TO: TACIR Commissioners

FROM: Harry A. Green Executive Director

DATE: June 12, 2008 SUBJECT: Water Supply Needs and Issues in Tennessee

From the fastest growing, most prosperous county in the state to the tiny town of Orme with less than 200 people, Tennessee was hit hard by drought conditions in 2007. Mississippi has sued Memphis over ground water, and Georgia, which has been in a seemingly endless fight with Florida and Alabama over several rivers shared by the three states, is now trying to move the Georgia-Tennessee state line a mile farther north so it can put a pipe directly into the Tennessee River. The southeast, which has long been known as lush and wet is now home to the type of water wars seen in the arid western water part of the country.

Under normal conditions, Tennessee has an abundance of water resources readily available in most portions of the state. Bordered on the west by the mighty Mississippi River, traversed by the plentiful waters of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers and their tributaries, and fortified by the resources of the Memphis aquifer’s ground water resources, Tennessee is typically thought of as a water rich state. Yet the severity of this most recent drought has placed tremendous strain on the state’s water resources and has resulted in numerous warnings of water shortages and restrictions on water usage in many parts of the state.

As a state known for lush green forests, fields and lawns, big lazy rivers, and lakes from end to end, many parts of Tennessee are now struggling with water shortages. The purpose of this report is to examine how water allocation decisions are made. Who decides who gets how much water, where, and when? That’s the subject of this report.

Recent Drought

Suite 508226 Capitol Boulevard BuildingNashville, Tennessee 37243-0760Phone: (615) 741-3012Fax: (615) 532-2443www.state.tn.us/tacir

7

Throughout 2007, Tennessee along with much of the southeastern portion of the nation witnessed one of the worst droughts affecting the region in more than 100 years caused by prolonged periods of unusually hot and dry weather conditions. While periods of drought have occurred in Tennessee in the past, conditions in 2007 were particularly acute approaching record levels in many areas of the state. Newspaper reports across the state reported almost daily on the widespread effects that this prolonged period of hot and dry weather has had on the state’s water supplies and the people who rely on them.

Unfortunately, these drought conditions have continued to persist into 2008 in many parts of the state, raising concerns among water supply managers and water utility operators about the availability of water in the year ahead. The arrival of the typically wet winter season has brought some relief to the extreme dry conditions of last summer, and the western portion of the state has seen a surplus of rainfall. However despite what may seem like ample rainfall, much of the state remains in a rain fall deficit. The National Drought Preparedness Center indicates that much of the central and eastern portions of Tennessee have received as little as 50% of the normally anticipated amount of rainfall for the current weather year dating back to October 1, 2007. Thus, we have a situation where we are approaching what is normally the driest time of year behind in the average annual rainfall total for the year, during a year when we continue to have lingering water deficits from the previous year.

Percent of Normal Precipitation all for Climactic Year Beginning Oct 1, 2007

Source: National Drought Preparedness Center

Even in those areas where improvements in the amount of rainfall to replenish local water sources is anticipated, many reservoirs and wells are predicted to remain low due to lingering impacts from the extreme rainfall deficits incurred last year. It is also uncertain at this time whether this recent drought is part of an ordinary, periodic dry spell that can be expected to occur in the southeast from time to time, or whether it is

part of a longer term shift in climatologic patterns that would prompt us to start to re-think our current expectations rainfall and how we mange our water resources.

Understanding Drought and Drought Related Water Problems

At its most basic level, drought conditions are usually thought of as a shortage of water caused by lower than expected levels of rain over an extended period of time. For drought conditions to develop, these lower than normal rainfall amounts usually have to last for more than a single season. In fact, when droughts do develop, they tend to last for three seasons or more. In regions like Tennessee where normal annual rainfall amounts are concentrated in the winter and spring months, significant shortages of rain during those seasons tend to have long lasting effects as stored water is drawn down during the summer and fall. Water that typically would be stored during the wet months would not be available for use during the drier times of year.

According to the Nation Drought Mitigation Center, definitions of drought and the effects of drought can also be characterized in a number of different ways depending on the effects. These include: meteorological, hydrological, agricultural, stored water, and socioeconomic.

Meteorological DroughtMeteorological drought is usually defined on the basis of the level of dryness typically measured by lower than normal amounts of rainfall compared to what would normally be expected for the region in question. It is perhaps the most common way of measuring the development of drought.

Hydrological DroughtHydrological drought is associated with the effects of periods of precipitation shortfalls on surface or underground water supplies. The frequency and severity of hydrological drought is often defined on a watershed or river basin scale. Although all droughts originate with a deficiency of precipitation, hydrologists are more concerned with how this deficiency plays out through the hydrologic system. It often takes longer for precipitation deficiencies to show up in the hydrological system such as soil moisture, stream flow, and ground water and reservoir levels and may lag behind other economic impacts of drought. Also, water in stored in reservoirs is often used for multiple and competing purposes (e.g., flood control, irrigation, recreation, navigation, hydropower, wildlife habitat), further complicating the sequence and quantification of impacts. Competition for water in these storage systems escalates during drought and conflicts between water users may increase significantly.

Agricultural DroughtAgricultural drought links various aspects of meteorological or hydrological drought conditions to the impacts on agriculture. This would include the effects of drought on soil conditions, the planting and growing seasons, and live stock. Drought conditions can affect agriculture not just in the total amount of rainfall and water available, but also when that water is available. Agricultural drought would take into account the susceptibility of crops during different stages of crop development, from planting to harvesting and would also measure the effects of water availability on crop quality and crop yield.

Stored Water DroughtsStored water droughts result when rainfall amounts are not sufficient enough to produce the amount of water runoff necessary to fill water storage reservoirs that are normally relied on for water supply sources. This typically results when rain fall amounts do occur at or near the levels typically observed during the wettest months of the year, when water storage and collection within these reservoirs would be greatest.

Socioeconomic EffectsSocioeconomic definitions of drought link the supply and demand of some economic activity with elements of meteorological, hydrological, and agricultural drought. It differs from the previously described types of drought because its occurrence depends on the time and space processes of supply and demand to identify or classify droughts. The supply of many economic goods, such as water, forage, food grains, fish, and hydroelectric power, depends on weather. Because of the natural variability of climate, water supply is ample in some years but unable to meet human and environmental needs in other years. Socioeconomic drought occurs when the demand for some economic good exceeds supply as a result of a weather-related shortfall in water supply.

Reaction to Drought - The Hydro-Illogical CycleMany of us are familiar with the hydrological cycle, the natural cycle of water moving through the environment. Water falls to the earth as rain and then either percolates into the ground and is trapped in ground water aquifers, or excess water runs off and collects in ponds, rivers and streams, and eventually finds its way to the oceans. Radiant heat from the sun causes water to evaporate back into the atmosphere as water vapor where it collects in clouds until eventually returning to the earth as rain completing the cycle.

The hydro-illogical cycle is a bit different since it describes the reaction of humans when faced with periods of drought rather than events of nature themselves. Unlike many other types of natural disaster, drought conditions take time to develop rather than as the result of a single event, and marking the beginnings and endings of droughts precisely is often difficult. The hydro-illogical cycle begins when we become aware that our typical seasonal rainfall may be running below normal. Should rainfall amounts continue to be below expectations developing into drought conditions, public awareness begins to build as water resource managers, government officials and the media all begin to focus attention on the drought. Public concern often becomes wide spread as more and more people draw their attention to weather forecasts and the water levels in local reservoirs and wells. Localized water shortages may start to appear. Should the drought continue to persist, calls for voluntary restrictions on water use or even mandatory restrictions on water use may result. When rainfall eventually returns to more typical levels once again, the tendency is for most of us to return to our normal ways of using water content in knowing that everything worked out just as we though it would – no need to make any long term changes in local water management practices.

Although often droughts eventually end without long severe lasting consequences, sometimes they serve as a warning about weaknesses or vulnerabilities within local water supply systems. In some cases the effects of the drought (the weather event)

may have been less severe with changes in water management practices. The hydro-illogical cycle, however, illustrates how easy it is for we as humans to sidestep making important preparations for dealing with these systemic weaknesses once the immediate dangers have passed.

The Hydro-Illogical Cycle

Source: Nation Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Growing Water NeedsThe recent drought has also raised important questions about the state’s ability to provide adequate water amounts to meet the needs of its people and businesses in a consistently reliable fashion and has implications for how the state and local governments might be able to manage future growth and development.

Tennessee and many parts of the southeastern region of the country have been home to some of the more resilient sectors of the nation’s economy in recent years. The demands on the state’s water supply are only likely to become greater as the state’s population and economy continue to expand. Tennessee’s population continues to grow, a trend that is expected to extend into the foreseeable future. The 2000 Census revealed that Tennessee’s population was 5,689,283 people. By the year 2025, the population of the state is expected to grow by almost 2 million to 7,559,532, an increase of 32.9%. The water needs of an expanding population must also be balanced against the needs of agriculture, maintaining an acceptable level of water quality in our streams and lakes, along with the demands of hydroelectric power generation, navigation, and recreational uses.

Tennessee Population Projections 2000-2025

736,686 1,132,029 1,506,092 1,870,2495,689,283

7,559,532

328,316

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Source: TACIR/CBER 2000-2025 Population Prjections

In addition to concerns about the overall amount of water available potentially available, some portions of the state are more vulnerable than others and many long standing

problems of inadequate water delivery infrastructure or face serious challenges to establishing and maintaining a reliable water delivery system for their communities. While Tennessee as a whole may be considered to have an abundance of water resources, these water supplies are not evenly distributed and available for consumer use across the state. Some communities in the more rapidly growing portions of the state have water supply challenges because of the capacity of their local rivers. These issues have been reported along the Duck and Harpeth Rivers where water flows are currently strained but the demand for water from these streams remains high.

This is the case in many of the more rural areas of Tennessee, especially those not located near one of Tennessee’s major rivers and either dependant on water flows in one of the more minor streams, or dependant on limited ground water sources. For example, there are many portions of the Cumberland Plateau that are simultaneously experiencing growing populations but that also have limited locally available water supplies. The potential costs of supplying drinking water in rural areas where populations are highly scattered is also a major concern. A survey of rural water supply needs by the Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) in 2005 estimated that Statewide, there are well over 110,000 homes without public water service. It is further estimated that more than 18,000 miles of water lines and approximately $1.7 billion would be needed to extend public water service to all Tennessee households. The state’s annual infrastructure needs survey has recently included reports of approximately $1.6 billion of identified water supply needs and an additional $1.7 billion is combined water and waste water categorized projects. Funding the projected water supply needs across the state is thus likely to be a costly endeavor.

An additional issue that many in Tennessee are also aware of is the large and growing water needs of urban regions outside but bordering Tennessee, particularly the Atlanta, Georgia region. The recent drought in Tennessee has also been acutely felt across large portions of Georgia and has severely impacted the water sources of the greater Atlanta region, principally Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochie River. Many policy

makers in Georgia are looking increasingly to the water flows of the Tennessee River system to address their own pressing water needs. Some lawmakers in Georgia have even revived an historical dispute over the correct placement of the Tennessee/Georgia boarder that might give Georgia riparian access to some of the waters in the Tennessee River.

Water Management in Tennessee

The ongoing management and allocation of water resources in Tennessee is divided among a wide array of governmental entities and private providers rather than by any single entity. Under Tennessee state law, all surface and ground waters in Tennessee are considered to be the property of the state and held in public trust for the use of the people of the state (TCA 69-3-102a). But how those waters come to be divided up and allocated to various and sometimes competing users involves a number of different players. The divided nature of water supply management practices in Tennessee can present challenges in making decisions about the allocation of water and coordinating responsibilities. In Tennessee, this is spread across an array of state and federal agencies, each having different roles and responsibilities. These agencies have divided responsibilities spanning a range of programmatic areas, and are made up of units of both the state and federal government. At the local level, responsibilities are spread across public water utilities, water companies, and municipal water systems. These agencies include:

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Municipal Water Utilities Public Utility Districts Private Water Companies

While these agencies are the key players in the water distribution decision making process for these river systems, they do not act alone. Their decisions are also tempered by input from a collection of citizen groups, environments stewards, and other government agencies. Some of these include:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) U.S Geological Survey (USGS) Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Utility Management and Review Board (UMRB) Waste Water Finance Board (WWFR)

As a means of providing wider areas within Tennessee with more reliable water supplies, one policy idea that has recently surfaced is to look at the possibility of linking as many communities’ water supply sources in the state as possible to the resources of either the Tennessee or Cumberland Rivers. The idea is that these two rivers might have sufficiently abundant and reliable water flows during both wet and dry periods to accommodate the needs of larger areas of the state than they currently serve. Assessing the adequacy of the amount of water available within these two river systems is beyond the scope and expertise of this report. However, the idea of greatly

expanding the distribution and utilization of the water resources from the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers does raise a number of pragmatic operational and administrative issues and questions that are largely inter-governmental in nature.

Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins

Tennessee River SystemThe water resources of the Tennessee River are managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). TVA is an agency of the federal government chartered in 1933 to manage the resources of the river and its tributaries with an eye towards promoting the economic development of the region. TVA fulfills this mission by working cooperatively with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) which also has responsibility for managing the navigable waters of the United Stated, a mission that dates back to the 1890s beginning with the Rivers and Harbors Act. Providing water for local water supply purposes is one of the many uses that Tennessee River water is allocated for by TVA. The others include navigation, flood control, power generation, economic development, and recreation.

It is also important to note that making water available for drinking water supply purposes is not the primary mission of TVA, nor its first priority. Making water available for withdrawal by various municipal water systems is in some respects a by-product of TVA’s activities in meeting its primary objectives of managing the river system for navigation, flood control, power generation and economic development through its dam and reservoir operations. By taking these steps to manage the water flow within the river system, TVA has also created reserves of water that have enabled it to accommodate many other uses of water beyond it original mandated purpose. Water from the Tennessee River is also allocated to maintain navigation flows in the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. In addition, the flow of water throughout the river

system must be managed in accordance with environment regulations and condition which influence how much water is released at various points on the river and when.

TVA also is not funded by federal grants, but rather its budget is dependant on the revenues that it generates through its river operations. The primary source of these revenue streams are through power generation, and the management of river flows within the system are carefully orchestrated to have water available for either hydroelectric generation at one of its dams whenever possible, or for cooling purposes at one its nuclear or conventionally fueled power plants. Whenever water is diverted away from hydroelectric power generation, such as for recreation flows or water withdrawal, it creates a possible financial impact on TVA’s budget. This became evident recently when TVA reported financial losses for the fourth quarter of 2007 because it was unable to generate sufficient hydroelectric power to meet it demand levels because of the pervasive drought conditions throughout 2007. TVA instead was forced to shift to more costly power generation modes, such as burning oil and natural gas, using nuclear power, or buying electricity form outside sources.

Water withdrawal requests from the Tennessee River system are reviewed and processed by TVA’s Environmental Stewardship and Policy Organization, and are handled administratively. While TVA does asses a fee for processing the application, only charges for water withdrawals under a limited set of circumstances. TVA only charges for water withdrawals in instances where the withdrawal would result in an inter-basin transfer out TVA’s power generation system, that is, where the water withdrawal would create a potential loss of financial revenue from power generation for TVA. As a practical matter, TVA looks at whether this transfer of water from the river system would be to an area in which TVA sells power to via one of its distributors in making a determination as to whether to charge for the water withdrawal. If the water is going to used in an area that TVA supplies electricity to, it would not charge for the water itself, it would only charge to process the permit.

Permits for water withdrawals from the Tennessee River system are made through TVA via a joint TVA/USACE application. TVA reviews the application under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act while the USACE reviews the application for any potential environmental effects under the provisions Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (PL 95-217). TVA does not formally begin its review of any of these applications until the applicant has first received the necessary approvals from the appropriate state government agency (TDEC).

It should also be noted that TVA relies on information from TDEC that it receives ever five years to measure the amount of water that is withdrawn for municipal purposes, and these water withdrawals are not formally measured or metered. Thus the amount of water that is currently being withdrawn from the system for water supply purposes can only be estimated rather than measured precisely.

Cumberland River SystemIn the Cumberland River system, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for managing the uses of the waters within the river system under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Through its Civil Works program the Corps carries out a wide array of projects that provide flood

protection, hydropower, management of navigation channels and ports, recreational opportunities and water supply. As in the case of TVA’s operations within the Tennessee River system, providing water for municipal water supply purposes is not the primary focus of the Corp’s operations along the Cumberland River system. Rather, allowing water to be available for municipal uses has become possible as a by product of the dams, reservoirs and locks that have been built to provide flood control and ensure sufficiently reliable water flows for navigation along the river.

Application for withdrawing water from the Cumberland River system are made to the USACE through a joint application to both the Corps and TVA, since the two entities work cooperatively in managing operations along the river system. The USACE also requires that an applicant who requests to withdraw water from the Cumberland to also obtain any necessary state permits prior to the USACE granting a permit. However, unlike TVA, the USACE does not require state authorization prior to beginning it review of the request. Rather it would withhold the final approval and release of any water withdrawal permit until it received evidence of any necessary state approvals.

Along the main stem of the river, the Corps does not charge for water storage nor does the USACE guarantee the availability of water supply withdrawn from the main stem of the river. Since one of the USACE’s primary missions along the Cumberland River is to maintain a navigation channel with a minimum depth of 9 ft., there is a strong likelihood that that 9 ft. depth can be relied upon by anyone withdrawing water from the stem, provided that the intake was built below the 9 ft water elevation level. However, there is no guarantee of the flow of water along the stem of the river, and should circumstances arise where water flows needed to be reduced because of drought conditions or other contingencies, any water system withdrawing its water along the stem might possibly face an interruption in water flow.

The USACE does charge for water storage in it storage reservoirs, and in these cases the USACE provides a commitment to provide minimum levels of water availability. The charge for water storage is determined by prorating the costs of building the projects to provide the water storage among the beneficiaries of the water stored within the associated reservoir as authorized by the US Congress.

Along the Cumberland River, it should also be noted that there are some near term considerations that are affecting the amount of water currently being stored behind the Corp’s reservoirs. There have been a number of leaks and other structural problems identified in the Wolf Creek Dam that holds the waters in Lake Cumberland in Kentucky. The Corps has recently begun the repair operations on the dam; however the problems at the dam have caused the Corps to lower its typical lake elevation levels by approximately 37 ft. The repair work on the dam will take several years and the time frame for restoring the lake to its typical operational levels remains unclear. These lake levels would not affect any currently permitted water withdrawals from the lake, however they may affect water levels down stream from the dam since less water will can be stored in the reservoir during the rainy winter season to help insure water flows during the dryer summer season. There have also been leaks and structural problems identified in the Center Hill Dam impounding Center Hill Lake. This has caused the Corps to modify its normal operations and pool levels within the lake may have to be

lowered as much as eighteen feet lower than normal operating levels. Repair work on Center Hill dam is scheduled to begin and is estimated to last into 2014

State of Tennessee

The responsibility for overseeing the use and protection of water resources in Tennessee within the state government is within the Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). TDEC administers a number of environmental programs designed to protect the quality of the state’s natural resources and to safeguard human health. The responsibilities for managing water resources within TDEC and reviewing applications for the use of water are spread across several divisions within TDEC, primarily between the

Division of Water Supply and the Division of Water Pollution Control for the use and allocation of surface

water.

Water Supply DivisionOverseeing the quality of drinking water in Tennessee falls within TDEC’s Division of Water Supply. The Division of Water Supply is responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Tennessee Safe Drinking Water Act, which regulates the quality and quantity of drinking water in the state; the Safe Dams Act, which regulates the construction of non-federal dams; the Water Resources Act; and the Water Withdrawal Registration Act, which requires the registration of water withdrawals.

The Water Supply division reviews and approves plans for the construction and operation of public water supplies including design, construction, and operation of public water works systems. It also enforces regulations governing the location, design, construction, continuous operation and maintenance of these facilities to the extent to which they would affect water quality levels to insure that the quality of the water to be delivered meets minimum public health standards for potable use. Its review is focused on evaluating the water quality of the water source for drinking water purposes and reviewing the construction plans for the water processing facilities necessary to process the water prior to distribution.

The water supply division also evaluates the quality of the water source from which the water is proposed to be withdrawn from. If there were concerns about the quality of the source water, they may require some type of additional water treatment measures prior to approving the construction plans to ensure the quality of the drinking water that would result from the proposed system. As such, the role of the water supply division is not to make allocation decisions concerning any new or existing water intakes. The role of the Water Supply division is not to evaluate the desirability or value of the water withdrawal from a water quantity perspective, or to decide which of any number of competing uses of water should prioritized in any given manner. Their focus is on the quality of the water to be delivered for human consumption in order to maintain public health standards. Thus, the water supply division is not directly responsible for making allocation decisions on who gets water from where or in trying to balance the competing needs of multiple water users trying to withdraw or otherwise having water reserved for their own particular purposes.

Water Pollution Control DivisionThe division of water pollution control is responsible for the administration of the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act of 1977 (T.C.A. 69-3-101). The division monitors, analyzes, and reports on the quality of Tennessee's water and it reviews permits for discharges into streams according to state and federal rules. The division also reviews wastewater construction plans and specifications municipal as well as industrial facilities. Activities such as stream channel modifications, wetland alterations or gravel dredging are regulated by the division.

For the purposes of water withdrawals, the water pollution control division reviews withdrawal requests for what the possible effects on water quality would be if the withdrawal were to be approved. This takes the form of either an Aquatic Resource Alteration Permit (ARAP) or a §401 Water Quality Certification (§401 certification of the Clean Water Act) or an NPDES discharge permit issued by TDEC prior to TVA or the USACE approving a water withdrawal request in order for the party making the request to be able to alter the course of the stream such as by the diversion of water or the building of an intake structure.

In their review, TDEC is evaluating the in-steam impacts that any water withdrawal might have and looking primarily at water quality and whether or not the proposed water withdrawal might result in an unacceptable level of pollution or a lowering of the water quality of the stream. They are also looking at what the overall effects on the stream and the existing users of the water would be if the water withdrawal were to be approved. This tends to be of greater concern with smaller streams such as the Duck River which has limited flow levels and many competing uses and sensitive environmental concerns, and less so on larger rivers such as the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers.

Discussion

The future success and vitality of Tennessee’s communities will depend on having plentiful, safe and reliable sources of water. Much depends on it: the health of our people, the sustainability of agricultural production, and our prospects for future economic growth. The recent drought has caused many to question our assumptions about the reliability of the water supply in many communities. This combined with the sustained growth pressures experienced by a number of counties in the state such as Williamson and Rutherford that are placing increasing demands on limited local water resources, begs the question of how we might better plan for making allocation decisions about water in the state.

Under the current decision-making system for water supply systems and water withdrawals the state is a relatively passive player in the water withdrawal permitting process. TDEC’s Division of Water Supply does not issue permits or regulate the amount of water that a water utility provider might provide. Its review is confined to evaluating the water quality of the water source for drinking water purposes and reviewing the construction plans for the water processing facilities necessary to process the water prior to distribution. The Division of Water Pollution Control confines it’s

review of water withdrawal requests to the effects of the withdrawal on the overall quality of the water in the stream.

As a means of providing a number of communities that currently have concerns over their water supply systems, one idea that has been suggested by the Governor is have as many communities as possible connect their water systems to either the Tennessee or Cumberland Rivers. Any consideration of greatly expanding the amount of water to be used for consumptive uses such as water supply systems from either of these river systems would have to address a number of important issues. Paramount in this discussion would be how decisions about the allocation of water might be made, and what roles would the State of Tennessee play in that process.

From the vantage point of TDEC, the state agency charged with dealing with water issues in state government, the focus is on the quality of the water either in the stream or to be delivered for public consumption. However, this review process only skirts some of the essential questions that naturally arise when allocation decisions are being made: namely who gets how much, where and when. Ultimately, these decisions about water allocation among various users of the rivers are being made by the two federal government agencies charged with managing the resources of these two rivers systems – TVA and the Army Corps of engineers.

In 2008, three different bills were introduced in the General Assembly addressing some aspect of water policy in Tennessee. Eventually the coalesced around SB3044 / HB2669 known as the "Drinking Water Access and Resources Planning Act of 2008." This bill called for the establishment of water management planning councils and would have created a drinking water access and resources fund. The major goals of this legislation were to promote water system planning among water systems, regional cooperation and interconnections between water systems, and improve the state of drought preparation and planning across the state. The bill would have increased TDEC’s role in reviewing water system plans. There was also a provision to establish a fund for helping rural communities provide municipal water supply to areas that are not currently served by water systems. This bill, however, did not pass because budget constraints and the costs associated with implementing the provisions of the bill.

Several steps should be considered by the legislature for dealing with water issues in the future.

Greater state oversight of water permitting – state permitting systems for water supply systems and providers is currently focused primarily of evaluating water quality through evaluating the quality of water sources, the systems used to process water for customer delivery, and periodic testing of processed water. Greater emphasis at the state level should be placed on working with local governments and water system operators on evaluating the adequacy of water system operators’ ability to provide reliable supplies of water to their customers and communities. This might include the development of some type of permit processing or system for reviewing and evaluating the adequacy of the water supply plans that local communities would rely upon.

Drought preparedness plans – water system providers should have a plan for securing alternative water sources during water shortage emergencies, such as during

extended droughts. While the state currently does have a drought emergency plan, it is over 20 years old and was developed as an “interim plan” developed quickly and without broad based public input and discussion. This plan should be revised to reflect the changed conditions in Tennessee today and reflect the current scientific understanding of water distribution and allocation models. This should include identifying water sources that would make water supplies available that there are sufficiently large with predictable minimum capacity to be relied upon during drought conditions. This would entail that a workable plan for connecting to these back up or secondary water sources was in place in advance of any potential water emergency.

Planning for future water needs – local governments in cooperation with their water utility providers should periodically conduct an assessment of the adequacy of their water supply resources both to meet current demands and to meet the needs of any anticipated future growth. Water supply assessment and planning should also be integration into the framework of the county-wide growth plans developed under PC 1101 so that local government policies concerning growth and development can be more closely integrated with local water availability and capacity. This assessment should make reasonable estimates of the minimum amount of water necessary to meet current water needs that might be expected during both typical weather seasons and during drought conditions. Any plans for allowing additional growth and development should be tied to the availability of identifiable water resources for supporting any new development.

Regional approaches to water supply – the state may wish to consider developing a framework that either requires of encourages more regional approaches to water supply planning and delivery systems. This will be especially important if a greater number of communities and water supply users are to consider relying on such sources as the Tennessee and Cumberland River systems. This might take a number of forms and could range from insuring that water supply planning within each municipality or county is coordinated with all of the various water system operators to developing regional approaches that span several counties. Ideally, any type of regional approach would be organized around the river basin concept would help insure that environmental concerns were being adequately considered.