O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 12-5-571 (2019)

Legislative intent

✓ 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) The General Assembly recognizes the value of the metropolitan North Georgia area watersheds for water supply, recreation, habitat for fish and wildlife, economic prosperity, and quality of life. The General Assembly finds that adequate supplies of clean water for drinking and other purposes constitute the lifeblood of the metropolitan North Georgia area and are, therefore, essential to the health, welfare, and economic progress of the area. The purpose of this article is to create a planning entity dedicated to developing comprehensive regional and watershed-specific plans to be implemented by local governments in the district. These plans will protect water quality and public water supplies in and downstream of the region, protect recreational values of the waters in and downstream of the region, and minimize potential adverse impacts of development on waters in and downstream of the region.

(b) The General Assembly finds that the waters and watersheds of the district are natural resources, environments, and vital areas within the meaning of Article III, Section VI, Paragraph II of the Constitution of the State of Georgia.

History

Code 1981, § 12-5-571, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 115, § 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2004–2004 · leading case: Gwinnett Cnty. v. Lake Lanier Ass'n, 593 S.E.2d 678 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
Gwinnett Cnty. v. Lake Lanier Ass'n, 593 S.E.2d 678 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 12-5-571 (a). Therefore, the trial court erred in substituting its judgment on the facts for the ALJ’s in determining whether this element of the antidegradation provision had been satisfied.”
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.