Upson County planners approve conditional rezoning for water‑harvesting operation after hours of public concern

The Upson County Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve a conditional rezoning to M1 for 22.86 acres off Crest Highway to allow production wells, on‑site storage tanks and automated truck loading for transport to an off‑site bottling facility.

The applicant, identified in the record as property owner Robert Ronald A. Ellington, told the commission the operation would pump spring water to tanks inside a 40‑by‑60 building and load tractor‑trailers for delivery to a bottling plant in Newton, Georgia. He said the project would use at most 16 truck trips daily (about 96,000–99,000 gallons) to remain under the state‑level threshold that typically triggers a formal withdrawal permit.

Why it matters: Residents said the change would alter a rural, low‑density area, could increase heavy traffic on Highway 74 and might risk private wells and farm water supplies. Several called for a Georgia DOT traffic impact study and for rigorous hydrogeologic review before production begins.

Public concerns were outlined during a lengthy comment period. Judy Turner, whose home sits opposite the proposed driveway, asked the commission to require a DOT traffic study, citing a blind hill, school bus routes and frequent heavy trucks. "This decision could impact anybody that's on this route at any given time," she said. Other neighbors raised similar safety objections, warned about property value loss and said they only recently learned of the application.

Multiple residents also urged caution about groundwater: Stanley Elliott and others described the area as underlain by fractured‑rock aquifers and said industrial withdrawals risked reducing private well yields or introducing contamination. "You're pumping our water away," Elliott said.

Applicant and consultant response: Ellington said preliminary testing had been carried out and that earlier work was bound by a non‑disclosure agreement with a potential buyer; he offered to place monitoring devices on private wells within 1,500 feet during testing and to stop pumping if monitoring showed adverse effects. He read a statement from the logistics firm that would haul water—Aqua Logistics—saying: "Before any production begins, the project will include pump tests and monitoring wells to measure drawdown and recovery of the aquifer. If the aquifer cannot support the withdrawal, the project does not move forward." The applicant also said the driveway is permitted by the Georgia DOT and that preliminary sight‑distance measurements exceed the DOT minimum cited in the presentation.

Technical testimony: Hydrogeologist Mike Hansball (Hansball Consulting), who described himself as a director with the National Groundwater Association, told the commission the spring at the site yields about 110 gallons per minute and explained two development options: a spring catchment or a borehole that captures water before it reaches the surface. He noted that, under commonly applied state thresholds discussed in the hearing, withdrawals below roughly 99,000 gallons per day (about 69 gallons per minute) typically do not require a state withdrawal permit, but said detailed hydrogeologic reporting will be required to meet FDA and industry standards for a bottled water source.

Board action and condition: After discussion the commission approved the rezoning by voice vote with a condition that if the property's use changes from a water‑pumping facility it must return to the commission (and ultimately to the county commissioners) for review. The hearing record did not include a roll‑call tally; the outcome was recorded as approved.

What remains: Several neighbors and the applicant noted that the project still requires detailed hydrogeologic reporting, monitoring plans, and any DOT permits for driveway work; neighbors asked that the county explicitly require or review a traffic impact study in summer months when recreation use peaks. The applicant said monitoring data and pump test reports would be made available to neighboring homeowners and the county during testing.

The commission moved on after the vote; no date was set in the hearing record for follow‑up filings or monitoring start dates.