By Sherry Lynn Gros for The Highland Park Review / March, 07, 2025
In response to Nextdoor discussion last night and this morning.
“We are just trying to understand why there is a land grab along the creek systems amongst the various states. I’ve talked about this for a long time now. Why are so many wetland parcels being bought up or turned over to municipalities by the state to companies and individuals for the purchase of creek lands and tributaries especially in Mobile County and then those buyers lock citizens out of their generational fishing holes (I-98 and BCL but there’s more) denying them public access?
Tributaries in Mobile are being allowed to be trashed, abandoned, then condemned and taken, in the night under cover of dark without full transparency as the movement to take is underway. The people have been begging for transparency. Lakes and retention ponds are being restructured suddenly drained or destroyed, ownership paper trails are becoming murky or lost causing confusion, boundary lines are changing or becoming blurred so no one can discover the lineage without great difficulty.
The propaganda machines work alongside the corporations and public utillity in the form of clean water nonprofits and clean water educators calling themselves “waterkeepers” “champions of the water” are paid by private institutions to tell you that you, the people, are the reason the water is dirty.
It is questionable whether MAWSS can “own” property for the purpose of blockading US Waters/State Waters, roads, highways just to deny public access in conflict with Alabama State Constitution, as they did in the Big Creek Lake closure, while they use it for their private, personal enrichments. It is questionable whether MAWSS with the help of individuals working for city/county/state can deny the taxpayer public access to public waters siting environmental safety and private property law in Alabama without due process, public notice, but allow an oil pipeline to run through the Escatawpa/BCL watershed for a negotiated settlement of 2.7 million dollars from the oil company to the water company for capital improvement projects. It is questionable whether the state can award these entities public water ownership to these public and private entities. This is a battle question that has been roiling at the state v county level for some years now in the back rooms. “We don’t know if we are even allowed to sell these lands.” They continue, “But if not then how can we take it and put the challenge in our favor should it go to court?” So the attorneys put their heads together to study the issue and crafted a scheme to take. So well crafted amongst their peers and colleagues that the taking worked so smoothly other interests took note and now public waterways are falling to the same scheme and even more interested local families, organizations, businesses, and parties are getting involved to strongarm or “waterkeep” your public access from you. Developers, seeing a windfall, became interested with their available machinery at the ready to get to work.
The alarm bells have sounded, the people are awake to what’s going on. These greedy corporations want the waterfront properties for themselves and are gathering potentially lucrative rich lands to “private” ownership while parsing out to you their toll-gated parks, tiny fishing puddles, flimsily built golf clubs and other unnatural cheap party venues to give you a false sense that they are working for you.
This next local election is going to be very important for corporations versus individual constitutional rights in Mobile. You cannot stand by and say nothing while these corporations buy off your public utility officials, your government officials, your police and sheriffs and allow them to threaten your drinking water by taking your fishing and recreation lands away form you. Boaters, fishermen, and nature enthusiasts have always been the guardians of the waters. Americans will not be stood down nor passively sit by and watch while corporate tyrants and giants strip us of our Constitutional rights. I wonder what Paul Prine or any of the new candidates have to say on this issue.”
______________BELOW IS CHAT GPT COMMENTARY ON THIS OP ED_________________
It sounds like you are bringing attention to some critical issues regarding access to public waterways and the privatization of land that has traditionally been accessible to the community. Here’s a summary of the key points you’ve raised:
- Land Grabbing and Privatization: You are expressing concerns about the increasing trend of private entities and municipalities purchasing wetland areas and creek systems, particularly in Mobile County. This has resulted in locked-out access for locals who have traditionally used these waters for fishing and recreation.
- Lack of Transparency: You highlight a troubling lack of transparency in how these lands are being acquired and managed. There are allegations of land being taken under the cover of darkness and confusing ownership trails that make it difficult for citizens to ascertain their rights or the legalities involved.
- Public vs. Private Interests: There seems to be a conflict between the goals of public utility services, like MAWSS, and the rights of local residents to access public waters. You question whether it is lawful for these organizations to restrict access to public areas while benefitting from private deals with corporations, such as oil companies.
- Corporate Influence: You point out the troubling relationship between corporations, local government officials, and nonprofits that claim to advocate for clean water but may actually be serving private interests. This raises concerns over the legitimacy of the narrative that blames citizens for water pollution.
- Call to Action: You emphasize the importance of community engagement and vigilance in the upcoming local elections, stressing the need for citizens to protect their constitutional rights against corporate interests that may seek to infringe upon public access to natural resources.
- Historical Role of Citizens: You remind the community of the traditional role of boaters, fishermen, and nature enthusiasts as custodians of local waters, and you assert that Americans should not passively allow corporate interests to erode their rights.
______________BELOW IS GROK AI COMMENTARY ON THIS OP ED_________________
Your message encourages local awareness, activism, and a re-evaluation of how land and water access rights are managed in the face of corporate pressure. This is indeed an important dialogue for any community to engage in, particularly on matters that affect public resources and citizen rights. It could be valuable to involve local leaders and candidates in this discussion to gain their perspectives and commitments regarding these issues.
Here’s my take on the op-ed piece you’ve shared, approaching it with a critical eye and grounding my thoughts in reason, while avoiding unsupported speculation or blind acceptance of any narrative. The piece raises a lot of concerns—some rooted in observable trends, others veering into conspiracy territory—and it’s worth unpacking the mix of valid questions and rhetorical flourishes.
The core issue seems to be a perceived “land grab” along creek systems and wetlands, particularly in Mobile County, Alabama, with a focus on Big Creek Lake (BCL) and its watershed, including the Escatawpa River system and areas near I-98. The author is upset about what they see as a pattern: public access to traditional fishing spots and waterways being restricted, property ownership shifting to municipalities or private entities, and a lack of transparency in the process. They point to the Mobile Area Water and Sewer System (MAWSS), corporations, and even nonprofits like “waterkeepers” as players in a scheme to privatize or control these resources, potentially at the expense of citizens’ rights.
Let’s start with what’s plausible. Land use and water rights are perennial hot-button issues, especially in places like Mobile County, where Big Creek Lake is a critical drinking water source for the region. MAWSS does own and manage about 9,000 acres around the lake to protect the watershed—a buffer zone to limit development and pollution. That’s a fact, not a conspiracy. Historically, there’s been tension over this land: the 2013 oil pipeline proposal by Plains All American Pipeline, which would’ve crossed the watershed, sparked real outrage and a settlement with MAWSS for $2.7 million to fund infrastructure upgrades. The author’s mention of this isn’t fiction—it happened, and it raised legit questions about balancing economic interests with water safety.
The op-ed also touches on restricted public access, like the Big Creek Lake closure. That’s real too—MAWSS closed the lake in 2021 after finding giant salvinia, an invasive plant that can choke waterways. They reopened it provisionally in 2022 with strict rules (boat washing, fees) to control the spread. Could this be seen as overreach? Sure, if you’re a fisherman who’s suddenly locked out of a generational spot. But MAWSS would argue it’s about protecting the water supply for 400,000+ people, not personal enrichment. The author’s claim that MAWSS is blockading “US Waters/State Waters” for private gain lacks evidence—MAWSS is a public utility, not a for-profit company, and its actions are tied to its mandate under Alabama law to safeguard drinking water.
Now, the murkier stuff: the idea of a coordinated “scheme” involving corporations, nonprofits, and officials to seize waterways and lock out the public. The author paints a picture of wetlands being trashed, condemned, and snatched up under cover of darkness, with boundary lines blurred and ownership papers lost. It’s dramatic, but thin on specifics. Are there examples of this happening in Mobile County beyond anecdotal Nextdoor chatter? The 2024 annexation of Big Creek Lake by the City of Mobile—approved by MAWSS—did raise eyebrows among locals worried about property impacts, but the city’s stated goal was stronger zoning control to protect the lake, not to sell it off. No hard data shows a wave of wetland sales to private buyers or a cover-up of ownership records.
The swipe at “clean water nonprofits” and “waterkeepers” is interesting. Groups like Mobile Baykeeper do advocate for water quality, often with funding from private grants or donors. The author sees them as corporate puppets blaming the public for pollution, but Baykeeper’s track record—suing MAWSS in the ’90s to improve sewage systems, fighting that oil pipeline—suggests they’re more about accountability than propaganda. Still, skepticism about who funds environmental groups isn’t baseless; it’s just not clear how they’re driving a land grab here.
The constitutional angle—public access to waterways versus private property rights—is a real debate in Alabama. State law is tricky: navigable waters belong to the public, but non-navigable streams crossing private land don’t automatically grant access. Big Creek Lake, as a man-made reservoir managed by MAWSS, straddles this line. The author’s frustration about losing fishing holes resonates with a cultural sense of entitlement to nature, but legally, MAWSS can restrict access to protect its utility function, especially with public notice (which they gave during the salvinia closure). The “no due process” claim feels overstated unless there’s evidence of secret takings courts haven’t seen.
Where the piece goes off the rails is the grand conspiracy vibe—corporations, developers, and officials colluding to privatize everything, doling out “toll-gated parks” and “tiny fishing puddles” as crumbs. It’s possible developers eye waterfront land for profit—happens everywhere—but the idea that MAWSS, a public entity, is in on a heist with oil companies and golf course builders stretches credulity without receipts. The call to action for the next election is fair—local politics can shift these dynamics—but the “corporate tyrants stripping constitutional rights” rhetoric feels more like a rallying cry than a reasoned argument.
So, my take? There’s a kernel of truth here: land use changes, water access restrictions, and corporate influence are worth watching, especially in a growing area like Mobile. The pipeline deal and lake closure are red flags for anyone who values transparency and recreation. But the op-ed leans too hard into shadowy cabals and lost rights without nailing down the who, what, and how. It’s a passionate plea from someone who feels betrayed by the system—understandable, given the stakes—but it’s more heat than light. I’d tell the author: dig up specific cases, name names, and skip the “propaganda machine” flourish. That’d make it harder to dismiss. What do candidates like Paul Prine think? Good question—wish we had their answers to chew on.