Bear Creek Reservoir: To Be or Not To Be
It was standing room only Monday evening prior to a 4-1 decision of the Jasper County Commission to postpone a vote on the Bear Creek Reservoir cooperative agreement between Newton County and Jasper County.
More than 100 concerned residents were present to prove the power in numbers for the meeting which turned out to be more of a public hearing—almost five hours worth.
It’s not unprecedented that a commission meeting would draw such a crowd. However the recent hype of Jasper County’s proposed involvement in the Bear Creek reservoir and how it could affect future taxation increased interest in the mid-month meeting.
{{more}}
The item was listed on the December 1 agenda but was postponed because of the death of a Newton County commissioner. The proposed agreement includes the construction of a reservoir and water treatment plant to be located at Bear Creek in Newton County while forming a partnership with Jasper County and the Jasper County Water & Sewer Authority.
THE PRESENTATION
Tommy Craig, attorney for the Newton County Commission, and Frank Sherrill of Hightower Consulting Engineers, representing the Jasper County Water & Sewer Authority, made slide show presentations on the proposed agreement.
Mr. Craig explained the formation of the Bear Creek project and the history of the application process. He went on record early on trying to deter any ideas of personal gain on his part.
“It makes no difference to me economically whether Jasper County participates or not. My fees are the same regardless,” said Mr. Craig.
Five criteria of public projects were listed as engineering, political, economics, environmental, and legal. He said that studies of Newton and Jasper counties show shortages of water in both counties within the next 50 years. Demographic projections for Newton forecast a population of 361,000 by 2050 and 61,000 for Jasper which will significantly increase the need for viable water resources.
“The preferred alternative to meet water demands is Bear Creek,” said the attorney.
The agreement calls for Newton to sell Jasper a 25 percent interest in all land acquired for the project excluding Gaither Plantation for the next 50 years. Jasper County, not the JCWSA authority, would be required to make payments for one-fourth of the estimated total of $23 million. The first payment date listed in the contract is Jan. 1, 2004.
Mr. Craig said that JCWSA currently pays $1.53 per thousand gallons for water purchased from Newton. The current wholesale price is $1.38 and that price would kick in with the county’s first payment on the project, he continued.
“Newton County is in the position to build this reservoir without help from anyone else. We can do it on our own,” said the attorney.
Mr. Craig also made reference to the same type agreement extended to Walton County in 1988 on the Varner Reservoir. Initially it was met with huge opposition by Walton County constituents and denied. After implementing the agreement sometime later, he said the Walton commissioners could now see the fruits of that decision.
Mr. Sherill’s presentation focused on the feasibility of Jasper’s participation in the reservoir project. The engineer recalled a water resource study authorized in 2000 and completed in 2001 that detailed the best long term water supply alternatives for Jasper County.
The study revealed options that included reserves from the Jackson Lake/Ocmulgee River tributaries, Murder Creek and Shoal Creek, all located within the county. The study revealed that Shoal Creek was the best location for a reservoir and would cost $11.4 million.
Mr. Sherill compared the Shoal Creek alternative to the Bear Creek partnership, financially. Whereas the independent project with water treatment plant could cost the county $13.65 million, a 25 percent share of the Bear Creek project would cost $8 million.
Choosing the partnership instead of the independent project would save $5.6 million in addition to acquiring a million more gallons of water per day, the engineer said.
THE CONCERNS
Some 29 residents, many of them from Turtle Cove, tried to convey their concerns within the designated three minute allotment of time.
A Turtle Cove “Political Action Committee” was represented by Jack Bernard who presented the commissioners and invited guests with three pages of questions regarding the reservoir partnership. He asked that a vote on the issue be tabled for further review—a sentiment requested by many in attendance.
“We just want facts discussed before a vote is taken,” said Mr. Bernard.
It was suggested that the commission and authority were trying to “rush the project” without notifying the general public first. References were made to a “secret” meeting of the JCWSA, Jasper County and Newton County commissions on Nov. 24 in Covington.
When asked by Jane McGinnis who was at that meeting, Mr. Craig said he didn’t know who, in particular, was there from Jasper.
Bernie Fontaine, a retired military engineer, who had read the contract agreement said the contract could be “tightened up to protect Jasper County.” Mr. Fontaine said that he was surprised that an environmental impact study had not already been performed.
Financial concerns for the taxpayers were echoed by many who questioned where the funding for the payments would come from in the budget already approved for 2004.
“If it’s not a line item in the budget and payments start January, where is the money coming from?” questioned James Harrell.
“We’ll have to find it,” replied chairman Russell Bennett.
Concerns surfaced as to why the water authority couldn’t obtain financing independent of the county government.
“Why can’t the water authority issue a bond revenue,” John Hussendine asked.
Lou DuFresne, president of the Jackson Lake Homeowners Association, questioned Mr. Craig as to the status of the application and how Newton County would be funding the project.
Conflict of interest issues were raised with members of the Jasper County commission and water authority while others questioned the distribution of power in the agreement.
“Why are we paying 25 percent when the population projections show we’ll only be at 15 percent of the project?” asked Mary Patrick.
A fraction of the meeting’s attendees wanted to know how the agreement would affect the other independent entities providing water in the county particularly the Alcovy Shores Water & Sewer Authority, Shady Dale and Turtle Cove.
There were suggestions that Mr. Craig was using this project as a means of lining his own pocket by producing numerous questions about similar projects with which he was previously involved.
Although the proposed agreement appeared to have detractors, optimists had their say, too.
“I’m a cheerleader for this project. We need water,” Bob Harden said.
“I help pay for a lot of things I don’t use—I pay school tax with no kids in school; I contribute to a volunteer fire department that thank God I haven’t had use,” said JCWSA president Roger Bell.
Economic Development Authority board member Steve Jordan addressed the need for economic growth in the county.
“We need to attract industry to assist our tax base and in order to do that we have to have something to offer,” he said. “Right now we don’t have anything to offer but dirt.”
Pro, con or neutral the overwhelming majority of residents wanted more information about the agreement before a vote of the commission was made.
“Most of us just want the facts, not that we’re against it,” Bob Haug said.
THE RESOLUTION
When all was said and done by the public Monday evening a majority vote postponed action on the agreement until the February 2 meeting of the commission.
“I want to table the vote until a clear source is determined,” said commissioner Jerry Crow. He said he had heard over the weekend that water could be drawn from the lake and that he would like to find out more.
Furthermore, Mr. Crow called for the formation of a citizens’ council to explore the options.
Commissioner Carl Pennamon requested that a specific time frame be imposed on the postponed vote so that the public knew before the meeting adjourned.
“I want the best source for all of Jasper County—whatever that is,” Mr. Bennett said.
Commissioner Greg Wyatt cast the dissenting vote to postpone action Monday. He said that taxation was the biggest issue facing the county but that he supported the Bear Creek agreement.
The commission also voted to solicit volunteers to serve on the citizens’ council in order to resolve Bear Creek concerns by advertising in The Monticello News. Interested persons are asked to submit letters or visit the county commission office prior to January 5.
* * *
Other action Monday included:
•Denny Dobbs of Dobbs Environmental Consulting Services received approval to proceed with plans to eradicate the cellulose/wood fiber waste located at the landfill. The plan is pending Environmental Protection Agency approval and is not to exceed a $22,000 budget.
•Christmas holidays in addition to December 25 that were approved as paid holidays include a half day on Christmas Eve and all day December 26.
•January 2, 2004 was designated a floating holiday with all other holidays that follow, up to 11, to be paid in accordance with the personnel policy.
Commissioners briefly discussed making changes to the county charter. Mr. Bennett suggested establishing staggered terms for commissioners in the future, perhaps allowing three to be elected one election year and two during the subsequent election year.
The matter would have to be discussed with Representative Curtis Jenkins before any decision amongst themselves could occur, he said.
“We don’t need to rush into this—the public will think we’re trying to push something through. I’m not against it.” said Mr. Pennamon.
