THE CASE: LAND PROTECTION WILL PRESERVE AND PROTECT WATER QUALITY
FEBRUARY 28, 2014
1
Befitting its history as one of the original colonial trade routes, the Savannah River supports a wide
variety of human and natural values, and serves as a critical water resource to the states of Georgia and
South Carolina alike.
2
The last dam at New Savannah Bluff, just downstream of the City of Augusta, gives way to a free-flowing
river. The lower Savannah River empties 200 miles later into the Atlantic Ocean, delivering the 3rd largest
amount of freshwater to the ocean among the many Atlantic seaboard rivers. Just upstream of New
Savannah Bluff, the Clarks Hill / J. Strom Thurmond hydropower facility controls the lower river’s flow,
which in turn determines the amount of water available for human and natural uses. Many persons,
industries, plants and animals depend on this water for sustenance. The lower Savannah River presently
provides drinking water to over 550,000 people; many more depend on the river as an outlet for
wastewater discharge. Numerous businesses and major industries rely on its water for both intake and
discharge use. In light of current demands for drinking water and the opinion shared by professionals
that the river is already at capacity in terms of discharge, river water to support future growth of
community or industry will be dependent on maintaining or improving current water quality standards.
Extensive watershed science and practical experience demonstrates that land protection leads directly
to water quality protection. In early 2009, recognizing the explicit connection between the land
resources of the Savannah Basin and their impact on raw water supplies, the South Lowcountry (SOLO)
Task Force consisting of state and federal government agencies, NGO’s, business and private interests
came together around the issue. They agreed the largely rural character of the Savannah basin, a great
example of green infrastructure, should be preserved. The Lower Savannah sub-basin is at a critical
juncture. Forest cover is still sufficient to assure raw water quality and development pressures have not
yet risen to the point that land protection at a scale sufficient to protect water quality is costprohibitive. Given those conditions, the SOLO Task Force agreed to make the protection of the river
corridor and watershed a top priority.
The cleansing effect of natural land is well established in science, but the act of determining just which
lands are most important in a given basin is a local analysis that requires local data. To that end, the Task
Force asked The Nature Conservancy to form an initial Steering Committee to discuss approaches to
land prioritization for water quality. An analysis area representing about 2.79 Million acres was agreed
upon, capturing the basin downstream of Thurmond Dam.
Recognizing the balance to be struck between forest cover and human needs while providing sufficient
land protection to assure raw water quality, a forest retention target of 60% was set by the Steering
Committee. This requires the protection of 1.67M acres of the lower watershed; of that, about 500,000
acres are already permanently protected or held in ownership where continuing forest cover is
assumed, leaving an additional 1.17 Million acres to be secured. Recognizing it will be difficult or
impossible to buy land or pay for easements on that many acres, that not all natural and rural land areas
are created equal in their contribution to raw water quality, and that priorities can be made
geographically explicit, the Steering Committee saw a clear need for the prioritization of land
investment transactions. They employed a tool called the Watershed Management Priority Index
(WMPI). The Index uses detailed land cover, soil and elevation data to identify the areas most critical to
water quality maintenance. The river corridors emerged as high priority areas, an intuitively obvious
conclusion, but other areas were graded as well; the results were integrated within legal tract
boundaries. This provides a mechanism to rank individual tracts on their relevance to raw water quality.
These results are illustrated in the map below, wherein higher numbers represent higher priority.
3
As a result of this prioritization, it was determined that about 210.000 of the total 1.17 Million acres
are most critical in terms of their contribution to water quality, with the balance of about 960,000
acres ranked important but not most critical. This prioritization is useful in terms of estimating and
then raising precious investment dollars for the preservation of land and forest cover. The Steering
Committee agreed that a reasonable cost to preserve the high priority lands may approximate $135
Million (a blend of land and conservation easement purchases by both government and land trusts)
while the remaining 960,000 acres could be kept in forest cover using forest certification, term
easements, land stewardship and other less costly methods at an estimated cost of $15 Million. In
total, the Steering Committee has estimated a $150 Million need to preserve and maintain forest
cover goals.
To raise $150 Million over an extended period is a considerable challenge. The most likely investors
are those who now benefit or will benefit directly from the results of the investment, specifically,
the present and future water users and dischargers to the river. Knowing the burden of
4
maintenance of water quality in the river should not be borne exclusively by those groups, however,
the Steering Committee agreed a fair allocation of the $150 Million need should come half ($75
Million) from the users with the balance from other sources such as state and federal funding
programs, local green initiatives, philanthropic organizations and others.
To raise $75 Million from the river water users, the Steering Committee commissioned a study to
identify user volumes based on current intake and discharge. Both SCDHEC and GAEPD provided
data for that purpose, out of which has been identified a list of potential funding sources classified
as small, medium and large users and further by municipal, government or industry. It is apparent
that any raise of $75 Million must be over an extended period of time and spread over as much of
the user base as possible, so that no one user is disproportionately carrying an unreasonable
financial burden. Presuming an equitable allocation of the $75 Million need and an extended raise
period of 20 plus years, it is anticipated municipal retail water and discharge customers could
contribute well less than a dollar per month; when coupled with modest investments from industry,
the $75 Million financial goal is realistically achievable.
To guide the Steering Committee in making its case for financial investment to the water users, it
engaged Water Words That Work (WWTW), a nationally recognized marketing and public relations
firm specializing in water. In a collaborative effort between the Steering Committee and WWTW, all
marketing, outreach and organizational plans are now in the development phase. Implementation
will be the task of a new bi-state coordinating organization that is now being formed, the Savannah
River Clean Water Fund, working in partnership with the many groups already participating. It is
expected that by mid-2014 the Steering Committee will have completed its organizational and
outreach plans and will be fully prepared to take its case to the medium and large water users (both
intake and discharge). It is the expectation of the Steering Committee that by the end of 2014 those
medium and large users will see the benefits of land protection and its correlation to water quality.
Presuming they commit to a fair share investment, they will provide a firm footing for the financial
viability of the program, and serve as role models to others as well. The seemingly lofty goal of
preserving this very large and significant watershed for future generations is well within grasp once
the problem is broken into manageable pieces and the cost is shared equitably.
5