Cobb County drain hearing paused after landowners contest $776,000 Orobor reconstruction plan

The Cobb County Drain Board heard more than a dozen objections July 9 to a proposed reconstruction of the Orobor regulated drain, after the county surveyor presented a history of the tile system, an engineering design and an estimated watershed cost of $776,367.98.

The surveyor told the board the system — parts of which date to 1876 — no longer meets current drainage needs and that the proposed project would involve 2,815 feet of 36-inch tile and other sizes across a 598.63-acre watershed, with a per-benefited-acre engineer's estimate of $1,296.93.

The hearing drew sustained opposition from landowners who said the cost and the method of allocating assessments are unfair. "I don't have standing water. I have grass," said Tim Schopp, a nearby landowner, arguing that blowouts are localized and a phased or targeted repair would be far less expensive than the proposed full reconstruction. "You're going to make a situation potentially worse," Schopp said of installing a 36-inch tile where flows are often shallow.

Other objectors raised legal and factual objections. An attorney for an objector, Everett Newman, urged the board to consider whether the surveyor had performed the individualized special-benefit analysis required by the cited statute, saying the record did not show changes in land use that would alone justify reconstruction. Several letters and speakers also referenced statutory vacate criteria in IC 36-9-27 and asked the board to evaluate vacating or phasing instead of rebuilding.

Wetland protections drew specific concern. Jim Ealy, who identified himself as having a federal wetland easement on part of his property, told the board the wetland retains water and that he receives little to no benefit from the drain; he asked that wetland acres be exempted from assessment. A written objection from Stanley Farm similarly cited a federal wetland agreement and said proposed changes might violate easement prohibitions; the surveyor's office responded that the planned work would be outside the wetland easement and that the board could adjust assessments for such parcels.

Not all speakers opposed the plan. Rory Walker, a local resident, urged the board to approve the project despite its cost, citing repeated road closures and safety hazards. Ben Parker, the county highway superintendent, said County Road 28 has been shut down for flooding and described limits the highway department faces when drainage is on private land.

Board members discussed options including denial, approval, phasing and reconvening the hearing to gather more information from the surveyor and to reassess benefit allocations. A committee member moved to reconvene the hearing for additional information; the motion was seconded by the chair and passed on a voice vote. The board set a reconvened hearing for Aug. 6, 2026, at 9 a.m.

The hearing record includes multiple written objections (including one filed late but entered into the record) asserting that many parcels receive little or no benefit and asking for clearer documentation of how per-parcel assessments were calculated. The surveyor said bids for the work cannot exceed the engineer's estimate by more than 10 percent, and that the board may consider phased work or maintenance-rate increases as alternatives.

The board left the record open and adjourned the session; no final decision to approve reconstruction was made on July 9.