County To Others: Keep Hands Off Our Water
Jackson County has served notice on the other three owners of the Bear Creek Reservoir: Don’t touch Jackson County’s 25 percent of the water in the reservoir.
Former Georgia attorney general Michael Bowers sent a letter on the county’s behalf to Melvin Davis, chairman of the Upper Oconee Basin Water Authority, staking a claim on Jackson’s water rights.
Under the intergovernmental agreement with the Upper Oconee River Basin Authority, Jackson County paid 25 percent of the cost of building the Bear Creek Reservoir and is entitled to 25 percent of its water.
“Accordingly, Jackson County hereby demands that the authority comply with its obligation and at all times deliver or make available for delivery to Jackson County its entitlement share of the project’s outcome and services,” Bowers wrote.
The strategy is to treat the water in the reservoir as a property rights issue — that since the county is entitled to 25 percent of the water, none of that water may be used by other members of the basin authority without Jackson’s permission.
That argument has repercussions on daily management of the reservoir, but could be of particular importance if drought conditions result in the reservoir level falling.
Last fall, when the drought caused the reservoir level to drop rapidly, Jackson officials realized their worst fear. Because Jackson County used much less water daily than the other three members, it never came close to getting its 25 percent entitlement share. Officials worry that in a repeat of the drought, by the time Jackson County most needs its water, Athens-Clarke and the other two counties will have drained the reservoir.
Local officials have long argued to no avail that the authority’s system for allocating costs are skewed against Jackson County, that Oconee County has been using Jackson County’s water and/or water treatment capacity without paying for it and that in times of drought the county does not get the water to which it is entitled. Bowers’ letter is the fruit of months of discussion about how to protect Jackson’s investment in the reservoir and the water treatment plant.
Through Bowers, Jackson County argues that the cost methodology system that was updated last year is “in direct conflict” with the intergovernmental agreement if other member counties exceed their entitlement shares.
Under the current operating protocol, member counties are allowed to exceed their entitlement share as long as the water is available - which Bowers argues is not permissible.
“Without an amendment to the agreement, there is no other way to reallocate entitlement share resources without the agreement of the member county,” Bowers wrote. “As stated above, Jackson County has not and will not consent to such a sale.”
The letter concludes with a veiled threat to “consider taking (legal) action under Section 605 of the agreement” if the regional authority fails to “comply with its obligation to make Jackson County’s entitlement share available to Jackson County each month.”
