AN ACT to create the "Southern Cumberland Plateau Regional Water and Wastewater Authority."
HB2667 creates the Southern Cumberland Plateau Regional Water and Wastewater Authority as a public corporation to plan, acquire, build, finance, own, operate, and maintain water and wastewater systems in the Southern Cumberland Plateau region. The Authority is intended to serve Grundy County and the towns of Monteagle and Tracy City, along with the Big Creek Utility District and Sewanee Utility District, while also allowing additional municipalities to join later if they contract with the Authority. The bill gives the Authority broad operational powers, including the ability to set rates and fees, enter into contracts, hire staff and consultants, acquire property, and issue debt.
The act also establishes a governance structure with a Board of Commissioners made up of local officials and utility district appointees, with provisions for adding or removing seats if participating governments change. It authorizes the transfer or consolidation of existing water and sewer assets and liabilities from the county, cities, and utility districts to the new Authority, and allows those entities to support the Authority through loans, donations, guarantees, or joint obligations. The bill further provides for sewer-charge collection through water bills, the use of eminent domain, annual budgets and audits, and eventual dissolution of the Authority once its purposes are complete and its debts are paid.
HB2667 would create a new regional water and wastewater authority with independent legal status and extensive statutory powers over utility planning, operations, financing, and asset acquisition in Grundy County and the named municipalities and utility districts. It would affect local water and sewer governance by allowing the transfer of systems, liabilities, and debt obligations to the Authority, while also authorizing joint financing arrangements and revenue-backed bonds and notes. The bill also exempts the Authority and its securities from most state and local taxation, places it under certain environmental and utility regulation, and limits liability for the state and participating local governments unless they expressly agree otherwise.
The available voting history shows strong, unanimous support at every stage, including committee recommendations for passage and 95-0 and 33-0 floor votes. That pattern suggests the bill was broadly viewed as a practical local infrastructure measure rather than a controversial policy change. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate significant opposition.
There is little visible contention in the record because all recorded votes were unanimous. The main issues inherent in the bill are structural rather than partisan: who controls the new Authority, whether local governments should transfer assets and debt, and whether county or district taxpayers could be exposed through joint obligations or guarantees. The bill addresses those concerns by requiring local governing-body approval for guarantees and by stating that the Authority’s bonds are not debts of the state or local governments unless specifically authorized.