Georgia lawmakers hear hours of testimony on Okefenokee protection bills HB 561 and HB 562

Representative Darlene Taylor introduced House Bill 561, the Okefenokee Protection Act, saying the measure would bar mining along the eastern edge of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and protect the swamp’s hydrology and cultural resources. The subcommittee also considered House Bill 562, a narrower proposal to impose a temporary moratorium on surface mining near the refuge.

The bills drew extensive public testimony. Taylor told the committee the swamp is an economic and cultural engine: "it attracts over 800,000 visitors, supports over 700 jobs, and contributes over 90,000,000 in the local economy," remarks she made while describing the site’s ecological and heritage value. Supporters urged the legislature to act after years of controversy over a proposed Twin Pines Minerals permit.

Scientists and legal advocates supporting statutory protection argued state permitting alone is not adequate. Rhett Jackson, John Porter Stevens Distinguished Professor of Water Resources at the University of Georgia’s Warnell School, told the panel that Twin Pines’ consultant estimated the mine would have to "constantly pump 1,130,000 gallons per day every day to dewater the mine pit," and said removing the equivalent of 0.9 cubic feet per second from the regional water budget "will more than triple the duration of severe drought." Jackson used the same methodology the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) applies to withdrawals, and he testified EPD had not followed its usual practice in reviewing the project.

Environmental advocates voiced concerns about wildfire risk, groundwater declines, pollutant releases and long-term ecological damage if Trail Ridge were breached. Josh Marks, an environmental attorney and president of Georgians for the Okefenokee, told the committee, "Georgia EPD has shown it is simply incapable of protecting the swamp," and urged legislators to pass HB 561 rather than rely solely on agency permitting.

Legal testimony addressed property-rights questions raised by opponents. April Lipscomb, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said a ban or moratorium likely would not constitute an unconstitutional taking under existing case law because heavily regulated uses such as mining carry reduced reasonable investment-backed expectations; "a law banning surface mining on Trail Ridge either permanently or temporarily ... would not be considered a taking," she said.

Opponents—including landowners, the mineral company that seeks a permit, and trade groups—urged the committee to allow EPD to complete technical review and to protect local jobs and strategic mineral supply chains. Drew Jones, a forest land manager for Toledo Manufacturing Company, told the subcommittee: "Let the experts do their job." Louis Jones, an attorney representing Twin Pines Minerals, said the permit application has been under regulatory review for years and argued the company can mine and reclaim the site without harming the swamp. He said independent modeling by a noted hydrologist, Dr. Sourav Pandey, shows no measurable reduction in flow reaching the swamp.

Local elected officials, business and conservation interests also testified. County and municipal resolutions and petitions urging protection were presented to the committee; supporters said the refuge’s designation as a potential UNESCO World Heritage Site added urgency to the question of long-term safeguards. Proponents urged either permanent statutory protection (HB 561) or a limited moratorium (HB 562) to buy time for land acquisition or additional regional study.

Opponents emphasized economic need in a rural region and national-security arguments tied to critical minerals. Trade associations and the Georgia Mining Association warned the bills could curb domestic production of titanium, zirconium and other heavy-mineral sands that industry and federal officials have described as important to supply chains. Testimony from local residents described both the promise of mining jobs and concerns about water and quality-of-life impacts.

The subcommittee did not take a vote during the hearing. Committee members asked questions of scientists, attorneys and local leaders; several members said they rely heavily on EPD’s technical work but also sought clarity on whether the agency’s review adequately addressed long-term hydrologic risks. The chair moved from HB 561 into consideration of HB 562 after the public testimony list was exhausted.

The record of the hearing includes extensive technical and legal comments submitted to EPD and numerous local resolutions and petitions. No final committee action on either bill was recorded at the hearing; the measures remained under consideration pending any future markup or referral.