By Guest Columnist ALLISON KELLY, senior vice president of the Georgia Conservancy.

For decades, Georgia’s environmental community has urged the state’s top elected officials to take water issues seriously.

In the 2009 state legislature, water yet again took a back seat to matters deemed more critical, such as the economy, education and immigration.

All that changed last summer, when federal judge Paul Magnuson ruled that metro Atlanta has no legal authority to draw drinking water from Lake Lanier. It was a shot across the bow that catapulted water from the sidelines to center stage among those now running to replace Sonny Perdue for governor.

The three candidates left standing after last week’s primary – Roy Barnes, Nathan Deal and Karen Handel – have all put water issues out front in ways we’ve never seen before in a gubernatorial election.

Consider Roy Barnes, the Democratic nominee for governor. On his campaign website, Barnes puts the focus on getting Georgians back to work. But notice how he does it:

“To make Georgia work, we must focus on water, education and transportation,” he says.

That’s right, water comes first on his list. Elsewhere on the site, Barnes frames the water issue in stark economic terms.

“The availability of abundant, clean water has become as important in Georgia as the availability of other natural resources, such as gas and coal,” Barnes says. “Today, when businesses consider expanding or relocating to Georgia, ‘water’ is at the top of their checklists.”

On the other side of the political aisle stands Nathan Deal, arguably the most conservative of the three remaining candidates. In June, Deal staunchly favored so-called interbasin transfers – moving water from one river basin to another – in order to accommodate Atlanta’s growing water needs.

The Georgia Conservancy and other environmental groups have been extremely wary of this practice. The Conservancy believes the state should consider interbasin transfers only after (1) strong conservation and efficiency measures are in place; (2) an aggressive reduction goal is met, and; (3) a full assessment of the environmental impact is conducted for giving and receiving river basins.

In recent interviews with newspaper reporters in Atlanta and Augusta, however, Deal appears to have changed his tune.

“As governor, I would never support policies that would divert water from any basin for the purpose of sending it downriver into another region. Absolutely not.”

On her campaign website, Karen Handel says Georgia must adopt a statewide water plan and urges the state to pursue aggressive conservation efforts.

While we applaud the candidates for elevating water issues to the fore, they don’t always get it right. Take, for example, proposals to flood thousands of acres in north Georgia to build reservoirs that feed a growing and thirsty Atlanta. We believe that costly new reservoirs should only be built as a last resort, after all conservation, storage and supply alternatives have been addressed.

We’ve come a long way in the past few years. Until recently, most people viewed water as a virtually unlimited resource. No more, thanks to the punishing droughts we have endured throughout the decade, and Judge Magnuson’s ruling.

We’ve already made big strides on the policy front. Earlier this year, the Georgia General Assembly passed a sweeping water conservation law that bans daytime outdoor watering and requires “high-efficiency” toilets, faucets and shower heads in new construction.

Our three candidates for governor may disagree on how to bring more jobs to Georgia or how to fund a quality education for our kids.

But one thing is clear: water stewardship has emerged as a top issue for all three candidates. And that’s a win for Georgia, no matter who is victorious in November.

By Guest Columnist CLARA HAYLEY AXAM, former director of the Atlanta Office Enterprise Community Partners who currently is president of Clarification & Mediation Inc., a management consulting firm.

There is a well-quoted adage that implies that if something is free, it is probably not worth having. Whether you believe there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that is yours for the taking or in working hard, spending judiciously and saving for a rainy day, dreams of pots of someone else’s money to fix all of our woes are just that – dreams.

In 2002 Atlanta was designated as a federal Renewal Community (RC) in accordance with the 2000 Community Renewal Tax Relief Act targeting revitalization in designated census tracts with pervasive poverty, unemployment and distress.

The Program provided an array of tax incentives to support the creation of new businesses, encourage the expansion of existing businesses and promote employment of residents in the designated census tracts.

At the time of the designation, Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin requested that the City of Atlanta be granted special status as a conversion site, allowing the City to competitively award $46.8 million in Title XX Social Service Block Grants funds remaining from an ineffective 1994 Empowerment Zone Program.

The request was granted in 2004, and, in accordance with federal regulations, the city created the Atlanta Renewal Community Coordinating Responsible Authority (ACoRA), to administer the combined program of RC business tax incentives in the Renewal Community and Title XX funding for human service and community development initiatives to benefit residents of the former Empowerment Zone.

A comprehensive series of community meetings was held to solicit community input on program priorities, a Board was appointed chaired by attorney George Howell and subsequently Peggy Harper, consultants were hired and in 2006, the plans were implemented.

The five-member ACoRA Board declared a commitment to an inclusive, objective and transparent administrative process. A robust procurement infrastructure was created to define program scopes and evaluate proposals from businesses seeking competitive tax incentives and service providers seeking Title XX funding.

When Atlanta’s Renewal Community designation ended on December 31, 2009, ACoRA had successfully awarded more than $43 million dollars in Title XX funds and $61 million in commercial revitalization tax deductions (the only tax incentive competitively awarded).

The $43 million in approved Title XX funding was available to awardees, however, on a cost-reimbursement basis, i.e., successful awardees were required to spend the money and seek reimbursement for eligible expenditures in line with budgets approved at the time of contract award.

Since awardees were allowed to submit final expenses through March 31, 2010, reports reflecting the impact of the program have only recently become available. Despite the regulation driven bureaucracy which nearly strangled the program, as of March 2010, nearly $23 million in Title XX funding had been approved for reimbursement to community based organizations, city departments and other agencies approved by ACoRA to serve impoverished renewal community neighborhoods.

Through the RC tax incentive program:
• Businesses created or retained at least 2,000 jobs in Renewal Community census tracts.
• Businesses serving the Renewal Community saved more than $25.6 million dollars through their use of federal tax credits and deductions, encouraging their continued location and expansion in underserved neighborhoods.
• $61 million in commercial revitalization deductions were awarded to 43 neighborhood commercial developments to strengthen the commercial infrastructure critical to neighborhood stabilization in Mechanicsville, Old Fourth Ward, West End, Martin Luther King District, Vine City, English Avenue and Pryor Road.

Equally important, the Title XX funding was used to support some of the most critical needs of the neighborhoods served:
• Hundreds of resident youth graduating from high school received career counseling and were awarded scholarships and financial support to continue their education through Atlanta Workforce Development Agency programs including the Mayors Youth Program.
• The financial gap needed to build the Carver YMCA was funded. With the opening of the Carver Y a neglected part of the city is now served with a top quality recreation facility, programs and fields.
• After-school study halls and tutorials and summer school programs were funded for hundreds of at-risk youth whose academic performance lags national and state performance standards.
• Long overdue parks improvements in Mechanicsville, Washington Park, Vine City, Peoplestown, Bedford-Pines and Chosewood were funded.
• The Fulton Atlanta Landbank was revamped after years of underperformance as a critical tool in the delivery of affordable housing.
• Programs to support health education, nutrition and preventive health initiatives were funded.
• Monies were invested to initiate a housing rehabilitation program, allowing historically important neighborhoods to preserve their housing stock.
• Businesses successfully accessed the $3 million business revolving loan fund through the Atlanta Development Authority to support the creation and expansion of their businesses.
• Mortgage assistance was made available to low and moderate income homebuyers – many of them first time homebuyers.
• Skills training, resume writing assistance, jobs counseling and financial literacy programs were funded through several organizations to assist residents in preparing for jobs.
• Neighborhood safety programs were designed and implemented in several of the renewal community neighborhoods, including installation of street lights and cameras in addition to more traditional neighborhood watch and police partnership strategies.
• Lights, streetscapes, traffic signs and sidewalks were funded in several communities and around a dozen schools.

Sustainable change in neighborhoods that have experienced disinvestment for years is not a short term or easy agenda. Not all the hopes and aspirations of the residents or the plans of all of the anchor institutions were realized through the ACoRA program.

As with dreams of pots of gold to fix it all, our aspirations exceeded our reach. But the investment of $84 million in meaningful programs and commercial developments does make a difference and no doubt, one which will pay dividends we cannot yet measure. In the end, dreams combined with hard work and innovations do make a difference.

Clara Hayley Axam as former Director of the Atlanta Office of Enterprise Community Partners, staffed the Renewal Community Program on behalf of ACoRA. She also managed administrative services for the City of Atlanta under former Mayors Maynard Jackson and Andrew Young.

By Guest Columnist ANGEL LUIS POVENTUD, a renegade community activist and believer in Atlanta.

Community. I’ve always had it. I was born in 1971 in a Miami neighborhood where my aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents all lived just three blocks apart, and my elementary school was just down the street. My parents are Puerto Rican who grew up in New York City.

My mom worked as an executive secretary, and my dad worked as a printer for Eastern Airlines, so we were able to travel the world until about the time I turned 15.

After I graduated from high school, I tried going to college for architecture and toyed with the idea of becoming a city planner. But then I left school to go work fulltime. For most of my working life, I’ve worked for transportation companies. I spent 12 years with U.S. Airways (with free flight benefits) and then I became a freight train conductor for CSX Railroad for the past four-and-a-half years.

Family, community and multi-generational gatherings have been part of my life for as long as I can remember. And it is that spirit of community that I long to instill in Atlanta.

When I arrived here in Atlanta 12 years ago, I wasn’t doing much other than working and rollerblading in Piedmont Park. My family was here: mom, my sister, Amy, and my grandma, who at the time was 90 years old.

I moved into a historic building on Piedmont Park, the Piedmont Crest, back in 2003. It was amazing — a top floor apartment overlooking Piedmont Park for only $650 a month. I couldn’t believe it.

But a year after moving in, I found out that they were going to demolish the building and put up modern condos. I started going to meetings, calling meetings and getting involved. The building was razed in December of 2004, but my passion for Atlanta was just beginning.

By this time I had been in contact with every person who was representing me at the Midtown Neighbors Association, City Hall, the Georgia House of Representatives, the Georgia Senate and all the way up to the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

It was a tough time — I had lost the battle of the Crest; I was about to get laid off from my job of 12 years; and I had just found out that Grandma couldn’t get back on Section 8 housing because of the length of the waiting list. I was pissed, but I was also energized. I was getting involved.

I already had started volunteering for Trees Atlanta after a friend at the Innovox Coffee Shop who told me about a tree sale happening at Piedmont Park. I have always loved volunteering for Trees Atlanta. Being outside, seeing different neighborhoods and meeting new people, what’s not to like.

My interest in trees, historic preservation, HIV vaccines, homeless issues, bikes and transit all steered me to a new project — the BeltLine. I became aware of its potential after I attended an Urban Land Institute program on the Beltline at Atlantic Station in 2004.

As it turned out, the BeltLine incorporated all the individual themes in my volunteering life — but not just in my own Midtown neighborhood but in communities throughout the city.

When I got the job at CSX in 2005 — working an average of two-and-a-half days a week while being on call 24/7 — I had even more time to volunteer. I became increasingly aware of the importance of community and spirituality.

My grandma died in the fall of 2007 at the age of 100. She had lived on her own and taken care of herself until the age of 98, and then she moved in with my mom who took care of her for the last two years of her life.

I would call grandma daily and visit her at least weekly out in Marietta/Smyna for those last 10 years of her life. She had helped raise me for the first 10 years of my life, so it seemed only fitting that I would be a major part of the last 10 years of hers.
I didn’t realize it, but she left me a tremendous gift when she died — time. The time that I had spent with her became free time that was now my own time. At the same time my flight benefits had ended, and both events helped set the stage for a new chapter of my life.

For the last year-and-a-half, I have become a full time resident of the City of Atlanta. No more travel on my days off, no more leaving the country at a moment’s notice to visit China, the Netherlands or Israel. No more day trips to New York City or San Francisco. Atlanta has become my full-time home, the likes of which I have never had — ever.

If you feel as though you have seen me around and about, it’s because I try to be everywhere. I am not a resident of Midtown anymore; I’m a resident of Atlanta.

Every neighborhood is my neighborhood. I’m that guy planting trees, I’m that guy at BeltLine meetings; I’m that guy on rollerblades; I’m that guy in the green dress or the red dress; I’m that guy putting up art, walking or running or biking the BeltLine.

It’s all a matter of how on chooses to spend one’s time. My television died 10 years ago and I never replaced it. I didn’t get a cell phone or a computer till four-and-a-half years ago. I only recently got the nerver to get on Facebook and Twitter.

I’ve been lucky to have had the time, energy and passion to contribute to Atlanta and the Beltline — receiving as much as I’ve given. It’s all about community and balance, and I’m just trying to do my part. Join me.

By Guest Columnist MICHAEL DAILEY, a business litigation attorney who is active with several environmental organizations in Georgia.

Lost in the uproar which followed Rep. Joe Barton’s now-famous apology to British Petroleum CEO Tony Hayward, for what Barton alleged was a White House “shakedown” of his company leading to the establishment of a $20 Billion escrow fund, was the original Republican scriptwriter for Barton’s ire – Representative Tom Price M.D. of Georgia.

Only hours before Barton unleashed his surprising outpouring of sympathy for the company responsible for delivering America’s foremost environmental disaster, Rep. Price, speaking as Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, issued a statement warning “there is no legal authority for the President to compel a private company to set up or contribute to an escrow account.” Such action, maintained Price, “suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics.”

The Congressman’s choice of words was noteworthy. It’s not every day that the President is charged with extortion by members of the opposing political party.

The fact that Barton and Price used identical pejoratives to describe what took place demonstrates the coordination behind Republican Party messaging.

Both men were also unmoved by the fact BP had agreed to the fund’s establishment. But having earned profits of $6 billion during the first quarter of 2010, BP had ample political and legal resources upon which to draw before making its decision. Its board of directors even convened a special meeting to weigh the company’s options before proceeding to meet with President Obama.

As for Price’s assertion that legal authority cannot be found for the creation of such a fund, the Congressman is simply wrong.

He is wrong, first, about BP being a private company; its shares are traded publicly around the world.

Second, where nonresident corporations are shown to have committed serious acts of fraud, as did BP when it lied to governmental officials about its capacity to combat spills like the one now trashing the Gulf, or are guilty of related acts, state law remedies can be marshaled.

In extraordinary cases, assets can be seized and third-party receivers appointed to take control of a wrongdoer’s business. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which BP has claimed applies, specifically upholds the authority of individual states to impose additional liabilities respecting pollution by oil.

Thus, Price’s objection to the President having assisted the states of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana in redressing the extraordinary damages they now confront is scarcely more than petty petulance.

For Price, the greater goal lies in scoring political points. Or making the attempt. To him, efforts exerted by President Obama on behalf of Gulf area constituencies had nothing to do with facilitating prompt and fair compensation and were instead reflective of “this Administration’s drive for greater power and control.”

For one who speaks often about personal responsibility, it is curious why Price would condemn the creation of an escrow fund to redress these unprecedented national damages. To many Americans, establishment of the fund recalls a tradition seemingly lost on many multi-national companies today – taking responsibility for wrongful acts and initiating immediate and tangible steps to set them right.

While Price did call for “legal recourses” should BP sidestep its responsibilities, his stated preference for lawsuits would only delay their satisfaction. In the litigation-driven system that Price professes to prefer, BP would be able to stave off the inevitable day of reckoning with every delaying tactic the law allows, wearing down the patience and resolve of smaller claimants, even reserving to itself the right to declare bankruptcy when and if the expected claims proved too costly or compelling.

For those who pay close attention to today’s Republican Party, Price’s posture is in no way surprising. Increasingly, GOP “movement conservatives” – and Price is clearly one – can be found standing in the corner of America’s most monied interests, no matter how egregious their prior bad acts.

In addition to oil polluters, Price is a friend of banking interests, the same ones working feverishly to derail financial reform legislation. Price’s support for the banks is demonstrated by his having hosted a fundraiser for financial industry donors just one day before voting against financial reform legislation.

That event, which the AJC has reported took place in December 2009 at Washington’s Capitol Hill Club restaurant, brought the Congressman support from banking and financial PAC’s and lobbyists. Price raised nearly $29,000 from these industry groups in that same month, according to the nonpartisan Public Campaign Action Fund. PAC’s affiliated with Bank of America, Credit Suisse, and First Boston, among others, all donated to Price. The fact that these donations coincided in time with the House vote on financial reform legislation has prompted an investigation into the conduct of Price and other House members by the House Office of Congressional Ethics.

Meantime, the sorriest Republican of them all, Joe Barton, was forced to walk back his apology to BP.

Apparently, Barton’s use of the term “shakedown” was okay, as it was part of the originally scripted Republican message. But his unexpected and additional apology to BP was more than Republican leaders could bear, what with public outrage at BP running at fever pitch. Barton was threatened with the loss of his seniority on a key energy committee unless he immediately and forcefully took back his words. Grim-faced, Barton apologized that same day to everyone who had “misconstrued” his earlier remarks.

The one Republican who surely did not misconstrue Barton’s remarks was the one responsible for his most inflammatory language – Tom Price. Last time I checked, Price has offered no apology for his charge of White House “shakedown politics.”

Maybe the good Doctor has calculated that drawing further attention to such words is unwise, what with his own recent experience in hosting a “day-before-the-vote” fundraiser for interest groups desperately eager to win his support against major financial reform. Better not go there, he may have figured, lest someone make the charge that it was he, and not the President, who was engaged in genuine “shakedown politics.”

By Guest Columnist JACKIE ECHOLS, an environmentalist and citizen acitivist.

Second a two-part series on the state of the City of Atlanta’s water and sewer plans.

The Atlanta Department of Watershed Management (DWM) needs to give top priority to demonstrating that the combined sewer overflow (CSO) tunnels and treatment investments already in place will bring Atlanta into compliance by the current 2014 deadline. No time extension should be granted.

However, a time extension to rebuild sewer infrastructure in the combined sewer areas is appropriate. These areas are served by the CSO tunnel and treatment systems. Because water quality improvements occur at the combined sewer treatment facilities, rebuilding sewers in combined sewer areas will have no measurable effect on downstream water quality.

What will measurably impact downstream water quality are projects that reduce overflows by keeping rainfall out of the combined sewer pipes.

The DWM needs additional time to redesign the stormwater infrastructure in these areas to accommodate existing community driven plans that incorporate the capture of rain water in cisterns, ponds, green spaces and parks.

These environmentally sustainable stormwater features will not only improve downstream water quality but will also reduce flooding and sewage backups in homes, businesses, parks, and neighborhoods in the combined sewer area itself.

Capturing rain water runoff in greenways significantly reduces the amount of sediment, nutrients, metals and other pollutants and could virtually eliminate combined sewer overflows.

Greenways could outperform existing CSO treatment facilities, which are plagued with operational challenges. For example, the existing facilities are having difficulty removing the required 60 percent of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), the tiny particles that make water cloudy.

In contrast, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency documented TSS removal rate for stormwater greenways in Austin, Texas is 85 percent. And removal rates for zinc and copper, the two metals which led to Atlanta’s consent decrees, were 76 and 66 percent, respectively. Atlanta’s existing facilities do not have engineered units for removing dissolved metals.

Community efforts throughout the combined sewer area reflect an awareness of and appreciation for the value of natural processes and spaces by working with nature to manage rainwater. Georgia Tech is building cisterns and retention ponds to reduce its stormwater runoff to 1950s levels. And the stormwater pond under construction in the Historic Old Fourth Ward Park will reduce flooding and hold back stormwater before it gets into the combined sewer trunk line.

Residents in Vine City, English Avenue and nearby communities are visioning a network of parks and green spaces, cisterns, streetscapes, and rainwater features to manage stormwater. This would not only add attractive features that contribute to revitalizing these communities, but would also improve water quality and save the $50 million necessary to extend the combined sewer tunnel up to the Georgia World Congress Center.

Improved water quality, reduced flooding, improved quality of life and water conservation would all be enhanced by a time extension to rethink and redesign stormwater infrastructure in the combined sewer areas.

Stormwater management that incorporates greenways will also enable Atlanta to add much needed parks and green spaces in some of the city’s most ‘under-parked’ areas.

Community green spaces are multi-functional which increase their value to inner-city CSO neighborhoods. Benefits include providing water quality protection, economic growth, wildlife habitat, recreation and protection of cultural and visual amenities making green space one investment that pays enduring dividends. Green spaces provide citizens with the biggest bang for their bucks.

Ten years ago the city was adamant in its position that water sewer enterprise funds could not be used to pay for stormwater projects. But there are reasons for guarded optimism that the city may be warming to the benefits of above ground stormwater management.
Since 2007, the city has spent in excess of $40 million of water sewer enterprise funds to acquire property for stormwater relief. A little more than $10 million was used to buy land in Vine City. Another $30 million paid for the stormwater pond in the Historic Old Fourth Ward Park — a $10 million savings when compared to the $40 million deep rock tunnel that was originally proposed.
This progress could be impeded if a request embedded in the city’s request for a 15-year time extension is approved.

The city is asking that the First Amended Consent Decree (FACD) be amended to allow the shallow sewage collection pipe networks to be used for storage. This change could become the source of additional sewer overflows and ‘fecal fountains’ which occur when pipes over-fill and erupt.

This places the city at risk for additional fines and further jeopardizes public health and safety by increasing the risk of soil and groundwater contamination from undetected leaks. Rather than spending more money to increase pipe sizes in the combined sewer areas, the city and ratepayers would be better served by evaluating the cost of further development of natural ‘soft engineering’ methods for dealing with stormwater.

The DWM needs to demonstrate that CSO investments will bring Atlanta into compliance with water quality standards by the current 2014 deadline.

Equally important, the city can and should seize every opportunity to improve downstream water quality by increasing the use of stormwater management with greenways, parks, and cisterns.

Reconfiguring sewer lines in combined sewer areas should take place as part of a broader perspective that looks at greenways storm water management – before combined sewers are rebuilt. A time extension to achieve this goal is justified.

By Guest Columnist JACKIE ECHOLS, an environmentalist and citizen acitivist.

First in a two-part series on the state of the City of Atlanta’s water and sewer plans.

With another 12.5 percent water and sewer rate increase due in July 2010, the question that should be at the forefront of the minds of City of Atlanta residents is: Are we getting what we’re paying for?

Almost 13 years into two federal consent decrees, the City of Atlanta has asked the court for an additional 15 years, until 2029, to complete wastewater fixes that are supposed to finally bring it into compliance with the 1972 Clean Water Act.

By 2029, compliance with water quality standards mandated in the Act will have been delayed 58 years. Regardless of whether more time is given, the court should require that the city meet any and all water quality milestones including state water quality standards by the current 2014 deadline.

Judge Thomas Thrash has been overseeing the city’s compliance with the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) consent decree and First Amended Consent Decree (FACD) since they were signed in 1998 and 1999, respectively.

The CSO consent decree requires the city to reduce the amount of combined sewage, a mixture of sewage and stormwater, being dumped into Atlanta’s creeks and rivers. As an additional safeguard against water pollution the FACD requires the city to assess and replace, as needed, old and decaying sewer pipes in both separated and combined sewer areas of the city.

Citing the high financial burden incurred as a result of full completion of CSO and partial completion of FACD projects, the city is seeking to delay compliance another decade and a half. This is simply too long.

It is telling that the city’s request to the court makes no mention of water quality. After all, it was water quality violations which gave rise to the two consent decrees in the first place.

As the court mulls the city’s extension request a major point of clarification should be whether implicit in the request is also a 15-year delay in meeting water quality standards. Any such implied language should be summarily removed from consideration.

The city made a conscious decision more than a decade ago to forego the opportunity to solve its CSO problems when it selected tunnels over complete sewer separation.

Choosing to continue a legacy of selecting costly wastewater fixes over cost-effective solutions has greatly contributed to the city’s financial, public health, and environmental woes.

The CSO wastewater treatment system was untested, unproven and not guaranteed to work. The system has been beset with operational challenges. It has even had adverse effects on the adjacent R.M. Clayton Water Reclamation Center, which according to the city’s request “rides on the border of violation and is extremely difficult to control.”

From the outset, $3.4 billion was way beyond the financial capacity of ratepayers.

Now after spending $759 million for CSO consent decree projects, looming questions persist about the effectiveness of the tunnels and treatment system. CSO treatment plants will need to be upgraded, at additional cost, as federal and state water quality requirements increase, and water quality compliance is still a crapshoot.

From a public health and environmental standpoint, Peachtree Creek, one of a number of Atlanta’s creeks impacted by CSOs, is a disgrace.

During heavy rain events the creek it is subjected to intense scouring from millions of gallons of polluted stormwater from DeKalb County mixed with combined sewage discharged from the Clear Creek CSO outfall in Piedmont Park and the Tanyard Creek CSO outfall in Collier Heights.

Left behind is devastating residential flooding, a severely compromised creek habitat and water quality, feces contaminated mud and vegetation, tattered plastic bags and other litter dangling from tree branches, unearthed tree roots laid bare by relentless currents, and of course the unmistakable stench of human waste.

Not very long ago the Department of Watershed Management (DWM) was ‘flush’ with money. The DWM blames its financial difficulties on fallout resulting from the troubled U.S. economy and reductions in water usage.

But it fails to mention the impact of questionable activities that have drained money from the city’s Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund, such as the $116 million loan made to the city’s general fund. There are also long standing questions concerning the bloated number of DWM employees and the huge losses recently incurred from bad investments in failed financial derivatives.

When money is being consumed faster than can be generated from taxes, payments and fees — choices have to be made. Some of the projects described in the 125-page document submitted to the court are not related to the consent decree and have not been through the vetting process.

For example, one proposal calls for transporting raw sewage via the existing Three Rivers tunnel to the Utoy Creek wastewater facility for treatment. The Three Rivers tunnel was built in the mid-1980s to transport treated wastewater, and it may not have adequate safeguards for moving raw sewage.

Additionally, care should be taken by the court to differentiate between consent decree and non-consent decree projects to remove the possibility of the city claiming “the court has mandated” or even that “the court has approved” unreviewed capital expenditures.

Though all of the projects may be needed, remaining consent decree projects should receive priority. The DWM needs to give top priority to demonstrating whether the CSO tunnels and treatment investments already in place will bring Atlanta into compliance by the current 2014 deadline.

Next week’s column will make the case for granting a time extension to reconfigure the stormwater infrastructure in the combined sewer area to include above ground and near ground-level stormwater improvements that have been proven to improve water quality.

By Guest Columnist CHARISSE M. WILLIAMS, director of Posse Atlanta — the local arm of the Posse Foundation, a national non-profit that recruits young leaders in urban public high schools and helps them enroll and excel in college.

As we look ahead to the upcoming college season, there are many high school students in metro Atlanta and throughout the country without any post-secondary education plans.

The earning potential of these young people is bleak. A person without a college degree is more than twice as likely to be unemployed as someone with a college degree.

For minorities, the outlook is even more dramatic. At a time when national unemployment is close to 10 percent, the rate is a staggering 16.5 percent for Blacks and 12.5 percent for Latinos.

However, a college education remains elusive to many urban high school students. Among the many barriers to attaining a college education, three major hurdles are access, preparation and affordability.

The non-profit Posse Foundation was founded in 1989 to help students overcome these challenges. Posse’s Atlanta office was launched in 2007 and is addressing a crucial need in the community.

To date, Posse Atlanta has awarded 87 students from across the Atlanta region full-tuition scholarships worth over $10 million. These scholars are rising freshmen, sophomores and juniors at Bard College, Boston University and The College of Wooster.

Posse identifies public high school seniors with extraordinary academic and leadership potential who may be overlooked by traditional college selection processes.

Posse extends to these students the opportunity to pursue personal and academic excellence by placing them in supportive, multicultural teams—Posses—of 10 students.

The Posse Foundation’s partner colleges and universities award Posse Scholars four-year, full-tuition leadership scholarships.

Posse’s unique, three-part selection process helps remove the access barrier.

Posse helps colleges identify student leaders who fly below the radar of standardized tests. There are many high school students with the potential to succeed at a top college or university who do not score high enough on the SAT to even be considered.

Not surprisingly, there is a strong correlation between SAT scores, race and family income, with lower-income and Black and Latino students scoring lower than their higher-income or white counterparts.

In addition to assessing academic potential, Posse’s unique interviews allow us to assess the complete student, including his or her leadership, drive and team-building skills. The results enable Posse to successfully predict which ones will do well and graduate from college.

Secondly, Posse helps address the issue of affordability.

For the 2009-2010 school year, the cost of a college education averaged around $39,000. With tuition costs rising much faster than the median family income, for many students the cost of college has become prohibitive.

Enter the Posse Scholarship—a four-year, full-tuition scholarship based on leadership and merit from our partner colleges and universities. In addition, Scholars also qualify for need-based financial aid.

Colleges and universities that are truly committed to attracting students from diverse backgrounds recognize the importance of scholarships and comprehensive financial aid packages.

Finally, for all students, regardless of background, adapting to college life can be challenging.

The newfound freedoms, increased academic rigor, and social and cultural adjustments entail a lot of change.

Posse provides an 8-month Pre-Collegiate Training Program that prepares Scholars to face these challenges, while building the bonds of the members of the group. The Posse serves as a traveling support system, which helps Scholars navigate the challenges of college once they leave home together.

Posse works.

Posse Scholars are graduating at a rate of 90 percent and entering the workforce ready to take on leadership roles.

The Posse Foundation started in 1989 because of one young man who said: “I never would have dropped out of college if I had my Posse with me.”

Since then, Posse has expanded from New York City to six other cities including Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, D.C., Los Angeles and Miami. Posse has awarded 3,148 students full-tuition scholarships worth over $330 million.

In March 2010, Posse was recognized by President Obama when he chose it as one of 10 organizations in the United States to receive a portion of his Nobel Prize money.

The Posse concept is rooted in the belief that small, diverse groups of talented students, carefully selected and trained, can be powerful change agents.

As the United States becomes an increasingly multicultural society, Posse believes that the leaders of this new century should reflect the country’s rich demographic mix. The key to a promising future for our nation rests on the ability of strong leaders from diverse backgrounds to develop consensus solutions to complex social problems.

Posse Scholars are these leaders.

On behalf of Posse Atlanta, I would like to congratulate the high school class of 2010 and wish each of them the best of luck in their future endeavors.

We eagerly await 2012 when Posse Atlanta’s first two Posses will graduate from Boston University and The College of Wooster ready to take on the world!

To learn more about the Posse Foundation, go to www.possefoundation.org.

By Guest Columnist MIKE DOBBINS: a Georgia Tech professor of architecture and planning who also served as the city of Atlanta’s commissioner of planning, development and neighborhood conservation from 1996 to 2002. Dobbins also is author of a new book: ‘Urban Design and People.

Parking is about a lot more than storing cars and generating revenue.

Parking, and in the current situation on-street parking, is about access and walkability, retail, restaurant and residential viability, and altogether the character – the attractiveness and functionality – of the more intense parts of town.

Various studies have confirmed the common sense that cars parked at on-street parking spaces provide a positive frame for a good quality pedestrian environment. They enable not just real and perceived access for car passengers but they also protect pedestrians, streetlights, trees, and sitting places from the rush of curbside traffic.

For retailers, restaurateurs, and other businesses, they provide the promise and often the reality of more convenient access from which their businesses benefit. For urban dwellers, they provide parking for residents and their visitors, conveniences that complement other amenities for those choosing to live in urban scale communities.

For those businesses, residents, and visitors who choose to imbibe in urban life, then, supporting that choice becomes an important policy matter for local government. Leading up to the Olympics and for the most part ever since Atlanta has retooled its policy mix to support and encourage those who want to make the urban choice, whether for locating the workplace or the home or for shopping, entertainment, or cultural and sporting events.

Zoning overhauls, development incentives, streetscape and wayfinding improvements, locating venues for broad audiences, and other initiatives have provided the base from which the city has stimulated its ongoing turnaround. It has attracted to its diversity of places the people, employers, and attractions that have lifted it out of its suburban-driven, white flight decades of decline.

To now make parking policy choices that reverse this progress, very likely for lack of understanding the larger implications, would be a significant setback. It would fly in the face of the policies that have made the city an ever-improving environment to attract the growing markets of seniors, empty-nesters, jaded suburbanites, and people moving from other places who are finding positive choices in the city.

Even so, the government — our representatives in our collective ownership of the city’s streets — is responsible for their management and collecting the revenue generated by the use of the streets for parking.
As many businesses have correctly pointed out, however, the current parking arrangement directly threatens their prospect for generating revenue, much of it taxable at one level or another.

The city has responded, wisely, by declaring a moratorium on the privatization agreement that they entered into last year, with a view toward reviewing and hopefully reworking that agreement.

At least two tracks should be taken in this review: 1) how to establish a parking policy that will reinforce, instead of threaten, its urban-friendly policies that have been successful from the mid-nineties; 2) generate a cost-benefit analysis of the current parking contract that takes into account not just the narrowly conceived parking revenue/enforcement arrangement but also estimates the certain declines in overall revenues that maintaining the current contract would cause.

It would appear that what happened is that the deal struck took into account neither of these lines of analysis. Instead, the machines and their two hour limit and 24/7 enforcement seem the simplest and most remunerative for the private partner. One size fits all, even though the streets and their use for parking are widely variable.

The city must see the people, the owners of its streets, as customers with varying needs and in the context of attracting ever more customers instead of closing the gate to them. Such a comprehensive analysis might lead to a whole different approach to the more complex problem.

For example, areas with substantial retail, restaurants, in-and-out businesses, and residential densities could use more on-street parking not less. This could be accomplished by opening up and metering “no parking” streets for parking during the off-peak hours that presently bar parking – even Peachtree Street.

Except during the peaks, there are few if any streets in the higher intensity parts of the city that have traffic congestion problems. Yet because of their very densities and diversity of activities, such streets could generate considerable parking revenue. To compensate for the heightened enforcement required during the peaks, the penalties could be more severe, using high fines and towing to cover the costs.

Regardless of the outcome of that idea, the 24/7 enforcement is a killer — the City should get rid of it, unequivocally. No one will come to eat, entertain, take in events, or even choose to live in an environment so draconian. It is killing the very street life that makes a city a city.

Surely the fancy new toll machines are sophisticated enough to program much more time-sensitive collection and recording apparatus to turn the whole of the parking enterprise into one that is sensible and welcoming, while still generating greater parking revenues than in the past.

The enforcement period should vary, like for peak hours, and its baseline should allow parking without fees from something like between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. For a city that wants to attract people, the goal should be to balance people’s access needs with legitimate and appropriate penalties for abuse of the access system.

Parking policy is vital to Atlanta’s future as a place of urban excellence.

By Guest Columnist JOHN MATTHEWS, a commercial real estate investor and an MBA graduate of Goizueta Business School

Atlanta’s public employee pension system is a structurally flawed retirement program that does not serve taxpayers, does not serve city workers and puts our city at risk of financial insolvency.

Significant changes will have to be made to the pension plan in order to prevent the city from entering either permanent economic decline or outright failure. If the city wants to put itself and its employees on a permanent path to long-term fiscal security, our city employees need a “defined contribution” retirement plan.

How did Atlanta get into this perilous condition?

First, our mayors and City Council in general unanimity passed large benefit increases for city, police, and fire workers in 2001 and 2005. The stated premise was that the benefit increases would facilitate the retention and hiring of quality employees.

Second, lax government accounting rules (that Atlanta followed) permitted pensions to be significantly underfunded, but have since been made more restrictive.

Third and finally, the financial markets severely declined.

Combined with other minor factors, the city itself now estimates the unfunded liability at $1.5 Billion. By way of comparison, this is four times the annual general fund budget (excluding current pension costs). Indeed, the deficit could be as much as 50 percent larger depending on a variety of assumptions.

The most pressing fact is that the pension is already 20% of the city budget, and growing at 21 percent annually. If this continues without large tax increases, the city will not be able to pay for any general fund items in nine years time.

Among the few important things we could no longer afford: interest expense, parks, a planning department, an accounting department, a city council, or the actual police, fire, and municipal employees themselves.

Why and how does this happen?

Across the country, city and state governments are increasingly run for the financial benefit of the city workers, not the taxpayers. With low voter turnout, government employee unions – who do vote and donate to politicians in a unified manner – wield immense clout with elected officials, including city councils.

In addition, politicians generally like to be re-elected and advance their careers. With little incentive to deal with difficult or unpopular problems, kicking the can down the road is far more expedient.

Most importantly, pension funds are prone to a problem called “asset-liability mismatch” (or perhaps more accurately, an uncertainty mismatch). The assets (investments) may or may not be available in sufficient quantity at the time the future liability occurs (payment of the promised retirement benefits).

In between the time a portion of the required money is set aside and the liability occurrence, events can and will happen. Financial markets can decline, life expectancy increases, people could move out of the city — reducing fee revenues, property values and property tax revenues.

To compensate, a city might increase the tax rate, but there is a limit to such increases. Eventually, people would move somewhere else and the city falls apart (like Detroit).

If you prefer an analogy, this is like running up your credit card to $500,000 when you have $100,000 in the bank, but you don’t know for sure what your future job prospects. Our city’s metaphorical credit card has been run up too much, so one of two things must happen: the city financially fails or benefits are changed.

Taxpayers are right to be outraged; and pensioners are right to be confused and upset. However, hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately retirement programs (like Social Security) have been run in this fashion for the last 60 years.

Taxpayers presumably want a plan ensuring we have a prosperous and low-tax future. One hopes our city employees want a plan which isn’t constantly renegotiated and from which they will actually get paid, in comparison to the “pretend pension” they have now.

Both the employees and taxpayers presumably have some of the same objectives: for the city to hire and reasonably compensate good workers who can protect and efficiently run our city, save for retirement and ensure that Atlanta is a financially viable city where businesses can grow. A defined contribution plan can serve all these needs.

What are the other possible alternatives?

Most solutions, including implementing a defined contribution plan, will likely require the cooperation of not just city council, but also the state legislature and the employee unions.

Small changes to the current plan (a “defined benefit” plan) can only have limited impacts at solving the problem, have unintended consequences and do not solve the “asset-liability matching” problem. A possible solution is to enroll retirees in Social Security. But switching one insolvent retirement plan for another insolvent retirement plan doesn’t seem to be the best approach.

A defined contribution plan (plus Social Security) is what employees in Fulton and Gwinnett counties receive, which is what most non-profit employees receive, and what 85 percent of for-profit workers receive.

In contrast to a “defined benefit” plan, in a “defined contribution” plan you don’t receive promises, but you do receive cash: retirement funds are set aside every month you work in an account you own and largely control.

The benefit of this for the city is there is no asset-liability mismatch problem. No one, including the city employees, need to worry the city is going to go bankrupt (at least because of pensions) or that they’ll lose all or part of their retirement funds.

What are the advantages and disadvantages for a defined contribution plan?

Firemen and police officers would likely need to work some beyond the current retirement age of 55. A job training or education fund for employees in the high-risk business of public safety and fire protection would be an intelligent investment.

Employees should be automatically enrolled to ensure they are saving the necessary amount with annual consultations to review their retirement plans. Finally, to mitigate the potential risk associated with managing one’s own funds, guidelines should be designed such that as city employees approach retirement, they are more heavily invested in fixed income assets.

City workers should take note that a pension fund guaranteed by an insolvent city would likely be worth significantly less than what they would receive from a defined contribution plan.

The advantages for employees are many. They would own their retirement funds — meaning they can pass them on to their children or grandchildren, who can start a business or go to college. How much you receive has more to do with how long you work rather than just how long you live.

The vesting period is significantly shorter, often less than a year. City employees can take their hard earned savings with them rather than losing them if they decide to change jobs or move, thus enabling them to further their career interests.

Employees and taxpayers both would no longer be depending on the quality of the city government’s crystal ball that indicates they can make an 8 percent return annually every year.

For the city, the most important advantage is the elimination of the aforementioned asset-liability mismatching. But there are additional benefits.

Managers would be able to make more rational hiring and firing decisions. And employees themselves could make more rational career decisions. The city would also be placed in the positive situation of improving employee quality, but not with out-sized compensation promises.

Instead, city management would need to give employees fair compensation, but also what surveys show most motivates employees: the opportunity to make a difference, positive recognition for their achievements, and a high-quality work environment with good leadership.

Our city can and will fail, at some point, if pensions are not reformed. If you don’t believe it’s possible, please don’t take my word for it. Google “Vallejo California Bankruptcy”, “Los Angeles Pension”, “Pittsburgh Pension”, “California Pension”, or “New York State Pension” and examine their coming financial challenges from their under-funded pensions.

Our city can put itself on a sound fiscal footing with the due attention this issue is already receiving from Mayor Kasim Reed and from the involved parties. However, while the city employee unions already have the ear of City Hall on this issue, voters and taxpayers must also make their voices heard with their city council members and the mayor.

Our city government must be reminded that the voters and taxpayers are their ultimate customers.

For more information, please click on these links to read the City of Atlanta’s reports on Pension Assessment – Final Report & Recommendations and the city’s Retirement Review — Phase II and III, Plan Design and Financial Impact.

By Guest Columnist RAY CHRISTMAN, executive director of the Livable Communities Coalition

After a three year debate, the Georgia General Assembly passed last month HB 277, The Transportation Investment Act of 2010, which provides the opportunity for the Atlanta region (and other regions of the state) to pass a one percent sales tax dedicated to transportation improvements.

The bill’s passage generated much celebration among transportation advocates of all stripes who had worked for years on this goal. And it induced a good bit of teeth gnashing as well, particularly by those who felt the legislation unnecessarily penalized MARTA.

But with the bill passed and the rules and processes in place for moving forward, it is now time to turn attention to how to successfully implement the legislation, particularly in a way that allows transit and related “complete street” projects (streetscape improvements, pedestrian intersection enhancements, bicycle paths, etc) to gain their fair share of funding to be generated by the tax.

In this regard, I would suggest that there are four key questions to be addressed by community leaders over the next two years to ensure that this program is developed and approved in a way that advances the region’s overall best interests.

1. How do we shape the criteria to support a balanced selection of projects?

Road and transit projects will inevitably compete for a finite amount of money generated by the new tax. And the transportation needs and priorities will vary from county to county within the region.

The first important step to producing a balanced outcome will be to make sure that the criteria on which project selection will be based are the right ones.

This process, which will be led by the GDOT Planning Director and a regional roundtable of local elected officials (essentially the board of the Atlanta Regional Commission) will need to develop criteria that include traditional concerns like safety improvements and mitigation of congestion, but also incorporate newer ideas like connecting new transportation investments to existing development and job centers.

The criteria should allow road and transit projects to compete evenly.

2. What share of new funding should be provided for transit and for what specific projects?

coalition, has suggested that at least 40 percent of overall project funding across the 10-county region should go to transit, recognizing that this number may be higher in the core urban counties than in the outlying, more exurban counties.

But beyond the overall contribution of dollars to transit, there is also the challenging question of which projects. New rail transit projects are expensive and when one looks at the Concept 3 plan, developed several years ago by Transit Planning Board, there are some $54 billion of rail and bus projects that the region needs.

The Regional Roundtable will face the task of not only creating the right roads-transit balance, but choosing specific projects that can gain the broad support of voters

3. How do we build support throughout the 10 counties for a good project list?

Under the bill, voters will be required in July 2012 to approve a one percent sales tax, based on a specific project list, in order to fund the program. Supporters of this measure should not feel that this will be an effortless process.

Raising taxes, even for dedicated and popular purposes, is never easy. There clearly will be organized opposition. And the fact that two major counties – Fulton and DeKalb – already impose a one percent sales tax to support MARTA complicates the ability to fashion a “fair and balanced” project list.

All of this suggests that a major, well funded campaign will need to be waged to help persuade voters of the benefits of this plan.

4. Can we create a truly regional transit system for metro Atlanta?

One of HB 277’s lesser noted features is the creation of a legislative study commission to look at new regional transit governance structures.

Quietly, the ARC has been examining the same topic through a Transit Planning Committee (TPC). One can hope that these efforts will come together over the next two years and result in plan that could evolve the existing two-county MARTA system into a broader system that is supported fairly by regional residents and permits development of a seamless rail and bus system for all regional residents.

Such progressive action on governance could greatly assist the selling of the new tax measure, as it would give voters more confidence in the ability of the region to manage effectively the transit portion of its transportation system.

One final thought to add to the above.

This funding measure, which is envisioned to raise some $7.8 billion over 10 years, is not a silver bullet. It should be viewed only as a start, not the full solution, to the region’s and state’s transportation challenges.

Georgia ranks 49th in per capita spending for transportation and is the only state among the ten largest (and one of only six overall) that provides no state funding for transit.

According to the new State Strategic Transportation Plan, funding through HB 277 will only address about a third of the region’s transportation needs. ARC estimates even a lower percentage.

A good question, therefore, for all candidates running for governor this year is to gage their commitment to expanded state funding for roads and transit beyond that provided through HB 277.