The Town of Lowndesboro’s website says its well is currently out of service. It asks customers to limit water use and says the town is currently using its interconnect with Pintlala. On the town’s Water System page, that connection is described as backup for emergency water service. This is not an abstract diagram of regional infrastructure. A nearby town is relying on Pintlala now.
That fact does not establish that Pintlala lacks enough water for Project Red Clay. It does establish the question that needs a public answer before any new large obligation is made. How much water must Pintlala hold in reserve for its own customers, for fire protection, and for emergency service to a neighboring town? What remains after those commitments are counted, on the days when the system is under the most stress? Until the system puts those answers in writing, nobody outside the system should be asked to take them on faith.
Cloverleaf has described the project’s water needs in two different public settings. In June, a company statement reported by WSFA described up to 100,000 gallons per day from Pintlala as a one-time fill for closed-loop cooling. On its current project website, the developer says the system will have a one-time fill and use only office-building quantities of water day to day. That page does not list a maximum daily demand, a peak-demand figure, a fill schedule, or a water-service agreement. Those are the records needed to compare a company assurance with a water system’s actual obligations.
Pintlala members have an opportunity to ask for them Sunday. The system’s annual membership meeting is scheduled for September 13 at 2:00 p.m. in the Pintlala Volunteer Fire Department meeting room. The notice tells members planning to vote to bring a membership certificate and photo identification. The meeting notice does not say a Project Red Clay agreement is on the agenda. It is still the place where members can ask whether one exists, whether any commitment has been discussed, and what information will be public before a decision is made.
The questions should be concrete. What is the system’s reliable capacity, not just its theoretical maximum? What are its normal and peak demands? What water is reserved for existing customers, fire flow, and emergency interconnections? Is there a signed agreement, a draft agreement, a letter of intent, or no agreement at all? If the board has considered a commitment, will it release the engineering analysis, terms, and legal review that support it? If it has not, will it commit to releasing those documents before it does?
The board roster adds another reason to ask in the open. Pintlala’s meeting notice names Thomas Ellis among its five directors. The Lowndes County Economic Development Commission’s own website listed Ellis as its chairman when the site was checked in July. The LCEDC is the body that recruited Project Red Clay on the county’s behalf. Those positions do not prove a conflict or tell us how Ellis will vote. They do make disclosure necessary. Members can ask whether he has participated in discussions about water service for the project and, if a related decision comes before Pintlala, whether he will disclose that role and abstain.
This is not a demand for anyone to predict the future from a municipal outage. It is a demand to count what exists before making a promise. Lowndesboro’s well is out. Its emergency connection is Pintlala. Existing customers and neighboring communities should know what is reserved for them before a developer, a board, or anyone else treats that water as available.1234567