Could Pickens County Water Authority serve a customer outside Liberty when the city had a nearby water line?

Plain-English summary

In 2019, a legislator asked whether Pickens County Water Authority could serve a company outside Liberty's city limits when the city had a water line near the proposed site. The Attorney General concluded that a court would likely allow the authority to serve a customer in Pickens County that was outside municipal limits and outside an area a municipality served when the authority's enabling act took effect in 1971.

The act gave the authority a countywide service area while restricting sales inside municipal limits or areas then served by municipalities without consent. The opinion read "then served" as fixing that part of the restriction to the act's effective date. It treated the act's general concern about undue competition as an introduction to the specific territorial restriction, rather than a ban wherever a municipal line later appeared.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2019. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did Liberty's nearby water line alone keep the county authority from serving the site?
A: The AG focused on whether the site was within municipal limits or in an area served by a municipality when the enabling act took effect, rather than the mere proximity of a later line.

Q: What service territory did the authority's act create?
A: The opinion read it as Pickens County, subject to a consent requirement for municipal territory and areas already served by municipalities at the act's effective date.

Q: Did the opinion settle service rights for land inside a city?
A: No. Its conclusion concerned a customer outside municipal limits and outside the historically served area.

Background and statutory framework

The dispute turned on the authority's 1971 enabling legislation. The opinion read its countywide grant and competition limitation together, and cited a state Supreme Court decision that had revived the original act after later local legislation was held unconstitutional.

Citations and references

• 1971 Act No. 240: the authority's enabling act analyzed in the opinion.
• Pickens Ctv. v. Pickens Ctv. Water & Sewer Auth.. 312 S.C. 218, 439 S.E.2d 840 (1994): the opinion's explanation of why the original act controlled.

Official title

On whether the Pickens County Water Authority may provide water service in areas where municipalities also provide water service outside of their corporate limits.

Requester

The Honorable David R. Hiott, South Carolina House of Representatives.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-3-2019/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Hiott-D-OS-10341-FINAL-Opinion-4-3-2019-01934839xD2C78.pdf

Original opinion text

Alam Wilson
Attorney General

April 03,2019

The Honorable David R. Hiott
Member

South Carolina House of Representatives
District No.4

411 BlattBldg.
Columbia, SC 29201

Dear Representative Hiott:

Attomey General Alan Wilson has referred your letter to the Opinions section. Your letter states:

Local legislation established the Pickens County Water Authority in 1971 to provide water to areas of Pickens County not receiving water. The legislations states, "Its service area shall include all of Pickens County." A company is looking to establish operations in Pickens County and it needs water for its daily functions. The parcel upon which the company plans to locate is outside the city limits of Liberty, South Carolina. However, Liberty does have a water line extending from the city limits right near this parcel. The Pickens County Water Authority wants to provide/meet the water needs of this company. However, in the Pickens County Water Authority's enabling legislation, it states in part, "...the Authority shall not unduly compete with publicly operated water systems of whatsoever nature in the county,...". The question is whether Pickens County Water Authority can provide water to this company, even though it is outside Liberty's city limits, when Liberty has a water line running right by the parcel. Law/Analysis

It is this Office's opinion that a court would likely find the Pickens County Water Authority (the "Authority") may provide water to a company which is located (I) within Pickens County,(2) outside of the corporate limits of a municipality, and (3)outside of an area served by a municipality as of the date of May 13, 1971; which is the effective date of the Authority's enabling legislation. In Pickens Ctv. v. Pickens Ctv. Water & Sewer Auth.. 312 S.C. 218, 439 S.E.2d 840 (1994), the South Carolina Supreme Court held that subsequent local legislation was Kjhwbert C.Dennis Building » Post Office Box 11549 - Columbia,3029211-1549 • Telephone 803-734-3970 . Facsr^ile 803-253-6283

The Honorable David R. Hiott
Page 2

April 03,2019

unconstitutional and that 1971 Act No. 240 which created the Authority was revived. Therefore, this opinion will examine the text of Act No. 240 to ascertain what limits, if any, were placed on

the Authority to provide water service within its service area. In relevant part, Act No. 240 reads as follows: 1971 Act No. 240- An Act To Create The Pickens County Water Authority, And To Provide A Penalty.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina: Section 1.

Pickens County Water Authority created.— There is hereby

created a body corporate and politic to be known as the Pickens County Water Authority, hereinafter referred to as the "Authority." Its service area shall include

all of Pickens County. It shall be the function of the Authority to acquire supplies

of fresh water, capable of being used for industrial and domestic purposes, and to distribute such water, in the manner herein provided, for industrial and domestic use within its service area. . . . Section 6.

Water not to be sold in certain areas.— To the end that the

Authority shall not unduly compete with publically operated water systems of whatsoever nature in the county, the Authority shall not sell water to be used bv

persons or private corporations within the corporate limits of such municipalities or areas now served bv municipalities without the consent of the duly elected officers, nor shall it sell water elsewhere than in Pickens County, such county

being hereby defined to be the service area of the Authority. Section 14. Time effective.— This act shall take effect upon approval by the Governor.

Approved the 13th day of May, 1971.
Id. (emphasis added). This opinion will analyze 1971 Act No. 240 according to the principles of

statutory interpretation. Statutory interpretation of the South Carolina Code of Laws requires a determination of the General Assembly's intent. Mitchell v. City of Greenville. 411 S.C. 632, 634, 770 S.E.2d 391, 392 (2015) ("The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent whenever possible.").

Where a statute's language is plain and

unambiguous, "the text of a statute is considered the best evidence of the legislative intent or will." Hodges v. Rainev. 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000).

The text of 1971 Act No. 240 appears to plainly demonstrate the General Assembly's

intent regarding the Authority's service area and potential overlap with municipal water service.

The Honorable David R. Hiott
Page 3

April 03, 2019

Section one established that the Authority's service area includes all of Pickens County. Section six carved out territory within Pickens County where the Authority may only operate with consent.

When read in isolation, the language "the Authority shall not unduly compete with

publically operated water systems of whatsoever nature in the county" would suggest to a reader that the Authority lacks authorization to operate anywhere that a publically operated system is available to provide service.

However, when read with the beginning of the sentence which

states "to the end that," it is clear that this phrase is merely a preamble to the General Assembly's intended restriction. Id. The plain language of the statute states the restriction on the

Authority is limited to areas "within the corporate limits of such municipalities or areas now served by municipalities." Id.

The restriction on areas "now served by municipalities"

demonstrates legislative intent to fix these geographic limitations on the Authority's service area only to those existing at the time the legislation was adopted.

Therefore, it is this Office's

opinion that a court is likely to find that the Authority is authorized to distribute water within

Pickens County to any areas that are not encompassed by the corporate limits of a municipality and that were not provided water service by a municipality as of May 13, 1971, the effective date of the legislation. Conclusion

It is this Office's opinion that a court would likely find the Pickens County Water Authority (the "Authority") may provide water to a company which is located (1) within Pickens

County, (2) outside of the corporate limits of a municipality, and (3) outside of an area served by a municipality as of the date of May 13, 1971; which is the effective date of the Authority's enabling legislation.

Sincerely,
r

A

2

Matthew Houck
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General

Z2