Public hearing on HB 473 draws residents and utilities over closure of Big Creek Lake; committee takes no vote

A House committee held a public hearing on House Bill 473 — a bill proposed in response to the closure of Big Creek Lake — and heard hours of testimony from state attorneys, utility officials and dozens of residents. The committee did not vote on the bill.

Charlana Skaggs, general counsel for the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), told the committee the department's legal review concluded "we did find in our legal opinion that Big Creek Lake is a public waterway." She summarized the DCNR approach: to determine whether a watercourse was "navigable at the time the state became a member of the union" by reviewing historical survey maps and use in commerce, and by noting a statute the department interprets as having declared Big Creek navigable (transcript citation: "an act of Alabama 18 58 dash 3 3 9").

Residents who use Big Creek Lake for fishing and family recreation described sudden closures and asked the legislature to protect public access. Heath Hutchinson said the lake is "my home lake" and urged lawmakers to "support house bill 4 73 and help secure our constitutional rights to our lake, rivers, and reservoirs." Matthew Frazier said the utility closed the reservoir "permanently as of 02/05/2025," a decision he and others called an overreach that deprived local school fishing teams and families of recreation.

Mobile-area utility leaders described the board's rationale for restricting access. Bud McCrory, identifying himself as director of a water and sewer utility, said protecting the drinking-water supply for roughly "350,000 individuals" served across five cities and surrounding areas is the primary responsibility. "We're simply trying to protect the 1 and only water source that we have," he said, and described multi-year studies and engineering analyses his utility commissioned before closing access. McCrory and utility representatives described invasive-species threats (giant Salvinia and zebra mussels), efforts taken to mitigate them (EPA-approved herbicide use, boat wash construction), and practical limits on enforcement (boat quarantine requirements, the high cost of continuous monitoring).

The Alabama Rivers Alliance opposed HB 473 as drafted. Charles Miller, the alliance's policy director, told the committee the bill is "too broad in scope" and could remove utilities' ability to impose maintenance or water-quality protections — for example, existing boat maintenance requirements on some reservoirs — and urged more-targeted, local solutions.

Committee members raised legal and process questions: if Big Creek is a public waterway, who has authority to close a reservoir and whether utilities must hold public hearings before restricting access. Several committee members pressed utility representatives about the decision-making process; utility leaders said the closure followed two years of studies conducted by consultants including engineering and environmental firms and was made through staff action supported by the board, but the transcript records no formal board roll-call vote on the closure nor a public hearing prior to the action.

The committee chair said members would not vote during the hearing and urged the parties to continue talks. "We have the greatest hopes that the two sides can work this out," the chair said. Committee members requested copies of the utility's studies for review.

Votes/Actions: The committee did not take a vote on HB 473. The transcript records extensive public testimony, agency legal guidance, and statements by utility officials; it also records requests by committee members for documentation and further meetings.