Did federal funding make a South Carolina town serve water or sewer customers outside its limits?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2008. Ask about yours and see what current South Carolina law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
A state representative asked whether a municipality that had received federal funds for water or sewer infrastructure had to provide service to nonresidents. The Attorney General's office said in 2008 that it found no state-law provision changing its earlier conclusion: absent a contract requiring service, state law did not require a municipality to serve nonresidents.
The opinion left the federal-funding question open. It acknowledged that federal money can come with restrictions or requirements, but it did not review a grant or agreement for this municipality. The office said it could not determine whether such a requirement existed in the particular situation and generally did not interpret federal law.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2008. 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
Did federal funding itself change the AG's state-law answer?
No. The office found no state-law authority that would change its earlier conclusion because a municipality received federal infrastructure funds.
Did the opinion decide what this municipality's federal grant required?
No. The office said it could not tell whether the grant imposed service requirements without reviewing its agreement or terms.
What had the earlier AG opinion said about service outside city limits?
The letter repeated the earlier conclusion that, absent a contract requiring it, the office found no state-law authority compelling a municipality to provide water or sewer service to a nonresident.
Background and statutory framework
The representative cited a June 30, 2006 AG opinion on water and sewer service to nonresidents, then asked whether federal construction funds altered that answer. The 2008 response distinguished the state-law question it could answer from possible federal funding conditions it had not examined. It gave no opinion on a particular grant's terms.
Citations and references
- Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., June 30, 2006: the earlier state-law conclusion repeated in this letter.
Official title
Request for an opinion as a municipality’s requirement to provide water and sewer service to a nonresident.
Requester
The Honorable Herb Kirsh, Member, House of Representatives
Source
- Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-18-2008-1/
- Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/kirsh-h-os-8690-12-18-08-municipality-provide-water-sewer-nonresident.pdf
Original opinion text
H ENRY M CM ASTER
A'ITORNEY G EN ERAL
December 18, 2008
The Honorable Herb Kirsh
Member, House of Representatives
Box 31
Clover, South Carolina 29710
Dear Representative Kirsh:
We received your letter requesting an optruon from our Office as a municipality' s requirement to provide water and sewer service to a nonresident. You state as follows: An opinion from your office dated June 30, 2006, stated "that absent a contract mandating a municipality provide water and sewer services to a nonresident, we find no legal authority requiring the municipal to provide such services." I respectfully request an opinion from your office as to whether a municipality's duty, or lack thereof, to a nonresident changes any if the municipality has received federal funds for construction of water or sewer infrastructure.
As you correctly stated, in a 2006 opinion, we found no principle of State law that requires a municipality to provide water and sewer service to nonresidents. Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., June 30, 2006. In your request, you ask whether a municipality's duty changes because it receives federal funds. In our research, we did not find a provision of State law addressing this issue. However, we recognize that in many instances the federal government places certain restrictions and requirements on recipients of federal funds. Thus, it may be possible for the federal government to impose requirements on the municipallty with regard to who must receive water and sewer service. Nonetheless, without reviewing a copy of an agreement or grant providing such funds to the municipality, we cannot opine as to whether such a requirement is present in a particular situation. Furthermore, we note that this Office does not generally construe federal law. Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., November I 6, 2006. As such, our Office may not be in the best position to provide guidance as to
R EMHl'lff C. D ENNIS B u 11.n 1NG
•
PoST Q 1:r:1cr: Box 11549
•
Co1.uM1J IA. SC 192 J 1- 1549
• T ELl!PflONE !l03-734-.W70 •
FACS IMILE 803-~53-6~8~
The Honorable Herb Kirsh
Page 2
December 18, 2008
federal requirements. However, with regard to State law, we do not find any authority that would change the conclusions reached in our 2006 opinion. Very truly yours, Henry McMaster Attorney General
~-/)1-~
By:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
~efD,C~
Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General
Cydney M. Milling
Assistant Attorney General
What does South Carolina law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2008. Ezel checks the current South Carolina statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace