Liberty County hosts information session on proposed water reclamation facility as residents demand fresh studies and safeguards

Liberty County Development Authority officials presented plans for a proposed water reclamation facility and supporting sewer network at a public information session, and residents pressed them for new environmental studies and stronger safeguards.

Bren Grant, chief executive officer of the Liberty County Development Authority, said the project is intended to support economic development, reduce septic proliferation and protect coastal waterways. "We are not committed to being right. We are committed to getting it right," Grant said, summarizing the authority's stated approach to planning and public engagement.

Grant and the project team identified membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology as the preferred treatment method because it produces higher-quality effluent than septic systems, allows for reuse, and reduces nutrients and some trace constituents. The team described an initial build of roughly 1 million gallons per day (MGD) capacity at the Tradeport East site, with room to expand; they estimated capital costs at about $32.5 million and said capital costs would be paid largely through developer connection fees and a capacity-reservation agreement that could subsidize debt service.

Why it matters: Project proponents argue modern centralized treatment and water reclamation would allow Liberty County to attract jobs, serve planned residential growth in the Laurel View area, and limit the spread of failing septic systems that contribute pathogens and nitrates to marshes and rivers.

Regulatory next steps and siting: The LCDA has submitted a waste-load allocation request to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) to evaluate whether discharge to the North Newport River is feasible; the panel said that review could take six to nine months and that EPD will determine allowable loading. "We don't know" the final outfall location yet, the lead engineer said; modeling and EPD permitting will guide siting and whether a drilled diffuser under the riverbed is appropriate.

Public concerns and requests for new science: Many attendees said available EPD materials and past studies (cited in the presentation as 2008/2009 work) are too old or unpublished to support a decision. "We need a new study," said Bryce Ladson, a resident and longtime trial lawyer who said the earlier work has been criticized and is not publicly available. Fishermen and crabbing industry representatives voiced fears about seafood safety and the reputational impact of any discharge. "No matter how treated the wastewater is, it still carries the weight of being wastewater," said Fischer Zabra, a commercial captain.

Panel responses on ecology and monitoring: Experts on the panel—engineers and University of Georgia coastal scientists—said properly permitted MBR systems and strict monitoring can reduce pharmaceuticals, hormones and nutrients far more than septic systems and many existing small community plants. They argued that, at the river bend being considered, modeling and die/mixing tests show robust blending potential and that reuse (for irrigation, industrial cooling and possibly fire suppression storage) will limit the volume discharged. Still, the team acknowledged uncertainties and said additional analysis may be needed.

Technical details and projections: Team members said MBR treatment can reduce pharmaceuticals by high percentages (presentation cited approximate ranges) and that even at a theoretical 3 MGD maximum the treated flow represents a small fraction of the river's tidal throughput. The team described Tradeport East as a favorable site because it already contains a small footprint for operations, installed purple pipe for reuse, and ground elevation above modeled 500-year flood levels.

Requests and unresolved items: Residents requested (1) new, peer-reviewed hydrodynamic and ecological studies; (2) transparency and public access to any EPD modeling or supporting data; (3) aggressive reuse strategies and spray-field or irrigation options to limit outfall volume; and (4) contingency planning for spills, power outages and storm events in a hurricane-prone region. Panelists said they will publish an FAQ and follow up with written answers and that LCDA will wait for EPD's waste-load allocation decision before advancing formal permit plans.

What happens next: LCDA and the project team will collect written questions submitted at the session, publish answers and await EPD's technical review of the waste-load allocation request. The authority emphasized the session was an early public engagement step, not a permit hearing or final decision point.

Closing note: The meeting closed after a two-minute public-comment period in which speakers repeatedly asked for independent, up-to-date science, stronger reuse commitments, and protections for fisheries and communities should the project move forward.