Prof. Mullen

Austin WoodsAAEC 4800

15Fall

Water Resources in Colorado & Georgia

The states of Georgia and Colorado are over 1,500 miles apart and have plainly different

systems and institutions regarding their respective water use. Over the course of this semester

my group members and I have tirelessly researched the water resources present in these 2

states. We would come to realize the similarities and stark differences that these states had with

respect to both the supply and demand of water in the respective state and the water

management techniques and institutions present. Being a compilation of my group’s research

accompanied by my own inferences and explanations, this report will give insight to those who

are curious as to how different states manage their water and what current trends show for

those respective management systems. To begin, we will first look at what each state actually

has in terms of their water supply.

Water Supply

Precipitation:

Precipitation is the primary connection in the hydrologic cycle that provides for the

delivery of water to the surface of the planet. Varying over time and geographic location,

precipitation rates are vital to our understanding of the economics of water resources.

According to NOAA’s 2013 Statewide Ranks on precipitation, Georgia was marked 117

out of 119 in the wettest category. For the state of Georgia, the average annual precipitation

from 1971-2000 varied across the state from under 46 inches to more than 88 inches of rain,

depending on location. For the central and eastern regions, the rate ranged around 46 to 48

inches of rain. For the coastal and southern regions, which have a fair amount of wetlands, the

rate ranged from 48 to 58 inches of rain. For the northern region the rates were similar to the

southern region, although limited northernmost portions had a wider range from 58 to over 88

inches of rain. This observation could possibly be due to the mountains exclusive to this region.

In those very same NOAA rankings on precipitation, Colorado was marked 90 out of 119

in the wettest category. For the state of Colorado, the average annual precipitation from 1961-

1990 had a smaller range than Georgia, with Colorado going from having under 10 inches of

rain to having over 55 inches of rain. In the eastern half of the state, the rate varied from 10 to

20 inches of rain. For the western half of the state however, not only were there a few areas

with under 10 inches of rain but there were mountainous areas that had at least 20 inches of

rain as well as a few spots that even exceeded 55 inches of rain. Like in northern Georgia,

precipitation is a common occurrence among mountain ranges and weather patterns can be

drastically changed by their presence.

Groundwater:

There are a number of aquifer systems in Georgia. These systems are the states’ main

source of groundwater. The predominant systems are the Crystalline Rock Aquifer and the

Floridian Aquifer. The Crystalline Rock system underlies most of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge

regions of Northern Georgia. This aquifer system does not provide sufficient yield for municipal

use, which explains the dependence on surface water in these areas. The Floridian Aquifer

covers over 100,000 square miles and is highly productive. This aquifer supports total

withdrawals of 819 mgd, with 142 mgd devoted to public use. The Floridian Aquifer has a

significant connection to the surface waters of the Chattahoochee and Flint River basins.

Groundwater levels in the Floridian can affect surface water supply in these river basins. The

predominant use of Floridian Aquifer groundwater is for agriculture. The continuing growth in

this industry is leading to an unsustainable rate of withdrawal and this can result in major

consequences for surface waters.

Withdrawals in Millions of Gallons per day (2000)

Public

Supply

Industrial Domestic/

Commercial

Agricultural Thermodynamic Total

Crystalline

Rock

20 3 60 11 <1 93

Floridian 142 205 45 426 3 819

Colorado has 4 major aquifers: the South Platte Aquifer, the San Luis Valley Aquifer

system, the Denver Basin Aquifer, and the High Plains Aquifer. Both the South Platte Aquifer

and San Luis Valley Aquifer system are alluvial type aquifers with fairly shallow depths (~20-100

feet below surface) allowing for reasonable accessibility. The Denver Basin Aquifer and High

Plains Aquifer both are sedimentary bedrock type aquifers with much lower accessibility (with

the exception of the Dawson Aquifer within the Denver Basin Aquifer, as it is the shallowest in

the entire system.)

Due to the low annual precipitation - as low as 6 inches per year - the San Luis Valley

Aquifer system has a very slow natural recharge rate. The High Plains Aquifer suffers from

similar problems such as low precipitation, high evaporation rate, and excessive water

extraction. These factors heavily influence the low natural recharge rate that these aquifers

have. The Denver Basin Aquifer has an extremely low recharge rate also, but this is due to the

depth at which the aquifer is located (up to ½ mile in some areas.) Current rates of withdrawal

for these non-renewable aquifers are inherently unsustainable due to their low natural recharge

rates. The South Platte Aquifer has a better recharge rate than its counterparts, with much of

this being due to the fact that the recharge rate is heavily influenced by return flows from

agricultural users. This aspect makes the South Platte Aquifer a much more renewable source

than the other major aquifers in Colorado.

Surface Water:

The state of Georgia has 14 river basins, which comprise the total surface water of the

state. This surface water comes in many forms: rivers, tributaries, reservoirs, etc. For the

purpose of our research, the group selected three of Georgia’s major river basins to examine.

These are the Chattahoochee, Savannah and Flint River Basins. Due to our research intentions

of comparing water supply between states, we chose 3 of Colorado’s major river basins also.

These are the South Platte, Arkansas, and Colorado Rivers. Using peak stream flow data from

the USGS online database, we were able to analyze the water flow of these rivers and more

fully understand what may cause variations in water amounts.

Peak Stream Flow in ft/sec3

1990 2000 2010 20200

20000

40000

60000

80000

Chatt. Annual Peak Streamload

HelemBuford DamRoswellWhitesburgWest Point

1990 2000 2010 20200

20000400006000080000

100000

Flint Annual Peak Streamload

LovejoyCarsonvilleAlbanyBainbridge

1990 2000 2010 20200

5000

10000

15000

Savannah Annual Peak Streamload

ClaytonAugustaSpringfield

1990 2000 2010 20200

200

400

600

800

S. Platte Annual Peak Streamload

TrumbullEnglewoodCommerce City

1990 2000 2010 20200

200400600800

10001200

Arkansas Annual Peak Streamflow

GranadaJohn Martin ReservoirPuebloLeadville

1990 2000 2010 20200

2000400060008000

1000012000

Colorado Annual Peak Streamflow

UT state lineDotseroGranbyGrand Lake

Comparing the 3 selected rivers from each state, you will see noticeable differences in

the actual amount that is shown as the annual peak stream load. The rivers in Georgia outclass

the Colorado rivers handily when it comes to the actual amount of water moving, but when you

look past the data it will become apparent that the river systems of both of the states have

definite similarities. Constant are the facts that the river systems in both states seem to show

temporal and spatial variation. The spatial variations are very noticeable, as nearly all rivers

analyzed show the annual peak stream load to increase in direct correlation with the data

collection site’s distance from the river’s headwaters. Another similarity is the correlation

between the stream flow amount of a river and the role that agriculture plays in the respective

area. As shown in the graph of the Flint River above, the city of Albany, GA has a noticeably

high annual peak stream flow amount. This correlates directly to the fact that Albany, GA is a

prominent agricultural center within the state of Georgia.

With respect to water supply, our research determined that some factors, such as

seasons and other climate factors have the same effect on the amount of water in a state. It was

also observed that geographical features play a large role in the direction and scale of a river’s

stream flow, as well as the availability of groundwater. It is evident that Georgia has more water

resources than Colorado, considering the state as a whole. This has to do with Georgia’s

climate, which is much wetter comparatively.

Water Demand & Use

In our analysis of water demand in CO & GA, the group gathered data on water use for a

number of categories. State population, population density, geographic location, water

resources, economic sectors, and economic growth were all among the factors considered. The

group used data from the US Geological Survey’s published reports on water use in the United

States, which are released every five years.

Population:

As you might expect, the population of a state has a significant impact on its water

usage. For the state of Georgia, and later for Colorado, the group observed a steady increase in

state population, from 1985 to 2010. The graph below shows that this increase in population

was accompanied by an overall decrease in total water use and total per capita use over time,

with an obvious fluctuation in 2000. This could be explained by a decline in water availability as

well as more efficient use.

1980 2000 20200

2000

4000

6000

8000

Water Withdrawals, GA

Total WD (mgd)Total per capita WD (mgd)

1980 2000 20200

5000

10000

15000

Water Withdrawals, CO

Total WD (mgd)Total WD per capita (mgd)

Noticing the differences apparent as population increases over time and the correlations

between the two graphs, it is intuitive to think that population would directly correlate with water

use. After comparing the per capita water use of rural areas to that of urban areas, drastic

differences could be noticed. Webster County, Georgia, for example, has a per capita water use

of 3,349mgd, which is more than ten times higher than that of Fulton County (225mgd). There

are several explanations for this striking difference; one being the need to support water

intensive industries in the area. The fact that Webster County, with its population of less than

3,000 people, can have water use this high shows us the immense role that geographic

proximity and economic incentive can have on water use.

Water Use by Economic Sector:

Utilizing the USGS database, the group was able to determine the amount of water used

by specific sectors within the economy. This will allow us to better understand how economic

incentives and industry relate to water use. Each of the following sectors depends on water

resources in order to function properly in the state economy.

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20150

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Water Use by Sector

Public SupplyDomesticIrrigationLivestockIndustrialMiningThermoelectric Energy

As you can see from the graph above, thermoelectric energy has, by far, the highest

water use. Thermoelectric energy is a very water intensive industry, making up about 53% of

the total water use in Georgia. Some sectors experience much more dramatic changes than

others, irrigation and thermoelectric energy, for example. Other sectors, such as public supply

and self-supplied domestic water use, are much more consistent. This may be due to the fact

that these sectors are either more strictly regulated, or are less susceptible to external factors

that may affect the water supply. Irrigation would be an example of a sector that is more

susceptible to these external factors. In times of drought, people use more water because they

no longer have rainfall or excess groundwater help meet water needs.

Public Supply makes up approximately 19% of the total water use in Georgia, and it

serves 84% of the population, according to the latest 2010 report. Public suppliers can be public

or private. They provide water for a variety of uses, including all of the ones shown on the

graph. Aside from public supply, there is also domestic water use. In terms of the data collected,

domestic use is encompasses all water used for household purposes that is not delivered from

public supply. It makes up just under 2% of total water use for the state.

Irrigation and livestock make up the agricultural components of water use, though

irrigation has much higher withdrawals in Georgia. It makes up about 13% of total water use,

while livestock only makes up less than 1%. It is important to clarify that water use for irrigation

is not strictly limited to agriculture. Rather, it encompasses water used applied by an irrigation

system to assist crop and pasture growth, or to maintain vegetation on recreational lands such

as parks and golf courses. However, in Georgia, agricultural production is a major part of the

state’s economy.

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015-1000

1000

3000

5000

7000

9000

11000

13000

Water Use by Sector, CO

Public SupplyDomesticIrrigationLivestockIndustrialMiningThermoelectric Power

In Colorado, 94% of the population is served by public supply (2010), which makes up

6% of the total water use for the state. Domestic Supply use is fairly small, comprising less than

1% of total withdrawals. Water use in the industrial sector is also quite small, making up about

1% of total use. Mining is fairly insignificant in terms of total use at less than 1%. Thermoelectric

energy use falls just behind industrial use with about 1% of the total withdrawals.

The most water intensive sector in Colorado is unquestionably irrigation. It comprises

91% of the state’s total water use. Colorado’s arid climate and dry wind pose a difficult problem

for growing crops and maintaining landscapes. This vast inequality among water use categories

is not uncommon. Each state’s economy is different, and it depends on factors such as access

to natural resources, among other factors economic or not.

Institutional Framework of Water Rights

As of now, we have taken a look at the supply, availability, demand, and usage of water

for the states of Georgia and Colorado and how they compare and contrast with each other.

Now we will look towards the institutional framework that each state has regarding water use

and how they differ.

Much like many other water rights doctrines in the eastern United States, Georgia is a

Riparian water rights state. In the most general sense, under the Riparian rights doctrine, water

is not owned by the state or individual, but is instead considered a part of the land on which it is

found. In the case of Georgia, the owners of the land over which water flows or may be found

are considered Riparian landowners.

While common law is sufficient for resolving disputes between small water users, there

is a need for active public management of large users to prevent improper usage and disputes

in situation involving competing uses. In the state of Georgia, the EPD (or Environmental

Protection Division for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources) is in charge of monitoring

and enforcing the state’s water rights permit system. In this system, permits are issued to

landowners for withdrawals greater than 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) on a monthly average.

The State monitors withdrawals by collecting and maintaining databases for surface and

groundwater use. Data is collected for users with withdrawals of at least 100,000 gpd for public,

industrial, commercial and power uses, but not for irrigation, livestock and domestic use.

The state of Colorado, like many western states, has adopted the prior-appropriation

doctrine to regulate waters rights. Under this doctrine, the property interest is not tied to

Riparian land ownership, as is the case with Georgia. Instead, ownership is determined by who

is first in line to make beneficial use of the water. An appropriation is made when an individual

physically takes the water from a stream and transports it to another location for beneficial use.

The doctrine of prior-appropriation is a priority system in which individuals may apply for water

use permits. Perhaps the most important restriction on the appropriation of water in Colorado is

the constitutional requirement that water be placed to a "beneficial use." The doctrine is

consistent across all economic sectors in the state of Colorado. It also applies to both surface

and groundwater.

As far as regulation within the state, Colorado’s State Engineer receives the authority for

administrating the waters of the state by statute, and appoints the division engineers for each of

the seven Colorado Water Courts. The Water Courts are a sub-system within the State’s

Judicial branch, and they are responsible for the administration and enforcement of water right

permits in the state. Due to the fact that non-domestic water withdrawals require the permission

of the courts, water use is measured by the explicitly stated amount to be used that is required

to be outlined during the process of acquiring Colorado Water Court approval. This information

is stored for reference and encompasses both groundwater and surface water withdrawals.

Colorado water law also provides a regulated market for water rights. A water right

holder may change the water right to another type and place of use, keeping its priority date.

However, the change must be declared valid by the courts and must also not harm the water

use of others who have the right to withdraw from the same source. Transfers are only limited

by the rulings of the water courts. This market for transferring of water rights has also created

unintended side effects. Agricultural users have been vocal about their inability to compete with

larger industries (such as manufacturing and oil/gas drilling) when it comes to the auctioning off

of water rights specific to an area.

These are two different ways of allocating water rights, and they are both effective in

different regions of the country. Compared to the rest of the country, water resources are much

scarcer in the western United States. This explains the adoption of the prior-appropriation

doctrine in these states due to its emphasis on beneficial use and allocation of water based on

the productivity of users. Likewise, in areas where water is much less scarce, the Riparian

doctrine functions well.

Conclusion

To conclude, water will only increase in value and scarcity as time presses on. Droughts

have already started to occur more frequently and this will continue. Being a very water-rich

state, Georgia is in a good position for the future, whereas Colorado will only see its already

small supply decrease and become a subject for worry. The law structure regarding water rights

can be argued to be more advanced and efficient in the state of Colorado, but this is only out of

absolute necessity - necessity being the arid climate of the region. Eventually, Georgia will have

to adopt a more efficient and logical doctrine regarding water rights as the scarcity of water

inevitably increases. Water and its supply, availability, demand, use, and its institutions are

absolute foundations of modern society. This report has hopefully opened your eyes to the facts

that we need to both monitor our water usage more closely as a people on both the personal

and international level and be forward-thinking with our water use with respect to climate

change.

Bibliography

1. "Climate and Drought." Colorado's Four Major Aquifers. September 16, 2015. Accessed

September 16, 2015.

2. "Colorado River Map -- National Geographic." National Geographic. Accessed September 15,

2015. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/change-the-course/

colorado-river-map/.

3. Environmental Protection Division. "Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future."

2007. Accessed September 15, 2015. http://www.georgiawatercouncil.org/Files_PDF/plan_6-

28-07_overview.pdf.

4. "Water Resources of the United States." U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed September 15,

2015.

5. Colorado Department of Natural Resources. “Non-Attorney’s Guidebook to Colorado Water

Courts.”

<http://water.state.co.us/DWRIPub/Documents/NonAttorneysGuidebookToColoradoWaterCourt

s.pdf>.

6. Colorado Foundation for Water Education. “Colorado Water Law.” Citizens Guide. 2004.

<http://www.unco.edu/MiddleGround/Assets/pdfs%20-%20docs/cfwe%20Water%20Law

%20Guide%20second%20edition%20Publisher's%20proof%204%2016%202.pdf>.

7. Colorado Judicial Branch. Water Courts.

<https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Water/Index.cfm>.

8. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division. Water

Protection. <https://epd.georgia.gov/existing-rules-and-corresponding-laws>.

9. Georgia Water Coalition. “Riparian Rights in Georgia.” Summary of Georgia Riparian Rights.

<http://www.garivers.org/gawater/pdf%20files/2015/1-page%20summary%20of%20GA

%20Riparian%20Rights.pdf>.