EDITOR: 

In recent months, the City of Aiken has demonstrated a capacity for making very wise decisions regarding the management and conservation of natural resources. The City’s acquisition of the 2500-acre Brunswick Tract and the perpetual conservation of the Mason Branch Preserve (in partnership with SC Conservation Bank and the Aiken Land Conservancy) are two compelling examples. Similarly, the City is building a new water treatment plant on Shaws Creek and has obtained grant funding to help offset the cost of this new infrastructure. I commend City leadership for their thoughtful foresight and bold progress in these areas.

What a shock it is, therefore, that our City now proposes to leverage water resources as a bargaining chip to entice economic investment in north Aiken. The City is being courted by a potential utility customer that wishes to locate in Verenes Business Park. To close the deal, the City has proposed a new two-tier rate structure that will provide water at a significant discount to this new customer (and to other “major commercial/industrial users” that may locate in the City in the future). This new water customer may likely use more than 30 million gallons each month. For reference, the City’s Mason Branch Reservoir, which is a supplement for Shaws Creek, has an entire storage capacity of about 340 million gallons.

The City has said that this favorable rate for major commercial/industrial users “would not affect regular (interpreted to mean existing) water customers.” But such a promise is difficult to believe in light of the City’s tendency to frequently raise water rates — seven separate rate hikes since 2010. It may be impossible to prove, but residents and small business customers will interpret future price increases as the City’s way of subsidizing this “industrial water welfare” scheme.

The risk that smaller consumers will end up carrying the burden for this thirsty new water customer is particularly insulting opposite the City’s stated water policy, which reads: “residential rates are structured to encourage conservation, and the more water that you use, the higher the cost.” Further, by selling our water at a cut-rate price, the City is missing out on potentially millions in revenue over the lifespan of this project. That will be a bitter pill for customers who have been putting up with decaying pipes and broken valves for years.

This proposed scheme is filled with inequities that will inevitably be a burden and a raw deal for citizens. But there are multiple other reasons to reject the City’s proposed ordinance. Our water comes from groundwater and surface water; these are renewable resources, but they are not unlimited. Scientific models for this area show that, in high-demand scenarios (such as the growth we have been experiencing since 2010), we can expect real surface water and groundwater shortages in this region in the next two to three generations, possibly much sooner. In Aiken County, projections indicate that groundwater levels may fall below the top of the McQueen Branch aquifer near Shaws Creek. That condition poses real risks, such as land subsidence, reduced well yields, dry wells, and permanent compaction and loss of storage capacity in the aquifer. Further, a repeat of the 2002 drought is predicted to cause surface water shortages for one to two months in the Edisto River and Shaws Creek area.

Natural resources that may soon be in short supply should not be sold at a discounted price to entice commercial/industrial development. The City has other ways (e.g., tax incentives, FILOT, and loans) that it can use to entice economic investment.

I hope your readers share these concerns, and I hope they will attend the City Council meeting at 7pm on Monday 12 February, where this issue is on the agenda for second reading and public hearing.

Laura Bagwell
Coalescent Consulting, LLC
Aiken, SC