatic. This was the highest number followed by 37.2% of packaging sections. Only 8% said their entire production line was automated. Perhaps the most interesting take away from this is the general lack of automation across a variety of food and beverage manufacturing facilities. This indicates that there is a substantial opportunity for automation upgrades.

Energy management is undeniably a huge part of any industry, and food and beverage is no exception. Whether it’s sustainable buildings, water efficiency, emissions reduction, or using alternative energy, energy management is interwoven with the industry. The majority of respondents mirrored this sentiment, with 76.1% indicating their company would be conducting some degree of energy management in 2012.

The largest portion of respondents who said they expected energy improvements indicated they were going to focus on taking steps towards energy conservation. A wide array of energy initiatives were noted in the survey including recycling energy through redirection systems, conducting energy audits, seeking alternate energy solutions such as co-generation, and installing solar panels.

While answers from a survey should not be considered definitive, it offers valuable insight. After analyzing the survey and the market conditions we can pull a few key thoughts out – food safety, increased production, and energy management are going to be large focus points for the industry this year. Understanding what drives food and beverage manufacturers and bridging the connections with outside influences such as consumer demand, governmental regulation, and economic factors will give the best possible insight to the trends of 2012.

Contributed by Lloyd Snyder, PE 
 

It's that time - no, not to start holiday shopping, but time to think about your stormwater Annual Report.

Why so soon?
We realize that Phase II Small MS4 Annual Reports submitted last May are far from your minds, but it’s more than halfway through Permit Year 9. Municipalities are required to continue implementing their Best Management Practices and Stormwater Management Programs. Unless EPA finalizes the new Small MS4 General Permits and authorizes communities to discharge under the permit before Spring 2012, it is very likely that a Year 9 Annual Report will be due to EPA and MassDEP. Click here for EPA’s most recent Small SM4 General Permit Update.

Now is a great time to check progress on your community’s planned Permit Year 9 stormwater activities. EPA is increasing its attention to municipal stormwater programs, as shown by their recent enforcement activities including a number of fines for late or missing Annual Reports. It is more important than ever to complete Annual Reports on time. In addition, as construction season winds down and municipal responsibilities are transitioning from outdoors to indoors, some local stormwater managers have an opportunity to catch up on paperwork and filing.

What should you do?  

1. Look at your 2011 (Year 8) Annual Report. Most reports are available on EPA's 2003 Permit Archives website. 
2. Review the Annual Report. What did your community promise to do this year? Are you on track? What have you completed and when? What's left to do?
3. Gather and organize paper records documenting all completed stormwater activities.
4. Make every effort to complete activities planned for Permit Year 9 by March 31, 2012 and add documentation to your files.

How can Woodard & Curran help?
If you have any questions about EPA’s Stormwater Program, General Permit Requirements, or want guidance on your local stormwater program, please contact us.

Contact us for more information.

According to EPA Region 1, "EPA anticipates a Final Massachusetts North Coastal and a Final IMS Small MS4 General Permit in the fall of 2011." Well, fall has arrived and the reissued permits have not. We continue to wait with you for word from EPA and will pass on any information when it is received. In the meantime, you can view EPA's stormwater page where they post regular updates. 

No News Isn't Always Good News
While the permit continues to be delayed, EPA has stepped up their enforcement efforts. A number of Massachusetts communities have heard from EPA's enforcement arm. Specifically, EPA has:

• Issued fines for late or missing Annual Reports;
• Issued enforcement orders for targeted water quality issues related to the Small MS4 program; and
• Performed comprehensive local MS4 program audits.

Who will EPA target for Enforcement?
Outside of the cities and towns that submitted their Annual Reports late, EPA could turn their attention to any community. However, we believe that EPA will focus their limited enforcement resources on:

• Highly urbanized areas;
• Known water quality challenges (e.g., impaired water bodies, Total Maximum Daily Loads, other in-stream exceedances of MA Surface Water Quality Standards); and
• Known SSOs and other suspected Illicit Discharges.

What Can You Do?
Two things that every community should do right away are:

1. Organize Your Stormwater Records - For every task listed as completed on Annual Reports since 2003, there should be easy-to-access documentation. All program documentation should be organized by Permit Year and Minimum Control Measure (e.g., MCM #1 is Public Education, MCM #2 is Public Participation, et al.). EPA may be interested to see how you maintain stormwater records, so have your binder or file cabinet ready and presentable.
2. Know Your Program - EPA will expect that municipal staff (not your stormwater consultant) knows all the details of the Small MS4 stormwater program. If you are the target of an audit, you should expect EPA to ask very detailed questions; for example:
• How does your community receive input about its MS4 program? What is the biggest change that has happened because of public input on the stormwater program? 
• Where are catch basin and street sweepings disposed and how much material was disposed last year?
• How much salt is used per lane mile during de-icing?

Unfortunately, the "stormwater coordinator" in many cities and towns has changed at least once over the course of the last eight years. The person currently responsible for the Small MS4 program will still be responsible to know the details of the program since 2003.

How can Woodard & Curran help?
If EPA does contact you about performing a MS4 program audit, please contact us right away so we can help you prepare. Of the communities audited so far in Massachusetts, very few escaped an enforcement order, and many also received a fine. Being extremely organized and knowledgeable about all aspects of your local stormwater program is the best way you can limit your community's risk.

Contact us for more information. 

Healthy economies are based on solid infrastructure. The lack of clean water, wastewater treatment, flood and stormwater management, and reliable transportation infrastructure can cripple a society. Plus, for every dollar spent on infrastructure upgrades, the jobs created and the additional consumption related to the project can yield an increase in the gross national product of six dollars. We know this, yet we are still facing a looming infrastructure crisis in the United States.

To keep the infrastructure we rely on from falling apart, we will need to invest more than $2.2 trillion over the next five years for repairs and improvements. Asking taxpayers to bear the entire cost is simply not feasible. Municipalities recognize this, and most are level-funding budgets either through no net increase in utility user fees or no net increase in taxes. So where will the money come from? Possibly from the private sector.

We know that there is private capital available, and finding a way to marry that with the immense need for investment in public infrastructure is an idea that has merit. We need to have numerous funding options in place to ensure that our infrastructure is properly maintained and updated and not have the cost fall solely on the backs of the public.

On March 15, 2011, a bipartisan-sponsored bill, BUILD Act, was introduced in the US Senate to create a federal bank with the sole purpose of investing in American infrastructure, focusing on transportation, water and energy. The idea of creating an infrastructure bank is not new, but the current proposal is and it reflects today’s budgetary constraints and the urgency of the nation's infrastructure needs.

The bank would be established with federal seed money of $10 billion, but would then become self-sustaining, relying on the private sector for investments while giving out loans and loan guarantees – not grants – for projects of national or regional significance and at least $100 million in size or for rural projects of $25 million or more. Some may say that this is similar to the current State Revolving Loan funds and ask why we don’t just add money to those programs. The important difference here is after the creation of the bank with federal seed money portion, no further investment of tax dollars would be required.

Municipal bonds will remain a critical source of infrastructure funding, but given the size of the infrastructure deficit we have to look at other sources of funding. This bill is one potential answer, and deserves to be made a higher priority by Congress because of its potential to have a large positive impact on the economy.

Contributed by Helen Gordon

The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) recently initiated a project to develop an energy rating program for commercial buildings in the state. The goal is to make knowing how much energy a building uses as simple as understanding a car’s fuel efficiency. With this effort, Massachusetts is joining the leaders of what is increasingly looking like a national movement to quantify and publicize the energy efficiency (or inefficiency) of buildings.

There are two types of energy rating systems, asset ratings and operational ratings. Asset ratings evaluate a building’s performance based on the thermal and mechanical and electrical systems, ignoring occupant behavior. Operational ratings evaluate a building’s actual energy use by analyzing energy billing data. According to the DOER, asset rating systems allow for direct comparisons among similar buildings, which is more difficult in the case of operational ratings.

The energy ratings systems emerging in this country seek to encourage the move to more efficient buildings and building systems. Whether they will accomplish that is yet to be determined, but the next few years should paint a much clearer picture.

To read more about the DOER program, check out the Spring issue of our Directions newsletter.

New EPA Draft Construction General Permit - What Does It Mean to You?

On April 15, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a draft of the new Construction General Permit (CGP). This draft CGP will replace the existing CGP, and applies to construction activities in Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Washington D.C., and most territories and Indian country lands, that disturb one (1) or more acres of land, or will disturb less than one (1) acre, but is part of a common plan of development or sale that will ultimately disturb one acre or more.

This new draft CGP includes substantially increased requirements, including:

• Enhanced provisions to address impaired and sensitive waters;
• Increased erosion and sediment control, stormwater pollution prevention plan and control requirements, and soil stabilization practices;
• A numeric turbidity limit for larger construction sites; and
• Natural buffer or alternative control requirements.

The public will have sixty (60) days for comment on the permit. EPA expects a final CGP in early 2012. A copy of the draft permit, appendices, and more information is available on EPA's website: EPA Draft CGP.

Compliance with this permit with require a substantially increased effort and cost. The new CGP is a draft right now, but the final permit will affect construction activities for years to come. Take time to read the draft and provide EPA with comments and questions.

Contributed by our Stormwater team

When Senator Edmund Muskie led efforts to draft the Clean Water Act almost 40 years ago, large rivers like the Androscoggin in his home state of Maine, polluted by industrial discharge, were his inspiration. Today, since point sources have been subject to stringent technology-based effluent limitations for over 30 years, a major source of water pollution comes from the pollutants that stormwater picks up while flowing across our built landscapes. Although point sources are still a major focus of the Clean Water Act, more and more attention is being paid to stormwater and the water resource impacts that stormwater causes. Increasingly, this is requiring property owners to think about costs and the implications of these new regulatory requirements.

Here are three snapshots of recent EPA actions in Region 1 to address water bodies thought to be impaired primarily by stormwater, and the early indication of costs to comply.

Long Creek, Maine

Long Creek is an urban impaired stream with a watershed of approximately 3.5 square miles in and around South Portland, Maine. The watershed is comprised of approximately 30% impervious cover, which has led to an inability to achieve its designated water quality standards. EPA determined, and various studies have corroborated, that stormwater discharges from impervious surfaces equal to or greater than one acre were causing or contributing to water quality violations. This finding allowed EPA to exercise its Residual Designation Authority and require this category of dischargers to obtain NPDES permits. With this designation, approximately 90% of the impervious area in the Long Creek watershed is now under the permitting jurisdiction of the NPDES program. The Long Creek Watershed Management Plan (now a part of the general discharge permit in Long Creek) estimates the costs of the first phases of restoration to be close to $15 million or about $4.3 million per square mile. These costs will be shared by the regulated entities including municipal and state agencies.

Charles River, Massachusetts
In contrast to the relatively small Long Creek watershed, the Charles River drains a watershed area of 310 square miles. However, both watersheds share the similar characteristics of urbanized landscapes and the subsequent impairment largely because of polluted stormwater runoff. In exercising its Residual Designation Authority, EPA determined that stormwater discharges from property containing impervious surfaces equal to or greater than two acres cause or contribute to water quality violations and are therefore subject to NPDES stormwater permitting requirements. EPA has issued a draft NPDES General Permit for three towns in the Charles River Watershed, which would require all impervious surfaces of two or more acres to implement a comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan and a Phosphorous Reduction Plan. Preliminary estimates of cost as developed by EPA in 2009, indicates that the structural management cost of regulated facilities within this watershed is between $60 and $90 million for the 48 square mile regulated watershed area or between $1.3 and $1.9 million per square mile.  These are only construction costs and do not include design, legal, or administrative costs of implementation.

Bartlett, Centennial, Englesby, Morehouse and Potash Brook Watersheds. Chittenden County, Vermont
On July 19, 2009, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation gave notice that it was exercising Residual Designation Authority for stormwater discharges to five watersheds in Chittenden County that fail to meet water quality standards, each of which has an EPA-approved TMDL. As was the case in the Long Creek and Charles River watersheds, the cause of impairment in Chittenden County was polluted stormwater runoff that resulted from urbanization and impervious surfaces. The Residual Designation applies to all stormwater discharges from impervious surfaces that are not covered by the MS4 General Permit or another NPDES permit. This is the broadest use of Residual Designation to date, as it applies to every contributor of stormwater, without a size threshold. In order to permit these dischargers, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources intends to issue a general stormwater permit for dischargers brought under NPDES permitting authority as a result of the designation. Preliminary estimates of compliance costs as reported by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources are approximately $45 million for the 11 square mile area or $4.12 million per square mile.

Implications for the rest of the country
These examples show that previously unregulated properties that discharge stormwater into impaired waterbodies can easily come within the scope of NPDES permitting requirements and at a significant new cost to private landowners, municipalities and state agencies. These New England developed watersheds are no different from thousands of urbanized watersheds across the country in terms of land cover or impervious cover, it is a reasonable expectation that retroactive and comprehensive stormwater compliance may cost between $2 and $4 million per square mile in developed areas in the first phases of implementation. Are we witnessing the next major phase of the Clean Water Act? Is this the future of watershed management in urbanized areas? Will this approach be effective? More on this topic soon.

Contributed by our Stormwater team

Internal EPA memo directs staff toward benefits of Superfund/RCRA site reuse, raises questions about windfall liens

In December 2010, the EPA Office of Site Remediation Enforcement issued an internal memo to Regional Counsel, Enforcement Division Directors, Superfund National Policy Managers, and RCRA National Managers in all EPA regions. The memo included a fact sheet titled “The Benefits of Integrating Reuse to Achieve Enforcement and Environmental Protection Goals.”

The EPA is coaching internal staff on the benefits of reusing land resources at federally regulated cleanup sites with a list that sounds strikingly like Brownfields program benefits, including:

• Reduction of blight;
• Jobs creation and increased property values;
• Creation of open space; and
• Urban redevelopment and smart growth.

An additional ‘benefit’ promoted in the memo is more focused on value for the agency, and has the potential to hinder, rather than promote, reclamation of Superfund and RCRA sites. The fact sheet explains to staff that “EPA may have a windfall lien if an EPA response action increased a property’s fair market value.” The windfall lien is a vehicle under federal statute that allows EPA to recover additional funds via property lien against the increased value of a redeveloped property. This value would come directly off of the balance sheet of a redevelopment project, and is a serious disincentive for prospective developers.

It is exciting to think about the potential for reclamation and reuse of the thousands of cleanup sites regulated under federal oversight. The specter of cost recovery via windfall lien calls into question the value of encouragement to redevelop under EPA’s enforcement policy. It will be important to watch what additional policy changes may occur in the wake of this memo.

Contributed by Dave MacDonald, LSP, PG

It is certainly a quick solution, and one that was at one time considered safer: toss unused pharmaceuticals in the toilet, press the lever, and they are gone. Well, not exactly gone; once flushed these chemicals flow to publicly owned treatment works that are not designed or equipped to treat the vast array of pharmaceuticals that might come through the treatment plant. As a result, powerful pharmaceuticals are ending up in water bodies and drinking water supplies, adversely affecting habitat, wildlife, and human health.

Preventing pharmaceuticals from entering water supplies is a complex challenge, involving health care facilities, private citizens, and municipal and industrial wastewater treatment systems.

The wastewater treatment processes municipalities have in place are not focused on removing pharmaceutical chemicals. Some studies have shown that municipal treatment systems do accomplish some level of removal, but with so many chemicals potential entering the treatment plant, it is extremely difficult to test for all of them. Altering the treatment processes in place across the country and the world to handle pharmaceutical chemicals would be a massive undertaking and the cost would be immense.

Many communities, organizations, and regulatory agencies have launched efforts to educate people about the dangers of flushing unused medicines down the drain and have organized take-back days where unwanted pharmaceuticals can be turned in for safe disposal. The largest initiative is the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s "Take Back" campaign, which held its first collection day in September 2010 with more than 4,000 sites and nearly 3,000 state and local law enforcement agencies participating. Individual cities and towns are also running their own programs, either with support from an interested organization or agency, or on their own initiative.

Take-back programs and education are merely one step in solving the problem of pharmaceuticals in wastewater. Addressing the quantities of medications that pass through the human body will be a key component of the overall strategy, and one that requires further study in the coming years.

You can read more about pharmaceuticals in wastewater Winter 2010-11 issue of our Directions newsletter.

Contributed by Joe Shea

Using closed landfills to generate clean, renewable energy is an emerging trend that can create jobs, deliver low-cost energy, and help reduce the environmental impact of our energy production. Closed landfills have traditionally been a vastly underutilized resource, which can have a negative impact on the local tax base or be seen as a business liability. Municipalities and private industries with closed landfills now have an opportunity to capitalize on this untapped resource by siting revenue-generating, clean, renewable energy facilities on these properties.

Closed landfills often offer the right characteristics for a solar installation: plenty of open space and good sun exposure. Many incentives have emerged to make developing solar power facilities an attractive and affordable option.

Building a solar facility on a closed landfill brings an underutilized land resource back into productive use, can provide low-cost renewable energy, and reduces a community’s carbon footprint. On the other hand, there are certainly important technical challenges to overcome when developing this type of facility. In particular, site stability and impacts to the landfill cap must be carefully considered.

Policy and funding support for siting solar installations on closed landfills is increasing. This includes initiatives from the EPA Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response, and financial incentives from many state governments that can offset a substantial portion of the capital costs of these projects.

This subject is covered in more depth in the Winter 2010-11 issue of our newsletter, Directions. Please take a look!

Contributed by Alan Benevides, PE, LSP 

What do the following have in common:

• The Venetian Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, NV
• Adobe Systems Headquarters, San Jose, CA
• The Boston Children’s Museum, Boston, MA
• William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Center, Little Rock, AR
• The Bank of America Tower, New York, NY
• The local Dunkin Donuts, St. Petersburg, FL

They’re all high-performance, green buildings. They have joined the thousands that have achieved LEED Certification from the United State’s Green Building Council (USGBC).

LEED (short for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certification is awarded to buildings designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across the metrics that matter most: energy, water, CO2 emissions, indoor environmental quality, and resource conservation.

Every building that achieves the LEED Certification deserves recognition for choosing to build a high-performance building and for executing the planning, engineering, and construction of such a building. However, there is one case that deserves high praise for the same certification but for an altogether different reason.

Philips Arena in downtown Atlanta, GA is home to the city’s basketball and hockey teams, and serves as a highly regarded concert and event venue. It is also the first NBA or NHL arena to achieve the LEED Certification.

There have been lots of firsts in LEED’s history. Look at the list above – each of those buildings was itself a first of one kind or another. So what’s special about Philips? Is it just another in a long line of firsts?

Not exactly. Philips isn’t just the first multi-pro sports arena to be certified, it accomplished this as an existing facility, all while still functioning in normal capacity. This meant working around a full slate of basketball and hockey games, concerts, and events.

The facility focused on completing several projects in line with the USGBC rating system categories – sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality.

Here is an abridged list of what Philips Arena accomplished to earn certification:

• Sustainable sites –a hardscape management plan that includes acute concrete pressure washing to increase reflectivity and contracting with local landscapers who follow composting practices.
• Water efficiency – high efficient fixtures, automatic faucets to cut down on water loss, whole-building metering, and irrigation limits.
• Energy and atmosphere – efficient retrofitting of the two main HVAC units, upgrading a centrifugal chiller with a variable frequency drive, and switching to higher efficiency fluorescent lamps.
• Materials and resources – sustainable purchasing policy including buying from local vendors and purchasing recycled materials when possible.
• Indoor environmental quality –altering office space layout to maximize efficiency and adding occupancy sensors to reduce wasted lighting energy.

Philips Arena’s commitment to achieving the LEED Certification by investing in itself and the city is a blueprint for other venues. It is the gold standard for the hundreds of multi-use sports and event arenas across the country.

How to increase concern for the environment? Ask the Australians.

The October 26, 2010 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald spells out the results of a recent poll: Australians consider the environment their number one concern. In their story “Environment our Big Concern, poll shows” this environment beat out immigration, public transit, and unemployment for the top spot among Australians.

According to Rasmussen poll data from September 2010, the top issues for Americans are:

While Australia’s unemployment rate is below the US average, it nevertheless has experienced the same recession and slow returns in economic growth as the US, so it would be unfair to say that their assignment of the environment over unemployment as the top issue is solely due to differences in economic conditions between the two countries. 

Australia’s population is more highly urbanized than the US (93% vs 77% in the US) and the Australians have fewer fresh water resources than the US. Perhaps these somehow create a greater longing for the great outdoors among Australians or a greater sense of the worth of their natural resources than in the US. 

The recently updated 5-year strategic plan by the US EPA identifies one of the five “cross-cutting” strategies for the agency as “expanding the conversation on environmentalism.” Maybe EPA would be wise to call the Australians and find out what they are talking about.

Contributed by Dave MacDonald, LSP, PG

Portland, Maine’s latest addition to its trail network is both an example of the principles of “new urbanism” and an excellent testing ground for porous paving systems. The Bayside Trail, which officially opened on August 19th, runs one mile through the heart of an emerging mixed use neighborhood. It provides a connection between the city’s largest park at Deering Oaks and the popular Eastern Prom and Back Cove trails.

Completion of the trail, for which Woodard & Curran provided civil engineering and stormwater design, and construction oversight represent a big step in the City’s goal to become more walkable. This is the theme of “new urbanism,” which holds that neighborhoods should accommodate many different uses and be defined and shaped by universally accessible public spaces.

New urbanism is increasingly informing the way urban spaces are developed or redeveloped. Neighborhood trails are one way for cities to put the principles of new urbanism to work. Trails help connect pedestrians and cyclists to city services, workplaces, and other necessities. The City of Portland, Portland Trails, The Trust for Public Land and the others involved in creating this trail have laid the foundation for another vibrant, livable neighborhood.

Another important feature of the Bayside Trail is its use of different types of porous paving technologies to address a challenging stormwater management situation. These paving surfaces, including brick pavers that allow water to infiltrate between them and pervious concrete, mitigate potential stormwater drainage issues. They also provide a test case for long-term maintenance and durability of porous paving systems.

When porous paving technologies were emerging, many people were concerned that they would require more maintenance or earlier replacement than conventional surfaces, therefore driving up their cost. Many of these surfaces actually reduce maintenance costs. For a city like Portland, ice is a major concern in the winter, but because water drains through the porous surfaces, ice is less likely to form, reducing the need for salting and sanding through the winter.

Bayside Trail is a great benefit for Portland and area residents, and a model of how progressive development principles can lay the groundwork for neighborhood development that is environmentally and economically sound.

Contributed by Barry Sheff, P.E.

One of the biggest challenges of any construction project is controlling costs. Change orders, unexpected expenses, and scheduling issues can all send costs spiraling higher. To combat this, many project owners turn to low-bid procurement in order to secure the lowest price. According to a recent survey conducted by professors in Colorado and Georgia with funding from the American Council of Engineering Companies and the American Public Works Association, that approach might be part of the problem.

The survey, titled “An Analysis of Issues Pertaining to Qualifications-Based Selection,” found that when the designers or engineers for a project are chosen through Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS), there are fewer change orders, less construction cost growth, and less schedule growth than the industry average.

Because QBS allows the project owner to select the design team based on experience and technical skill and then negotiate a price, survey respondents indicated that it led to stronger relationships between owners and designers. The research also found that projects using QBS tended to produce lower overall costs, likely because the design phase has a disproportionate impact on the long-term performance of the project, including factors like safety and energy efficiency.

As the United States continues to work its way out of the recession, project owners are all looking to control costs. Despite the obvious temptation to move toward low-bid procurement, QBS may well be the better – and cheaper – approach after all.

Contributed by Brent Bridges

Communities across the state of Georgia are turning to rate increases to deal with the crunch of the current economic downturn. Whether the money will be used to improve utility systems for the future or to simply fix longstanding problems, cities are looking to residents to help foot the bill. In some cases the rate increases were scheduled and the impact to residents was minimal. In others, the increase was sudden, severe, and unplanned. Councilman Chuck Trader of St. Mary’s, GA summed up the plight of communities across the state. “We’ve got to take steps to take care of these (water rate) problems,” said Trader. “We knew this was coming.”

Here are a few examples of communities of varying size using rate increases to generate revenue. These have all taken place in just the last 30 days:

Toccoa, GA – Service Population 24,960 – The city is looking to increase the average water and sewer bill by $1.58 a month for minimum-level users, such as single resident homes. Average users, who make up the bulk of the service population would see a hike of $2.58 a month. The largest increase of $5.78 a month would be reserved for high-volume users, a group generally made up of commercial entities. The rate hike would bring in over $336,000 for the City’s water and wastewater budget.

DeKalb County, GA – Population 670,000 – The County has voted to ratchet up rates 16% a year for the next four years. An average user who paid $51 a month in 2009 will now see their bill jump to $107 by the year 2014. The money generated from the increase will eventually help pay for the $1.79 billion upgrade to the County’s water system.

Suwanee, GA – Service Population 788 – The city is raising their rates to cover operating costs and recent improvements to the system. They expect to see a monthly jump of $7.87 for the average customer. In addition the city is implementing a standard 10% rate increase each year for the next three years.

Centerville, GA – Service Population 7,714 – There is a pending 10% water rate increase in store for the city. This increase will simply allow the city to “break even” in water and sewer services according to Councilman Ed Tucker.

Cartersville, GA – Service Population 24,830 – The city is considering a 4.5% rate increase in water and sewer rates to try and cover the costs of operation and maintenance of the city’s water system.

St. Mary’s, GA – Service Population 17,090 - originally had scheduled to increase water rates by 65% but voted to use sales tax income and reserve funds to limit the increase to only 35%. The City has decided to place a base fee of $20 on multi-family dwellings. The revenue from the increase will go towards maintenance of the water system.

In a survey conducted by the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA), it was reported that 23% of systems do not keep a list of assets of their system and only 47% have an estimate of their system’s life expectancy. Although certainly not the only factor in what seems to be a statewide rash of rate hikes, a connection can be drawn between rising rates and undermanaged utility systems.

Every water and wastewater system eventually has a breakdown. Repair, replacement, and improvement are necessary parts of growth, and the residents being served by these systems do have a responsibility to help pay for upkeep. But many communities are raising rates in response to the cost of doing business when they should have been planning for these expenses all along.

As a planning tool, rate studies allow cities to be proactive when it comes time to deal with rate setting. The process can be iterative and can involve public input. These types of studies build equity throughout the system and customer base, aiming to have each user pay their fair share while ensuring the generated revenue has a predetermined final destination.

“Water rate increases are never easy, especially in these stressful economic times, but cities have to run financially efficient,” said Kendall Smith, City Manager in Dallas, GA. “Rate studies allow you to take the data collected and realize your goals. Adjustments then are fair not only to the present and future needs of the city but to the citizens as well.”

Simply adding an extra percent to a customer’s bill when a system needs new pipes or equipment is not the answer. Community leaders must understand where their system is right now to be able to set appropriate rates to pay for future needs.

Contributed by Brent Bridges and the Southeast Municipal Market Team

Could you be at risk for a lawsuit for poor soil management activities?

A recent news story highlighted the impact to project schedule and cost due to improper disposal of contaminated soil. In this case, a retailer purchased a site in 2005 to build a new store. Unfortunately, the store opening has been delayed several years because contamination in site soils was more extensive than originally identified during due diligence. As a result, soil from grading activities that was previously not identified as contaminated was improperly disposed off-site and the owner of the off-site location subsequently found that the soil was contaminated and sought damages from the retailer. After the contamination was discovered, about 17,500 cubic yards of soil needed to be relocated. At the end of the day, grading of the site resulted in a $14M lawsuit.

New development starts, work on existing sites, grading, refits to parking lots, placement of new buildings or expansions, or site work to comply with stormwater requirements all require management of soil. Due to the nature of this work, soil is displaced to allow for site grading, construction of footings, or installation of utilities and conveyances. As the news story above highlights, the potential for environmental liability exists when handling these soils.

Soil excavation and disposal performed in conjunction with legally mandated environmental cleanup used to be the only obvious instance where regulated handling and off-site disposal of soil was needed. With the tightening of waste handling regulations in many states and changes in the standard of practice that have occurred over the last decade, removing soil from your site for any purpose now represents one of your biggest environmental liabilities.

There are some simple but important things you should do to manage this liability:

Have a soil management plan that clearly communicates the requirements for disturbing, reusing, and disposing of soil. This plan will provide for consistency of soil handling practices within your project teams. Soil management should be included in bids and specifications to contractors to assure that pricing and disposal methods are consistent with your liability management goals.

Consider soil management costs early in project planning. Costs for soil disposal that were unanticipated just because the work was not being performed strictly for site cleanup can cause significant overruns. Avoid this by carrying a line item for soil management costs on every project that breaks ground. 

Be intentional about soil management. In many cases, you may have no choice but to take soil off-site, but in other circumstances, balancing cut and fill may allow for selective reuse of soils on the site. Connect the engineering design work and environmental planning early in the design process to determine the best way to minimize soil handling costs.

Understand your legal obligations and liabilities. Each state will have its own set of requirements for soil handling and disposal. When you are shipping soil across state lines, you will need to comply with requirements in both states. Each receiving facility will have its own requirements, established through permit or by regulation. When considering disposal options, remember that if you own the soil, you remain in the chain of liability. Make sure you work with your attorney and consultant to understand what will be required and prudent.

Whether you are planning a new development, or just operating an existing property, soil management represents an important liability that you must manage when breaking ground. With proper planning, budgeting and communication, you can control this liability and avoid unexpected costs.

Contributed by Dave MacDonald, LSP, PG

2009 was a difficult year for most businesses and the engineering and design industry was no exception. Engineering News Record (ENR), the definitive publication for the architectural/engineering/construction industry, publishes an annual list of the nation's Top 500 design firms, and in 2009 more than 70% of those firms reported revenue declines.

Here at Woodard & Curran, we climbed 28 spots on ENR’s list of the Top 500 Design Firms, ranking 113 after coming in at 141 in 2009. This put us 82nd among the top 100 “pure design” firms, which includes only firms where a majority of revenue is engineering and design work. Both rankings are the highest ever for Woodard & Curran. And while industry-wide domestic revenue dropped 13%, or about $9 billion, for the industry, Woodard & Curran grew around 7% last year.

Why this difference? One reason is clear: our people have always understood that success in our industry is about exceeding client expectations. The fact that we are succeeding in a very difficult economic environment is because of the effort and dedication our people show to their clients on every single project, and that makes a big difference in good times and in bad.

Contributed by Doug McKeown

Tri-State Water Wars – A Study in Poor Water Resources Planning

One of the most public problems in Georgia will evidently be solved behind closed doors. By now, we’re all aware of Georgia’s lengthy drought and the state’s unpreparedness. A federal court has mandated that Georgia, Florida, and Alabama come to a water sharing agreement by 2012 or have the supply from Lake Lanier cut substantially. The lake has recovered from the drought thanks to heavy rains but the pending court mandate looms large.

The three states have filed a joint motion to keep their negotiations secret to, according to the motion, “encourage the open exchange of information and proposals necessary to address the issues and discourage the improper dissemination of the same.” It isn’t uncommon to have secrecy during settlement talks. Bert Brantley, a spokesman for Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue said the request “is yet another proof point that all three states are committed to working together to reach a tri-state water deal.”

While it is undoubtedly a good sign to see the three sides working together to avoid another water resource crisis, some wonder why discussions must be confidential. Sally Bethea, executive director for the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, a Georgia-based water protection organization, asked, “Is this confidentiality arrangement really something just to serve as cover for political leaders?” She added that “the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper organization think(s) secrecy is not in the best interest of all the people in the three states who rely on these river systems.”

If the three states cannot come to an agreement, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, operator of Lake Lanier, will lower water availability to levels last seen 40 years ago. In forty years, the Lanier-dependent metro-Atlanta area has grown by three million people and by countless more living in the Lanier–fed Chattahoochee, Flint, and Apalachicola river basins.

Obviously, scaling limits back to the limits set by the federal mandate would spell very big trouble for Georgia and its two neighbors. The poor water resources planning seeds sown by Georgia officials is starting to bear rotten fruit. Sometimes, it’s hard to heed advice to invest for the future when there are so many problems in the present. But rest assured that Georgia would gladly go back in time and map out a plan to avoid their current situation.

It’s always difficult to make budget decisions, especially in today’s tough economic times. It’s easy to spend money on immediate, obvious fixes. Water resource planning is not a quick fix. It doesn’t offer the immediate, tangible results that some of the obvious, at-the-ready fixes might. But looking at the plight that Georgia is facing, it’s obvious that a small investment a few years ago could have saved millions.

Contributed by Brent Bridges and the Southeast Municipal Market Team

Stormwater management is an important element of any building or major renovation project, particularly at urban sites. Low Impact Development (LID) approaches are become much more common, and there are a number of LID options available when selecting stormwater management techniques. Three popular LID are porous pavement, bio-retention ponds, and underground infiltration systems.

For a project applying LID techniques, each option should be evaluated based on its suitability for the site, performance, overall cost, and the time and cost of maintenance. This post describes each option and how it could work for a site.

Porous pavement is a permeable pavement constructed on top of a stone reservoir to allow water to naturally filter and infiltrate the ground. This technique works well for a site that has low usage levels with a slope of less than 5%. Due to the nature of the pavement, the bedrock should be more than four feet below the base of the system, the seasonal high water table more than three feet, and the site should be protected from wind-blown sediments.

Maintenance for porous pavement is more costly and requires more time than other LID options. Vacuum sweeping and or pressure washing is recommended along with the use of environmentally benign deicers in lieu of salt, which can damage the pavement. Inspections to check for deterioration are recommended on a monthly basis and after storm events to check functionality.

On the other hand, porous pavement reduces the amount of stormwater infrastructure and the need for plowing and salting and increases groundwater recharge. But be aware that porous pavement systems have a lower load-bearing capacity than traditional pavement systems.
 
Bio-retention areas mimic natural landscapes to filter stormwater using soils and vegetation in shallow landscaped depressions. Bio-retention ponds or basins are used for small sub-drainage areas, generally less than five acres, with a seasonal high water table more than two feet from the pond invert. The site slope should be less than 20% for best results. Maintenance should be done routinely on landscaped areas surrounding the ponds, along with removal of accumulated debris and sediment. Inspections should be done to observe the health of the plants for system functionality.

Bio-retention ponds provide pollutant treatment, increase groundwater recharge for unlined systems, and reduce urban heat effects. Sites with a steep slope or limited space should perform adequate due diligence to see if bio-retentions the best option.
 
Underground infiltration systems capture stormwater and slowly allow it to infiltrate the ground. These systems need to meet more site requirements than the other two LID techniques. Distance from on-site sewage disposal systems, community and private wells, property lines, structures, and surface water bodies all need to be considered. Maintenance includes bi-annual inspection of pretreatment devices and chambers, cleaning of pretreatment devices as necessary, and removal of accumulated sediment over three inches.

Underground infiltration increases groundwater recharge and allows for flexibility in the system location and configuration to best suit the application. The system restricts accessibility for maintenance, requires a piping system infrastructure, and requires pretreatment to minimize maintenance; all things to consider before choosing underground infiltration.

Every project is different and all alternatives should be evaluated based on site needs and design. Costs range based on the project, but for large scale projects porous pavement tends to have the lowest capital expense followed by bio-retention ponds then underground infiltration.

Contributed by Janice Greenwood of Woodard & Curran's Rhode Island office

The extreme drought that plagued Atlanta and the surrounding area was deemed officially over by Dr. Carol Couch, Chief of the Georgia Environmental Protection Agency, on June 10, 2009. The effects sent shockwaves through the state. The area had less than three months of water left and a federal judge issued an ultimatum for the state: work out your water issues in three years or face harsh limits on how much water your city will be allowed to use. The area has responded, to an extent, instituting self-imposed water restrictions and other conservation efforts, such as a state-wide low-flow toilet rebate program.

In the past few weeks Atlanta and the surrounding area has experienced torrential downpours, causing flooding, wastewater overflows, and general misery for drivers everywhere. But there is a silver lining in all the rain: Lake Lanier, the epicenter of water conservation friction, has been nearly replenished to normal levels. At the time of this entry, Lanier is a mere foot and a half below normal levels. To put that number in perspective, Lanier was hovering around 20 feet below normal in 2008. Today, Lanier is clearing almost seven and half million gallons a day into the lake, a far cry from that same time in 2008 when the lake was losing over three million gallons a day. Clearly, the metro area was granted the proverbial “do-over” with the drought. Awareness, education, and conservation, mixed with the incredible rainfall, have produced tangible results for the lake and the surrounding area. But has the culture of the area changed enough to continue this way of living in order to avoid another potentially catastrophic drought?

From the years 2000-2006, the metro area gained 890,000 residents. State officials were not prepared from a water resources perspective to support that kind of growth. The drought, then, was a natural occurrence combined with a man-made crisis. It was a recipe of too many people mixed with not enough planning, infrastructure, or conservation mandates. Here are some statistics (courtesy of Conserve Water Georgia) that will help set stage for understanding how a conservation culture change in Atlanta must occur to survive another drought:

• Population projection for the metro Atlanta area by 2025: 7,308,508
• Current population for the metro Atlanta area: 5,278,904
• Gallons-per-day usage by average Georgia resident: 100 gallons
• Average number of years between 3-year-long droughts: 40 years

So, what can we draw from these numbers? With an influx of two million people in the next 16 years there will be approximately 200 million more gallons of water used per day. A population boom similar to that of earlier in the decade paired with another drought could spell disaster. The metro area must learn from the recent drought emergency and cultivate conservation.

Some techniques could include extending the daytime watering recommendations to a ban on all daytime watering. According to Sally Bethea, Executive Director for the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, cutting out all unnecessary daytime watering could help save up to 15 percent of lost water per day. Another strategy could include having the state match a portion of grants given to metro area communities investing in water efficiency projects, such as fixing outdated equipment or installing monitoring systems.

Investing in the area’s water future is an investment in the area as a whole. Like many preventable problems, Atlanta’s water issues will need to be confronted head on, and solutions need to be made as soon as possible. The growth of the area is not slowing down, and there aren’t any additional water sources. Conservation must become a way of life in Atlanta, not a reaction to an emergency.

Contributed by Brent Bridges and the Southeast Municipal Market Team

It's a nightmare scenario. A regulatory agency has conducts a review of a property where environmental cleanup has been completed and overturns site closure status because of potential indoor air concerns. You followed the rules, even consulted with the agency, and thought you had closed the site. Now, citing changing regulatory priorities, science, and standards, the agency has re-opened the site. Maybe you don't even own the property anymore. You may be exposed to liability or lose tenants when you are forced to sample indoor air in their space. How did this happen?

Regulators and the scientific community have shifted their focus from drinking water issues to subsurface impacts on indoor air quality. This is due to both the high potential for exposure to indoor air (time spent indoors and lack of alternate air sources and because science suggests the way we previously evaluated indoor air concerns is flawed) and that the transport and toxicity of some solvents are even higher than previously suspected. The result: a spotlight on the potential for contamination to move from soil and groundwater beneath buildings to indoor air, or vapor intrusion, potentially placing occupants at risk. In the wake of these changes, new sampling methods, new phases of assessment, new agency scrutiny, and new litigation by tenants and owners have become the norm.

The best defense is a good offense in dealing with this issue. Here are a few recommended "keys to the game".

Put liability control in your plan. Evaluate the potential for this issue to exist when contemplating a purchase or planning your remedial strategy. If you have previously completed remediation and/or closed your site, determine whether this liability may need to be addressed before selling, leasing, or redeveloping.
 
Figure it out now. If you are carrying out new construction and have a known source of contamination in the area of the planned building, conduct focused evaluation right where the building will go. If this evaluation shows a risk, design engineering controls into the construction. Fixing this problem after the building is done will be much more expensive than addressing it up front.
 
Trust, but verify. Engineering controls are a great design element, but somewhere down the line someone is going to ask whether they are working. Your design plan needs to include engineering oversight during installation and performance testing after installation. The standard of practice is moving toward installing means by which the physical performance of the system can be evaluated, rather than conducting indoor air testing. Why? Indoor air testing is expensive, may need to be conducted several times, can cause alarm among building occupants, and, particularly with new construction, may measure other sources of contaminants to indoor air.

Hire smart. Not all consultants or attorneys have experience dealing with vapor intrusion. In light of the fact that differences exist in standards of practice and regulations, make sure you have the right team to solve the problem. Having someone on board who can conduct the human health risk evaluation and knows the latest standards and methods will be critical to overcoming the issue.

Get focused. This is not a distraction or regulatory "flavor of the month" – it is here to stay. No one will be able to argue against protecting the health of the people that live, work or shop inside your building. Address this early in your existing portfolio and in future transactions.

Engage a qualified consultant right away if you are faced with this problem. Indoor air impacts may be expensive to litigate and this will be particularly true if you are not proactive in addressing this new regulatory concern, or if you address it improperly.

Please contact Woodard & Curran if you have any questions on this topic.

Contributed by Lisa Campe, MPH, LSP, Vice President

Atlanta, a city with a metro-area of over five million people, is expected to see a boom of two million more by the year 2020. While Atlanta’s population may pale in comparison to cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, Georgia’s capital is the largest city in the country not built on a large body of water. This has posed water reuse and sustainability challenges unknown to larger metropolitan areas.

A city like Atlanta must have in place a tangible water sustainability strategy in order to survive. This strategy includes policies on water use and reuse, the technology and processes used to treat and distribute water, and creating awareness and responsibility amongst decision-makers and consumers alike.

In response to a well publicized drought, Atlanta has used all three approaches to create a relatively fast set of solutions to the dwindling water supply. Residential demand makes up 56% of the water use in Atlanta and of that nearly 20% is used for outdoor watering. Seeing this as a huge drain on the water supply, the City and surrounding areas instituted strict water restrictions and increased rates. This action aided in curbing wasteful water use and led to public awareness and media coverage surrounding the drought. Communities were vigilant in complying with water conservation efforts, even after some restrictions were relaxed.

The technology and creative problem-solving employed to help during the drought ranged from the expertise of federal and state decision makers and engineers all the way down to local residents exchanging older, more wasteful fixtures with newer, low-flow models. Residents even received rebates for their exchange.

Atlanta has also looked to other cities’ sustainable water visions for inspiration. In the 1980’s, Boston instituted a program of leak repair, new water meters, and water audits. The city now uses less water than it did in the year 1911. Of course, these changes come at a cost: Boston has spent $40 million on the effort. However, that investment will save the city around $500 million in long-term water loss, supply costs, and stabilized rates.

Obviously, an investment of tens of millions of dollars is a large sum. There are risks associated with any investment. But with proper planning, strategy, and commitment, the risks can be mitigated or even eliminated. And the returns on such an investment can be as large as the ones realized by Boston.

The sustainability dream is not going to happen overnight. However, if Atlanta learns from the seriousness of the drought, sticks with conservation strategies, and pays attention to cities who have paved the way, it can ensure a sustainable water supply.

Contributed by Brent Bridges and the Southeast Municipal Market Team

The New Jersey DEP is advancing contaminated site cleanups thanks to new privatized cleanup program. The Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) program has passed the New Jersey legislature and will be signed into law by the Governor. This program, informed by successful similar programs in Massachusetts and Connecticut, will speed cleanup of more than 20,000 contaminated sites that have stalled within the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) legislative process due to the volume of cases. This new law will enable qualified professionals to authorize the continuation of site cleanup and drastically increase the number of contaminated sites which are remediated annually, reduce the public's exposure to pollution, create jobs, and increase tax revenues for municipalities.

Cleanups for the majority of environmentally impacted sites will now be overseen by LSRPs. Instead of awaiting direct approvals by the NJDEP, licensed consultants will plan and direct the cleanup needed to comply with environmental laws, and to develop, maintain, or sell the property.

Standards will still be set by the NJDEP, which will conduct audits on 10% of all submissions while maintaining the management over a significant number of challenging cases, as necessary. To perform remediation work in New Jersey, consultants, engineers, and other site remediation professionals must be licensed as an LSRP. LSRPs will have the authority to take a case from start to finish and issue a response action outcome.

Woodard & Curran’s Duff Collins, P.G., Dave MacDonald, P.E., and Michael van der Heijden were closely involved in the development of New Jersey’s LSRP program, providing input to development of the bill and program standards, and testifying before the New Jersey Senate.

This program is a big step forward in getting the backlog of contaminated properties in New Jersey cleaned up and put to beneficial use.

Contributed by Michael van der Heijden

We, as a nation, are more aware of our impact on the environment than we have ever been. We’ve become more conscious about harmful chemicals and toxins in our every day products and instituted programs to proactively protect and rehabilitate the environment. Some parts of our country have felt the impact of natural and man-made environmental disasters more than others. These affected areas have much at stake to protect their environmental well-being, and stakeholders are starting to take action.

The City of Atlanta, GA is at an environmental crossroads unlike anything it has seen before. The issues it faces are unusual in their severity, but not uncommon across the country, and Atlanta's proactive approach is a useful example. A drought has ravaged the water supply, tornados have ripped through towns and smog and pollution are at an all time high. According to the American Lung Association, Atlanta ranks sixth in America’s Most Polluted Cities, based on Year-Round Particle Pollution. The city’s two primary water sources, Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochee River, have fallen victim to major environmental disasters including low-water levels, over-use, and pollution. All, however, is not lost. The City, with backing from local, state and federal officials, has taken action to create an environmental initiative aimed at helping to sooth the area’s water woes.

The Clean Water Campaign is a community-based program targeted at educating the public on the sources of water pollution and the effects of those pollutants on Atlanta’s water supply, ecosystems, and general quality of life. Started in 2001, the initiative strives to convey facts paired with tangible effects. For instance, more than 1,000 stream miles in the metro-Atlanta area are non-compliant with state water quality standards. This type of education is especially important, as almost 98% of the City’s water supply comes from surface water origins.

The Clean Water Campaign conducts no-cost public workshops with topics ranging from rain gardens to composting to stormwater basics. The campaign boasts an easy to follow “Top 10 Things I Can Do” section for those interested in helping solve Atlanta’s water issues.

Interesting facts from The Clean Water Campaign:

• The highest concentration of pesticides in metro Atlanta’s rivers and streams are found during the month of May. This is attributed to the coming of springtime and the start of growing season.
• More than 800 of Georgia’s waterways already fail federal safety regulation for toxic chemicals and cancer-causing agents. Officials statewide blame runoff from parking lots, roofs, streets, and new development for the dangers.
• Only 14% of the 70,150 total stream and river miles in Georgia are monitored for water quality standards. Of that number, nearly 60% do not meet those standards.
• Only 55% of the 70,150 total stream and river miles in Georgia support a full range of aquatic life. Nearly 16% support no aquatic life at all.

It’s true that Atlanta’s water troubles are at an all-time high. But times of crisis also yield the best solutions. As the water supply decreases, public awareness increases and government actions start to churn. Initiatives such as The Clean Water Campaign are excellent examples of the power of a partnership between local and state officials and the people who elect them. Atlanta’s water issues are far from over, but the City has a public armed with knowledge and a government determined to change things, and that is a recipe for success.

Contributed by Brent Bridges and the Southeast Municipal Market Team

The year of 1818 held a lot of significant event national events. Illinois became the 21st state admitted to the Union. Congress adopted the flag of the United States in the form that we know it today, with 13 stripes and stars for each state. It was the year the 49th parallel was established. It saw the birth of one revolutionary in Frederick Douglass, and the death of another in Paul Revere. 1818 also marked the occurrence of something slightly more obscure: a cartographical mistake allocating 150 square miles of Georgian land to Tennessee.

For 190 years this mapmaking mistake went on without much consequence. However, in early 2008, Georgia began to experience one of the worst droughts in our nation’s history. Lake Lanier, located about an hour and a half outside of Atlanta, is the city’s main water supply. In 2007, the lake hit record low water levels and so began the countdown until Atlanta ran out of water. Georgian government officials, including Governor Sonny Purdue, needed to act fast to preserve the flow of water for the almost 6 million people metro area. Eyes turned to the Georgia-Tennessee border and the forgotten surveying error that just happened to run directly through the Tennessee River.

Flush with billions of gallons of water, the Tennessee River would be able to supply the Atlanta area with water for a very long time. Georgian lawmakers envisioned pipes running from their reclaimed riparian rights and furnishing the parched populous to the south with fresh water. The land, however, belongs to Tennessee, and has for almost 200 years. There is no denying from either side that the lines of ownership were incorrectly drawn, and Georgia has protested this fact in years past, but never seeking court assistance. Now, we could see this dispute end up in the Supreme Court.

Lawmakers from both states have begun a war of attrition, Georgia claiming stakes and Tennessee not budging an inch. Thrown into the mix is the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal agency with no allegiance to either state. Georgia is demanding the water to alleviate their water problems. Tennessee is recommending devoting time, effort and tax dollars to conserving water and restricting population growth.

Piping water to Atlanta would be probably the largest public works project in the history of the Southeast, with experts putting the price tag in the neighborhood of $200 billion. It would take an agreement or court injunction to give or sell the land to Georgia. Even then, a separate deal would need to be worked out with the Tennessee Valley Authority in order to remove even an ounce of water from the river. On top of all of this, there is a Tennessee state law that bans moving any river water out of state.

Tennessee points to Georgia’s poor planning, including building a million-gallon mountain of artificial snow and several outdoor theme and water parks. They also point to Atlanta’s enormous and seemingly unstoppable growth and Georgia’s historical wasteful irrigation of cotton farms.

Georgia, on the other hand, sees their rightful ownership of part of the Tennessee River as a possible solution to the state’s largest ecological crisis ever.

Normally, Georgia and Tennessee fight over whose football team is better. Today, the fight is undeniably more serious. While the litigation has been tabled, it could still end up in federal court. Either way, water is running out and Atlanta is growing by the minute. The year 1818 was an important year in history, but no one thought its most significant event wouldn’t have an effect until 190 years later.

Contributed by Brent Bridges