W o r k s i n P r o g r es s
“Conserving Our Natural Heritage… Investing in Our Children’s Future”
Protecting Georgia’s Coast
An Agenda to Serve the Public Interest
Based on our ongoing assessment of the region’s resources and
growth trends, the Center is working to improve both
environmental conservation and responsible economic progress.
We outline here a few of our key proposals for achieving a
more sustainable future in coastal Georgia.
1. Correct Public Funding Imbalances
Georgia is the fastest growing state east of the Mississippi, and
the fifth in growth rate nationally. From 1990 to 2000, our state
added more than 1.7 million people, registering a 26% growth
rate. Yet, despite these rising numbers, from 1991 to 2003 the
portion of Georgia’s total state budget allocated to the
Department of Natural Resources decreased by more than 30%.
The non-profit Georgia Public Interest Research Group (GA
PIRG) recently reported* their estimate that Georgia’s DNR
budget is some $6.6 million below the annual amount needed –
just to properly review, monitor, and enforce permits for
wastewater discharge into state waterways. This estimate does
not include permitting enforcement for air emissions, marsh and
shore protection, mining, soil erosion, and other regulated
activities that also appear to suffer severe budgeting constraints.
[*Budgeting for Clean Water — How Polluter Fees Can
Increase Georgia’s Water Quality Enforcement]
If we are to maintain the quality of life that has been so
critically important to Georgia’s past economic success –
while concurrently protecting public health and environmental
productivity – clearly, budgeting for environmental assessment
and protection must be brought into balance with mounting
threats to public resources. And there is no reason why the
average taxpayer should, in effect, subsidize major users of
public resources, especially in this era of controversial state
budgeting issues.
2. Assess Capacity of Existing Programs
From the above figures, it is overwhelmingly evident that state
programs for protecting and managing natural resources are not
keeping pace with the burdens being imposed on them by
continuing growth. But to make the best use of every dime
spent on environmental protection, we need to be sure how
much funding is needed, exactly what kind of added functions
and expertise are required, and the level of effort needed to
achieve program objectives. If state funds are to be responsibly
managed, we cannot simply assume that a given DNR budget
increase will produce a proportionate and desired result.
Inside this issue: fDirector Speaks to Marsh Officials fMore Opinion on DNR Funding
fProjects of Regional Concern fOne Site, Three Approaches fSatilla Riverkeeper® Hired
Autumn 2004
The most effective way to answer these questions is by
conducting a “performance audit” of various DNR programs.
Such audits are often carried out by the State Auditor to identify
and evaluate problems and opportunities for improving various
state programs. A series of detailed, definitive performance
audits for each DNR permitting program should be completed
as soon as possible, and recommendations widely publicized
and explained. The Governor and General Assembly should
then implement these findings as soon as they are finalized.
3. Adopt Fair Fees for Using Public Resources
It would probably surprise many Georgians to learn that most
permit applicants in this state pay little or no fee, either when
they submit an application or after they get a state permit that
allows them to use public resources. This nearly free ride
seems especially unwise in light of overwhelming evidence that
there is an enormous short-fall in public funding needed for
protecting natural resources. As GA PIRG emphasized in their
recent report, most other states impose fees that raise millions
of dollars a year to help pay for the public expenses incurred
when resources are used – whether by city sewage treatment
plants or industries that discharge polluted water.
Ideally, fees collected should go directly to the activities needed
to accountably manage the resources affected. These activities
should include permit review, enforcement, and targeted
environmental monitoring. However, there is a constitutional
question in Georgia about the distribution of public funds raised
through fees, and this needs to be resolved. In any event,
accurate performance audits would help justify budgeting
decisions, contributing substantially to the needed reallocation.
Funding criteria must be improved to protect the public interest.
Until performance auditing is done, we urge the state to adopt a
provisional fee program to raise funds needed to supplement those
currently available for DNR regulatory programs. After the
recommended performance audits are completed, a permanent
arrangement for raising and distributing proportionate resource-user
fees should be put into place. Results of the audit should be used to
advise state officials about where fee revenues should go and how
they are to be spent. As this program continues, additional audits
should be done periodically to re-evaluate the effectiveness and needs
of state program activities supported by fees, as well as the amounts
imposed on various permitted activities. These actions will greatly
enhance Georgia’s performance on the environment, sustainable
economic diversification, and accountable budgeting of public funds.
Center Director Speaks to State Marshlands Committee
In early September, Center Executive Director David Kyler
presented comments to the Coastal Marshlands Protection
Committee about the benefits of Georgia’s tidal marshes and
current constraints on their protection. The Committee meets
throughout the year to consider permit applications for
development activities that affect tidal marshes in Georgia.
The 5-member committee, which also serves as the permitting
body under the state’s Shore Protection Act, was recently
expanded by two members. One reason for Kyler’s remarks was
to provide some perspective for the committee’s new members.
In addition to the two newly created committee positions, Noel
Holcomb was appointed as the new DNR Commissioner since
the last meeting, and the commissioner serves as the committee’s
chairman. (See article below.)
“Based on updated dollar figures from a 1974 study by renowned
University of Georgia ecologist Dr. Eugene Odum, the annual
value of the goods and services provided by tidal marshes are
valued at some $14,000 an acre. Using a conservative estimate of
250,000 acres of tidal marsh in Georgia, the total contribution is
therefore on the order of $3.5 billion dollars a year,” Kyler told
the committee.
He went on to explain that among the many benefits of tidal
marshes is protection of upland areas against storm surge. With
the property value of coastal development rising every year, this
protective function also increases in value.
“A 1999 study of the nation’s coastal areas by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and EPA found that property
value at risk of storm damage in the Southeast is
New DNR Commissioner Appointed
ATLANTA, Ga. Acting on the recommendation of Governor
Sonny Perdue, in late July the Board of Natural Resources named
Noel Z. Holcomb as the new Commissioner of the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The appointment became
effective on August 9. Mr. Holcomb replaced Lonice C. Barrett
who was selected by the Governor to head the implementation of
recommendations generated by the Commission for a New Georgia.
Barrett served as DNR Commissioner since May 1995. Mr.
Holcomb worked for the Department for more than 26 years, and
had served as the Director of DNR’s Wildlife Resources Division
since September 2003.
“The Board is pleased to name an individual to this important
position that has a strong history of service to the agency and
knowledge of natural resources issues,” said Robert J. Rutland,
Chairman of the Board of Natural Resources. “Noel will have some
big shoes to fill, but we are confident that he has the leadership and
the experience to effectively guide the agency in the coming years.
Governor Perdue has recommended an outstanding career public
servant.”
As Commissioner, Holcomb is responsible for the daily operations
of the Department, which will involve overseeing the management
and conservation of Georgia’s wildlife, the operation of over one
greater than the comparable figure for all other areas of the
country combined,” Kyler reported. On this basis alone,
marshes are highly beneficial to humans, but marshes and
estuaries also serve as the foundation for about 80% of marine
life. In a report released last year, Georgia DNR estimated the
value of business generated by coastal recreational fishing to
be more than $500 million annually, just in this state.
Kyler then turned to the issue of funding constraints that limit
DNR’s capacity to review and enforce permits. “It is evident
from the number and size of projects that have been submitted
for review in recent years that the staffing available at Coastal
Resources Division is simply insufficient to keep pace with
the workload. Permit review and proper follow-through by
monitoring and evaluating resources affected by permitted
activities are vital to ensuring a healthy environment.”
Kyler added, “Not only is this limitation a problem for those
of us whose main concern is environmental quality, but
developers are troubled about the length of time it often takes
to receive a permit.” He explained that one developer claimed
that he had lost a substantial sum in interest fees due to the
length of time needed for his project to be permitted last year.
According to a 2003 Georgia State University study, DNR’s
share of the state budget has fallen more than 30% over the
past 12 years. During this time, Georgia’s population count
and burden on natural resources has escalated by more than
25%, according to Kyler. He concluded by urging committee
members to do everything possible to resolve the growing
dilemma caused by DNR’s staffing shortage.
(See Protecting Georgia’s Coast, page 1 )
million acres of wildlife management areas and public fishing areas
and state parks, the protection
and conservation of coastal marshlands, the preservation of historic
resources, and the implementation of environmentally sound
business practices for industry. In addition he will work closely with
Carol Couch, newly appointed Director of DNR’s Environmental
Protection Division, on environmental regulations including water
and air quality. Holcomb will serve as the primary contact for the
agency with the Board of Natural Resources, the Governor, and state
legislators.
“I am extremely excited about this new opportunity and look
forward to working with the Board of Natural Resources and the
great people that are part of the Department of Natural Resources to
meet our goals of sustaining natural resources, building a
conservation ethic and creating workforce excellence throughout the
agency,” said Holcomb.
Holcomb started his DNR career in September 1978, and holds both
a bachelor’s and a master’s degree from West Georgia College. In
addition to the position of Director and Assistant Director with the
Wildlife Resources Division, he also has worked as the manager of
Ossabaw Island, a wildlife technician supervisor in northeast
Georgia, a senior wildlife biologist and manger of Sapelo Island, and
a game management supervisor in northwest Georgia.
Alternatives for Coastal Development: One Site, Three Approaches
What is the true, long-term cost of coastal development? between the natural and built environments can be difficult.
How can a development's economic, environmental, and As coastal Georgia’s population continues to grow and new
social impacts be evaluated? While many understand the building sites intrude upon sensitive natural resources, our
benefits of developing with greenspace, scenic views and communities need new design alternatives to help them
other natural amenities, achieving a sustainable balance make environmentally wise decisions about development.

Conventional Site Design Conservation Design

Highest adverse impact on natural resources Priority on conserving valuable natural resources

“New Urbanist” Approach Background

Priority on civic amenities, town centers
and common openspace
In 2000, our colleagues at the Georgia Conservancy initiated the Coastal
Footprints project to develop visual mapping tools in support of dialogue
among decision-makers, citizens and resource managers in shaping future
growth patterns and protecting sensitive coastal resources. The goal of
Footprints is to make it easier for citizens, planners, government officials
and developers to visualize development options that promote livable
communities and preserve open space, wildlife, and ecosystems for future
generations. Regional growth trends are being analyzed that will support
discussion about the impacts of local actions on interdependent regional
resources like marshes and estuaries. See www.georgiaconservancy.org
for more information about Coastal Footprints.
Many of the most desired building sites in coastal Georgia are in areas that
are highly vulnerable to environmental damage. Natural systems such as
marshlands, maritime forests and fresh-water wetlands, that are essential
to sustaining life, must be managed carefully if the coast is to prosper.
This need was the basic premise behind "Alternatives for Coastal
Development: One Site, Three Scenarios"— a collaborative project of the
NOAA Coastal Services Center, the Georgia Conservancy, the Georgia
Coastal Management Program and the City of St. Marys. Check out the
project web site at http://www.csc.noaa.gov/alternatives/ to see the results,
including comparisons of economic, environmental and social indicators as
well as maps and 3-D graphics to illustrate alternative design components.
For more information, contact Patty McIntosh at 912-447-5910.
We present these maps to illustrate the nature of choices that could be
made to improve environmental protection while providing opportunities for
profitable use of land for new neighborhoods with a very high quality of life.
Special thanks to Patty McIntosh, Director of the Georgia Conservancy’s
coastal office, for sharing this information for the Center’s use.
Major Facilities & Projects
Issues and Procedures Related to Major Activities (From the Center’s State of the Coast Report)
At any given time, there are numerous projects that are of
regional importance due to their size and potential impacts
on public resources, surrounding property and facilities
(whether public or private), and/or public health. Although
the projects on this list change over time, similar problems
are repeatedly encountered in reviewing them, and many of
the same local, state, and federal regulations apply. [See: A
Citizen’s Guide to Coastal Development, Georgia Southern
University and Center for a Sustainable Coast, 2001.]
Despite efforts to analyze projects when making permitting
decisions, after being permitted their actual environmental
consequences are seldom carefully monitored or evaluated.
Certain projects of a recurring nature, such as periodic
channel and harbor deepening, justify extensive public
review due to their implications for issues such as water
quality, fisheries, erosion, and wildlife habitat – land,
marine, and aquatic. Larger land development projects of
hundreds or even thousands of acres are often built in
sequenced ‘phases’ that can take many years to complete.
In such cases, a project can have prolonged impacts during
construction, as well as continuing consequences caused by
use of the developed site after construction is over (traffic,
wastewater discharge, non-point source pollution, etc.).
A frequent problem, especially in projects of regional
significance, is the tendency for a permit to be issued by one
authority (often a city or county) with too little evaluation of
impacts, which imposes a coercive effect on other
permitting authorities, such as state and/or federal agencies.
In such cases, premature permitting by any one authority
can subvert the review process of other authorities by
making it more difficult for agencies to meet legal
obligations in conducting their own permit review.
Georgia has standards for special review of major projects
that fall under the 1989 Planning Act, but these standards
for “Developments of Regional Impact” do not encompass
all projects that are truly of regional significance. For
instance, the DRI process is not activated by the amount of
water used, meaning that a project that proposes to use
millions of gallons of water daily may not be flagged for
special review. Furthermore, the DRI review procedure is
very brief (30 days) and is limited to comments from the
Findings Recommendations
9 By the time public notice is issued, major projects are often
too far advanced in the design process to allow for significant
changes to be made, especially basic revisions such as project
siting and overall site layout.
9 Lack of coordination among multiple permitting agencies
complicates decisions and can often compromise the
effectiveness of decisions by one agency when premature permit
approval is granted by another.
9 Decision criteria for making permitting decisions are often
subjective, poorly defined, and inadequately unmonitored.
page 4
affected local governments and state agencies, with no
provisions for comments from the general public. And,
equally troubling, evaluation of impacts on factors such as
water and air quality, wildlife, critical habitat, traffic, public
infrastructure, and surrounding land uses can be so complex
that a 30-day period is woefully insufficient time for
adequate assessment.
Procedures for state and federal permitting and local zoning
review provide for public comment, but limits on time,
availability of information about likely impacts, and even
general public awareness about the project may be lacking.
Often, review findings of agency staff are not available to
the public until the public hearing where the permitting
decision is made. This limits the ability of the public to
respond to deficiencies in staff analysis such as incomplete
assessment or insufficient permitting criteria. In any case,
permitting decisions are usually based primarily on staff
analysis of the application, and outcomes are seldom
changed significantly as the result of information provided
at the permit hearing. Unresponsive decision procedures
con-tribute to permit appeals, which are costly to both the
taxpayers and project developers.
Moreover, review responsibilities are often so fragmented
that there is no opportunity for a comprehensive assessment
of all prospective impacts a project is likely to have. For
instance, permits for water withdrawal, wastewater
discharge, air emissions, and wetlands are reviewed by
different sections of state and/or federal agencies, so the
cumulative, interactive, and long-term effects are typically
overlooked. (Wildlife biologists are aware that combined
effects of different permitted activities on the same site can
have very significant consequences for the health of various
species.)
Finally, conditions set for a permitted activity that attempt to
control undesired impacts are not uniformly enforced because
agencies responsible may lack the staff time or expertise to do
so. As a result, not only are such conditions erratically verified,
but also their effectiveness in achieving intended benefits is
often unknown. Although these various procedural issues apply
in evaluating all projects, their implications are most severe for
major ones. Unless procedures are improved, serious damage to
Georgia’s natural resources is inevitable as growth continues.
9 Project descriptions should be made available to local and
regional environmental organizations, communities, and news
media well in advance of official comment notices to enable
the general public to express their concerns and suggest
alternatives for resolving key issues.
9 A procedure for coordinating decisions among multiple
agencies should be adopted to improve exchange and analysis
of environmental information, and to achieve consistent and
timely review of proposed projects.
9 Improve definition and enforcement of permitting criteria.
Center for a Sustainable Coast
 Major Facilities & Projects of Regional Concern in Coastal Georgia
► Liquefied Natural Gas Facility, Elba Island (Chatham County)
• reactivation and expansion of international tanker operation
• linked to new regional gas distribution line from Savannah to Florida & South Carolina
• imposes serious risks due to volatility of fuel and terrorism security issues

► Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (Chatham County)

• currently at 42-foot depth, could go to 48-feet, plus ‘overdraft’ 9 (~ 50-feet total)
• includes turning basin and channel
• significant risk to freshwater wetlands at Savannah National Wildlife Refuge
• potential risk to various fish, water and air quality, and Upper Floridan aquifer

► Brunswick Harbor Deepening Project (Glynn County)

• currently at 32-foot depth, to be deepened to 36-feet
• risks to sea turtle, manatees, and dolphins

► Plant Hatch, Baxley (Appling County)

• aging power plant with operational and security risks
• sited adjacent to Altamaha River
• outdoor storage of radioactive materials with extremely prolonged public health risks

► Savannah River Site (in S.C., across from Augusta, Richmond County)
• numerous identified groundwater contaminants already on site
• proposed licensing for “mixed oxide fuel” processing, with significant added public health risks
• radioactive materials with extremely long period of high hazard

► Gateway Project (Glynn County)

• 7,000 acres of mixed land uses in previously undeveloped area
• extensive wetlands on site, including currently unprotected isolated wetlands
• potential water supply issues

► Cumberland Harbour, St. Marys (Camden County)

• 1,014 acres (including ~350 acres of wetlands), primarily residential use (as many as 1200 homes)
• two marinas and extensive boat storage, including –
3 400 boat capacity dry storage (under 32-feet length)
3 296 slips of wet storage for vessels over 30 feet in length; docking for transient vessels
• three community docks with community parks
• 58.8 acres of state water-bottom leasing, plus 3.24 acres of marsh coverage
• adjacent to Cumberland Island National Seashore and Kings Bay Navy Base
• numerous threatened and endangered species on site and in surrounding waters

► Little Satilla Development Project (Camden County)

• 600 acres, primarily residential, including a marsh hammock
• commercial public marina across river from residential area with shoreline erosion

► Development Authority Project (Liberty County)

• over 500 acres, much pristine, critical habitat, and interlaced with tidal marsh
• proposed for use by light industry and mixed commercial businesses

► Live Oak Power Plant (Glynn County)

• initially permitted for groundwater withdrawal averaging 550,000 gallons a day, likely to increase
• natural gas fuel source, nominal workforce, most energy to be exported to customers in Florida

► Titanium Mining Operation (Brantley County)

• approximately 6,000 acres leased, under 2000 acres to be mined
• projected operating period from seven to ten years
• 300 acres of wetlands on site
• likely to expand operations within and beyond Brantley County

h Reserve your copy now!

Orders are now being taken for our State of the Coast Report. Please call the Center for more information at 912.638.3612.

Center for a Sustainable Coast

 New Satilla River Group Formed, Riverkeeper® Hired
After gaining national accreditation and hiring an executive director,
the Satilla Riverwatch Alliance recently advanced to a staffed, non-
profit membership organization, dedicated to protecting the watershed
of South Georgia’s famed “black-water” river.
The Alliance gained approval and licensing during July from the
Waterkeeper® Alliance, an organization in Tarrytown, New York,
that champions water-quality and ecosystem issues and requires strict
compliance with guidelines for its member groups.
On September 1, the Board of the Alliance hired Gordon Rogers of
Waynesville as its executive director and Riverkeeper®. With the help
of the Board and other volunteers, Rogers plans to initiate a
membership drive, recruit additional volunteers, begin patrols on the
river, and coordinate efforts to resolve pollution, land-disturbance and
water-supply issues facing the watershed.
A comprehensive assessment of the conditions in the Satilla basin is a
top priority for the Alliance, and will include cooperative efforts with
state and federal agencies like the Department of Natural Resources,
the University System, local governments, local school systems, and
non-governmental organizations dedicated to conservation and
improvement of water quality and supply. “Researchers at the
University of Georgia and other units in the System have made several
advances in recent years on our knowledge of the Satilla”, said
Rogers, “but more work is necessary, a need recognized by folks from
a wide variety of backgrounds, not just academicians and concerned
environmentalists. I have heard comments from many different people
in the last few weeks on their concerns for the river. We intend to
begin to pull things together and make a difference”.
Further Comment on DNR Budgeting, Continued from page 7
To be realistic, it is likely that even with ‘full funding’ at DNR there will
continue to be occasional disputes about the agency’s inter-pretation and
enforcement of state regula-tions, whether raised by permit applicants,
property owners, or environmental groups. But with greater staffing
capacity it is reasonable to expect that the number of such disputes will
be reduced because permit review and enforcement will be more
complete and consistent. If so, this will help all parties avoid costly legal
actions and permitting delays, while generally improving DNR’s
performance, both real and perceived.
Mr. Kyler’s article has also suggested how to fund the shortfalls. I
would like to expand his concept beyond the Environmental Protection
Division’s NPDES and E&S activities, beyond the Coastal Resources
Division’s Marsh and Shore permit activities, to the entire Department.
There are license and user fee structures for park use, hunting, fishing,
boat registration, and other activities, administered by the Parks, Wildlife
Resources, and Coastal Resources Divisions. In some instances these
fees are market-driven, particularly in the park system, but in others they
are not, and in most cases have not seen fee increases in many years.
Why is it important to look at all funding opportunities? Because the
activities of the other Divisions affect habitat from the mountains to the
sea, and the research and management activities of the other Divisions
provide important feedback to EPD on how habitat quality is affecting
the lands, animals, and plants they are responsible for managing. Deer
management, the Quail Initiative, fisheries management (fresh and salt
water), et cetera, are all so intertwined with habitat that one cannot
ignore the connections –either in the natural world or in the world of
budgets coming out of Atlanta.
Page 6 Center for a Sustainable Coast
Rogers, a Georgia native and former marine scientist who worked for
the state, brings a deep commitment to natural resources and ample
technical knowledge to the job. “He’s a perfect fit for the Satilla
effort,” said Frank Quinby, Board president. Gloria Taylor, a Board
member and founder of Save Our Satilla, said she is “overjoyed to
announce that we have a Riverkeeper. Gordon shares our love and
vision for the river and will challenge us to do our best.”
Two years of hard work by volunteers, Save Our Satilla, the Sierra
Club, Altamaha Riverkeeper®, and the Center for a Sustainable Coast
resulted in the forming of the Alliance during 2003. Its board includes
eight members, and several who live on or have property along the
Satilla. During the last year, the board has sought to increase efforts at
raising awareness about the river and its watershed.
For more information about the Satilla River Alliance and the
resources of the Satilla River watershed, contact Gordon Rogers at
f 1-866-472-8425 (toll free) or
f riverkeeper@satillariverkeeper.org (email)
For information on the Waterkeeper Alliance, visit
www.waterkeeper.org.
The Center for a Sustainable Coast recognizes the supreme importance of
water quality and flow in the five coastal rivers that supply our region’s
estuaries that are so essential to marine life. For this reason, the Center’s
executive director invested hundreds of hours of his time to assist in the
formation of Satilla Riverwatch Alliance and Satilla Riverkeeper. He has
also supported SRA/SRK in sponsoring and preparing several recent grant
applications that will help the new group begin its vital work.
Numerous opportunities exist within the fee and license system to
increase funding. But there is a catch. Only the State legislature can
return (most) fees to the Department, and the “party line” is that the
legislature has a good record of “returning more to DNR than is taken in
by the DNR.” This stance, however, ignores the underlying issue,
which is that the Department, including all of its Divisions, is severely
underfunded and Georgia’s environ-ment suffers as a result. I must
assert that the current shortfall situation, combined with an
overwhelming public interest in ultimate out-comes, meets any test of
whether or not this situation rises to the level of changes in overall state
fiscal procedures. Plus, the longer we delay action to correct this
problem, the more difficult, costly, and politi-cally heated restoration
efforts will become.
Indeed, there is an argument to be made in this situation that ALL
departmental license and fee increases should be dedicated to
departmental activities. If a constitutional amendment regarding how
funds are admin-istered is ever warranted, this is the time. It will be no
different than (federal) fuel taxes dedicated to road programs, yet
infinitely more important to the future. Either we establish and increase
fees appropriately, insuring that all fees return to DNR, or we grasp that
slippery eel known as the General Assembly firmly to make it rise to
that challenge.
I submit that a one-time legislative action is a more winnable battle than
the alternative of annual budgetary skirmishes. Environmental assets
that we bequeath to the future citizens of Georgia will depend vitally on
key actions that are taken now.
Autumn 2004
Further Comment on DNR Budgeting Issues
Gordon Rogers, Satilla Riverkeeper® & Executive Director, Satilla Riverwatch Alliance
The under-funding of DNR activities cannot
be overemphasized – it is truly a crisis. As a
former employee of DNR’s Coastal
Resources Division, I know first-hand the
frustrations of working toward the goal of a
healthy, productive environment for all
Georgian’s without the necessary funds to
accomplish the mission. My tenure there
saw the high tide mark of budget health in
the Department, but woefully underfunded
even in the “good” years.
Since that time “redirection,” across-the-
board cuts, and the one-two punch of the
simultaneous decrease in funding available
from many federal sources, has led to a
crippling of the Department’s ability to
respond to resource crises, much less
establish and maintain critical research and
assessment programs. (One must realize that
federal funding of DNR activity constitutes
a significant portion of their budget. My
own research on shrimp, blue crabs, and
sturgeons was funded primarily by federal
funds to the tune of over 60%). There have
been a few bright spots, new initiatives, and
even victories in DNR’s conservation
mission; however, the overall picture is one
of more targets than there is ammunition,
and a resulting steady loss of environmental
assets under the public trust.
Now, for the complications and conundrum.
Many “customers” of DNR (and other
regulatory agencies) feel very strongly that
they are over-regulated, some vehemently
so. There is a parallel movement in many
quarters to weaken state and federal laws
and regulations that protect the environment.
The details are astounding. Aside from the
general public perception (and the
actualities) of waste in government, there is
strong resistance against any movement to
increase funding for environmental
regulatory activities.
Inside the Department, it is difficult for
some managers to hear and acknowledge
comments suggesting that their abilities are
“crippled” or that we have lost environ-
mentally productive capacity and health
over time. To them, such admissions are
tantamount to admissions of personal
failure. But the failures are not personal,
they are corporate, and ultimately the “fault”
of the citizenry for not lending greater
support to DNR activities.
Center for a Sustainable Coast
There are highly-trained and experienced
scientists and other operatives within the
Department that know what has happened
over time, and can tell you with great
certainty and precision exactly what their
needs are. It would not be a Christmas
wish-list, simply statements of fact on the
basic needs. There are certain courageous
managers who have spoken the truth
throughout more than 10 years of budget
erosion, never wavering in their assertions
about what we are losing.
But the overall sad result, and problem, is
that there is no means within the
Department to either protect existing funds
or increase the budget for DNR while every
other department in state government is cut.
Roads “must” be built and repaired, children
must be educated, public health needs to be
main-tained, and justice must be served. At
the Atlanta level, no one is screaming loudly
enough to correct the problem. And we
cannot expect the feds to take up the slack..
While the form of fiscal “discipline” we
have experienced since the early 1990s may
make sense to some, even most, folks, the
truth is that when we lose environmental
wealth, we all lose in a big way over time.
Statewide, our rivers, the veins connecting
the multiple ecosystems that comprise our
beautiful and productive State, have suffered
from multiple assaults on their health.
Subterranean water resources are stressed by
demand, and their connections to natural
functions on the surface are largely
unknown. National improvements in air
quality are not reflected in Georgia, and
atmospheric deposition of acidifying agents
and mercury show up in some very
surprising bodies of water, including the
center of the Okefenokee. The debate rages
over what has really happened on the coast
with marsh health, fisheries production, and
safety issues surrounding swimming and
seafood consumption, but on the 50-year
scale, we have lost. That fact is inarguable.
We will eventually, with enough time and
money, get at the “why”, and the lawyers
will sort out small details. But the problem is
that there is very little money, and time is
precious. The documented declines have
taken many decades, and the recovery (our
true goal, not just “conserving” what we
have remaining) will take just as long. We
must start now.
A logical, balanced, and thoughtful series of
performance audits within the Department is
a viable approach. I say “thoughtful”
because some past budget exercises and
performance audits have been used to target
activities and programs for unjustified cuts.
The premise of the audits recommended here
is to determine capacity constraints and
workload so that DNR will be provided the
resources needed to do its job effectively.
The proposed audits are not a witch-hunt. In
a work environment where a large majority
of customers are unhappy (whether they feel
over-regulated or under-protected), the truth
stares you in the face, and some managers
appear to be in denial, it is easy to be
sensitive to criticism and somewhat
suspicious of “yet another improvement
program”. It is easy for “prickly” personal-
ities to be cultivated. What is so surprising is
that morale is respectably high within DNR
There are many reasons for this, but the
primary one is that most of those who
choose to work for DNR are truly dedicated
to the agency’s overall mission.
Recognizing that the job is not being done
does not mean looking for scapegoats, nor
does it mean ignoring good performance.
The accountants among us may be offended
by such comments, but the truth is that with
sufficient funding and proper performance
criteria (some of which already exist) “dead
wood” will be weeded out, and stellar
performers will be rewarded. Very high
quality, devoted professionals liberally
populate the Department.
Yes, we have already “predicted” the
outcome of the audits. There is not enough
money. Audits and their narratives should
be focused on how to best direct new funds.
These explanations should include explicit
recognition that multiple assaults on the
DNR budget have, through redirection of
funds and outright cuts, in many cases cut
through the fat, past the muscle, and are
chipping away at the bone: revelations of
areas of poor performance must be cast in
the proper budgetary light. The beleaguered
employees of DNR deserve a break – not an
exemption from possible recommendations
for improving performance, just a break.
~ continued on bottom of previous page
Page 7
 2
Coastal Georgia Index
facts9
estimates9
projections9
issues9
Sources
Georgia Water Coalition
Georgia State University
Center for a Sustainable Coast
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Works in Progress
Autumn 2004 Issue
“Conserving Our Natural Heritage…
Investing in Our Children’s Future”
221 Mallory Street, Suite B
Saint Simons Island, Georgia 31522
Voice: 912.638.3612
Fax: 912.638.3615
Email: susdev@gate.net
Website: www.sustainablecoast.org
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
• Amount of water from the Altamaha River converted to steam, per day, by
•
Plant Hatch, the nuclear power facility near Baxley: 33 million gallons.
Industries in coastal Georgia use at least four times more water than all
the region’s commercial businesses and our 500,000 residents combined.
• A 10% improvement in coastal Georgia’s industrial water use efficiency
would save at least 16 million gallons a day, or 5.8 billion gallons a year –
enough to support more than 100,000 residents.
• About half the water used for irrigation in Georgia is wasted through
evaporation -- totaling over 500 million gallons a day -- which, if saved,
would meet the water needs of more than 1 million families.
• Georgia’s rank in rate of population growth among states east of the
Mississippi (1990 – 2000) – Number 1! (26.4%)
• Half of Georgia’s known contaminated fish are found in coastal waters,
about seven times the state average in proportion to geographic area.
• The annual value of tidal marsh benefits is estimated at $14,000 an acre,
equivalent to a total value of about $3.5 billion a year in coastal Georgia.
• The share of Georgia’s state budget used for protecting natural resources
decreased by more than 30% since 1991, while demands imposed on these
resources increased some 20% during that same period.
• Agricultural water use in Georgia is 1.58 billion gallons a day, accounting
for 57.4% of all water consumed in the state.
• The five river systems flowing to Georgia’s coast drain nearly two thirds of
the state’s land area, making coastal ecosystems extremely vulnerable to
both upstream pollution and rapidly expanding water supply demands.
_____________________________________