Pike County defers decision on proposed bulk spring‑water operation after hours of testimony

Pike County commissioners voted Oct. 28 to delay action on a proposed bulk spring‑water operation after an extended public hearing drew dozens of residents, industry experts and lawyers.

Jody Todd, CEO of Fountain Grove Springs, asked the board for a special‑use permit to develop a 6,000‑square‑foot facility on a 759.6‑acre site along U.S. Highway 19 and to pump and truck up to 100,000 gallons per day of spring water to an off‑site bottling location. Todd said the company has operated springs for 25 years and described the proposed withdrawals as ‘‘modest’’ and within sustainable limits.

"We are a family‑funded business and have operated springs for decades; we will manage the source responsibly and monitor the system," Todd told the board.

Technical witnesses for the applicant, including licensed geologist Mike Amsbog, told commissioners the local geology and the spring’s flow make large, lasting drawdowns unlikely. Amsbog said the source is a fractured rock spring with high transmissivity and that 100,000 gallons per day (about 69 gallons per minute) is small compared with regional streamflows.

"This is a very prolific spring; in my experience the planned withdrawal is well within what the system can sustain," Amsbog said.

Opponents — many of whom live on or near Starks, Patton and Shepherd roads — raised a string of concerns: the effect on private wells and artisanal springs, impacts to wetlands and downstream creeks that eventually flow to the Flint River, road wear and safety from heavy tanker traffic, enforcement of any operating limits, and whether an LLC‑backed project would leave residents with little remedy if problems arise.

"If my well goes down, what is Pike County going to do for me?" said homeowner Clay Huitt, who described the financial and personal hardship of drilling replacement wells. Several other speakers recounted prior well failures or low flows in dry years.

Attorney Newton Galloway, speaking for the applicant, cited state law and publicly available streamflow data and said withdrawals below 100,000 gpd do not require an EPD (Environmental Protection Division) permit. He argued the proposed pumping would be a lawful riparian use of on‑site spring water and noted that publicly monitored downstream flows dwarf the 100,000‑gallon figure.

"The numbers show the withdrawal would be a small fraction of local watershed flow," Galloway told the board.

Commissioners acknowledged the volume of technical material and the number of residents who wanted more time for independent review. Planning staff recommended additional time to gather the documents residents and expert groups requested, and Commissioner Daniel moved to postpone a final decision until the board’s Nov. 12 meeting to allow staff and the absent district commissioner to review the materials.

The motion to postpone was seconded and approved by show of hands with no opposition.

What happens next: Staff and the applicant were directed to supply outstanding studies and to coordinate whatever additional independent reviews the board requests. Commissioners specifically asked that resident questions about well monitoring, wetland impacts and road traffic be answered before the Nov. 12 meeting. The Nov. 12 agenda will include the Fountain Grove Springs application along with any new evidence and summary responses from the applicant and county staff.

Why it matters: The proposal pits private property and business development rights against neighborhood concerns about hydrology and infrastructure. The scale of public comment — and the board’s decision to postpone — signals that commissioners want more independent analysis before making a permit decision that could affect groundwater, wells and rural roads.