O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 12-5-377 (2019)

Dam removal

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) It shall be unlawful for the owner or operator of any dam for which a permit is required by this part to remove the dam without the approval of the director.

CONSERVATION & NATURAL RES.

(b) Prior to the commencement of removing any such dam, such owner or operator shall apply to the director on forms supplied by the division for permission to remove the dam.

(c) Within 60 days after the receipt of a completed application for removal, the director shall approve, or approve subject to appropriate conditions, the applicant’s request for removal.

(d) Upon receipt of approval for removal, the removal shall be commenced as soon as practicable; and the impoundment shall be drained and the structure permanently breached.

(e) Nothing in this part shall be construed to prevent the owner or operator of any impoundment from draining such impoundment without authorization from the director.

History

Ga. L. 1978, p. 795, § 8.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 78 Am. Jur. 2d, Waters, § 270.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2005–2005 · leading case: Bishop Eddie Long Ministries, Inc. v. Dillard, 613 S.E.2d 673 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bishop Eddie Long Ministries, Inc. v. Dillard, 613 S.E.2d 673 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “410 (1) ( 455 SE2d 834 ) (1995) (because a trial court in an interlocutory injunction decision does not make a final determination of the issues, “the grant or denial of an interlocutory injunction, as well as the affirmance thereof by [an appellate court], does not establish…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.