Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senator objects to trout-stream buffer language tucked into cleanup substitute; Rules Committee punts action
Loading...
Summary
Senator Hatchett told the Rules Committee the substitute to HB 485 contains a major policy change that would remove a 50-foot buffer for designated trout streams, saying DNR and EPD were not consulted; the committee paused the substitute and agreed to reconvene with counsel and the author.
Senator Hatchett told the Georgia Senate Rules Committee on March 19 that language tucked into a substitute to HB 485 goes far beyond a technical cleanup and would remove a 50-foot buffer for designated trout streams, a change he said could affect property-rights interests, conservation easements and create potential litigation.
Hatchett said he reviewed the substitute with both the Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Division and said those agencies were not aware of the implications. “This is not appropriate in a simple cleanup bill,” Hatchett said, urging the committee to strike the sections he identified from the substitute. He said the EPD director had asked that the language be removed. “They respectfully ask that we take it out,” Hatchett told the committee.
Senator Gooch noted the language originated in the underlying House bill and asked whether EPD or DNR had requested it; Hatchett said he had not been able to reach the author but that the language had passed the House as part of a cleanup bill. Members expressed concern the language was a "huge policy shift" and could open the state to litigation over navigable-water or buffer definitions. The chair halted further action and said the committee would re-open consideration tomorrow with alleged counsel and the bill’s sponsor present so agencies could be consulted.
Why it matters: stripping or narrowing statutory buffers for designated trout waters is a substantive change to environmental and property-law protections. Committee members described potential consequences for conservation easements, local landowners and enforcement practices and agreed the change merited full vetting rather than being included as a one-line cleanup tack-on.
Next steps: The Rules Committee paused consideration of the substitute and asked the original sponsor to appear with an explanation and for counsel and agency representatives to be present when the committee returns to the matter.
