Resident raises water-supply concerns over Big Creek Lake closure; county says it lacks authority

Matthew Fraser, a resident who identified his address during public comment at the Mobile County Commission meeting on March 10, asked commissioners to investigate timber cutting around Big Creek Lake and whether sediment and toxins are entering the county’s drinking-water supply.

Fraser said he had been told the lake was closed and asked whether the county would look into timber-harvest practices he believes are contributing sediment and contamination. County staff and counsel told Fraser that the Mobile County Commission has no statutory authority over Big Creek Lake or operations of the Mobile Area Water Service, the public entity that owns or manages the lake and supplies water to parts of the county.

Jay, a county attorney or staff member who answered Fraser’s questions on the record, said the commission is "powerless legally to do anything to stop and modify what they do," and that questions about water quality would be under the purview of state agencies, such as the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Jay further noted that the Mobile Area Water Service board members are appointed by the Mobile City Council and that, historically, the county has purchased property around the lake to protect the watershed and made some property available to MAS to protect drinking-water supplies.

County staff also advised Fraser that eminent-domain takings generally require a clear public purpose and that it would be a legal question whether the county could condemn property currently held by another public entity. Jay said he would review the legal questions and follow up with Fraser by phone.

Why it matters

Big Creek Lake supplies water to parts of Mobile County, and residents raised concerns that timber cutting near the lake could increase sediment and deliver contaminants into drinking-water sources. The exchange highlighted the limits of county authority and pointed residents to MAS, state water regulators and the MAS board as the bodies with legal responsibility for water-supply management.

What was not decided

The commission took no formal action on the matter at the March 10 meeting; staff said they could provide information and that legal counsel would research the narrow legal questions raised about eminent domain and authority over MAS. Fraser was advised he could raise related questions at the MAS board meeting that same day.

Ending

County staff pledged to follow up with Fraser after reviewing legal issues; no policy change or directive was adopted by the commission at the meeting.