Members of the Newton County commission surprised everyone with last Tuesday’s vote to suspend action on the Bear Creek reservoir and focus instead on other alternatives to meet future water demands.
With the dropping of that bombshell, they halted, at least temporarily, a course of action that has had the consistent majority support of a changing cast of commissioners throughout approximately 15 years. (See a timeline of board actions on the Bear Creek project in our extensive coverage, starting on page 1.
The question of why the commissioners decided to do this now has yet to be fully explored. Was it because they felt the project was no longer necessary? Was it due to fear and frustration that the permit was unlikely to ever gain approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers? Or, was the decision based on a foundation of political expediency meant to curry favor with a majority of voters?
Regardless of the “why”, though, we are still left with many different variations on the question, “what now?”
What happens now with all the land the county has acquired in anticipation of building a dam and creating a lake? What happens now with money borrowed from the state for that purpose? What happens now with all the studies and engineering work that have been done at a hefty price? What happens now to the more than $20 million invested in the project?
The commission must answer those questions, and do it quickly, for the people of this county.
A solid majority of commissioners voted 4-0 to suspend action on Bear Creek, with an unexplained abstention from Commissioner J.C. Henderson. Based on the comments offered at the meeting, it was obvious some commissioners were well prepared for the action taken, despite the fact there was no mention of Bear Creek on the meeting agenda.
While Commission Chairman Keith Ellis said he was taken by surprise by the motion, others clearly were ready for the discussion. County attorney W. Thomas Craig, who also served as a well-paid consultant for the reservoir project, was conspicuous by his absence.
Having taken such a bold and dramatic step, commissioners now must explain to the public what happens next — and, perhaps just as importantly, put a clear definition to the concept of “suspension.” Does the intentional use of that term mean the project may yet come back for consideration at some future date? And, if so, how long can “suspension” last before resumption of the project is no longer viable? Cynics among us need to be assured that “suspension" doesn’t really mean “delay until after the next election.”
Given the complexities of the issues involved, and the millions of dollars the taxpayers have invested in land acquisition, consultants, engineers, environmental studies and planning, the county would be well advised to consider a public forum at which these and other reservoir related issues can be fully addressed. Such a public forum would be an ideal opportunity to invite all the community players to the table, as was discussed by commissioners Tuesday night.
We suggest commissioners hold a town-hall type meeting in the very near future to explain to the public what happens now with the various elements of the Bear Creek project and what changed to make completion of the reservoir no longer a desirable goal. That sort of effort at transparency for a project that has, at times, had elements shrouded in secrecy would go a long way toward rebuilding public trust.
Not until we know the answers to “why” and “what now” will we be able to say with certainty whether Tuesday’s decision was the right one.
