NATCHEZ — After nine years of dealing with a Dunbar Road right-of-way complaint, Supervisors — apparently for the second time — decided to take no action at the request of Adams County resident Lynn Wirtz, who has championed the issue since the beginning.

As the board unanimously approved the motion, Wirtz told the supervisors he would see them in court.

The incident began in June 2008 when Wirtz’s Dunbar Road neighbor bulldozed an approximately 300-foot section of property along the road within the county right-of-way.

Wirtz said the neighbor did not have the right to remove trees and move dirt within the right-of-way, as it is technically owned by the county.

Adams County Board Attorney Scott Slover said under a right-of-way, the land owner does lose some rights but the right to excess dirt or trees, according to rulings by the Mississippi Supreme Court, are not lost.

Slover, also citing opinions from the Office of the Attorney General of Mississippi, said if removing trees and dirt does not cause harm to the right-of-way, that the materials would be part of the excess not needed to maintain the roadway.

“The Wirtz contentions are, from a legal perspective, simply wrong,” wrote Ricky G. Luke, assistant attorney general. “We remain of the opinion that our statement of the law … is a correct one.”

Wirtz, however, said an attorney general’s opinion is just that, an opinion — not law. Wirtz said he has spent money consulting with attorneys that back his claim. Wirtz said including everything, he has spent $25,000 fighting this incident.

Wirtz said that if someone takes valuable assets from the right-of-way without the knowledge of the road manager and county supervisor, it is theft. Wirtz was also able to cite statute, which suggests that the county cannot donate either directly or indirectly lands belonging to or under board control, which roadways would be, he said.

Wirtz said he believes everyone involved in the nine-year battle believes it is time for resolution. The question is, “How should it end?” he asked. Wirtz said he would not stop fighting if the county decided to take no action.

District 2 Supervisor David Carter said the matter should have ended in February 2009, when then Board President Henry Watts sent a letter, which was unanimously ratified by the board of supervisors, to Wirtz stating the board would take no action on the matter.

“This is something me, Ricky (Gray), Calvin (Butler) and Angela (Hutchins) inherited that will be coming up on a decade next year,” Carter said. “We just keep kicking the bucket down the road. I don’t know how continuing to push it down the road adds anything.”

Carter said he agrees with Wirtz that removing trees on the right-of-way is something that happens all the time in the county. People remove trees to make improvements to fencing, their driveways and other portions of their property, he said.

Carter said it is time for the county to move on because more important issues exist including crumbling roads and the condition of the public schools and the school board attempting to build a new high school. Carter said the county needs Slover available for these types of issues instead of something Carter called minor.

“We have spent countless hours regurgitating the same issues,” Carter said.

Wirtz said if the county decided to take no action on the matter, it would go against a gentleman’s agreement with Circuit Court Judge Forrest “Al” Johnson.

Supervisors President Mike Lazarus said the agreement between the parties involving Johnson was that if the board decided to take no action, Wirtz would appeal in Johnson’s circuit court, not with supervisors. Lazarus said the decision on whether to take action or not was supposed to be made two weeks ago, but the board elected give Wirtz time to respond to an order from Slover.

Lazarus said now Wirtz wants two more weeks to respond to Slover’s follow-up letter to Wirtz.

“You and Scott may go back and forth for another five years,” Lazarus said.

After the supervisors voted unanimously to take no action against the Dunbar Road homeowner, Wirtz said he would file a bill of exception and proceed forward to court.

Wirtz, contending the board taking no action was abdication of responsibility, said this board’s conduct toward the law would be decided in court, not through an attorney general’s opinion.

Slover said the trial would cost approximately $1,500 and an appeal would cost approximately $10,000. Slover said if filed and pursued, the county would seek to recover attorney’s fees.

Slover said if Wirtz supplies something that could contradict the legal opinions, the board could reconsider taking action.

“But I don’t think that’s likely since the supreme court, attorney general and three board attorneys found to the contrary,” Slover said.