Jackson County’s lawsuit against the Upper Oconee Basin Group over the capacity of the Bear Creek Reservoir has yet to yield results, but it is proving to be a moneymaker for legal and engineering concerns. The suit has yet to get to trial, but the two parties have paid close to $400,000 to pursue the fight so far.
Jackson County argues that during a drought, the capacity of the Bear Creek Reservoir is less than half of the capacity previously stated.
Settlement best in reservoir suit
The Jackson County Water and Sewerage Authority has paid approximately $100,000 in engineering costs to support the county’s position that the capacity of the regional reservoir is vastly overstated. The Upper Oconee Basin Group, the four-county entity that owns the reservoir, has paid out $153,684 in legal fees and $17,348 in engineering-related fees to defend the suit.
The Jackson County government, meanwhile, has shelled out $101,519 in legal fees to promulgate the lawsuit. But since it owns 25 percent of the reservoir, Jackson County also pays 25 percent of the authority’s legal fees as it is both a plaintiff and a defendant in the suit.
Most of those costs are avoidable. The two parties could settle the lawsuit simply by agreeing upon a neutral engineering firm to conduct a study and analysis of the reservoir’s capacity under circumstances like the most recent drought and committing to acting in concert with its findings. In fact, the intergovernmental agreement signed by all parties governing the reservoir requires such an analysis following the drought.
But the refusal of Athens-Clarke, Oconee and Barrow counties to allow the yield recalculation is exactly why Jackson County filed suit and is the reason so much money is being spent on the legal and engineering consultants. Athens-Clarke in particular fears that Jackson County’s analysis of the reservoir is accurate and is unwilling to face the prospect that its share of water during the next drought would be more than halved. The financial ramifications of learning the truth — if Jackson County’s numbers are, in fact, accurate — are daunting for all four counties, and keeping the lawsuit alive only delays the day of reckoning.
Continuing the lawsuit promotes the risk that in a Jackson County victory, the EPD will reduce the amount of water available not just during droughts, but even when there is plenty of water. It makes far better sense for the counties to negotiate a solution in which there is a better accounting of the water in the reservoir and how it is used than to suddenly have to cope with a withdrawal permit slashed by more than half.
If Athens-Clarke, Barrow and Oconee were willing to abide by the intergovernmental agreement or to engage in a more accurate system of accounting for the water in the reservoir and its usage, this lawsuit could be settled immediately. But if the three remain married to the status quo, the flow of the public’s money to lawyers and engineers will continue until a court renders a verdict.
The recent Court of Appeals ruling allowing the case to proceed only strengthens Jackson County’s hand. The defendants should take a long hard look at the facts and consider whether the probable outcome of the suit warrants the continued cost of litigation. Jackson County has little to lose but a lot to gain. That can’t be said about Athens-Clarke, Barrow and Oconee counties, whatever their attorney may assert.
The Jackson County government, meanwhile, has shelled out $101,519 in legal fees to promulgate the lawsuit. But since it owns 25 percent of the reservoir, Jackson County also pays 25 percent of the authority’s legal fees as it is both a plaintiff and a defendant in the suit.
Most of those costs are avoidable. The two parties could settle the lawsuit simply by agreeing upon a neutral engineering firm to conduct a study and analysis of the reservoir’s capacity under circumstances like the most recent drought and committing to acting in concert with its findings. In fact, the intergovernmental agreement signed by all parties governing the reservoir requires such an analysis following the drought.
But the refusal of Athens-Clarke, Oconee and Barrow counties to allow the yield recalculation is exactly why Jackson County filed suit and is the reason so much money is being spent on the legal and engineering consultants. Athens-Clarke in particular fears that Jackson County’s analysis of the reservoir is accurate and is unwilling to face the prospect that its share of water during the next drought would be more than halved. The financial ramifications of learning the truth — if Jackson County’s numbers are, in fact, accurate — are daunting for all four counties, and keeping the lawsuit alive only delays the day of reckoning.
Continuing the lawsuit promotes the risk that in a Jackson County victory, the EPD will reduce the amount of water available not just during droughts, but even when there is plenty of water. It makes far better sense for the counties to negotiate a solution in which there is a better accounting of the water in the reservoir and how it is used than to suddenly have to cope with a withdrawal permit slashed by more than half.
If Athens-Clarke, Barrow and Oconee were willing to abide by the intergovernmental agreement or to engage in a more accurate system of accounting for the water in the reservoir and its usage, this lawsuit could be settled immediately. But if the three remain married to the status quo, the flow of the public’s money to lawyers and engineers will continue until a court renders a verdict.
The recent Court of Appeals ruling allowing the case to proceed only strengthens Jackson County’s hand. The defendants should take a long hard look at the facts and consider whether the probable outcome of the suit warrants the continued cost of litigation. Jackson County has little to lose but a lot to gain. That can’t be said about Athens-Clarke, Barrow and Oconee counties, whatever their attorney may assert.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
