Category Archives: Drinking water

City Government, Drinking water, Freedom of Information, June 2025

Aiken, S.C. + Drinking Water = Brown Water + Parallel Health Hazards

8 Comments

By Robert A. Leishear, PhD, PE, ASME Fellow   

June 30, 2025  

Living in Aiken, I routinely observe the failures of our government to protect public safety in our water system.

From June 25, 2025 through June, 29, 2025 (and continuing), widespread complaints about ‘brown water’ were reported by Aiken residents. By reading local newspapers, everything seems to be okay, but I fiercely disagree. The Aiken Standard reported that “Discolored Water Is Still a Problem for Aiken Customers.” After four days, Aiken is still flushing out the muck from water mains but not addressing the real problems.

Heat has Mistakenly been Blamed for Brown Water

Heat has been blamed as a primary cause of recent discolored water (“Discolored water reported throughout Aiken as extreme heat takes toll.”). However, temperatures are slightly hotter this year than last year (“Weather History in Aiken“), when brown water was not so large a problem (see Figure 1). In short, surges of brown water complaints drastically increased in August 2022, July 2023 and May 2025, but not during the summer of 2024. Temperature and hot weather are clearly not a driver for brown water increases. Water hammer provides an explanation for these three incidents and smaller incidents throughout the years, where such hammers are created by operating pumps and valves.

A new water system was being placed in service, and a water hammer during startup may have blasted corrosion debris loose throughout the system. That is, a possible cause of Aiken brown water on June 25, 2025, was operator error, rather than weather or infrastructure improvements. Confirmation data is unavailable to the public at present. Aiken staff may not even be aware of the possibility or occurrence of a water hammer, since hammers are frequently not heard when pipes are securely fastened and cannot bang when hammered.

Facing Our Government Again

Accordingly, I sent the following unanswered letter to the Aiken Mayor and all members of the City Council.

“We have serious problems that are not being addressed for the Aiken water supply. Please note the conclusion below: ‘In conclusion, Aiken breaks our mains and then blames residents if they are poisoned.’

Aiken Brown Water and Parallel Health Hazards (6/7/2025)

Although brown water in the Aiken drinking water supply is generally considered to be reasonably safe, water hammers that generate rust in our drinking water continue in Aiken, and those same water hammers endanger our drinking water safety. Aiken is spending tax dollars to fix the symptoms of health problems and health problems accelerate. Aiken needs to stop damaging our water system to protect our health.

On June 23, 2025, an Aiken City Council meeting promoted more money for unidirectional flushing, which effectively washes away rust in water mains. This method flows water into fire hydrants and flushes rust out through the next closest fire hydrant. Aiken is even installing more hydrants to increase the flow rates between some hydrants to remove more rust from our water mains.

Published by commercial water companies, brown water is claimed to not present a health hazard, since iron in rust is not a health hazard, and small quantities of detrimental manganese in rust are not usually present in high enough concentrations during brown water events to affect health. In other words, the brown water problem can be washed out of sight, but the acceleration of brown water creation hammers forward.

Peer reviewed publications and supporting scientific research prove that Aiken is not addressing the primary cause of rust in water mains, where water hammer creates brown water, or rust, in water mains (“Water Hammer Causes Water Main Breaks“). Basically, the operations of water pumps, industrial valves and fire hydrants cause high-pressure shock waves in water mains that travel throughout the city to crack water mains and generate rust in those cracks, and subsequent hammers disperse brown water to residents.

Until we stop the water main breaks in Aiken, we will have more cracks, more rust, more brown water, and more water main breaks (“Aiken, S.C. Officials Destroy Our Water System and Endanger Our Lives and Health“, “Money is Gone in My Home Town of Aiken, and the Water Main Breaks Keep on Coming“, and “Water Main Breaks Will Continue in Aiken“).

Far more importantly, water main cracks increase lead poisoning and infectious diseases in drinking water (“Our Water Mains Contaminate Us with E. Coli, Lead and Copper – Illness and Death Follow“, peer reviewed). Aiken officials have joined other cities to refuse to further investigate and stop these significant health hazards (“A One-Man-Fight Against Small Town and U.S. Water Main Breaks”).

A 2024 City of Aiken Water Report [that was a flyer delivered to customers] described water treatment before water enters water mains. Also, Aiken tests and [reports]’ ‘drinking water once per year or less, but Aiken tests 60 locations daily per the Aiken Mayor, but Aiken does not specifically check water from water mains after known water hammer events. Also, there are 22,000 connections to the water supply, and Aiken does not yet know where all of the lead pipes are located for customers. At present, lead contamination levels throughout Aiken are not known. In other words, we do not know when all of our water is safe or not.

In that report, Aiken stated that we, the Aiken residents, “share the responsibility for protecting [ourselves] and [our] family from lead”. In conclusion, Aiken breaks our mains and then blames residents if they are poisoned.

The Facts of Aiken Water Main Destruction

A parallel unanswered letter was sent only to the Aiken Mayor to provide further technical basis for these claims.

Aiken Keeps Breaking Our Drinking Water Supply (6/27/2025)

Evidence in Figures 1 to 3 below clearly proves that Aiken brown water complaints, water main breaks, and city-owned water system leaks continually rise. With respect to brown water complaints, Aiken is unnecessarily destroying the Aiken water system. That is, brown water is caused by water hammers, as I testified as an Expert Witness in Talbert vs. American Water in 2023. Aiken fails to protect our water system and fails to protect our health.

Figure 1. Brown water complaints caused by water hammers – mostly preventable – June 25, 2025 major complaint surge not shown since data is not yet publicly available. (Image by Leishear Engineering, LLC)  Details   DMCA
Figure 2. Aiken water main breaks caused by water hammers – mostly preventable.
(Image by Leishear Engineering, LLC) Details  DMCA
Figure 3. Aiken city-property leaks caused by water hammers – mostly preventable.’
(Image by Leishear Engineering, LLC) Details   DMCA
Data for these three figures was obtained from Donald Moniak (“City of Aiken, Water Main Breaks“).
Zero values in the figures indicate that data was unavailable.

The Coverup Continues

Once again, I suggested to the Aiken Mayor that we meet to work together to improve the Aiken water system. I received no response (“Aiken Coverups and New Scientific Advances in Water Main Breaks“). After sending the above letters, I sent the following unanswered letter to the Mayor of Aiken.

“City Council Workshop? (6/28/2025)

Perhaps you would now be willing to discuss the problems with our water main system. In my [professional] opinion Aiken staff does not have a clear understanding of how they are damaging our water system. My extensive experience and extraordinary education can help them accomplish success with respect to brown water, water main breaks, lead poisoning, and disease transmission.”

Water Hammer as the Brown Water Cause

Aiken is working ‘around the clock’ to fix this problem, but they are a likely cause of this problem in the first place. In my nearly 35 years of water hammer experience, I have learned that sometimes the largest water hammers – and the most damage to water systems – occur during startups of new facilities, similar to the June 25th case considered here.

In such cases, pressures can be near 1,000 pounds per square inch in 100-pound-per-square-inch water systems, which could certainly break loose a lot of rust to create brown water. From the scant information that is publicly available, such a water hammer is possible, but further information is needed from Aiken.

A possible cause was a ‘scheduled shutdown’ ‘to connect the new water plant to the water main’. In fact, ‘the water main at US 1 and the water plant underwent a scheduled shutdown last night [the night of June 24, 2025] to connect the new water plant to the water main (.cityofaikensc.gov/alerts).’ This situation provided the conditions for one of the largest potential water hammers within the Aiken water supply. A Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) was submitted for closure of this water hammer concern, as follows.

FOIA Request (6/28/25)

Please provide SCADA, or other electronic data, plus log book entries, and any other pertinent operations, maintenance, and construction data for June 24-26, 2025 for the new water plant near Highway 1. I would like to see if operations at this plant caused the recent brown water event in Aiken.

Additional detailed information was submitted in a subsequent FOIA to better understand operations at US1 prior to the brown water fiasco.

In my professional opinion, a brown water incident of this magnitude was initiated by a high-pressure water hammer. As soon as the facts are available from Aiken, the sooner this brown water mess can be resolved, where many residents are affected and restaurants have closed (“Aiken water troubles impact local business“).

In this developing story, the Mayor of Aiken stated that they are working ‘continually’, as of 5/27/2025 to correct brown water (“City of Aiken Discolored Water Release“) Even so, an investigation of a possible water hammer related to this significant brown water incident, and other certain brown water incidents, should be investigated. The only obstacle between me and the truth of this brown water fiasco is the Aiken government.

There are many Aiken brown water complaints on the internet. One such complaint provided the following June 26, 2025 photo. Another such complaint noted that Aiken Regional Hospital was affected, but the hospital would not confirm or deny.

Figure 4. An example of Aiken brown water.
(Image by By permission of Nikki Livermore)
   Details   DMCA

This brown water problem has affected much of Aiken. Brown water has been reported in downtown Aiken, the north side of Aiken, the West side of Aiken, and the south side of Aiken. Sen so, I live on the South side of Aiken, and we have good water quality, i.e. no brown water at all.

Will Aiken Ever Stop Damaging Our Water Mains?

In an effort to address the current brown water situation in Aiken, I sent the following unanswered Letter of Request to the Aiken Mayor and City Manager, including a copy of Figure 1.

“June 25, 2025 – Possible Brown Water Cause (6/28/2025)

Would your staff show me what they did at US 1 on the night of June 24th to remove the water main to the plant from service. If so, we should be able to determine the cause of the current brown water situation, which would prevent future occurrences? High demands cannot explain the fact that there were spikes in brown water complaints during 2022, 2023, and 2025, but not 2024, where summer temperatures were comparable each year. Water hammer from operations at US 1 can provide such an explanation.”

Along with the following letter, a link to this Op Ed was forwarded to the Aiken Mayor, City Manager, and City Council immediately after publication of this Op Ed.

“Please Stop Breaking Our Drinking Water Supply (June 29. 2025)

The following Op Ed was published today, “Aiken, S.C. + Drinking Water = Brown Water + Parallel Health Hazards”. Comments are welcome.

For the past six years, I have asked Aiken officials to stop water hammers. As I have previously published, water hammers create increasing rust, increasing cracks, increasing brown water, and increasing water main breaks; and water hammers contribute to infectious diseases and lead poisoning in water supplies. Yet, you continue to hammer our Aiken water system to cause increasing damage.”

The Lead Question and the June 25, Brown Water Fiasco

I hesitate to address this issue since all of the facts are not yet available, but this issue is too important to ignore. Assuming that a major water hammer started at US 1, that pressure wave had the ability to travel to many parts of the system in seconds. In such a case, lead from lead service lines to older homes could induce lead poisoning into drinking water.

Disclaimer

This Op Ed is based on available information and is subject to change as information is made available. Access to information is hindered. I emailed the City Manger a simple question about how many brown water complaints have been received, and rather than answer, he responded that I should fill out an FOIA request, which can take up to 10 days for response. Guessing what information has been withheld from the public limits a public understanding of how this brown water fiasco unfolded. Aiken refuses to discuss this issue to improve our water system.

As a foremost expert in water main failures, I have raised serious public health concerns, but I am blocked by Aiken government. In fact, I invented peer-reviewed theories to explain brown water creation and water main failures that were misunderstood for the past century. These discoveries should be the backbone of this Aiken investigation but are not.

(Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on June 30,2025 in OpedNews.com)

April 2024, City Government, Drinking water, House of Raeford Chicken Plant, Surface water

Shaw Creek: Aiken’s Limited Surface Water Source.

7 Comments

by Don Moniak
April 5, 2024

The City of Aiken derives approximately 25 percent of its drinking water supply from a shallow, narrow, and slow-moving stream called Shaw Creek (1). The City has a permit from SC DHEC to withdraw up to eight million gallons of water per day from the creek. The water is then treated to meet safe water standards at a 70-year old treatment plant that is only capable of processing about 5.5 of the 8.0 million gallons permitted by the state.

A well-needed, new water treatment plant with a price tag of $71 million is being designed to process the permitted 8.0 million gallons.

A proposed House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant is expected to use ~1.1 million gallons per day; which is 20 percent of the existing capacity of 5.5 million gallons per day, and 45 percent of the 2.5 millions gallons of added capacity expected of the new $71 million plant.

Figure 1. Upper Watershed of the South Fork of the Edisto River. From SC DHEC Watershed GIS mapping database


Aiken’s Surface Water Supply

Shaw Creek is the largest tributary (Figure 1) of the South Fork of the Edisto River. The creek originates north of Trenton and flows more than twenty-five miles to its confluence with the South Fork.

Shaw Creek’s floodplain width ranges from 500-2000 feet, but its main channel only ranges from 10-20 feet wide and 7-10 feet deep. Stream flow measurements taken in the past two years indicate a median flow of approximately 65 cubic feet per second.

This small creek is the City of Aiken’s only surface water source; accounting for an average of 25 percent of the City’s total drinking water needs (2).

The flow of other municipal surface water sources in this region dwarfs that of Shaw Creek. As the table below shows, Aiken withdraws a considerable, even disproportionate, amount of its available surface water source compared to other municipal water systems.

MunicipalityStream SourceMedian Flow (cubic ft/sec)*Plant Capacity (Million Gallons/Day)
AikenShaw Creek655.5 to 8**
North AugustaSavannah River8,87012
OrangeburgNorth Fork Edisto River82315
West ColumbiaSaluda River2,0406
* The USGS monitoring station at Shaw Creek, located above the City’s water plant, does not monitor flow rate—-unlike the continuous monitoring of flow at the other three USGS gauges cited here. Shaw Creek flow is based on individual measurements made between 2022 and 2024.
** 8 MGD is the projected capacity of the new water treatment plant. Existing capacity is 5.5 MGD

For example, the median flow rate where the City of West Columbia withdraws water from the Saluda River is more than thirty times that found in Shaw Creek. Yet, West Columbia withdraws less water from the relatively mighty Saluda River than Aiken withdraws from Shaw Creek.

This comparison is important because West Columbia provides copious amounts of this water—as well as water from Lake Murray— to the old, water-intensive House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant situated in West Columbia above the Congaree River; across and usually upwind from the City of Columbia.

The City of Aiken proposes to provide similar amounts of water from its system to a new, but still water-intensive, House of Raeford chicken plant; which the company clearly intends as a replacement for the its embattled West Columbia plant.

According to city officials, the proposed new plant, to be located along the East Frontage Road near Exit 22 of Interstate 20, will use at least an estimated 1.1 million gallons per day—approximately twenty percent of the City’s surface water processing capacity.

North Fork Edisto
Shaw Creek
Saluda River


Aiken’s Shaw Creek Water Plant

The City of Aiken withdraws Shaw Creek water at its 70-year old water treatment plant (Figure 2), where it is treated to meet drinking water standards. The plant, which sits a few miles north of town along Hwy 1 North, is permitted to withdraw up to 8.0 million gallons of Shaw Creek water per day by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Quality (SC DHEC).

The plant, however, is only capable of withdrawing and processing about two-thirds of its permitted use, around 5.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The major limitation is a water intake system that a 2019 Preliminary Engineering Report, that was commissioned by the City, described as being fraught with problems:

“The existing dam structure in Shaw’s Creek has resulted in a sediment trap that must be dredged annually. This causes a reduction in the amount of water that can be successfully withdrawn from  Shaw’s Creek, especially in the driest months of the year. Based on the Surface Water Allocation Model provided by SCDHEC, Shaw’s Creek has a 99.998% probability of yielding 8 MGD, however, the existing intake structure failure does not allow for a withdrawal rate of 8 MGD. “

During an August 12, 2019 study presentation to Aiken City Council, the consulting engineers from Goodwyn, Mills, and Caewood explained that:

“Today we are getting about 5.5 MGD. That is due to several reasons, with the biggest reason being the intake structure is dated. The treatment technology at the plant is (also) dated which leads to some energy inefficiencies.”

Figure 2: Historic Shaw Creek Water Treatment Plant


The $71 Million New Water Plant.

The consulting engineers recommended (3) constructing a new water treatment plant with a new intake structure; one capable of withdrawing and treating the permitted 8.0 MGD. While there are numerous benefits from building a new facility—i.e. a modern treatment system, energy efficiency, and increased reliability—the added processing capacity will only be ~2.5 MGD.

The preliminary plant cost estimate was $40.1 million. At the time, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh recommended pursuing funds through Aiken County’s 2024 Capital Project Sales Tax referendum.

Between August 2019 and November 2023, the cost estimate rose to $71 million; which was probably too much to pursue from the sales tax. Instead, the funding for this major project will derive from three sources:

  • A $10 million grant that the South Carolina’s Joint Bond Review Committee was allocated in March 2023 from the state’s portion of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds—the COVID-19 relief bill opposed by most county officials. 
  • Up to $61 million in Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. The issuance of bonds was approved by Aiken City Council by ordinance on November 27, 2023. 
  • Up to a $27 million, low-interest loan from the S.C. Water Quality Revolving Fund; approved by a resolution of City Council on December 11, 2023. (The availability and size of the loan will determine the size of the bond issuance—which could be anywhere from $34-$61 million.) 

If the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant does consume 1.1 MGD of Shaw Creek water, that would account for close to half, or 44 percent, of the added capacity of the $71 million plant.

Figure 3: Aerial View of House of Raeford Plant in West Columbia


”Plenty of Water”

Despite these water supply realities, a March 27, 2024, Aiken Standard story, headlined “Utilities Director Says There is Plenty of Water,” began with the misleading, editorializing statement that:

“Aiken residents concerned that new development is going to cause the city to run short of water may not have anything to worry about. ”

The story was based on comments (4) made by Aiken Engineering and Utilities Director Mike Przbylowicz during Aiken City Council’s March 25, 2024, public meeting, during which he twice made the imprecise statement that Aiken has plenty of water.

During his comments to Council, Mr. Pryzbylowicz cited three data points related to surface water: 8.0 MGD of permitted use from Shaw Creek; 4.0 MGD of average Shaw Creek Plant drinking water production; and a 12.0 MGD flow rate. The latter was not qualified as a median, mean, or high or low-flow, but does appear to represent a low-flow data point.

While his statements were made in the context of the expected residential housing boom on the Northside of Aiken, where access to City water has been approved for more than 2500 new housing units since early 2022, the Standard chose to extrapolate the limited data set to also conclude that there is plenty of water for the water-intensive chicken plant.

In reality, the City of Aiken’s water supply that supports the northern portion of its sewer and water service area is a very finite source with minimal potential for expansion. The City draws surface water from a small, arguably over-utilized creek with predictably low flow rates (Figure 4).

Under the current plans, the House of Raeford plant could withdraw nearly half of the added capacity of the planned new $71 million water plant. That is plenty of water for chickens, but not so much for people.

Figure 4: Shaw Creek stream flow measurements from January 2022 to present.


Footnotes

(1) Shaw Creek is alternately called Shaws Creek and Shaw’s Creek. Since the official DHEC watershed atlas, as well as the USGS water monitoring system, label it as Shaw Creek, that is the name used here.

(2) The remainder of the drinking water supply derives from groundwater wells. All of the Southside water produced at the Town Creek Road treatment facility is drawn from groundwater wells.

Only one groundwater well, Shiloh Springs, is on the northern side of the city’s water and sewer district. Located just north of I-20 near Gregory Road, the well experienced problems with high radium levels in the early 2010s that required an expensive Radium Reduction program; a fact that might make that water unattractive for a food processing plant.

(3) Alternatives included no new water plant and switching to a groundwater-only option. However, that recommendation was dismissed because:

“Due to a lack of quality aquifer and groundwater contamination in the northern portion of the City, groundwater would have to be pumped from the southern side of the City. This option will result in total reliance on one water source.”

(4) Transcription of City of Aiken Engineering and Utilities Director Mike Przbylowicz statements of 3/25/24, (edited for clarity by removing pauses and double wording).

“About the water issues that Mr Myers raised as far as water I mean the water plant is pulling out five million gallons a day. We are permitted for eight (million gallons per day). The last USGS study we had, the Creek is running about 12.7 million a day. So right now there is plenty of water. 

We did have USGS do a well study on some of the wells in that vicinity and what they consider we’re still in Young Water, in other words the aquifer is is at certain depth and we’re still in that high water mark so they consider it young water. 

We’re not deep into the water , we don’t pull it down out from the bottom, there’s plenty of water in the aquifers and there are studies from USGS that we had done just for the water plant for growth in the north side and for growth on the east side. 

As far as our water usage, we are at about 70% for permitted amount. Looking at future growth and we’re at about 40 % on our groundwater usage.  70% is for what is taken below ground, or below surface. 

And the surface waters we’re using are about 40% of the permitted surface water usage. 

So as far as water we have a recent model we had done in 2020, uh 2022, and we had it updated again in 2023. As far as what uh our consultant said in USGS said, You don’t see a water issue. The new water plant will produce will be able to produce 8 million a day and that’s what our permit is for. “