Taylor County debates options, risks for Georgia Pacific mill assets and wastewater system

Taylor County commissioners devoted an extended portion of their Aug. 19 meeting to discussion of the closed Georgia Pacific (GP) pulp mill site, focusing on the mill’s wastewater treatment system, pipeline easements and related water infrastructure.

Board members and economic-development officials discussed whether the county should pursue confidential talks with GP and the site’s other stakeholders, seek state bridge-loan funds and authorize legal and technical due diligence. No formal acquisition or eminent-domain action was taken; several commissioners urged caution, citing potential environmental liability and the large costs of modifying and operating an industrial-scale wastewater treatment plant.

Speakers representing the county’s economic development interests outlined the scope of GP’s wastewater treatment system and the long-term obligations that would come with ownership. The facility described in the meeting record includes large primary and secondary treatment basins, a 46 million‑gallon influent surge basin, a 32 million‑gallon aeration basin, a 39 million‑gallon tertiary basin and roughly 107 acres of legacy solids storage. Staff and TCDA representatives said the plant was designed for pulp-mill operations and would be “the wrong size” for city or county ownership without substantial—and costly—modification.

Environmental concerns were central to the discussion. County representatives said historical process operations produced “legacy solids” stored in site basins and that testing had shown elevated dioxin levels in some wastes, a condition that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection have flagged in permitting and remediation conversations. Speakers warned that legacy solids and long-term groundwater monitoring obligations would create ongoing costs the county would inherit if it took ownership of the assets.

Several commissioners and attendees urged the county to continue talking with GP under a nondisclosure agreement so the parties could explore options and feasibility without prejudicing future negotiations. A county official asked the board for authorization to have the county administrator and county attorney pursue an NDA and to conduct confidential due diligence on water and wastewater infrastructure; the transcript records the request but does not show a formal vote on that specific authorization during the Aug. 19 meeting.

Commissioners also debated the prospect of applying for a low-interest emergency bridge loan to accelerate city or county wastewater upgrades that would improve the county’s attractiveness to industry. Some commissioners cautioned against pursuing eminent domain or buying the plant outright, citing litigation risk, the potential need to separate utility assets, and estimates that conversion or modification could cost tens of millions of dollars. One speaker referenced an outside estimate that modifying the GP plant to a different industrial standard could cost more than $33 million.

Board members asked staff to continue outreach: to meet with GP executives (who had agreed to come to the county for discussions), to pursue feasibility analysis and to explore available bridge‑loan and grant funding. The county’s economic development authority advised that while the pipeline and treatment system might be useful to future large industry on a remediated brownfield site, the board should recognize the environmental liabilities, operational complexity and likely long-term monitoring and maintenance costs before accepting ownership or control of GP assets.