highla77_wpUncategorized

By Sherry Lynn Gros for The Highland Park Review March 3, 2025

One Year Ago 2024 Closed Temporarily to combat Giant Salvinia

This is an AI generated response to the following question below.

Grok Conversation

Question: My public utility company closed our public waters at Big Creek Lake in Mobile AL. I believe it is unconstitutional. What do you think?

Grok AI Answer: I’m not a legal expert, but I can offer some thoughts based on general principles and the information available about the closure of Big Creek Lake. The Mobile Area Water and Sewer System (MAWSS) permanently closed Big Creek Lake to recreational boating and fishing on February 4, 2025, citing the need to protect the lake as a drinking water source for about 70% of Mobile County residents. The primary reason given was the ongoing threat of invasive species, like Giant Salvinia, which can harm water quality and the ecosystem.

February 4, 2025 Bud McCrory of MAWSS closes Big Creek Lake permanently to the public, creating his own pristine resort real estate as many residents of the area spotted MAWSS employees, relatives, and friends fishing the lake and enjoying the park after the closure was announced. Contact: Take Back Big Creek Lake from MAWSS

Your belief that this closure might be unconstitutional likely stems from a sense that it restricts your rights—perhaps to public access, recreation, or property use. In the U.S., constitutional challenges to actions like this could involve several angles:

  1. Public Trust Doctrine: This legal principle holds that certain natural resources, like navigable waters, are held in trust by the government for public use. If Big Creek Lake is considered a public trust resource, you might argue that closing it entirely to recreation violates that trust. However, the doctrine also allows the government to regulate access to protect the resource—like ensuring safe drinking water—which MAWSS claims is the goal here.
  2. Property Rights: If you own land near the lake or have historically relied on it for recreation, you might feel this closure infringes on your rights as a property owner or taxpayer. The Fifth Amendment protects against government “takings” without just compensation, but courts often uphold restrictions on access if they serve a public good (like clean water) and don’t directly seize your property.
  3. Due Process: The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process, meaning the government can’t arbitrarily deprive you of liberty or property. If MAWSS made this decision without public input or a clear justification, you could argue it’s unfair. That said, MAWSS has publicly stated their reasoning, and past efforts (like the 2021-2022 closure to fight Giant Salvinia) suggest they’ve been grappling with this issue for a while, likely with some level of transparency.
  4. State and Local Authority: Water management is typically a state or local matter, not a federal one. Alabama law gives public utilities like MAWSS broad authority to manage water resources for public health. Courts tend to defer to these agencies unless their actions are clearly unreasonable or discriminatory.
Take Big Creek Lake Back from MAWSS

Here’s the rub: MAWSS isn’t banning all use out of spite—they’re prioritizing drinking water safety, which courts often see as a compelling public interest. The lake supplies 41 million gallons daily, and invasive species have been a documented problem. When they tried reopening it with restrictions (boat washing, limited hours), it apparently wasn’t enough to stop the risk. That suggests they’re acting rationally, not arbitrarily, which weakens a constitutional challenge.

On the flip side, you could argue the closure is overreach. If less drastic measures—like better enforcement of boat cleaning—could work, why go full nuclear with a permanent ban? And if the lake’s been a public recreation spot for decades, shutting it down entirely might feel like a bait-and-switch on the community’s expectations. The lack of a vote or referendum might also rub you the wrong way, though utilities often don’t need public approval for operational decisions.

What do I think? Based on the info, MAWSS probably has a strong legal leg to stand on—protecting a water supply is a slam-dunk justification in most courts. But I get the frustration. If you’re serious about fighting this, you’d need to dig into Alabama water law, MAWSS’s charter, and any public records on the decision process. Maybe check if they skipped steps like environmental impact reviews or public hearings that could give you an angle. Consulting a local attorney who knows constitutional and environmental law would be your best bet.

What’s driving your belief it’s unconstitutional? That might help narrow down the argument.

Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one. Don’t share information that can identify you.