Category Archives: Wastewater

Aiken County Government, Wastewater

H 5321: “A Bill to Establish the Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority and Dissolve the Aiken County Public Service Authority”

2 Comments

An effort is afoot, via South Carolina House Bill 5321 that is sponsored by Aiken, Edgefield, and Saluda Counties’ State Representatives, to have the State of South Carolina seize control of Aiken County’s wastewater processing system, most notably the Horse Creek Pollution Control Facility. The process has created the unusual situation of two sets of locally elected officials in direct confrontation, as Aiken County Council vigorously opposes the legislation.

by Don Moniak
March 23. 2026

Aiken County’s Horse Creek Pollution Control Facility (also referred to as the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant or the County sewer plant) was at the center of two controversies in 2024.

The first, involving the proposed House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, was highly publicized. In that instance, a large public outcry merged with the realities of a wastewater plant audit that showed the County’s plant had nearly exceeded its sold, committed capacity—although the plant is still operating at only about 2/3 of its physical and permitted capacity of 20 million gallons a day. As a result, the County Council was able to cite the dedicated capacity shortage as a reason to not move forward with a vote on a Fee in Lieu of Taxes agreement with House of Raeford—which was a deal killer for the company.

The second, involving the raising of one-time capacity purchase costs from $0.48 per gallon per day to $10.89, actually had a greater impact but was underpublicized. The rate was raised (1) by County Council in September 2024, following a closed-door Executive Session.

Two years later, Aiken County’s delegation in the South Carolina House of Representatives appears to have taken offense (2) to those circumstances and opted this month to introduce legislation to abolish the operating entity of the sewer system, the Aiken Public Service Authority.

House Bill 5321 (3), “A Bill to Establish the Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority and Dissolve the Aiken County Public Service Authority,” seeks to shift ownership and operation of wastewater operations from the county-controlled Aiken Public Service Authority to a state-controlled Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority.

The bill would transfer all assets, primarily the wastewater plant and surrounding infrastructure, to the newly formed Authority. Thus, if the state were to somehow gain control of the sewer system, it would be run by political appointees from the Governors office rather than by local government.

The latter would be run by a nine-member Board of Directors from Aiken, Edgefield, and Saluda Counties, with members appointed by the Governor at the recommendation of County legislative delegations. No criteria for Board membership, other than residency, is stated in the bill.

According to members of County Council, the legislation came out of the blue. At their regular meeting on March 17, 2026, not a single Council member described being contacted by their local House representative about the bill. The legislation was a sneak attack.

During that meeting, County Attorney Bradley Farrar presented the case against this bill; during an agenda item to discuss a Council Resolution against the legislation that was ultimately unanimously approved. (Audio of presentation and subsequent Council discussion can be heard here.)

After reviewing key elements of the legislation and describing it as “having no legislative history, purpose, or rationale for its prescriptions,” Mr. Farrar identified holes in the proposal. One key issue is that the 1973 legislation—known as Act 542 (4)—that created the Aiken Public Service Authority was found to be unconstitutional in 1976 (Figure 1). The Authority created by Act 542 was thereafter defunct.

Figure 1. Slide from County Attorney Brad Farrar’s presentation during the March 17, 2026, County Council meeting. The entire presentation is available on the County’s website; as is the Resolution Against HB 5321.


What does exist is an Aiken Public Service Authority that is merely a Department within County Government—albeit one with its own “self-supporting enterprise fund” and not an entity dependent upon taxpayer dollars.

The Department was created in 1989 by the current Ordinance . The plant has been run as a Department of our County government, and not a Board of Directors, for 37 years. The County has been authorized by state law and the state Constitution to provide wastewater services, since it went online in the late 1970’s—with no interference from the state. Mr. Farrar made the case that even if the state were to create the Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority, the County remains authorized to operate utilities and as such can continue to control its existing wastewater processing assets. (Figure 2).

Mr. Farrar also addressed the human element in the equation. During a visit to the wastewater plant its workers, who are currently county employees, asked where the legislation would leave them and would they still have their jobs.

Unless workers qualify as assets in the same manner as a section of pipe, the legislation contains no mention, other than the transfer of personnel records, of a workforce that has the experience and institutional knowledge to operate the plant 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Figure 2: Slide from County Attorney Bradley Farrar highlighting key talking points in opposition to legislation seeking state control of the County’s sewer system.

H 5321 will be heard during a meeting of the Environmental Affairs Subcommittee of the House Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Environmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday, March 24, 2026. The meeting is at 9:30 a.m. and will be live streamed. H 5321 is the only agenda item.

(Update. As of 7:40 pm on 3/23/2026, the meeting is no longer listed under the video schedule)

Footnotes

(1) In regard to the capacity purchase cost of $10.89 per gallon per day, the cost increase from $0.46 was not as dramatic as perceived; because for years the County has been almost giving away its sewer capacity.

A December 18, 2024, letter (Pages 200-203) from County Attorney Bradley Farrar to the utilities who send their effluent to the wastewater plant contained a simple table (Figure 3), created by the County’s wastewater plant auditor, showing the varying levels of fees across the state. Aiken County’s “barely registered on the scale,” Farrar wrote.

Figure 3.

(2) The following is an excerpt from an email from Representative Bill Taylor to his constituents:.


“Wastewater Treatment Challenges in Aiken, Edgefield,
and Saluda Counties

When you flush the toilet, the waste doesn’t just vanish. Unless you have a septic tank, it travels miles to a treatment facility. For many residents of Aiken, Edgefield, and Saluda Counties, the Horse Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in Beech Island, located on the Savannah River, is the facility.

Operated by Aiken County, the treatment plant serves Aiken, North Augusta, and nearly every town in the region. However, it’s currently struggling to meet the demands of our growing area. Despite $56 million in state loans and grants for upgrades in the past 5 years, the facility has not been expanded and is nearing capacity. That hinders economic development. 

In 2024, the Aiken Council rejected a request from House of Raeford for sewer service for a proposed chicken processing plant that would have created 950 jobs, with one councilman declaring that Aiken County is “closed for business.” What if a major manufacturer wanted to locate in Aiken County, bringing thousands of jobs? Would the answer be, “Sorry, we’re closed?”

Municipal customers have expressed frustration with their lack of input in setting sewer rates, expanding capacity, and having their complaints addressed. Compounding the issue, the SC Department of Environmental Services has cited the Horse Creek Plant for numerous violations, some of which have gone unreported. 

Underscoring the current crisis, a letter-to-the-editor in yesterday’s Aiken Standard was highly critical of the Aiken County Council for proposing a hike in the sewer impact fee to $10.89 a gallon from the current 48-cents. That’s an increase of 2,176% that would certainly stifle planned housing developments.

Proposed Solution: Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority

In response, a bipartisan group of legislators from the affected counties has introduced legislation (H.5321) to create the Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority. This new authority would take over the management of the wastewater treatment plant, transferring ownership from Aiken County.

A Horse Creek Authority would oversee water, sewer, and waste management services, governed by a nine-member board appointed by the Governor upon recommendations from the affected County Legislative Delegations. This organizational structure aims to ensure that municipal and other customers have a voice in the management of sewer services and the setting of reasonable rates.

The establishment of the Horse Creek Authority seeks to improve the efficiency and quality of public services in the region. A House subcommittee is expected to hold a hearing on the bill soon, during which many affected entities are likely to testify in support of the legislation.”

Comments:

Taylor is incorrect in his description of the chicken plant debate. The audio of that Aiken County Council meeting is available and there was no such claim of that Aiken County “is closed for business.”

Former Councilman Kelly Mobley did make a similar statement during the July 17, 2024 Public Hearing regarding the Capital Project Sales Tax. Councilman Mobley spoke strongly in favor of enacting developer ”impact fees” in Aiken County to compensate for the costs of rapid growth. 

He also added that the rate of housing developments is excessive and stated that, in terms of residential development, Aiken County should switch its “open” sign to “closed“ until the impacts on our infrastructure are better addressed.

It is notable that two nights later, at the July 19, 2024, County Planning Commission meeting, H5321 co-sponsor Representative Melissa Oremus also stated that “we can not continue to build things and worry about the aftereffects later.” The statement drew loud applause. 

During the chicken plant debate, Mobley actually said this;

““ I want everyone to know and understand that we have a great deal of concern about this project…all of this is top of mind. But do please understand we only took up the FILOT issue, and by right this company can build on this property…”

(3) The sponsors of the bill are Representative Bill Taylor (R-Aiken); Representative Melissa Oremus (R-Aiken/Beech Island/Midland Valley), Representative Bill Hixon (R-North Augusta), Representative Charlie Hartz (R-Aiken), Representative Bill Clyburn (D-Aiken and Edgefield Counties), and Representative Cally R. Forrest, Jr (R-Lexington and Saluda ).

(4) It is notable that HB 5321 is, with the exception of the paragraphs regarding abolition of the 1973 version of the Aiken Public Service Authority, a near carbon copy of Act 542.

City Government, Development Issues, February 2026, Wastewater

The City of Aiken’s First-Come First-Served Sewer Capacity Policy.

11 Comments

Aiken County’s sewer processing capacity is a very finite resource, and the number one limitation on growth in the County, and thus, the City of Aiken. The County operates the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant and sells a portion of its processing capacity to the City of Aiken and several other utilities, including the City of North Augusta and Valley Public Service Authority.

Until now, the City of Aiken Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Manager, and Aiken City Council has treated it like an infinite resource, with Council ultimately granting every sewer service request from outside the City during this decade. Even following the news in the first half of 2024 that Aiken County had sold more than 95 percent of its permitted sewer capacity and the City itself was overallocated, the City of Aiken proceeded with business as usual, even granting sewer allocations to several more out-of-town developments constituting more than 1,200 homes—a total administrative commitment by the City amounting to more than 0.3 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater flow.

At its January 12, 2026 Work Session, Aiken City Council and the public were informed that the City’s future additional allocation from the County’s current wastewater plant expansion would be 40 percent lower — down to 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD) from the previously assumed 2.5 MGD. In addition, it was disclosed to Council that the City had only 0.41 MGD of remaining processing capacity from its current allocation with the County. At the same time, the City has at least 0.50 MGD of immediate claims against that remaining gallonage awaiting approval from the Aiken Public Service Authority, leaving a current 90,000 gallons per day deficit. That deficit is arguably significantly larger when considering all the sewer service approvals made by City Council over the past few years that are not accounted for in the 0.50 MGD schedule.

These other Council-approved projects, not yet counted for, are direct demands on the City’s share of the upcoming 1.5 MGD of expanded processing capacity. An analysis of the already Council-approved projects that will be serviced from the future 1.5 MGD is made far worse when new projects currently under review by the Planning Department are also taken into consideration. It appears that Aiken’s capacity to meet future needs is extremely limited.

Despite these disclosures, the City’s sewer policy is still operating on a first-come, first-served basis; not on an in-City project priority basis.

by Don Moniak
February 22, 2026

Since the late 2010’s, the City of Aiken has been aggressively expanding the extent of its sewer and water distribution system; and continues to grant further expansion despite limitations on capacity available from the Aiken County Public Service Authority (PSA).

This expansion has not been accompanied by an increase in sewer capacity. Aiken does not have its own wastewater treatment system, and is reliant upon the Aiken County Horse Creek Wastewater Plant (HCWP)—which is operated by the PSA— for its processing needs. As a customer of the PSA, the City must pay the fees recommended by the PSA and approved by Aiken County Council.

In early 2024, an audit of the plant’s then-permitted capacity of 20 million gallons per day found that the wastewater processing capacity already purchased was nearly at the permitted limit.

No clear public summary of the situation resulting from the audit has ever been issued, but a May 2024 memo (Figure 1) from County Administrator Brian Sanders to Aiken County Council provides the most salient details—the County had sold all but 30,000 gallons a day of its physical and permitted capacity of 20 million gallons a day (MGD). A 6.0 MGD expansion would allow the sale of additional capacity to provide something of a stopgap measure until the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant is further expanded. According to one engineering firm, that future total could be as high as 40 MGPD. (It is important to note that the plant is currently processing about 12 MGPD on average, of which more than half derives from the City of Aiken.)

Figure 1. May 2024 Email from County Administrator Brian Sanders to Aiken County Council. The referenced tables from the audit can be found through this link. (click to enlarge)

The County also recognized that it was not recovering the actual costs of its processing, as it had not raised rates since 2012. In response, County Council approved a 62 percent increase, from $1.50 per thousand gallons to $2.41 per thousand gallons, for sewer treatment processing.

The bad news for the City of Aiken was contained in a subsequent email from County Administrator Brian Sanders to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, in which Sanders wrote that there had been a “major breakdown of communications between the County and DHEC during the permitting process.” According to the audit, the City of Aiken was permitted nearly 0.4 MGPD above its allocated amount since 2012. The good news was that an accounting adjustment added another 1.03 MGPD, leaving the City at that time with 0.64 MGPD of available capacity.

Figure 2. Email from Aiken County Administrator Brian Sanders to Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. (Source: July 8, 2024, Aiken City Council Work Session Agenda Packet). (click to enlarge)


Several months later, following a closed-door Executive Session, County Council approved a massive fee increase for capacity connections (the one-time fee for new capacity purchases). The increase functions as a de facto impact fee, one achieved without any public hearings or public scrutiny.

The rate rose from $0.49 per gallon per day to $10.89 per gallon per day. For example, at an average of 300 gallons per day per home, the new fee increased costs for a 100-home development requiring sewer connections from ~$15,000 to ~$317,000.

Aiken’s Recent Sewer and Water District Growth

The City of Aiken has been expanding its utilities systems and services in two manners—-to grow the City and to grow its sewer and water business.

Expanding Sewer Services to Grow the City

Efforts to grow the City have largely involved annexing contiguous tracts for high-density developments. In addition, there have been a few in-city developments.

The most notable of these is the commitment to developers within the Powderhouse Connector project area, where the City essentially traded sewer connections for road rights-of-way. (See Development Road for more details.)

Aiken has also provided services to several other developments that required annexation, including a district of low-income and affordable apartment complexes in the Dougherty Road area, the May Royal Drive development, which involves more than 200 homes, and another 150-home subdivision along Highway 19.

Expanding Sewer Services to Grow the Business

More notably, Aiken has grown its sewer business by providing sewer and water services well outside the City limits. In doing so, it imposed its urban/suburban growth model upon County residents accustomed to life away from high-density developments, high-impact industries, and relatively high peak-hour traffic. The business growth model also imposed costs upon the County, most notably upon emergency response and volunteer fire resources. (1)

One of the most questionable expansions is eight miles north of the City limits in the area of Interstate 20’s Exit 18. As reported in Aiken Takes on Exit 18, the City has embarked on an expansion that would extend nearly two miles west of Verenes Business/Industrial Park, involving a $3.5 million sewer lift station, and potentially provide sewer services for more than a thousand acres of development—some of it adjacent to or within the City’s Brunswick Tract that was obtained to protect its Shaw Creek water supply; and all of it well beyond any future hopes for annexation.

The planned, but at this point only attempted, growth around Exit 18–six miles north of City limits—also involved a secretive effort known as Project Unicorn, widely acknowledged as an effort to lure the Buc-cee’s company to establish its presence in Aiken County. The status of that project is unknown, but it is still rumored to be in the offering.

The City also pursued, in conjunction with the County, the unpopular notion of providing up to 1.5 MGD of sewer capacity for the proposed House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, and even voted 6-1 in favor of an Ordinance to provide utility services during its First (and only) Reading. Ultimately, the proposal was defeated when a critical mass of citizen objections meshed with the aforementioned sudden and surprising realization by the County that its sewer processing capacity was nearly fully allocated. (see Sewer Capacity Makes the News).

Similarly, there have also been smaller efforts at sewer-line extensions that could lead to larger developments upwards of ten miles north of City limits. The most notable example is the 7-11 gas station at Exit 22, where the City spent more than a million dollars to extend sewer and water lines across the Interstate, where the 7-11 is, at this point, the only beneficiary of that largesse. (see The Public Costs of a 7-11 Store).

All of the above-mentioned developments occurred prior to mid 2024, and before the surprising findings of the capacity audit.

However, since that time the City’s Planning Commission has recommended, and City Council has approved, sewer services for three new subdivisions: Creighton Meadows (August 2024, 250 homes six miles north of City limits next to the Shaw Plant on Frontage Road) Bridge Creek (January 2025, 725 homes one mile north of City limits along Hwy 19), and Bedford Place (January 2025, 93 homes, four miles north of City limits along Columbia Highway/Hwy 1 N). The issue of the City’s limited remaining sewer capacity never entered the approval equation for these proposed subdivisions, where annexation is generally a distant dream.

This largesse has now contributed to an even greater pinch in sewer allocations for new developments.

The 2026 Reality Check

The present reality was addressed at the January 12, 2026 Aiken City Council Work Session, where City Engineer Thomas Parrot outlined the City’s sewer capacity problems. The highlights of his slide presentation, which can be viewed in the agenda packet and heard in this audio, include the following highlights:

1. The City was notified in early 2024 (around the time of the Chicken Plant controversy) that its “remaining allocation (at the plant) was fully committed.”

2. The City only has 0.41 million gallons per day (MGD) of remaining existing capacity, but there are an immediate “~0.5 million gallons per day” of development needs with capacity approval by the PSA currently pending. That leaves a present deficit of 90,000 GPD. The City is negotiating with the County to obtain a potential credit of 0.1 MGD from previously approved projects that are now stalled or abandoned, which would leave it with a slight surplus.

3. The County has only agreed to sell the City 1.5 MGD of new capacity after its 6.0 MGD Sewer Plant expansion is completed next year. This is 1.0 MGD less than the 2.5 MGD City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh told City Council in June 2025 (Pages 456 to 474) was necessary to meet current and future demands.

4. The City implemented a policy in July 2025 to make developers pay the upfront cost of the $10.89 per gallon connection fee (although there is no record of City Council approving such a policy (2)

5. Council was told that sewer service approvals are operated on a “first come first served basis.”

6. Staff recommended that Council pass an Ordinance requiring that a Sewer Impact Fee be assessed for all projects outside of the city that are not yet approved for sewer. (3)

However, data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request shows that while there is an immediate approved project’s need for 0.5 MGDP, the capacity promised by the City Council easily exceeds that figure.

In a document titled CMO Project Spreadsheet, the list of projects ranging from the preconceptual to working review stage that require PSA sewer capacity approval is nearly 0.65 MGPD, more than the 0.5 MGPD reported during the Work Session.

According to City Engineer Thomas Parrott, the 0.5 MGPD is a “planning estimate,” while the 0.65 MGPD “reflects a snapshot of the spreadsheet” that may include “preliminary numbers that are intentionally conservative,” projects at different stages of definition concept,” values that may be updated as plans change, or are on the list but “are not yet at a point where a formal capacity request would be made.”

In addition, no allocation figure is identified for the proposed 705-home Bridge Creek subdivision, for which City Council approved sewer and water in January 2025; and only Phase I of Creighton Meadows (147 homes out of 247 approved in August 2024) is listed in the spreadsheet. In total, ~850 homes are left out of the equation. This commitment by Council could eventually add up to as much as 0.25 MGPD of the 1.5 MGPD in additional capacity.

According to Mr. Parrott, no capacity is listed for Bridge Creek because the City “has not received a formal, usable submittal or a defined phase with enough information to quantify flow.” However, the Sewer and Water Services Agreement has been recorded with the County’s Register of Deeds; and a $40 million lawsuit filed this week against the City argues that such a recording constitutes a long-lived approval by the City and not one that expires (4).

The worksheet also contains a list of commercial projects, but has no sewer data associated with those businesses.

Completely missing from the project list are smaller developments like planned public school expansions and downtown developments.

All this begs the immediate question: why were the Planning Department and Planning Commission allowed to keep accepting and processing applications that required new sewer connections and allocations well outside of city limits? A second question is why City staff, not City Council, is setting policy, particularly the unwritten “first-come, first-served” policy? And a third question on many minds is why there is zero discussion at the Council level of a temporary moratorium on new sewer service for developments well outside of the City limits, at least until City Council can define some priorities that set the standard for which developments receive the benefit of this very finite resource?

Figure 3: Aerial view of the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant near Beech Island, SC. From Brasfield and Gorrie. Expansion area is in center of photo.


Footnotes:

(1) During a Planning Commission workshop last fall, County Development Director Joel Duke described the adverse impacts on the County from the sprawl enabled by the sewer and water expansion policy. These include strains on law enforcement, emergency response, and volunteer fire departments. The Center Fire Department has borne the brunt of this expansion in terms of emergency fire and accident response, and the City of Aiken has made no effort to pay its share of the increased costs.

(2) There was no such item on City Council’s agenda at its only July 2025 meeting.

Section 44-5(b) of the Municipal Code requires developers to pay a $400 per housing unit sewer facilities charge, which works out to only ~$1.25/gallon. There are no apparent plans to repeal this fee.

The new $ 10.89-per-gallon charge mandated by the County and now in effect is not yet part of the City Code.

It is unclear whether the City was authorized by Council to pass the costs of the de facto impact fee along to developers.

(3) The First Reading of the Public Hearing for a Sewer Capacity Impact Fee Ordinance will be held Monday, February 23, 2026 during Aiken City Council’s Regular Meeting. Information and comment opportunities for the Ordinance can be found on a dedicated City web page.

(4) This past week Crowell and Company filed a $40 million breach of trust lawsuit against the City of Aiken. At issue is whether a sewer service approval for a 60-acre parcel along Toolebeck Road, granted by City Council in 2020, is still valid. A key element of the lawsuit is the assertion that the recording of the sewer services agreement, which was signed by City officials, confers a long-term right to that service, one that does not expire as long as other conditions are met.

Aiken County, Aiken County Government, February 2024, Stormwater and Flooding, Wastewater

$1.1 Million Worth of Water Bills.

Leave a comment

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.

Aiken County, Aiken County Government, April 2023, Development Issues, Wastewater, Water Usage

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

5 Comments

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: