Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The Chambers County Commissioners have approved an action to respond to the proposal for a quarry site located in a contentious location in the Cusseta community. 

The resolution authorizes the county attorney to request that the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) hold a public meeting at the courthouse so citizens and commissioners alike can pose questions about the quarry.

“I think they were very pleased with a resolution and response from the commissioners, as well as the county attorney and the county engineer, wanting to be involved,” said Valerie Gray, who serves as a consultant and spokesperson for the Conserve Cusseta team. “Because that shows that they are listening, and they do hear the citizens’ voices and the business owners’ voices…”

Gray said that the resolution shows a genuine concern for the potential public health issue that a quarry would present for the water source in Cusseta. Moving forward, the Conserve Cusseta team will continue to fight the proposed quarry.

Commission Chairman David Eastridge told the Valley Times-News that the commission and the highway department are currently conducting a road study in response to the Cusseta group’s concerns. At the Monday meeting, he also told residents to leave their contact details so he can reach out to them after the meetings. 

In October, Cusseta landowners organized against the proposed aggregate mining facility and quarry on County Road 389, naming themselves the Conserve Cusseta team. They began visiting the commission meetings asking them to step in and take action against it. 

Not just that, the Conserve Cusseta team has conducted extensive research on all the wells and well water systems including the depths and distance from the quarry. One of the members also did a statewide study on all quarries in Alabama and their proximity to state highways. 

According to Gray, very few quarries in the state are located on a county road rather than having direct access to state-maintained roads which could cause issues for the county commissioners. 

“This could be extremely costly, more costly than other quarries in the state because of the location, directly on county roads,” Gray said. 

Conserve Cusseta has spoken to other Alabama communities who have faced a similar battle. For example, the Loachapoka mayor was vocal about the negative effects of the quarry that was placed in Lee County some years ago. 

Some of the landowners of Cusseta have taken legal steps against the potential quarry. The nature of the lawsuit, according to the document which is public record, is the “Protection of Rights in and to the Use and Enjoyment of Privately Owned Homes, Farms, Businesses, Natural Resources, Cattle, and Horses Without Interference or Harm from the Rocky Glades Pit or Any Quarry.”

This means that these landowners are seeking to protect their homes, land and agricultural and cattle farms from “the imminent and irremediable harm” that they anticipate from the intended quarry plans. 

A quarry is, as outlined in the lawsuit, “an open pit mine designed specifically for the removal of large deposits of rock … The rock is fractured and removed by drilling and blasting. The hole that is formed in the earth as the rock is removed becomes the quarry or pit.”

The Cusseta residents have raised concerns about the quarry polluting the rain and groundwater around the area. According to the group, over 55 wells support farms and homesteads in the area that may be affected by granite fissures. This could also financially impact many agricultural and cattle businesses in Cusseta. 

Another concern landowners have is that the county roads will likely be degraded by the load-bearing trucks that will have to transport rock to processing plants. The intended quarry site is about 5 miles from the nearest state road, according to Jason McKay, a Cusseta landowner who spoke on Monday night.

Throughout the lawsuit documents, the plaintiffs maintain that the quarry operations will “torment the plaintiffs, their livestock and horses, and the surrounding community for decades while it is operational, and then it will remain as a permanent, massive and hazardous hole in the earth.” 

They argue that it will be a nuisance and cause harm to nearby landowners and their agricultural businesses; it will disrupt a “common area aquifer” and interfere with local wells; it will interfere with groundwater; it will cause injury to plaintiffs’ cattle, horses, and other livestock/wildlife; and it will damage county roads that are public use.

“This is people’s livelihood and their homes so obviously emotions are going to come into play,” Gray said. “But I am so proud of the commissioners, and I am so proud of our citizens who mobilized and are treating each other with respect every two weeks [at the commission meetings].”