Recommendations for a Statewide Water Plan

By: Ewan HadgraftAlabama Rivers Alliance

Birmingham-Southern College

My Program

• The Birmingham-Southern College Urban Environmental Studies Internship program

• Francesca Gross- fgross@bsc.edu• The Alabama Rivers Alliance was my host

organization for ten weeks• The Alabama Rivers Alliance is a statewide,

nonprofit, water protection organization

Research Focus

• Who issues the authority to withdraw water in state?- Is there a difference in who issues authority on Surface versus ground water withdrawals?

- What state law establishes that authority?

- What exemptions exist?

• Do they use a permitting system? If not, what do they use?

• How does the state or state agency pay for the program?

Alabama’s Current Water System

• Current regulation does not protect minimum required daily flows (MDL)

• Existing practices not sustainable in light of rising population and demand in Alabama– farmers looking to irrigate more land to meet demand

• Sound scientific data needed in order to adopt a water management plan– in addition, scientific data must be constantly

reaffirmed with the development of future technologies

Other State Water Systems

• Water plan that manages the assessment, allocation, and equitable distribution of the state water supply

• Registration or permitting system to help regulate the program

• Accurate data recorded throughout the process of creating and maintaining a water management plan

Other States Water Systems Authority• Michigan- Natural Resources and Environmental Protection

Act (Mich. Comp. Laws §324.32701 to .32730 (2008))

• Connecticut- Connecticut General Statutes 25-33p

• Mississippi- Chapter 3 ( 51-3-21)- Water Resources; Regulation and Control

• Maryland-26.17.06

• Arkansas- Power of Commission Regarding Waters (Ark. Stat. Ann. § 15-22-205 (1985))

Recommendations

• Constantly and effectively manage public awareness and involvement

• Scientific assessment needed throughout implementation– However, this can pose a problem to progress if

drawn out• Permitting or registration system to accurately

track, and regulate the withdrawal of water

Public Involvement

• Public awareness one of the most important issues

• Frequent public hearings and comment opportunities necessary

• Without constant participation of the people that the water plan will effect, it can be very difficult to implement

• Done well by Connecticut and Maryland

Connecticut

• Regularly held public hearings and petition available through multiple avenues

• Water Planning Council (WPC) consists of 4 members from 3 state agencies

• WPC established three committees to investigate specific issues

• Submitted an Issues Work Plan to the Legislature on January 28, 2002

Maryland• The Department of the Environment heads

water management program• Focus on outreach and assistance activities to

address multiple issues involving water regulatory programs

• Environmental Boards comprised of three State licensing boards used to license and certify organizations

Data Collection and Assessment

• Ample data must be collected throughout the process

• Collection of data in preparation against drought or flooding

• Good Example: Mississippi

Mississippi

• The Office of Land and Water Resources, Division of Permitting and Monitoring

• Maintains network of stream gauging stations – used to establish and maintain stage versus discharge

ratings on various streams in the state.

• Establish and monitor minimum lake levels on all naturally occurring lakes– with diversion permits that are located in the Delta

region of Mississippi

Mississippi• Program focuses on issuance and renewal

of permits for both types of withdrawal

• Allows impoundment of water

• Maintenance of an observation well network throughout Mississippi - to monitor water levels associated with the major aquifers

Registration and Permitting

A combination of both registration and permitting shown to be effective to both Arkansas and Michigan's water programs• Critical to the application of a successful water planExample: Arkansas • Accurately measures the amount of water being

withdrawn and for what purpose• employs a registration system with yearly

withdrawal fees

Arkansas

Registration system monitors all types of water withdrawal• Application and annual fees pay for the

programPermits info requirements:• annual amount, maximum rate of diversion,

and water use • Length of permit based on cost of project, and

time for the project owner to recoup costs

Michigan

Combination of reporting and permitting programs for surface and ground water withdrawals• Water withdrawals over 100,000 gpd must be

reported• 2,000,000 gpd and above must be permitted• Agricultural withdrawals reported to the Michigan

Department of Agriculture• Online water withdrawal assessment tool

Conclusions• Maryland’s focus on outreach and education allowed for a

smooth transition towards their own water management plan

• Mississippi devoted Department of Environmental Protection to the upkeep of monitoring equipment and accurate consistent data regarding its water program

• Michigan's combination of registration and permitting different approach to water appropriation based upon amount withdrawn

Future Research• This research was done over ten weeks and therefore

is not all inclusive• A further in depth study of other States may reveal

other possible options for the creation of an effective water management plan

• In a future study of nationwide water regulation, I would like to gain further depth of many of the topics covered in this presentation

• More specific economic data would be useful in the actual implementation of a state wide water plan, however, I was unable to find such data in such a short period of time

Contact Information

• Ewan Hadgraft• eghadgra@bsc.edu• 205-401-8364