Category Archives: Wastewater

$1.1 Million Worth of Water Bills.

Aiken County Council recently approved spending more than a million dollars to address urgent wastewater and stormwater problems. The funds involve replacing “cheaper” equipment at the County’s wastewater plant, and repairing and cleaning a faulty, County-owned stormwater pond. Continued heavy development is expected to stress the wastewater treatment plant, and stormwater management programs.

by Don Moniak
February 29, 2024

On Tuesday, February 20th, Aiken County Council held its fourth set of public meetings this calendar year.

The sessions began at 5 p.m with the three-person Development Committee convening to discuss and approve a series of resolutions for the “consent agenda.” (1) Two of the resolutions involved emergency expenditures to resolve serious problems with wastewater treatment and stormwater runoff. Three other resolutions were related to stormwater management, and one additional resolution pertained to the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant.

Cheap is Expensive

The first order of the Development Committee’s business was a resolution to spend $860,708 to purchase essential equipment for Aiken County’s Horse Creek Wastewater Plant. Due to recent sewage pump failures, the County is spending upwards of $200,000 per month for rental pumps and associated diesel costs. (see Meeting documents, pages 20-25).

The plant was designed and constructed in 1970’s, in the wake of the passage of the Federal Clean Water Act, and went online in 1979. Among its many accomplishments since then, it was credited with improving Horse Creek water quality enough to allow for fish populations to recover in what was a biologically sterile Langley Pond (2). (However, fish consumption advisories still remain in place.)

The plant traditionally used Patterson brand pumps in plant operations. This brand of pumps reportedly lasted more than three decades, with minimal problems. After the County switched to what County Administrator Brian Sanders termed a “cheaper grade of pump,” serious issues began within several years.

This time, the County wisely opted to skip the bidding process and go with a sole-source contract for higher quality, Patterson sewage pumps and replacement pump bowl assemblies.

The replacement process will take six months; the pumps themselves take four months to build. Until then, the County will keep spending hundreds of thousands on a bandaid solution—a case study in the oftentimes high costs of low cost.

The good news for the plant is that Council also approved a resolution to accept a $5 million grant for plant upgrades from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; illustrating again that in terms of outside financial aid and economic support, the federal government remains Aiken County’s best friend.

Figure 1. An example of Patterson Axial Flow Wastewater Pump. Aiken County has ordered a Patterson Axial Flow Pump Model
24×30 SAFV at a cost of $360,032 with a rating of 18,883 gallons per minute at 22.5 feet, which is smaller model than the one shown above. Fuller details of Patterson Pumps are available in this brochure.


Bad Pond

The second most expensive resolution passed during the meeting involved $247,000 (3) for emergency repairs and cleanup of a 2.6 acre stormwater pond property (Pages 31-36).

Aiken County owns 73 stormwater ponds, and most involve residential subdivisions. One of these ponds that is designed to control stormwater runoff from Gregs Mill at Horse Creek (Figure 2) is close to failure. The pond was purchased from Beazley Development in 2009 by Aiken County for $10; a “deed of dedication” that is one of many examples of a developer’s private liability being assumed by county taxpayers. (4)

The County’s current stormwater pond maintenance and repair contractor, Brown’s Grounds of North Augusta, described the problem, in part, as follows:

The outfall pipe is sticking about 8 feet straight out of the dam slope suspended in the air due to severe erosion that has eaten a hole roughly 18 feet deep and 30 feet wide around this area. The end of the pipe is eroded and water is going through the pipe instead of the end of the pipe. A new Flare needs to be attached to help control the water flow. The erosion has caused a 20 foot section of the fence to be suspended in the air with a trough about 8 feet deep running under the fence into the adjacent property. The silt from all of this erosion has been pushed through the woods causing a trench about 4 feet wide and 100 feet long.

The first estimate for repairs and cleanup, made on January 4, 2024, was $110,020. With the situation worsening after heavy rains, further threatening the Sunset Memorial Gardens cemetery below the pond, the estimate for the emergency work has rose to $247,000.

Figure 2. County-owned pond (center) near junction of Sudlow Lake Road and U.S. Highway 1. Cemetery is left, to the SW.


Pond Inspections.

The question arises: If five to ten ponds were to be damaged or fail during a major storm event—say 10 or more inches in 24-48 hours—how many millions of dollars would County taxpayers be on the hook for repair costs?

County officials are proposing a $2 million line item for unspecified “drainage projects” in the upcoming Capital Project Sales Tax referendum. During a recent discussion of this tax and spend proposal, County Administrator Brian Sanders stated that, “we know drainage issues are going to come up,” citing “too much development.”(5)

Monitoring and inspection of the ponds could help prevent future failures. Following the $247,000 stormwater pond repair resolution, Council approved another resolution to spend a mere $4,500 for Brown’s Grounds to inspect 30 county-owned ponds; 24 of which control stormwater from residential subdivisions.

Stormwater Improvements”

Prior to the $247,000 pond repair and cleanup resolution, the Committee also approved a seemingly unrelated matter: acceptance of a “Deed of Dedication for an extension of Hartshorn Circle (C-3013), and Certain Stormwater Improvements in the Providence, Phase C2 Subdivision” of Trolley Run Station.(Figure 3)

While there were no financial costs yet associated with this resolution, it reflects why “too much development” will inevitably lead to more stormwater problems.

“Stormwater Improvements” is a bureaucratic misnomer; more proper terms for future deeds of dedication resolutions should be “stormwater controls” or “stormwater mitigation” projects.

Developments involving clearcutting of forestlands and stripping all the ground cover creates the necessity for stormwater control. There is rarely a need for “improvements” on undeveloped forestlands—the optimal watershed protection land condition.

Figure 3. Area of recent deed of dedication in Trolley Run Station; 2014 (bottom) vs. 2023 (top). The forested area shown in 2014 required no “stormwater improvements.” Note how the older portion of the massive subdivision (lower left) involved retention of a forested buffer.


Footnotes

(1) Committee meetings consist of three council members addressing, sometimes discussing, and then voting on resolutions that do not, by County law, require public hearings.

Instead, the resolutions are compiled into a “consent agenda” that Council votes upon as a whole during the regular meeting. The list of resolutions can include items as disparate as multimillion dollar property purchases, naming of private roads for the 911 system, ordering expensive equipment to meet immediate needs, and approving contract change orders. There is rarely a nay vote during deliberations.

Sixteen items were on the February 20, 2024 consent agenda.

“Discussion” is too strong a word to use for the February 20th meeting. The Development Committee spent 15 minutes reviewing 10 resolutions. There were no questions asked regarding the wastewater plant resolution, and few comments or questions regarding stormwater management issues.

(2) Conditions in Langley Pond following the beginning of Horse Creek Wastewater Plant operations were summed up in the abstract to the 1986 DHEC publication A Water Quality Assessment of Langley Pond; Aiken County, South Carolina. An Analysis of Sediment and Fish Tissue Data. (by Douglas Darr).


(3) Since Aiken County collects a $10 stormwater fee come property tax time, the expenditure amounts to 24,700 individual stormwater fee payments.

(4) Drainage easements are another County expense resulting from heavy development. Council also approved another resolution pertaining to stormwater control (Pages 41-45); an $83,000 purchase of a 1.65 acre drainage easement from Clifton Place Partner’s LLC—-one of several firms involved in new residential development along the Whiskey Road-Powderhouse Road connector project.

The easement purchase on undeveloped land between Powderhouse and Whiskey Roads was justified as part of the Whiskey Road Corridor Drainage Project, which is being funded in part from CPST funds approved in 2018.

(5) Statement made on Wednesday, February 28, 2024 during the Capital Project Sales Tax Study Committee meeting. Three Council members compose the committee reviewing the County’s proposed tax and spend proposals.

Other stories regarding water quality water use, stormwater, and wastewaster issues:

Is Google Coming to Aiken County?

The Woodside Plantation Ravine on Hollow Creek.

The Water Guzzler Ordinance

Water Welfare for Industry on Tap for City Council

Proposed Southside Development Raising Concerns About Flooding.

Question: Is Google Coming to Aiken County? Answer: Aiken County Council Can’t Say.

by Don Moniak

April 19, 2023

At its Tuesday, April 18th public meeting, Aiken County Council approved the third reading of two different ordinances related to Project Sabal and its undisclosed representative Starskey LLC—a project in Graniteville being touted as a $900 million investment with fifty new jobs: 

  • One ordinance to “Authorize The Execution And Delivery Of A Fee In Lieu Of Tax (1) (FILOT) And Incentive Agreement By And Between Aiken County, South Carolina And A Company Identified For The Time Being As Project Sabal (The “Company”).” (Pages 9-11 of Agenda Packet)
  • The other ordinance “to Develop A Jointly Owned and Operated Industrial/Business Park in Conjunction With Edgefield County.” The industrial park is described in an attachment, but Exhibit A which shows the property is left blank. (Pages 13-15 of Agenda Packet)

The ordinance states the project creates no financial liability for the county and that “the benefits of the Project are greater than the costs;” but no costs in the form of resource or environmental impacts are identified. Only the jobs and investment benefits are listed in the ordinance.

At the last public hearing on the matter four weeks ago, Chairman Gary Bunker declined to answer any questions about costs or even identify the industry involved.

For the final public hearing this week, Aiken-Edgefield Economic Development Partnership Director Will Williams was summoned to answer questions; and informed Council that the Project Sabal “Company,” Starskey LLC, represents a data collection company that is “still doing due diligence on whether they have enough (electrical) power” to establish a new facility in the Sage Mill Industrial Park area. 

So it could be Google, Meta/Facebook, Microsoft, or another major data collection company with nearly a billion dollars to spend. But a nondisclosure agreement prohibits Council from divulging the real company’s name at this time.

Starskey LLC’s agent is Corporation Service Company of Columbia (2), and its legal representative is Nexsen-Pruet of Columbia, a powerful firm which recently merged with Maynard Cooper and Gale to form one of the largest law companies in the Southeast. 

Starskey LLC, via Nexsen-Pruet,  purchased ~560 acres of land from Wyatt Real Estate Investment, LLC (Agent: Weldon Wyatt) in 2022 for $19,299,555.   The property consists of four contiguous parcels adjacent to Bridgestone’s Giant Tire plant to the east and Bettis Academy Road to the west; near the Edgefield County line in the Graniteville area.

Properties purchased by Starskey LLC in 2022

When asked how much electrical power is required, and how much water is necessary for the data collection center, Williams responded that 200 megawatts of electric capacity was needed, and that Aiken Electric Cooperative is working with the company to provide its power needs. 

As for the water issue, Williams did not offer hard data, stating only that “the company continues to reduce their water usage over time. In the process they have relocated a water line” in the Breezy Hill Water and Sewer District.

Because of the massive water demands at data centers, Google and other major tech companies are working to reduce water usage at their water-intensive data centers.  At their Douglas Georgia data center Google boasts “we’ve designed an innovative reuse water system to use recycled water for 100% of our cooling needs.” And at their Berkeley County, South Carolina data center rainwater is reportedly collected as a water source for their cooling system.  Williams provided no details of any water conservation measures being proposed at this site.

Aiken County’s deal has similarities to the investments Google has made at its sprawling Berkeley County, South Carolina data center operations since 2007.  For example, Google’s $500 million investment in Berkeley County in 2014 involved: 

  • A great deal of secrecy including nondisclosure agreements for elected officials. 
  • A holding company called Maguro Enterprises, whose agent was also Corporation Service Company of Columbia; and who paid $17 million for property in Berkeley County.

The latter by itself might not mean much, as Corporation Service Company (2) is the listed agent for dozens of South Carolina LLCs. And it could be purely coincidental that Nexsen Pruit hired Berkeley County’s Attorney Nicole Ewing  in 2014, who had extensive experience navigating that county’s deal with Google.

But the nondisclosure agreement was a contributing cause to Councilman Kelly Mobley opting to vote no on the final reading, as he explained that:

“There is a non disclosure agreement. It is not fair for elected officials to not be able to tell our constituents who this is we are voting on.” 

Mobley had, minutes before, offered the opinions that:

  • We can’t ignore the positive in the economic development, but with that said, we’re being asked to give and approve an unknown. What do we have? A real estate holding company that bought the property, rerouted a water main on Breezy Hill, but are still not willing to tell us who they are?” 
  • “I am concerned about the water, we do not know what percentage taken is going to be for water treatment , and we don’t know what the water usage is going to be.” 

Newly elected Councilman Mike Kellums also voted no, saying that “Council should know by the Third Reading what the project is by that time. I will be voting no tonight as well.” 

The final vote was 7-2, with Councilmembers in the majority offering some of the following supporting arguments: 

  • Phil Napier: “You can be assured that Breezy Hill (Water) has the capacity for water and sewer capacity if they say they do…These large corporations do not publicize their names while they are negotiating. This county needs more jobs. We can pull the plug if something comes up.”
  • Andrew Siders: “Aiken County is not putting one dollar towards this.” 
  • Gary Bunker: “This does not commit Aiken County to any costs. It is a Fee in Lieu of Taxes and not a liability.” 
  • Sandy Haskell: “They don’t want their competitors to know what they are up to.”

Councilmen Ron Felder, Willar Hightower, and Danny Feagin all voted yes without offering any insights into their vote.

Every Council member supported the project, but only two did not support the continued level of secrecy. The contradictory message from supporters of continued secrecy is that county taxpayers should rest assured there is ample water for the plant, and the county’s wastewater system can handle the outflow; yet nobody can say how much water is necessary and how much impact on county infrastructure there will be. 

Likewise, the “special source credits” mentioned 165 times in the 48-page Project Sabal FILOT agreement are never defined because they remain to be negotiated. While there is no liability incurred by Aiken County, the caveat for the special source credits is that future FILOT payments could be returned to the company, which could deprive the county of expected revenue. This stipulation is listed in capital letters on Page 12:

THE NEGOTIATED FILOT SPECIAL SOURCE CREDITS AUTHORIZED HEREIN SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A GENERAL OBLIGATION OF THE COUNTY, BUT SHALL BE A LIMITED OBLIGATION OF THE COUNTY PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE NEGOTIATED FILOT PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY HEREUNDER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT.”

The real details of the project’s costs and incentives might never be known. The Post and Courier reported in 2020 that in Berkeley County, the county keeps the financial incentives a tightly guarded secret. Google, and other tech companies, is also “very protective” of its water usage and has applied twice to increase the amount of water it pulls from nearby aquifers to supplement, if necessary, the four million gallons a day it uses to cool its data collection machines.

Footnotes: 

(1) Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT)

The South Carolina Department of Revenue summarizes FILOT as:

“Industries that invest at least $2.5 million in South Carolina may negotiate for a fee-in-lieu of property taxes. This can result in a savings of about 40% on property taxes otherwise due for a project. Certain large investments may be able to further reduce their liability by negotiating the assessment ratio from 10.5% down to 6%. For large investments, the assessment ratio can be reduced down to 4%. The county and the industry may agree to either set the millage rate for the entire agreement period or have the millage change every five years in step with the average millage rate for the area where the project is located. Any personal property subject to the fee in lieu of property taxes depreciates in accordance with South Carolina law, while the real property is either set at cost for the life of the agreement or can be appraised every five years.

A fee in lieu of property taxes is granted by, and at the discretion of, the county where the project is located. The industry must make the $2.5 million investment over a five-year period to qualify. Large investment projects have eight years to meet their increased investment requirements. During this period, all property that is placed in service pursuant to the agreement is subject to a fee instead of ad valorem property taxes. A county may give the industry an additional five years to complete the project and place new property in service subject to the fee. A single piece of property can be subject to the fee for up to 40 years with the county’s consent. The total project can be subject to the fee for up to 50 years with the county’s consent.”

The FILOT rate for Project Sabal is listed as four percent.

In between his terms on County Council and his election as County Council Chairman, Gary Bunker was a popular columnist for the Aiken Standard. in his columns he routinely described Fee in Lieu of Taxes as an industrial tax incentives. In 2013 he wrote that South Carolina’s tax structure: 

Encourages retirees to settle here, who benefit from low property taxes. Their limited retirement income isn’t greatly penalized by the high income tax.  Conversely, this tax structure is hard on businesses and manufacturing. It encourages fee-in-lieu of tax agreements and special source revenue credits to get around high property tax rates on large industrial developments. In essence, the left hand must undo the damage caused by the right.” 

(2) In a typical loop for shell companies, Corporation Service Company’s listed agent is United States Corporation Company; and the latter’s listed agent is Corporation Service Company. 

Starskey LLC was registered as an LLC in Delaware on March 7, 2021, and in South Carolina on October 24, 2022 prior to its December 7, 2022 property purchase. All that is public are the names of the registered agent: