From Private Jets to Water Rights: A Look at LGS Group and the High-Stakes Game of Water Speculation

Perhaps I am experiencing a heightened sense of inspiration as a result of a recent camping excursion to a secluded region of the Gulf of Mexico, where I felt a profound connection to the natural world, transcending the role of a mere cog in the capitalist machine. Nevertheless, I have consistently regarded Aviate Alabama as a sanctuary from political influences, and this perception will endure. Nevertheless, I find myself engaged in a pertinent internal dialogue. Is this the momentous occasion akin to Jerry Maguire’s?

I am an avid aviation enthusiast. The reasons for my passion are not particularly significant. I simply love living, I love clean water, animals, nature, and everything that encompasses these elements. I even hold a positive view of free markets and capitalism. Private jets often evoke negative sentiments among many people. They perceive excess, greed, and selfishness, and there are likely other negative connotations associated with them. While I acknowledge these perceptions, I also recognize that private jets create a substantial number of jobs, serve as a lifeline for local communities, and provide opportunities for individuals to experience things that might otherwise be unavailable.

I firmly believe that humans require experiences to broaden their horizons and gain inspiration. Exploring new possibilities can help shape personal goals, those of their families, or even inspire groundbreaking discoveries in the fields of medicine and technology. While private jets may not be necessary for everyone, I hope my perspective is conveyed without the need for further elaboration.

Recently, I had the opportunity to film the aircraft of LGS Group, which, according to reports, comprises real estate developers from Stockbridge, Georgia. While their involvement in the real estate industry may not hold significant importance, they have recently been involved in a controversy due to their acquisition of land in a specific county in Colorado, with suspected intentions of controlling water rights.

Colorado, an arid state, relies heavily on snowmelt from the Rocky Mountains for its water supply. The state’s rivers serve not only Colorado but also downstream users in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and even Mexico. In certain regions, owning water rights often holds greater value than owning the land itself.

For developers, water rights signify development rights.

Groups like LGS comprehend this dynamic effectively. As a network of developers, they are not merely purchasing land; they are acquiring the ability to transform land into profitable ventures. Without water, there can be no subdivisions, agriculture, or substantial growth.

By securing water rights, LGS can:

• Facilitate the development of new housing communities.
• Sell access to water at a premium to other builders.
• Hold the rights as speculative assets, anticipating a surge in demand.

In many ways, water rights serve as the foundation for future economic opportunities, particularly in a state experiencing rapid development but facing water resource constraints.

The “Buy and Dry” Dilemma

One of the primary concerns surrounding LGS’s activities is the potential for “buy and dry,” a controversial practice where water rights are acquired from rural agricultural areas and subsequently transferred to serve urban development. This tactic is legally permissible but deeply divisive.

When agricultural land loses its water supply, it rapidly becomes barren. Entire rural economies can collapse, and once-thriving communities endure lasting repercussions. Environmental impacts also follow, as creeks dry up, wetlands disappear, and ecosystems become destabilized.

Critics express apprehension that LGS is a component of a broader trend where rural Colorado is drained to support suburban growth, while profits are extracted from the state.

Who Should Govern Colorado’s Water?

The public opposition to LGS stems not only from environmental concerns but also from a broader debate regarding local control versus external speculation.

Should a group of developers from Georgia, dressed in suits and smoking cigars, as one local described them, have the authority to make decisions that could alter the future of Colorado’s landscapes and livelihoods? Particularly when those decisions are guided by profit motives rather than the needs of the community?

These concerns are exacerbated by the state’s intricate water laws. Colorado operates under a “first in time, first in right” doctrine, which means senior water rights holders have precedence regardless of current usage or community impact. This system can benefit early purchasers, even if their intentions are speculative.

Subscribe For More

A Conflict That Has Only Just Begun

Whether the LGS Group succeeds or not, their presence in Colorado underscores an urgent and ongoing issue: who has the authority to determine the future of water in the West? As climate conditions deteriorate and populations increase, these questions will become even more critical and contentious.

Currently, LGS remains one of several participants in this high-stakes game. However, their ambitions in Colorado could have lasting effects on local communities, agricultural viability, and the delicate ecological equilibrium of the region.

The water conflicts are no longer solely about dams and rivers. They are about contracts, developers, and who has the power to shape the next chapter of the American West.

What LGS Group is Doing is Fully Within the Law

It is a crucial fact for me to learn about this, as my father is a criminal defense attorney. He has represented individuals involved in serious crimes, including serial killers and bank robbers. A common question I recall him asking, and one I have asked myself frequently, is how to represent someone who is known to be guilty, especially in cases of heinous crimes. My father’s role was not to acquit guilty individuals; rather, it was to safeguard the rights of his clients. This is significant because if the rights guaranteed by the Constitution do not apply to the most heinous among us, they also do not apply to the most virtuous among us. If we fail to protect the rights of all, none of us will have them.

Additionally, it is imperative to emphasize that lying and committing perjury are strictly prohibited. The prosecution’s responsibility is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, while the attorney’s role is to protect their client’s rights.

Therefore, I must emphasize that my understanding is that LGS Group operates within the bounds of the law, which is their right. Having gained experience camping in a remote area of the Gulf of Mexico, witnessing the diverse wildlife and thriving natural environment that depends on clean water, this has been an intriguing exploration.

It even reminded me of water conflicts that I have heard about since childhood, just outside my back door.

The Southeast’s Water War: Alabama, Georgia, and Florida’s Struggle for a Lifeline

While the LGS Group’s water dealings have garnered significant attention in the West, particularly in Colorado, it is essential to recognize that some of the most intense battles over water are occurring much closer to LGS’s headquarters in Georgia. For decades, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida have been engaged in a high-stakes legal and environmental dispute concerning two vital river systems, often referred to as the Tri-State Water Wars.

The crux of the matter lies in the two major river basins:

• The Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint (ACF) River Basin and the
• Alabama–Coosa–Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basin

These rivers originate in northern Georgia, traverse Alabama, and ultimately discharge into Florida’s Apalachicola Bay, a critical ecosystem that sustains seafood production, particularly oysters. Control over these rivers entails control over drinking water, agriculture, energy, and ecosystems, and all three states aspire to acquire more than their current allocation.

The Core Conflict

• Georgia, particularly the Atlanta metropolitan region, seeks to retain and utilize more water upstream to support its burgeoning population, industry, and growth.
• Alabama relies on consistent and regulated water flow for hydropower generation, agriculture, and industrial operations.
• Florida necessitates freshwater to flow into the Apalachicola Bay, where declining river levels and escalating salinity have already decimated the once-prosperous oyster industry.

A Legal Dispute with No Resolution in Sight

The water disputes have persisted for over three decades, involving numerous lawsuits, unsuccessful negotiations, and appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Notable events include:

• In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Georgia in a case initiated by Florida, affirming that Florida failed to demonstrate that Georgia’s water consumption caused discernible harm to the Apalachicola Bay ecosystem.
• Alabama continues to resist upstream control by Georgia, contending that the state’s rapid growth should not compromise downstream stability.

Despite decades of litigation, a permanent water-sharing agreement remains elusive.

Is LGS Group Involved?

To date, there is no public evidence suggesting that the LGS Group is directly involved in the Tri-State Water Wars or any litigation or lobbying related to the ACF or ACT river basins.

However, considering the group’s focus on real estate development and its growing interest in strategic water acquisitions in the West, it is pertinent to observe whether they will assume a more significant role in water-related infrastructure or land banking in the Southeast, particularly in Georgia, where LGS is headquartered and where water rights are increasingly valuable.

Why It Matters

The Southeast’s water conflict serves as a stark reminder that conflicts over water resources are no longer confined to the arid West. As populations grow and climate stress intensifies, even traditionally “wet” states like Alabama and Georgia are experiencing pressure.

I do not possess an answer to this question. I do not even assert the necessity of an answer, nor do I imply that I concur with the existence of a problem.

Rather, this situation prompts me to contemplate the themes discussed during today’s sermon at St. Michael’s and All Angels. The quote by Edward Everett Hale resonates deeply with me: “I am only one, but I am one. I cannot accomplish everything, but I can do something. And I will not allow what I cannot do to hinder what I can do.”