This isn't right
There seem to be a couple of issues with this story in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution which reports that the shutdown of two hydroelectric plants in Newton County and Athens-Clarke County are responsible for a little less than half of the 10 percent reduction mandated by the governor.
The first concern I have, obviously, is the plant they state to be in Athens-Clarke County - the Tallassee Shoals Hydroelectric Project operated by Fall Line Hydro Company - actually straddles the Clarke-Jackson border. And the folks I have spoken with tell me the plant's primary facility is located in Jackson County, meaning its usage numbers are logged with that county.
According to the drought management plan, our community's goal to comply with the governor's request was to have an overall reduction of roughly 6.5 million gallons per day from non-drought usage, thus consuming 13.5 million gallons a day. On Oct. 22, 2007, we reached a reduction level of 28 percent (roughly 5.5 million gallons per day conserved).
Since then, we have reached the governor's request (which was achieve a total 35 percent reduction from non-drought conditions), which was only a reduction of an additional seven percent or 1 million gallons per day.
The article states that those plants used 218 million gallons per day, meaning if we took half of that number we'd have conservation levels that are almost unattainable ... and would require little, if any, work on our part. Obviously, that wasn't the case.
Secondly, it's incredibly foolish to lump everyone into this category. While I can concede the reduction levels were probably aided by these plants not being in operation during November, it's misleading to suggest they wouldn't have taken on some of their own conservation measures. Plus, when you look at the work done by this county, as well as others, it's flat-out wrong to poormouth the conservation efforts done by the communities that are working hard to save water.
And, the article acts as if North Georgia as a whole was requested by conserve 10 percent on the whole, which isn't true. The governor's request was for each individual community in the region to reduce by 10 percent, and a 10 percent reduction in one place may not be a 10 percent reduction in another. Furthermore, reporting it as a regional reduction rather than individual communities working to conserve does a disservice to those which have reached the reduction level.
In fact, the AJC even acknowledges this in its original article ...
Georgia Environmental Protection Division Director Carol Couch, who advised the governor on his decision, said utilities may go directly to big water users to reduce consumption, but the decision is theirs.
"This gives them the flexibility to adapt and make the choices of how to carry out a 10 percent reduction," Couch said.
So if it wasn't a required regional reduction, why pen a story that acts as if is and only serves as a 'gotcha' piece?
The first concern I have, obviously, is the plant they state to be in Athens-Clarke County - the Tallassee Shoals Hydroelectric Project operated by Fall Line Hydro Company - actually straddles the Clarke-Jackson border. And the folks I have spoken with tell me the plant's primary facility is located in Jackson County, meaning its usage numbers are logged with that county.
According to the drought management plan, our community's goal to comply with the governor's request was to have an overall reduction of roughly 6.5 million gallons per day from non-drought usage, thus consuming 13.5 million gallons a day. On Oct. 22, 2007, we reached a reduction level of 28 percent (roughly 5.5 million gallons per day conserved).
Since then, we have reached the governor's request (which was achieve a total 35 percent reduction from non-drought conditions), which was only a reduction of an additional seven percent or 1 million gallons per day.
The article states that those plants used 218 million gallons per day, meaning if we took half of that number we'd have conservation levels that are almost unattainable ... and would require little, if any, work on our part. Obviously, that wasn't the case.
Secondly, it's incredibly foolish to lump everyone into this category. While I can concede the reduction levels were probably aided by these plants not being in operation during November, it's misleading to suggest they wouldn't have taken on some of their own conservation measures. Plus, when you look at the work done by this county, as well as others, it's flat-out wrong to poormouth the conservation efforts done by the communities that are working hard to save water.
And, the article acts as if North Georgia as a whole was requested by conserve 10 percent on the whole, which isn't true. The governor's request was for each individual community in the region to reduce by 10 percent, and a 10 percent reduction in one place may not be a 10 percent reduction in another. Furthermore, reporting it as a regional reduction rather than individual communities working to conserve does a disservice to those which have reached the reduction level.
In fact, the AJC even acknowledges this in its original article ...
Georgia Environmental Protection Division Director Carol Couch, who advised the governor on his decision, said utilities may go directly to big water users to reduce consumption, but the decision is theirs.
"This gives them the flexibility to adapt and make the choices of how to carry out a 10 percent reduction," Couch said.
So if it wasn't a required regional reduction, why pen a story that acts as if is and only serves as a 'gotcha' piece?
posted by Jmac at 9:42 AM
2 Comments:
The press trying to write "gotcha pieces," like the recent one on the Mayor and Commission's water usage? I'm shocked they would even contemplate such a thing.
hehehe...
I did NOT write that comment. I thought about it but I didn't.
Al
Post a Comment
<< Home