A Water Resources Survey: Atlanta, Ga (1960-2009)
-
Upload
anthonyscaletta -
Category
Documents
-
view
1.808 -
download
0
description
Transcript of A Water Resources Survey: Atlanta, Ga (1960-2009)
A Water Resources Survey
Atlanta, Georgia 1960-2009
Anthony ScalettaDr. Greg Faiers
Water Resources - Geography 1240April 23, 2010
Scaletta 2
In his March 1, 1966 speech to Congress former U.S. Secretary of State Edmund Muskie asserted
that, “High quality water is more than the dream of the conservationists, more than a political slogan; high
quality water, in the right quantity at the right place at the right time, is essential to health, recreation, and
economic growth." Nearly half a century later and with the realization that humanity is on the brink of a
global water crisis, the words of Edmund Muskie hold their weight now more than ever. Indeed, in places
such as the Southwestern United States and much of the African continent the water crisis has been real
for many years now. But when one thinks of the city of Atlanta, Georgia, situated in the abundant rainfall
producing climate of the Southeastern U.S., it is not likely that the words 'water crisis' will come to mind.
Perhaps they should. Atlanta's water resources are currently being threatened by a combination of
explosive population growth and a fast warming climate. This economically powerful city uses the Latin
phrase 'Resurgens' in its official city seal (see cover page), which translates to English as “rising again.”
As the fastest growing metro area in the country and home to many of world's most powerful corporations
and Fortune 500 companies, it is safe to say that this "Empire State of the South" has risen. However, all
this growth comes at a major cost to the region's most vital resource: water. It is safe to say that without
sufficient and reliable water resources it is nearly impossible for Atlanta to maintain its fast-paced
growth, let alone sustain its already thirsty population. After all, "high quality water, in the right quantity
at the right place at the right time, is essential to health, recreation, and economic growth." If the recent
2007 drought is a prospect of things to come (and most data would suggest that it is) Atlantans may have
a potential catastrophe on their hands. Just what does the future have in store for Atlanta's water
resources? To better answer this question we can conduct a 50 year survey (1960-2009) of Atlanta,
Georgia's water resources by first taking a closer look at its geography and then using the C.W.
Thornthwaite Decreasing Availability Water Budget to examine temperature and precipitation data for the
50 year study period we can conduct a statistical analysis to determine the implications of Atlanta's long-
term water resource trends.
Scaletta 3
Much like any city Atlanta's geography plays a seminal role in the city's water resources;
therefore it is important to consider some of Atlanta's geographic characteristics such as topography,
climate, and population when conducting a survey of its water resources. Atlanta, located at a latitude of
33°45 North and a longitude of 84°23 W, sits atop a ridge south of the Chattahoochee River near the
foothills of the Appalachian Mountains in northwestern Georgia. This sprawling city encompasses a total
area of 132 square miles (of which 1 square mile is water) and straddles the Eastern Continental Divide.
Interestingly, this subcontinental divide also acts as a precipitation drainage partition. Rain that falls on
the southern and eastern sides of the divide drains into that Atlantic Ocean, while rain that falls on the
northern and western sides runs down to the Gulf of Mexico via the Chattahoochee River (City of Atlanta
DWM 4). From a watershed perspective Atlanta is located in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
(ACF) River Basin (see Map 1). The Basin's headwaters originate in the Blue Ridge Mountains of
northern Georgia and flow in a southwesterly direction all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico
(Georgakakos 1). The ACF Basin, and in particular the upper Chattahoochee River, provides Atlanta
with over 70 % of its water resources (Edgens 16). By virtue of its geography Atlanta is the upstream
water user of the ACF Basin, and as we will discuss later, is embroiled in an interstate water conflict with
downstream users in both Florida and Alabama.
Atlanta's climate can be classified as humid subtropical, or Cfa type, with hot, humid summers
and mild winters. July is the hottest month with average temperatures for the month ranging between 71-
89° F, while January is the coldest month with average temperatures between 33- 52° F. Atlanta only
receives around two inches of snow per year. With an average elevation of over 1,000 feet above sea
level (see Map 2) Atlanta’s climate is slightly more temperate than other Southeastern U.S. cities along
the 33° N latitude. Yet, it is a typical Southeastern U.S. city in that it receives an abundant and relatively
evenly distributed amount of precipitation (approximately 50 inches) throughout the year. On average
Atlanta receives 117 days of precipitation per year, making it a relatively wet location. However, global
climate change is quickly altering Atlanta's average temperatures and precipitation levels.
Scaletta 4
When conducting a survey of Atlanta's water resources the role that climate change is already
playing and will surely play in the future must not be minimized. Indeed, Atlanta's average temperatures
are already showing a warming trend while its precipitation patterns are becoming more erratic. As early
as 1996, climatologists estimated that Atlanta's number of days over 90° F will increase from 17 to 53
(Response 141). This type of warming has serious water resource implications, as 36 more days per year
over 90° F will ratchet up the environment's demand for water as evapotranspiration rates will spike right
along with temperatures. In 2004, based on national assessment reports, Dr. Judith Curry of the Georgia
Tech School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences reasoned that “Atlanta can expect warmer temperatures
to be accompanied by more severe heat waves, increased heavy rainfall events, and more severe and
longer droughts” (1). Curry's claims have already been substantiated to some degree by the increasingly
unpredictable precipitation patterns, as evidenced by the recent record lows and highs set in 2007 and
2009 respectively (see Figure 3). The September 2009 rain event dumped a whopping 18 inches of rain
in a 24 hour period, leaving half of the city of Atlanta flooded and drowning six people. This certainly
qualifies as an “increased heavy rainfall event.”
Further bolstering Curry's report is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC)
2009 General Circulation Model (GSM), which is the foremost numerical model currently available for
simulating the global climate change response (Georgakakos 2). The 2009 IPCC GSM assessment of the
ACF River Basin showed that "significant climate changes are likely to occur in the forthcoming decades
in the ACF River Basin with definitive implications for the currently formulated water, energy, and
environmental management strategies. More specifically, 70% of the GCM scenarios lead to adverse
water resources impacts including lower lake levels, water supply shortages, reduced firm energy
generation, and lower instream flows. Future droughts are likely to be more intense, with the potential to
exacerbate stresses and water use conflicts" (Georgakakos 2). It is difficult and certainly frightening to
imagine a drought more intense than the 2007 drought that plagued Atlanta and much of the Southeastern
U.S. Dr. Curry contends the following: "The far most serious issue for the region is drought. The
Scaletta 5
economic impact in North Georgia of the 2007 drought has been estimated at $1.3 billion. Such droughts
with greater severity are expected to become more commonplace. Compounding the issue of drought is
rapidly growing population: water demand in the greater metropolitan Atlanta region in 2020 is expected
to increase by approximately 60%. We are currently in the midst of a water crisis; we are facing the
prospect of future water catastrophes" (2). It is interesting to note that Dr. Curry has readily
acknowledged that Atlanta is "in the midst of a water crisis" while also calling attention to what is
perhaps the most critical geographic factor affecting Atlanta's future water resources; its population
growth.
Metropolitan-Atlanta is currently experiencing an unprecedented rate of population growth,
which has quickly made it the fastest growing metro area in the entire United States. With a population
increase of more than one million people over the last decade, Metro-Atlanta's population has swelled to
over 5.5 million residents (City of Atlanta DWM 6). Not surprisingly, this has facilitated a sharp increase
in the residential demand for water, which currently accounts for approximately 54% of Atlanta's water
withdrawals (City of Atlanta DWM 6). The formula is simple: too many people, not enough water. In
his Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy journal article, "Thirst for Growth," Jefferson Edgens
rather plainly states that, "In the future, managing water supply to account for Atlanta's growth as well as
fulfill the needs of downstream (users) will be a tall order" (14).
Metro-Atlanta's explosive population growth doesn't seem to be showing signs of slowing down
anytime soon, which along with climate change is working to exacerbate the region's water problems.
Rapid population growth is a double-edged sword for Atlanta. On one hand all of this growth is quite
economically beneficial for Atlanta, yet this growth is simultaneously working against the city. What
good is building up the city if there is not enough water to sustain the growth? When addressing climate
change in the context of population growth, Dr. Curry believes that, "The greatest economic loss to
Atlanta could result from increasing water shortages and further degrading air quality, as businesses and
industries decide that Atlanta’s environment cannot sustain long term operations for their companies nor
Scaletta 6
provide a desirable quality of life for its employees. Add in an unreliable water supply and unsustainable
growth with lack of planning, and Atlanta could look much less attractive for future economic
development" (3). When it comes to assessing Atlanta's water resources future, climate change may be
viewed as the wild card while population growth is its ace-in-the-hole, for Atlanta's water resource
problems can at least be somewhat alleviated through coordinated planning, policy and conservation
efforts. However, if Atlanta's current population growth remains unchecked there is surely a risk of
future water shortages regardless of how much climate change alters precipitation patterns. In hopes of
gleaning Atlanta's future from a climatic and water resources perspective, we should first look backwards
by conducting a survey of Atlanta's water resources over the last 50 years using water budget modeling
and statistical analysis.
To best conduct a survey of Atlanta’s water resources between 1960 and 2009 the C.W.
Thornthwaite Decreasing Availability Water Budget Model was utilized. This decreasing availability
model was chosen for its overall accuracy, as it accounts for the amount of soil moisture that is
realistically available to plants within the rooting zone and then adjusts Potential Evapotranspiration (PE)
proportionately. This level of accuracy in PE modeling is highly desirable for PE, as it is the basic
building block of the water budget model. The Encyclopedia of Climatology defines PE as the “amount
of water that would evaporate and transpire from a landscape fully covered by a homogenous stand of
vegetation without any shortage of soil moisture within the rooting zone.” Therefore, PE provides the
basis for water budgeting by offering what the Encyclopedia of Climatology refers to as an "approximate
estimate of potential or optimum water demand in the landscape that could be met by current precipitation
and soil water utilization." For this particular survey, water budget modeling is based on 50 years (1960-
2009 ) of mean monthly temperature and precipitation data derived from the National Weather Service
Office (WSO AP) at the Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport, which is situated about ten miles south
of Atlanta. The Atlanta WSO AP data was used to construct a water budget for each of the 50 years in
the study period, which produced a set of annual data consisting of five specific water budget parameters
Scaletta 7
that were used to determine long-term averages as well as long-term trends. The five specific water
budget parameters are as follows: Annual Precipitation (P); Annual Potential Evapotranspiration (PE);
Annual Actual Evapotranspiration (AE); Annual Deficit (D); and Annual Surplus (S).
To determine the long-term averages of the five water budget parameters (plus one additional
parameter, Soil Moisture Storage) a series of line graphs were constructed using both raw and smoothed
data (see Figures 1-7). While the raw data (graphed as a blue line) was used for analysis purposes, the
smoothed data (graphed as a red line) was used in an attempt to capture important patterns in the data
while leaving out the noise of the extreme high and low values. The smoothed data was produced by
running a five-year moving average through the raw data. Then, using the long-term average data an
analysis for trend was conducted with a Spearman Test for Trend as a means for evaluating the statistical
significance of each of the five parameters. Based on the survey's sample size of 50, the significance of
the Spearman correlation coefficient is determined by the following critical values: r = < +/- .30
(insignificant trend); r = +/- .31 - +/- .42 (significant positive/negative trend); r = > +/- .43 (highly
significant positive/negative trend).
Figure 1 depicts a monthly average Precipitation and Potential Evapotranspiration graph, which is
showing the long-term, or 50 year, average monthly changes in P and PE during the course of the year.
As to be expected of Atlanta's Cfa climate, we see a monthly average P pattern that peaks in March at
5.24 inches and exceeds PE for the months of January, February, March, April, October, November and
December, thus generating surplus moisture during these months. P levels fall below PE in the months of
May, June, July, August, and September. PE's bell-shaped line is not surprising as it raises, crests, and
falls back down right in turn with Atlanta's four seasons. The ‘top of the bell’ is formed in concordance
with the hot, humid summer months and peaks in July, the hottest month of the year. Figure 1 also helps
to explain Figure 2, which is depicting the long-term monthly average Soil Moisture Storage, or simply
ST, for the 50 year study period. The Encyclopedia of Climatology defines ST as the “water within the
plant's rooting zone that is available for evaporation and transpiration.” In Figure 2, we can see that ST is
Scaletta 8
at or near capacity (six inches) for the first and last few months of the year when the ground is saturated
due to sufficient P and low levels of PE. Conversely, we see that the ST line bottoms out during the hot
summer months when PE is highest and the warmer temperatures withdraw water from ST as a means of
satisfying the increased climatic demands for water. The nexus between these two parameters is best
illustrated by comparing their lines as graphed in Figures 1 and 2. While PE's line starts low and rises
until it crests with the hot summer temperatures and then falls back down as autumn sets in, ST's line
graphs by starting high and decreasing until it bottoms out in the hot summer months and then begins to
rise again as temperatures cool. The inverse relationship between the graphed lines of these two water
budget parameters illustrates temperature's critical role in water budgeting while also gleaning the
implications of climate change induced warming on water resources.
Figure 3 graphs long-term average annual Precipitation. For the 50 year study period average
annual P ranged from a low of 31.85 inches in 2007 to a high of 66 inches in 1975. The Spearman Test
for Trend produced a critical value of .11, therefore revealing an insignificant long-term trend in P over
the last 50 years. Any extremes in P are marked by the raw data line, which highlights both the
abnormally wet years of 1961, 1975, 1989, and 2009 as well as the drought years of 1963-64,1966, and
2007. Most striking is the fact that both the 50 year record low and high P values, set in 2007 and 2009
respectively, occurred within just a two year span. Such extremes in precipitation over such a short
amount of time are surely a harbinger of a future filled with unpredictable precipitation patterns thanks in
large part to the effects of global climate change. In fact, as Robert Hunter, Commissioner of Atlanta's
Department of Watershed Management, notes, "2009 started in a drought with water use restrictions that
significantly reduced water revenues and ended in record rainfall that dampened water demand" (3).
Indeed, the precipitation patterns of the last three years are a testament to the forecasting of both Dr.
Judith Curry and the IPCC and its GSM assessment.
A graph illustrating long-term average annual Potential Evapotranspiration is depicted in Figure
4. For the 50 year study period average annual PE ranged from a low of 31.04 inches in 1966 to a high of
Scaletta 9
39.64 inches in 2007. It is notable that the 50 year record low for P and 50 year record high for PE both
occurred in the same year, hence the drought of 2007, which with P 16 inches below normal produced
one of the worst droughts on record (Lohr Georgia 1). Comparing the 2007 data from Figures 3 and 4
illustrates the recipe for a severe drought: much warmer than usual temperatures (as evidenced by the
survey's peak PE value) and record low amounts of P (as evidenced by the survey's single lowest P
value). And a severe drought is precisely what happened. In fact, things got so dry and desperate that
Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue led a prayer service for rain in front of the Capitol building in downtown
Atlanta (Lohr Georgia 1). Perhaps, most notable about Figure 4 is the clear upward trend in PE. The
Spearman Test for Trend produced a critical value of .68, therefore revealing a highly significant positive
long-term trend in PE over the last 50 years. This would indicate a warming trend in Atlanta's climate,
which has serious implications for Atlanta's water resources.
As warmer temperatures drive up PE, the increased climatic demand for water will have a
negative effect on ST and eventually on S, ultimately diminishing Atlanta's water reservoirs and creating
shortages. This portends a catastrophe for a city whose already swollen population is growing at an
unprecedented rate. As previously discussed, if Atlanta's number of days per year over 90° F increases by
36 as predicted; this will allow the PE trend to continue its sharp upward movement (Response 141). In
the face of mounting scientific evidence it is hard to deny that Atlanta's climate is warming; however it
may be difficult to envision the precise impacts of such warming on the people of Atlanta. Researchers at
Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences predict that, "In the 2080s, the average
summer high will probably be 96 degrees in Atlanta, with extreme temperatures reaching 115 degrees.
With a warming of only 2 degrees (which is likely over the next few decades), heat related deaths in
Atlanta are expected to increase from 78 annually now to anywhere from 96 to 247 people per year, with
major heat waves associated with even greater loss of life" (Curry 1). Unfortunately, the highly
significant positive long-term PE trend would suggest that these 'major heat waves' will quickly become a
reality. It would also suggest that subsequent prolonged droughts will wreak havoc on Atlanta's water
Scaletta 10
resources as warmer temperatures will dry out Atlanta by pulling too much water out of the ground. Such
protracted dryness combined with a consistently high PE rate will make for a highly water stressed
environment.
A graph illustrating long-term average annual Actual Evapotranspiration is depicted in Figure 5.
The Encyclopedia of Climatology defines AE as the “amount of precipitation and soil water withdrawals
actually used by the plants to try to meet the energy demands of PE.” For the 50 year study period
average annual AE ranged from a low of 22.99 inches in 1983 to a high of 36.40 inches in 1994. The
Spearman Test for Trend produced a critical value of .42, therefore revealing a significant positive long-
term trend in AE over the last 50 years. It should be noted that with a critical value of .42, AE is on the
cusp of showing a highly significant positive trend. It is encouraging to see the AE trend mostly keeping
pace with the upward PE trend, as this indicates that Atlanta's climatic demands for water are largely
being met from year to year. However, with the frequency and severity of warm weather induced
droughts on the rise AE is going to have to do more than just keep pace with the upward PE trend if
Atlanta's water resources are not to become severely depleted.
Figure 6 graphs long-term average annual Moisture Deficit. The Encyclopedia of Climatology
defines D as the “difference between P and AE, and, therefore D represents the water that would have
been used by plants and is a measure of crop irrigation need or potential.” For the 50 year study period
average annual D ranged from a low of 0.36 inches in 1967 to a high of 11.63 inches in 2007. The
Spearman Test for Trend produced a critical value of .8, therefore revealing an insignificant long-term
trend in D over the last 50 years. The many peaks and valleys in the graphed raw data line in Figure 6 are
indicative of the variability of the D parameter. While it changes frequently, and sometimes drastically,
from year to year the long-term trend analysis suggests that D has held relatively steady over the last 50
years. This parameter is most useful for agricultural purposes and the modeling of crop stress, something
that Metro-Atlanta is not directly concerned about. It is notable, and not surprising, that the record high
Moisture Deficit of 11.63 inches occurred in the drought year of 2007. Additionally, we see the record
Scaletta 11
setting wet year of 2009 (with a D value of 1.70 inches) reflected in the tremendous spike of the raw data
line.
A graph illustrating long-term average annual Surplus Moisture is depicted in Figure 7. The
Encyclopedia of Climatology defines S as “representing the precipitation not used for evapotranspiration
or soil water recharge, and, therefore the water available for surface runoff to lakes and streams or for
percolation into groundwater tables.” Thus, S is a useful water budget parameter for estimating runoff,
stream flow, and groundwater recharge. For the 50 year study period average annual S ranged from a low
of 4.56 inches in 1999 to a high of 32.66 inches in 1975. Again, the record low and high precipitation
amounts of 2007 and 2009 are easily noticed with the graphing of the raw data. The Spearman Test for
Trend produced a critical value of -.04, therefore revealing an insignificant long-term trend in S over the
last 50 years. Similar to the D graph there is a good deal of inter-annual variability with the S parameter,
yet the long-term trend analysis suggests relative stability over the last 50 years. At first glance it may
seem that the long-term steadiness of S would indicate that Atlanta need not worry about future water
supply. However, it is important to consider the effects of Atlanta's explosive population growth on S.
The majority of Atlanta's water needs are currently met with surface water (i.e. the Chattahoochee River)
and since S represents water available for surface runoff to lakes and streams, it is an important indicator
of the water available for Atlantan's consumption. With the level of population growth that Atlanta is
experiencing, along with its warming temperatures, S needs to be demonstrating a highly significant
positive trend in order for Atlantans to be able to breathe easy. However, S is showing an insignificant
trend and possibly even beginning to move toward a negative trend. The insignificant trend of S
combined with a burgeoning population indicates that there is a long-term risk of water shortages in
Atlanta unless the proper conservation measures are implemented.
The risk of long-term water shortages is no surprise for Atlantans, as the topic of water shortages
has been on everyone's mind for awhile now. In fact in the wake of the 2007 drought, it would appear
that Atlanta and its downstream neighbors are all too aware of the risks of water shortages. Exacerbating
Scaletta 12
the seemingly impossible task of quenching the thirst of Atlanta's monstrous and fast growing population
is something known as the Tri-State Water War. The neighboring states of Georgia, Alabama, and
Florida have been entangled in a water dispute for decades and now Atlanta’s rapid population growth is
adding fuel to the fire. In his article, Thirst for Growth, Jefferson Edgens concisely summarizes the inter-
state water quarrel in the following manner: “The central issue in this tri-state dispute is how to allocate
water resources from these two river basins (the ACF and the Alabama-Coosa-Talapoosa or ACT) in a
way that allows further growth in the metropolitan Atlanta region without compromising water quantity
and quality for downstream users in Georgia and its Alabama and Florida neighbors…In essence, Georgia
is hoarding the water from the downstream states for its own purposes. Somehow, Atlanta and Georgia
must share their bountiful water resources with Alabama and Florida” (14). During the 2007 drought,
water levels in Lake Lanier dropped by a near-cataclysmic 20 feet, making the prospect of sharing its
water with downstream users seem foolish to many Atlantans (Lohr Georgia 1). Lake Lanier is a
reservoir that was created via the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ construction of the Buford Dam on the
Chattahoochee River in the 1950s. From a water resource perspective, Lake Lanier means everything to
Atlanta as it provides 3.5 million of its residents with water each and every day (Lohr Tri-State 1). It also
means a lot to the Chattahoochee’s downstream users in southern Georgia, Florida and Alabama.
According to NPR news correspondent Kathy Lohr, “Florida is worried about getting enough water for
Apalachicola Bay to support its oyster and shrimp industries and Alabama says it needs water to continue
the state's growth and to maintain its nuclear plant that supplies power to 1.5 million people” (Tri-State
1).
In an effort to save their upstream water supply Florida and Alabama have taken Georgia to
federal court on the grounds that it cannot withdraw drinking water from Lake Lanier. In August 2009, a
“federal judge ruled that Georgia doesn't have the right to take drinking water from the reservoir and that
the Lake Lanier reservoir was built for flood control, navigation and hydropower — not for drinking
water” (Lohr Tri-State 1). According to Lohr, “The judge gave the governors three years to negotiate a
Scaletta 13
deal. If they can't, Congress must approve drinking water as an appropriate use, or Georgia must return to
the amount it withdrew in the 1970s, when the Atlanta area was only one-third its current size” (Tri-State
1). Understandably, this has many Atlantans nervous and contemplating a future where an already
limited resource is on track to become even more scarce. Governor Perdue is currently appealing the
ruling and attempting to rekindle the tri-state water negotiations. What other option does Atlanta have?
The last time that Atlanta tried to address the issue of not having enough water to support its growing
population things didn’t work out so well. Jefferson Edgens notes that, “In the late 1980s Georgia
contemplated constructing a new reservoir to serve as another source of water for burgeoning Atlanta’s
metropolitan region. But Alabama filed suit to stop the construction of the dam, out of concern for
reduced stream flow for their state” (16). A possible solution currently on the table involves “diverting
150 million gallons per day from Lake Allatoona by 2050 to meet Metro-Atlanta’s need” (Edgens 17).
Regardless of what becomes of the Tri-State Water War, there is no question that Atlanta should brace
itself for a future in which water is a scant commodity.
In the face of a fast warming climate and a burgeoning population Atlanta must embrace a city
wide water conservation ethic as a means of survival. The city took such a step in 2002 when “newly
elected Mayor Shirley Franklin created the Department of Watershed Management, or DWM, to serve as
an operational and managerial umbrella ‘for all things water’” (City of Atlanta DWM 4). The DWM has
designed and implemented a 50 year master plan for water resource management as a response to
Atlanta’s water problems. The organization’s efforts are guided by a water conservation philosophy. In
addition to its drought monitoring and community outreach programs, the DWM has made reducing water
loss due to old leaky transmission pipes a top priority. The DWM repairs some 25 leaks per day and
upwards of 800 a month, where as prior to 2002 there were only 800 leak repairs made all year (City of
Atlanta DWM 6). However, according to a NBC 11Alive.com article, “Atlanta is still losing about 17
million gallons of water every day due to leaks” (Atlanta Water Shortage). This has many people
pressing the DWM to repair even more leaks per day. Since 2001, the DWM was able to “cut water
Scaletta 14
withdrawal form the Chattahoochee River by 20 % as the population grew by 29 %,” a statistic that is
both impressive and a testament to the organization’s commitment to water conservation (City of Atlanta
DWM 5). With Atlanta’s uncertain water resource future the DWM has duly taken to conserving the
water that it has now. Not surprisingly, some Atlantans are also beginning to voice their concerns over
the city's water resource future. In the aftermath of the 2007 drought, a website,
www.atlantawatershortage.com, was created as a medium for concerned citizens to blog about, as the
name implies, Atlanta's water problems as well as water conservation tactics. This type of citizen-based
dialogue will be crucial in helping Atlanta's officials to build up the water conservation mindset among
the masses.
In conclusion, when analyzing the 50 year survey data in the context of an exploding population
and a fast warming climate it is difficult to not feel a little unsettled when contemplating Atlanta’s water
resource future. And rightfully so. However, it can’t hurt to have some faith in the abilities of the
ingenuity of the DWM and Atlanta’s urban planners and policy makers. Additionally, the potential for a
grassroots movement, led by a few concerned citizens that exchange water conservation tips over the
internet, to take hold of the city should not be overlooked. Atlantans must figure out their water
problems, for there are many people downstream counting on them to do so. Perhaps, DWM
Commissioner, Robert Hunter, articulates the situation best in his 2009 Commissioner’s Letter: “As
stewards of the significant financial and water resources entrusted to us and as protectors of the
environment so critical to Atlantans and all who rely on the Chattahoochee River, we know that our
success has meaning far beyond our ability to repair a random leak, replace a broken meter or complete a
project. Our utility is the foundation upon which Atlanta can grow and thrive.”
Scaletta 15
Map 1
Source: www.atlantaregional.com
Map 2
Source: www.maps.com
Scaletta 16
Figure 1
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Monthly Average Precipitation (P) and Potential Evap-otranspiration (PE): Atlanta, GA (1960-2009)
PEP
Inch
es
Figure 2
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Monthly Average Soil Moisture Storage (ST): Atlanta, GA (1960-2009)
ST
Inch
es
Scaletta 17
Figure 3
19601963
19661969
19721975
19781981
19841987
19901993
19961999
20022005
200830.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00
Annual Precipitation (P): Atlanta, GA (1960-2009)
P5-Year Moving Average
Inch
es
Spearman Correlation Coefficient = .11
Figure 4
19601963
19661969
19721975
19781981
19841987
19901993
19961999
20022005
200830.00
32.00
34.00
36.00
38.00
40.00
42.00
44.00
Annual Potential Evapotranspiration (PE): Atlanta, GA (1960-2009)
PE5-Year Moving Average
Inch
es
Spearman Correla-tion Coefficient = .68
Scaletta 18
Figure 5
19601963
19661969
19721975
19781981
19841987
19901993
19961999
20022005
200820.00
22.00
24.00
26.00
28.00
30.00
32.00
34.00
36.00
38.00
40.00
Annual Actual Evapotranspiration (AE): Atlanta, GA (1960-2009)
AE5-Year Moving Average
Inch
es
Spearman Correlation Coefficient = .42
Figure 6
19601963
19661969
19721975
19781981
19841987
19901993
19961999
20022005
20080.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
Annual Moisture Deficit (D): Atlanta, GA (1960-2009)
D5-Year Moving Average
Inch
es
Spearman Correlation Coefficient = .08
Scaletta 19
Figure 7
19601963
19661969
19721975
19781981
19841987
19901993
19961999
20022005
20080.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Annual Surplus Moisture (S): Atlanta, GA (1960-2009)
S5-Year Moving Average
Inch
es
Spearman Correlation Coefficient = - .04
Scaletta 20
Works Cited
Atlanta Water Shortage. Chad, 2007. Web. 10 Apr. 2010. <http://www.atlantawatershortage.com/>.
City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management. Office of the Commissioner. 2009 Annual
Report. By Shirley Franklin and Robert Hunter. Atlanta: Department of Watershed Management,
2010. City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management, 2010. Web. 3 Apr. 2010.
<ttp://www.atlantawatershed.org/pdf/DWM_AR_2009.pdf>.
Curry, Judith. Local Warming: Consequences of Climate Change for Atlanta. School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences. Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004. Web. 3 Apr. 2010.
Edgens, Jefferson G. "Thirst for Growth." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 16.1 (2001):
14-18. EBSCO. Web. 16 Apr. 2010.
Georgakakos, Aris P. Climate Change Assessment for the ACF River Basin. Georgia Water Resources
Institute. Georgia Institute of Technology, 11 May 2009. Web. 5 Apr. 2010.
Lohr, Kathy. "Georgia Once Prayed For Rain, Now Plans For Drought." Morning Edition. National
Public Radio. Washington, DC, 31 Mar. 2010. Npr.org. NPR, 31 Mar. 2010. Web. 31 Mar. 2010.
---. "Tri-State Water Fight Spurs Questions On Growth." All Things Considered. National Public Radio.
Washington, DC, 7 Aug. 2009. Npr.org. NPR, 2009. Web. 31 Mar. 2010.
"Response of Root Respiration to Changes in Temperature and Its Relevance to Global Warming." Rev.
of New Phytologist, Vol. 147, No.1, by Owen K. Atkin, Everard J. Edwards, and Beth R. Loveys.
Blackwell 2000: 141-54. Print.
Southeast Regional Climate Center. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2007. Web. 12 Mar.
2010. <http://www.sercc.com/>.
Scaletta 21
"Water Resources of Georgia." USGS Georgia Water Science Center. U.S. Department of the Interior:
U.S. Geological Survey, 16 Apr. 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2010. <http://ga.water.usgs.gov/>.