HOLLY POND — When it comes to water, local poultry and cattle farmer Billy Meeks just wants a solution.

Meeks, of Trimble, was among more than 70 local residents who packed a community meeting Saturday at Holly Pond United Methodist Church to discuss the fervor surrounding a secondary water source in Cullman County.

“We’re in trouble and we need water,” Meeks said. “I’m really starting to get frustrated by this.”

The City of Cullman is planning to dam Duck River and create a new 640-acre reservoir similar to the one at Lake Catoma, the area’s current sole water source. The project, which has been in the works for about 20 years, is estimated to cost approximately $64 million. Every major wholesale city water customer except Cullman County has signed on.

Cullman County commissioners Doug Williams and Wayne Willingham are pursuing a different option: A potential agreement with Alabama Power to draw water from Smith Lake, plus the construction of their own treatment plant in the southern part of the county. The county currently has a permit request pending with Alabama Power for permission to use the lake. The Smith Lake plan is projected to cost approximately $35 million.

Opinions are divided among county residents — not to mention local elected officials — as to which option is best for the area.

“Whatever happens, it’s obvious we’re not going to get any water like this, going back and forth and going in circles,” Meeks said of the stalemate. “I’ve actually dug a well, because I don’t know how long this will take to resolve. The people around here need help.”



Watershed concerns

Area farmer Ron Stone said he is worried about how the Duck River water project might potentially affect farmers who live in the Duck River watershed.

The 36.5-square-mile watershed, which extends from Highway 278 to the Tennessee River divide near the Morgan County line, is almost exclusively used for farms and agriculture.

Stone, the meeting’s organizer, said he believes the Alabama Department of Environmental Management will put farmers living near the watershed under strict regulations.

“I’m worried that ADEM will come in and try to control our animal feeding, run-off and insecticide,” he said. “ADEM is going to be on us.”

Cullman County Soil and Water Conservation District representative Tim Scott clarified that no local regulations should change if Duck River is used as a water source. He added that farmers have already been working under a voluntary Clean Water Action Plan for sometime.

“We are all subject to ADEM inspections at anytime already, which is standard nationwide,” Scott said. “Those ADEM rules were put into effect in 1999, so you have been working under those for 11 years. There are no land use regulations in the watershed that ADEM is not already covering.”

Stone also said he is concerned that cattle in the watershed might be prevented from using private property creeks that lead into a potential reservoir, or that new farm expansion would not be allowed.

Scott noted that most of those concerns are unfounded, as there would likely be no major changes made to existing regulations.

“There is no law stating that you have to fence your cattle out of the stream on your land, but we recommend it,” he said. “New poultry farms will be allowed, but they’ll obviously have to meet basic regulations.”

Another concern noted by Stone is which governing body would oversee the Duck River water project. As it stands, the Cullman Utilities Board would likely fill that role, as it currently does with Lake Catoma.

“If the city utility board takes over and manages it, we’ll have an outside source over us,” Stone said.

Dale Greer, with the Cullman Economic Development Agency, countered that a potential outside regulatory board could not be created to manage the project until the city knew which wholesale water customers were signing on.

“We would obviously need a decision from the county commission on if they are going to participate before that could potentially be established,” he said.

Cullman Mayor Max Townson did not attend the Saturday meeting due to prior commitments at a charity event and economic meeting in Huntsville.



Questions, opinions arise

After brief presentations showing pros and cons of the Duck River plan, the Saturday meeting soon evolved into a forum for local residents to voice their questions and opinions.

“I hear positive things on both sides, but we’re still not any closer to having water,” one Fairview farmer said.

The farmer added that he does not believe Duck River is a viable location to form a lake.

“It’s not practical to have a reservoir out there because those rocks are fragmented,” he said. “Why not go where the county can have their own water source?”

The U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers has conducted numerous surveys to the contrary, concluding Duck River is the best location in the area for a second water source.

Another resident asked county commissioners Willingham and Williams if they could guarantee Alabama Power would not limit water usage from Smith Lake as part of a potential contract.

“Can you get an agreement with them saying they won’t cut us off during a drought condition?” the man asked. “If we do Duck River, we have control. If we sign with Alabama Power, they could cut us off.”

Commissioner Willingham said he would work to ensure that would not happen.

“We would work that out before signing a contract to be sure they couldn’t cut us off,” he said.

In a letter issued in November 2009, Alabama Power Vice-president of Environmental Affairs Matthew Bowden indicated restrictions would be placed on any contract with the county.

“Alabama Power will include drought mitigation provisions in all future withdrawal permits consisting of withdrawal caps or reductions, premium rates and/or use restrictions on customers of the withdrawing utility during periods of severe drought,” he wrote at the time.

Darrel Haynes, a farmer in the Duck River watershed, asked why there is so much controversy surrounding the issue — considering the city sells all water at cost.

“Why is there such a fight?” he asked.

County commissioner Williams replied that his concerns don’t just stem from the water price, but also from other aspects of the county’s water purchase agreement.

“I feel like we need to have some say-so and representation,” he said. “Our contract says we can only buy water from the city... and the contract puts restrictions on us we can’t live with.”

Cullman city council president Garlan Gudger, Jr. noted that the county plan would only directly affect a little more than 30 percent of county residents who live near Smith Lake.

“That’s only going to help the southeast part of the county, so you’re hurting 60 percent of the people you represent,” he said. 

Willingham countered that the county is seeking redundancy in water treatment, in case the city treatment plant is ever off-line.

“I believe it is dangerous for us to just have one treatment facility,” he said.

Another local resident asked who the commission would potentially sell water to if they go forward with the Smith Lake plan, since most area water systems have already signed new contracts with the city.

Williams replied that his primary objective is to provide water for the people of Cullman County.

“If we built the Smith Lake treatment plant, the first thing we would do is sell water to Cullman County residents,” he said. “Then, we could sell it to whoever else might want to buy it.”

West Point resident James Rhodes asked exactly how much money has already been spent on the Duck River project.

“Most of a $5 million grant to conduct the studies and plans has already been spent,” Greer answered. “The utilities board has also spent about $1.2 million on the [environmental] lawsuit that has challenged it.”

Cullman County Farmer’s Federation President Kenneth Neal said his group is in support of the Duck River plan.

“We had a lot of discussion ... and we are in dire need of another water supply,” he said. “The Duck River project has shown to be the best and most cost-effective option.”



Frustration

Though many residents used the meeting to ask questions, others took the floor to voice their frustrations.

One area poultry farmer said he doesn’t care which option local leaders choose — he just wants a decision.

“I don’t care if you have to build a treatment plant on my farm,” he said. “All that matters is if I don’t have water, my chickens die and I’m out of business.”

Another local farmer questioned the resolve of local elected officials to make a decision.

“If the city and county ain’t man enough to get together and work this out, I don’t know who is going to do it,” he said. “We can sit and argue about it all day, but these guys have to make a decision.”

Some city officials expressed their dissatisfaction with the format of the meeting. Residents with something to say were asked to address their questions to the associate county commissioners — even if they were meant for city officials. Commission Chairman James Graves, a Duck River proponent, did not attend the meeting.

“We brought a lot of our people out there to address their concerns, but the format didn’t support that,” Greer said. “The county commissioners have publicly stated they do not have enough knowledge to make a decision to support Duck River, so it would stand to reason they wouldn’t be the most qualified to discuss the specifics.”

Stone replied that the meeting was simply a chance for farmers and residents to discuss agricultural issues.

“It was an open meeting and everybody got to speak that wanted to,” Stone said at a Cullman County Commission meeting on Monday. “My presentation was strictly on agriculture and what it means to Duck River.”

With the water debate still far from resolved, local citizen Jerry Parker asked the commissioners how much money has been lost due to the fact that a decision has still not been made on the matter.

“With all this bickering back and forth, has anyone done a cost-analysis as to how much this arguing has cost us?” he asked.

No one had an answer.



* Trent Moore can be reached by e-mail at trentm@cullmantimes.com, or by telephone at 734-2131, ext. 225.