The Henry County Water and Sewerage Authority (HCWSA) initiated this action in Butts County Superior Court to condemn 4.34 acres owned by Marilyn Patrick Ware, James D. Patrick, Jr. ánd Alice Patrick Taunton in Butts County (the “Patricks”). This condemnation action was filed in pursuit of HCWSA’s plan to build a reservoir that will straddle Henry and Butts Counties and provide for Henry County’s future water needs. The special master in the case recommended that the Patricks’ property be condemned and that their compensation for the property be $16,000. The Patricks appealed the award of the special master to the superior court. The Butts County Superior Court later adopted the special master’s condemnation recommendation as the judgment of the court following the court’s denial of a motion to dismiss filed by the Patricks. 1 The matter subse *779 quently proceeded to trial on the issue of the property’s valuation, where the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Patricks in the amount of $43,400.
The Patricks appeal from various orders issued during the course of this long and complex litigation. We will address the pertinent procedural history in the context of the Patricks’ enumerations.
1. The Patricks assert that the trial court erred in denying their, motion to dismiss on various grounds. We find no error.
(a) They first assert that HCWSA lacked the authority to condemn their Butts County property. They argue that the Butts County Water and Sewerage Authority (BCWSA) was granted exclusive jurisdiction in Butts County over water reservoirs by the legislature, which expressly granted BCWSA the power of eminent domain. Ga. L. 1986, pp. 5457, 5461, § 4 (3). In contrast, they assert that the act creating HCWSA did not expressly grant it the power of condemnation. Ga. L. 1961, p. 2588. Even if HCWSA has the power of condemnation, the Patricks assert that it lacked the authority to exert it extraterritorially in Butts County.
In ruling that HCWSA has the power of condemnation, the trial court relied upon
Johnston v. Clayton County Water
Auth.,
Similarly, while the act creating HCWSA. does not expressly grant it the power of eminent domain, it does grant the authority the power to build and maintain water systems “[both] within [and] without the limits of said county,” and to join the governing authority in the issuance of revenue anticipation certificates. Ga. L. 1961, p. 2589, § 2. Accordingly, HCWSA also possesses the power of eminent domain as granted under OCGA § 36-82-62 (a). See
Johnston,
*780 And that statute expressly provides that the power of eminent domain shall extend outside of the county’s territorial limits, as it grants:
[the] power . . . [t]o acquire, by gift, purchase, or the exercise of the right of eminent domain, and to construct, to reconstruct, to improve, to better, and to extend any undertaking wholly within or wholly outside the governmental body or partially within and partially outside the governmental body; and to acquire, by gift, purchase, or the exercise of the right of eminent domain, lands, easements, rights in lands, and water rights in connection therewith.
(Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 36-82-62 (a) (l). 2
(b) The Patricks also assert that the intergovernmental contracts clause of the Georgia Constitution, Art. IX, Sec. II, Par. III (b) (1), required HCWSA to obtain the consent of Butts County before proceeding with the condemnation action. Our Supreme Court has held, however, that this clause does not apply when a governmental entity has been given a specific, extraterritorial power by general or local law.
Kelley v. City of Griffin,
(c) The Patricks further rely upon a variety of statutes to assert that HCWSA was required to obtain various permits before condemning their property, but we do not read any of these statutes as imposing such a requirement.
The Patricks assert that the authority was required under OCGA § 12-5-29 (b) to obtain a permit from the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) before condemning their land. The Georgia Water Quality Control Act, OCGA § 12-5-21 et seq., upon which the Patricks rely, grants to the DNR the authority to regulate the withdrawal of surface waters in the state. The specific provision cited by the Patricks merely requires that an EPD permit be obtained prior to construction of a system for the disposal or discharge of sewage or *781 waste. OCGA § 12-5-29 (b). Nothing in the language of the statute required a permit before the filing of this condemnation proceeding.
And the Patricks’ assertion that HCWSA was required under OCGA § 12-5-376 (a) to obtain a permit to construct a dam prior to filing suit is similarly without merit. That statute provides only that a permit must be obtained “prior to [the] commencement of construction.” OCGA § 12-5-376 (a). Nor is there merit to the Patricks’ argument that federal law required HCWSA to acquire a Section 404 permit under the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 USC § 1344, before filing this action. And we do not read OCGA § 36-80-18, which requires that an environmental impact assessment be performed prior to the acquisition of real property for parks or recreational use, as preempting this condemnation proceeding, as the'Patricks contend.
(d) The Patricks also rely upon provisions of the Georgia Water Supply Act, OCGA § 12-5-471 et seq., to assert that HCWSA was required to have an agreement with Butts County before initiating this action. While the provisions cited by the Patricks impose requirements upon the DNR, nothing in those statutes imposes any requirement upon HCWSA prior to instituting a condemnation action. See OCGA §§ 12-5-472; 12-5-475.
(e) The Patricks next argue that their motion to dismiss should have been granted because HCWSA violated the statutory requirements by dismissing the probate judge and the tax commissioner of Butts County as parties to the condemnation proceeding after the trial court ruled that they were necessary parties. But we find no ruling by the trial court that the probate judge and the tax commissioner were necessary parties. Rather, the court ordered only that they be served with a copy of the petition of condemnation.
The trial court ordered service upon the probate judge in a representative capacity on behalf of “all unknown parties, unknown person or persons claiming any interest in the property, unborn remain-dermen and all persons laboring under disability and not represented by guardians or other personal representatives.” See OCGA § 22-2-107 (f). And the Code provides that the tax commissioner be served with notice of the petition “where any taxes are alleged or supposed to be due or unpaid,” OCGA § 22-2-134, although there is no evidence in the record of such unpaid taxes on the Patricks’ property.
HCWSA later dismissed without prejudice the tax commissioner, the probate judge, unknown owners, unborn remaindermen, minors or insane persons having title, interest, claim or demand in or against the property. Even assuming, without deciding, that this dismissal was unauthorized, there is nothing in the record to show how this dismissal prejudiced the Patricks’ interests with regard to the property so as to preempt the condemnation proceeding against them.
*782 Moreover, as the trial court noted, the special master ruled on the only issue raised by the tax commissioner and the probate judge: whether the special master should be recused. Under these circumstances, we think the trial court properly found that the dismissal of these nonrelated parties provided no basis to support the Patricks’ motion to dismiss.
2. The Patricks next assert error in the failure to grant their motion to recuse the special master in the case. They argued for recusal under the Judicial Code of Conduct on the ground that the special master practiced before and at times had been a judge pro tern of the Juvenile Court of Henry County where the attorney for HCWSA presides on a párt-time basis. In support of this argument, the Patricks introduced evidence that the special master had been compensated for his services by the juvenile court.
“The alleged bias of the judge which would warrant a recusal must be of such a nature and intensity to prevent the defendant from obtaining a trial uninfluenced by the court’s prejudgment. . . .
Birt v. State,
Therefore, after considering the Patricks’ arguments, we find no evidence of bias that would prevent them from receiving a fair hearing uninfluenced by prejudgment on the part of the special master. We thus find no abuse of discretion in the denial of their motion to recuse. See
Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Lightsey,
3. The Patricks further contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on their counterclaims asserting bad faith and intentional trespass and claiming damages for the illegal cutting of trees, shrubs and other property. 3
*783
The Patricks alleged that HCWSA’s appraiser and surveyor had illegally entered their property. But the law in Georgia is clear that a “prospective condemning body has the right, incidental to its power of eminent domain, to enter private property in order to survey, inspect, and appraise the property.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Walker v. City of Warner Robins,
4. The Patricks contend that the trial court erred in striking portions of the value opinion testimony of their expert as well as portions of testimony by two of the Patricks regarding value.
The only relevant issue in the jury trial was the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking. See
Dept. of Transp. v. Petkas,
The trial court struck the Patricks’ testimony only to the extent it impermissibly gave an opinion of the land’s value as if the reservoir was an accomplished fact and thus as if the property was lakefront property. The opinion of the Patricks’ expert was also struck to the extent that it went into valuations not supported by the evidence and not properly before the jury. The witnesses were allowed, however, to place a valuation on the property that complied with the standards set out in Colonial. Therefore, we find no error.
5. In addition, we find that the trial court did not err in granting HCWSA’s motion in limine on the issue of bad faith. When a condemnation award by a special master under Title 22 is appealed to the superior court, the jury trial is on the issue of value and damages alone; all nonvalue issues are for the trial court’s determination.
City
*784
of Savannah Beach v. Thompson,
6. 'The Patricks next take issue with the trial court’s hearing evidence of certain witnesses outside the presence of the jury. The conduct of the trial is necessarily controlled by the trial judge, and such evidentiary matters are within the trial court’s discretion. See
Ginn v. State,
7. In addition, we find no merit to the Patricks’ claim that the trial court mischarged the jury.
“A
jury charge must be adjusted to the evidence, apt, and a correct statement of the applicable law.”
First Bancorp Mtg. Corp. v. Gid-dens,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The trial court certified its denial of the Patricks’ motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal, but this Court denied the Patricks’ application.
It appears that the Patricks sire arguing that BCWSA’s power of eminent domain somehow exceeds that of HCWSA because it was expressly granted by the legislation creating BCWSA. But that argument is not supported by the legislation itself, which provides: “This Act does not in any way take [away] from . . . any adjoining county the authority to own, operate, and maintain water systems or issue revenue bonds as is provided by Article 3 of Chapter 82 of Title 36 of the OCGA, the ‘Revenue Bond Law,’ ” which encompasses OCGA § 36-82-62. Ga. L. 1986, pp. 5457, 5471, § 31.
Although the Patricks also raised additional issues in counterclaim, they do not argue such matters on appeal, and we will not address them.