How many Jasper County members sat on the Beaufort–Jasper Water and Sewer Authority board under the 1983 ordinances?

Plain-English summary

A legislator asked whether Jasper County had two or four seats on the Beaufort–Jasper Water and Sewer Authority board. A 1975 act described an eleven-member board with four Jasper electors. But the Attorney General concluded in 2005 that jointly enacted 1983 Beaufort and Jasper County ordinances consolidated the authorities and specified a nine-member board: seven Beaufort electors and two Jasper electors. In his view, the ordinances controlled until the councils modified them or the General Assembly acted again.

The opinion also examined whether the 1975 act violated the state constitution's restriction on laws for a specific county. It did not give an unqualified constitutional ruling. It said the question was not free from doubt and that a court could uphold the act because the authority served more than one county. The board seat answer rested on the later joint ordinances, so the AG called the constitutional question probably irrelevant to that answer.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. 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

How many Jasper County seats did the AG recognize in 2005?
Two, under the 1983 joint county ordinances described in the opinion.

Why did the 1975 act say four Jasper seats?
It prescribed an earlier eleven-member board. The opinion said the counties later consolidated authorities and changed the board through joint ordinances.

Did the AG rule that the 1975 act was unconstitutional?
No. He said the issue was uncertain and explained why a court could uphold legislation concerning a multicounty authority.

What could have changed the arrangement identified in the opinion?
The AG identified later action by both county councils under the cited consolidation provisions or further action by the General Assembly.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion compared Act No. 349 of 1975 with the joint 1983 ordinances adopted under §§ 6-11-410 et seq. It reviewed state cases concerning Article VIII, § 7 and multicounty special purpose districts, but treated the ordinance-based board composition as the operative answer.

Citations and references

• Act No. 349 of 1975: eleven-member board described in the request.
• §§ 6-11-410 et seq.: authority for the joint county ordinances identified by the AG.

Official title

Questioning whether Jasper County has two or four representatives on the board of the Beaufort- Jasper Water and Sewer Authority (hereinafter “the Authority”).

Requester

The Honorable R. Thayer Rivers, Jr., Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/november-29-2005/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05nov29rivers.pdf

Original opinion text

.\

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY M cMAi>TER
ATTORNEY CEl\ERAL

November 29, 2005

I

The Honorable R. Thayer Rivers, Jr.
Member, House of Representatives
P. 0. Box 104
Ridgeland, South Carolina 29936
Dear Representative Rivers:

In a letter to this office you questioned whether Jasper County has two or four representatives on the board of the Beaufort-Jasper Water and Sewer Authority (hereinafter "the Authority"). The question has been raised in light of the provisions of Act No. 349 of 1975 which provides that the governing body of the Authority is to be comprised of eleven members, seven of whom are to be electors of Beaufort County and four of whom are to be electors of Jasper County. As expressed in a letter from Mr. Steve Matthews with the law firm of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. which you forwarded with your letter, the question of the constitutionality of Act No. 349 is not free from doubt. Generally, while there is a strong presumption of constitutionality regarding any act of the General Assembly, Article VIII,§ 7 of the State Constitution provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Our Supreme Court has applied this provision in a number ofinstances, striking down various enactments as violative of Art. VIlI, § 7. Some of these decisions have involved a statute relating to a particular water and sewer authority. See, Pickens County v. Pickens Co. Water and Sewer Authority, 312 S.C. 218, 439 S.E.2d 840 (1994). In Hamm v. Cromer, 305 S.C. 305, 308, 408 S.E.2d 227 (1991), the Court had determined that the enactment of a local law for a special purpose district is the type of special legislation which is prohibited by Section 7 of Article VITI " ...as it was not intended that after the ratification of the constitutional amendment, the General Assembly could repeatedly inject itselfinto local affairs." See also Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565. 206 S.E.2d 875 ( 1974). However, in Kleckley v. Pulliam, 265 S.C. 177, 217 S.E.2d 217 (1975) the Supreme Court recognized an exception for multi-county special purpose districts. In Kleckley, the Court addressed the issue of whether a 1975 act of the General Assembly authorizing the issuance of general obl igation bonds by the Richland-Lexington Airport District, a special purpose district created in 1962, was constitutional under Article VIH, § 7. fn the opinion of the Court, the Act was not related to a specific county and was thus valid because the two-county airport district was a matter of state-wide importance and the subject matter extended beyond purely local concern. 217 S. E.2d at c.,01o~1s B L'IWING • PosT Omce Box 11 549 • CouMtt1A, S.C. 2<n 11 . 1~.so • ...... - · j) . . R1.Mlll'RT l/.,.. A'-P .-rr-

The Honorable R. Thayer Rivers, Jr.
Page 2
November 29, 2005

221, 222. Relying on Kleckley, this office concluded that a 1979 act of the General Assembly related to the Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority, a pre-1973 special purpose district serving Anderson, Greenville and Laurens Counties, was constitutional, given the regional nature of that authority. See, S.C. Op. Atty. Gen., February 5, 1985.

I
I

As determined in an opinion of this office dated March 29, 2005, while the Court in Kleckley " ... appeared not to have based its decision solely upon the fact that the special purpose district in that case encompassed more than one county, dicta from the Court in a subsequent decision indicates that the multi-county nature of the district is pivotal." In interpreting the powers of the Fort Hill Natural Gas Authority, which was created by the General Assembly in 1952, the Court in Fort Hill Natural Gas Authority v. City of Easley, 310 S.C. 346, 426 S.E.2d 787 (1993), citing Kleckley, stated that "... we note that any amendment to this statute would not violate Article VIII, Section 7 of the South Carolina Constitution, as the Authority extends beyond the confines of one county." 426 S.E.2d at

789. Based upon Kleckley and Fort Hill, this office concluded in an opinion dated July 31, 2003
     concerning the Donalds-Due West Water Authority that
     [i]fthedefined service area [of the Donalds-Due West Water Authority] as provided in the Authority's enabling legislation, encompasses more than one county it is my opinion that the General Assembly most likely has the power to enact specific legislation related to the Authority.... If, on the other hand, the Authority's defined service area is confined to a single county, then it is my opinion that specific legislative action related to the Authority by the General Assembly would most likely be found by a reviewing court to be unconstitutional pursuant to the prohibitions of Article VIII, Section 7 and/or Article III, Section 34. [special legislation]. Consistent with such, it could be determined that, while not free from doubt, Act No. 349of1975 which provides that the governing body of the Authority, which is multi-county in nature, is to be comprised of eleven members, seven of whom are to be electors of Beaufort County and four of whom are to be electors of Jasper County could be upheld as constitutional. However, as pointed out by Mr. Matthews in his opinion, the question of whether Act No. 349 is constitutional is probably irrelevant. As explained by Mr. Matthews, in 1983 the county councils of Beaufort and Jasper Counties pursuant to ordinances enacted jointly pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 6-11-410 et seq. consolidated the Beaufort-Jasper Water Authority and the Jasper County Water and Sewer Authority, altered the service areas of the Authority and specified that the governing body of the Authority would be composed of nine members. Those ordinances specified that seven of the members would be electors of Beaufort County and two would be electors of Jasper County. Consistent with the advice of Mr. Matthews, until such ordinances are modified by subsequent action of the county councils pursuant to Sections 6-11-410 et seq. or until there is further action by the General Assembly, those boards should be composed as specified by such ordinances.

The Honorable R. Thayer Rivers, Jr.
Page 3
November 29, 2005

With kind regards, I am,
Sincerely,

a~u..J_____

l

I
I

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General