Privatization at the Capitol

My last Insider’s Update was about a bill (HB370) that would have facilitated the privatization of Georgia’s salt marsh. Fortunately, because of the massive outcry of concern expressed by people across the state, the bill failed to pass the House before Crossover Day on February 29. If you were one of the many people who shared your concerns with your legislator: Thank you!

The privatization of our shared public resources has developed into concerning trend this session. It is one that must be addressed, bill by bill. Here are some of the most concerning other privatization bills that, if passed this legislative session, will undoubtedly haunt us into the future.

Bypassing Local Water and Land Use Planning

Private Groundwater to the Highest Bidder

HB1146 (R. Stephens (R)—Savannah) would allow private water providers on Georgia’s coastal plain (more than half the state) to supply water to new developments without coordinating with local governments or public water suppliers. These permits would fly in the face of responsible water conservation efforts and long-term planning work undertaken by local and state agencies charged with protecting Georgia’s fiscal and natural resources. More simply put, HB1146 would create an opportunity for an explosion of unplanned growth by developers who can afford to pay a private utility for water.  You can read a recent article about this bill here.

Status: HB1146 is sitting in Senate Rules, waiting to be voted onto the Senate floor for final passage. Click here to ask your Senator to VOTE NO on HB1146!

Private Cities

Senate Bill (SB)435 and its companion SR533 (both Ginn (R)—Danielsville) would put on the statewide ballot a measure that would establish a new type of local jurisdiction to be known as a “community development district.” The community development district would operate like a city or county, but with a major difference: the district’s elected officials would be selected by the owners within the district proportional to how much property they own. These two pieces of legislation would privatize government—including the right to tax and charge fees—and would provide major bypasses to compliance with local planning for growth and infrastructure expansion. Perhaps most concerning, however, is that the bill would assign more voting power to the wealthiest landowners—non-landowners would not have the right to vote in these new local jurisdictions and larger landowners would have the most voting rights.

Status: Although they did not crossover, SB435 and SR533 both had more than a half-dozen cosigners, including two coastal senators, Derek Mallow (D—Savannah) and Ben Watson (R—Savannah).

Stay Off My River!

Further inland, a battle over the privatization of freshwater fishing rights on and access to a stretch of the Flint River called Yellow Jacket Shoals is underway. (Read more here.) Although the Georgia Constitution specifically grants all Georgians the right to fish and hunt, and the Public Trust Doctrine (which ensures public ownership of navigable waters for the citizens of the US) is a foundation of American law, some private property owners don’t like sharing their fishing hole with others. In 2023, the legislature passed SB115 (McLaurin (D)—Sandy Springs), which affirms the state’s ownership of the bottoms of all navigable waters in GA and preserves the public’s right “to use and enjoy all navigable streams capable of use for fishing, hunting, passage, navigation, commerce, and transportation, pursuant to the common law public trust doctrine”—even when the state grants ownership of such bottoms to a private entity. This was a good and necessary bill.

But opponents won’t let it rest. This year, three bills are under consideration that could either affirm or further limit the scope of public access to Georgia’s navigable fresh waters and the fish therein. HB1172 and SB542 are attempts to roll back the protections SB115 has guaranteed Georgians. And HB1397 is a limited list of creeks, rivers, and other waterbodies that are presumed to be navigable and therefore available for the public to access. Any waterbody not included on the list is presumed to be private property and not able to be accessed by the public.

Status: HB1397 did not crossover, but HB1172 and SB542 did and are still alive. Click here to learn more about and take action to stop HB1397 and HB1172.


The last day of this year’s legislative session is March 29. Even if these bills do not pass, we can expect the theme of privatization of our limited public resources to carry into the future. The only way to combat those who would like to monetize our shared public resources is to participate in civic discourse—with letters to editors and online discourse, during dinner table conversations and in the rooms where these terrible ideas are being officially discussed.

All of these bills assign excessive privilege to a small group of people at the expense of our shared public resources, and we must stop them from passing—this year and in the future.

Learn more about the bills we’ve been following at the Capitol on Our Legislative Priorities page. You’ll notice that some of the bills mentioned here are not listed. We encourage you to use the links above and learn more/take action via our partners’ websites.

Salt Marsh Giveaway!

It’s that time of year again and our friends at the General Assembly are working hard. Since 2022, One Hundred Miles has been working to stop a bill (House Bill 370) that we feel poses a threat to the public ownership of coastal Georgia’s salt marsh.

Currently, all salt marsh is held in trust by the State of Georgia unless someone can prove that he has a valid grant issued by the King of England before 1776. Until the claim is proven, it is always presumed that the state maintains ownership. HB 370 would replace this legal standard for defeating the State of Georgia’s title to salt marshes with a new process that flips the presumption of ownership from the State to the private petitioner immediately upon submission of documentation.

It is relatively common to possess a Kings Grant—it is extremely uncommon to be able to prove clear title. The Georgia Supreme Court has clearly ruled that it is appropriate for claims of a Kings Grant to meet a high burden of proof that falls on the petitioner. This proof could include documents, titles, deeds, and other evidence that all the conditions of the Kings Grant have been met and maintained. These documents could go back as far as 300 years.

Instead of the comprehensive documentation, HB 370 states that a petitioner merely needs to show evidence of a grantmanmade manipulation of the marsh and adverse possession, and a good showing of record of title for 40 years in order to become the presumed owner.

This could result in thousands of acres of salt marsh being privatized without a valid Kings Grant…and there is an economic driver for this giveaway.

Developers, whose projects contain or are adjacent to salt marsh, are lobbying for the passage of HB370. If this bill passes, it will open the door for people to get paid for not developing already-undevelopable, protected salt marsh. The payments would come from developers in other locations who have received permission by the US Army Corps of Engineers to destroy salt marsh. The new process that would expedite the privatization of already-protected salt marsh for the purposes of “conservation” is unprecedented and opens the door to fraud at the expense of a precious Georgia resource.

Here is a recent AP piece about this bad bill.

We are working hard to stop HB 370 in its tracks, and we need your help. The bill is in House Rules, waiting to be voted onto the House Floor. Please communicate with any legislators you know that HB 370 is an avenue for a salt marsh giveaway and a money-making scheme at the expense of the public’s ownership of the marsh.

Click here if you would like to use our communication system to express your opposition to members of the Georgia General Assembly.

Thank you for all you do to protect Georgia’s coast!

Unbridled Growth

Georgia’s coast is home to vast salt marshes, undeveloped barrier islands, intact maritime forests, and a robust private and public land conservation effort that has protected hundreds of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat. We have only to look to our neighbors north or south to know how fortunate Georgians are to have access to such a special place.

Georgia’s wild places are rural places populated with people who need economic opportunities. Traditionally, economic development strategies rely on the destruction of special places to provide jobs. That’s what we’ve been witnessing unfold along our coast the past few decades.

You’ve likely noticed the proliferation of mega-warehouses along I-16 and I-95. This new, more than 200,000 square feet of coastal warehouse space is touted as a response to the Hyundai plant that is being constructed in Bryan County and to the proposed Savannah port expansion. Local governments are approving many of these warehouses in areas outside of previously designated industrial development zones, in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. They are transforming communities—many impoverished or historic—overnight by causing massive amounts of truck traffic, stormwater and flooding nightmares, soaring property taxes or plummeting property values (depending on where you live), and other ill-effects—none of which have been properly planned for.

This growth is reckless and out of control. When the Hyundai plant opens, and as we move closer to the reality of a deeper Savannah Harbor, we can only expect more of the same.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

The Georgia Legislature requires every community to have official plans to accommodate growth, and every coastal county and municipality does. On paper, they are all responsible plans that could protect existing residents from the ill-effects of future growth. The plans do allow for growth—but in the right places. Places where people expect industry to be or where existing sewer lines and roads have extra capacity and where growth is consistent with what is already on the ground. After all, most people favor growth that benefits our communities, but also recognize that growth of any kind, any size, and anywhere is not responsible.

BUT, contrary to logic, those official growth plans do not dictate the future—the people who implement and enforce them do. In every community, there are between five and nine individuals who make decisions twice a month regarding growth that sometimes complies, and often diverges, from these plans. All it takes is a simple majority to protect our coast or to destroy it.

Ten years ago, we partnered with UGA to analyze growth trends along our coast. At that time, we found that between 1974 and 2008 the rate at which land was being consumed outpaced the rate of population growth by SEVEN times. Imagine sharing your office with one other person but increasing its size seven-fold to accommodate them. It’s absurdly inefficient and unnecessary, not to mention wasteful. Unbridled, inefficient growth impacts our people, fiscal and natural resources, and community infrastructure. The cumulative impact is the destruction of our unique coast and the whittling away of resources that add to our quality of life.

As we move into 2024, OHM is working to update this previous study by analyzing the patterns of growth along our coast over the last 50 years. There are a few triggers we are investigating—notably the most recent harbor deepening and the Hyundai plant. We believe we will prove our hypothesis that growth has mainly occurred in noncompliance with community plans and, as a result, has been more expensive and cumbersome for our communities and taxpayers.

OHM will not use this information to try to stop all growth. We aim to better understand and educate decision makers about the cumulative impacts past growth has had on our coast so that we can compare the choice between two very different futures: one where decision makers adhere to official growth plans and another where they continue to approve unchecked and uncoordinated growth. Future growth must protect of our people, communities, and natural resources. The struggle between economic development and community protection is only inevitable if we refuse to learn from our past.

I have a few quotes that I read every day. One of them is:

“In my dream, the angel shrugged and said, ‘If we fail this time, it will be a failure of imagination.’ Then she placed the world gently in the palm of my hand.”

This special place has, indeed, been placed in the palm of our hands. If we stand by, the coast as we know it will fail to exist. We will keep you posted as our strategy develops and you can read more on our website.

Thank you for thinking about this with us and for all you do. I hope you have a very happy holiday season!