Appellant Brookfield Country Club, Inc. Brookfield appealed to the Court of Appeals from an order of the trial court denying its application to partially vacate an arbitrator’s award, and granting a cross-application brought by appellee St. James-Brookfield, LLC St. James to affirm the award. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court. Brookfield Country Club v. St. James-Brookfield , 299 Ga. App. 614 683 SE2d 40 2009. We granted certiorari to review that decision. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. Brookfield is a non-profit corporation established in 1991 to own and operate a country club in Roswell. During its first nine years, Brookfield operated the club’s golf course, drawing water to irrigate the golf course from Lake Stanford, a man-made lake on the property. The Georgia Water Quality Control Act, OCGA § 12-5-20 et seq., which governs the use of Georgia’s surface waters, requires a permit from the Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources before any withdrawal or diversion of surface waters, including the lake on Brookfield’s property. OCGA § 12-5-31 a. Although OCGA § 12-5-31 a 1 A provides an exception to the permit requirement for withdrawals that do not involve more than 100,000 gallons per day on a monthly average, the amount of water required to maintain Brookfield’s golf course far exceeds that limit. Brookfield never obtained the required permit. Brookfield Country Club , supra at 614. In 2000 Brookfield leased the country club property to St. James pursuant to a long-term lease and an incorporated management agreement the lease. Brookfield warranted in the lease that it has fee simple title to the premises, not subject to any leases or claims of others, except for certain specified exceptions, and it covenanted to defend St. James’ possession of the premises against all parties claiming under Brookfield. Incorporated into the lease was a “Premises Description” which contained a legal description of the property, and included as part of the premises “water, water courses, water rights . . . and other enablements then located on, under or above all or any portion of the Land or appurtenant thereto.”
The terms of the lease also required the parties to submit all disputes “to negotiation and, if necessary mediation and arbitration.” That arbitration provision specified that the arbitrator be bound by the strict terms of the lease and also provided for court vacatur of the arbitrator’s award “if the court finds the arbitrator’s award is not consistent with applicable law or not supported by a preponderance of the evidence . . . all in addition to grounds for vacation of an award as set forth in the Georgia Arbitration Code OCGA § 9-9-1 et seq. Arbitration Code.” The lease further specified that in case of conflict between the lease provisions and the Arbitration Code, “the provisions of the lease shall control.”
