Surfside Beach council backs county landfill expansion after Solid Waste Authority presentation

A majority of Surfside Beach council voted unanimously March 10 to approve Resolution 26-207 and send a letter of support to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Ory County Solid Waste Authority’s plan to expand landfill capacity on existing authority property.

The council’s vote followed a 90-minute presentation by Ed Maher, assistant executive director of the Solid Waste Authority, who described county population and waste projections and three proposed expansion sites on the existing landfill. Maher told the council the county processed “a little under 400,000 tons” of material in 2010 and “almost 564,000 tons” in 2024; he said population growth — “last year the number was a little over 400,000 and by 2040 we're projecting 629,000 people” — is increasing annual tonnage and that without additional capacity the county could face hauling waste long distances.

The authority showed engineers’ estimates that three new cells on the existing property would extend municipal solid-waste (MSW) capacity from about 2050 to roughly 2068 and add decades of capacity for construction-and-demolition (CND) waste. Maher described diversion efforts now in place — a materials recovery facility, composting, shredding operations and a CND recycling facility — and said those programs reduce the volume going to landfill. He added the authority recently started a shredding operation that reduces bulky wastes’ volume by about 70 percent.

On funding, Maher said the authority expects to use revenue bonds and that tipping fees would be the primary revenue source. When asked about potential price impacts, he warned more hauling would be costly but said any increase would depend on financing terms and regulatory requirements. “There may be a small increase in tipping fees,” he said, and later added, “it's not triple,” in response to a council member's cost question.

Council members pressed staff on alternatives and timing. Questions included whether other landfills would accept Ory County waste (some private and out-of-county facilities would, but at greater distance and cost), how yard waste and recycling streams are handled (the authority reported nearly 40,000 tons of composting and about 30,000 tons of curbside recyclables last year), and whether temporary co-disposal into MSW would be required if permitting takes longer. Maher said the authority expects a period of limited co-disposal (one to two years) while permitting and construction proceed but emphasized the expansion sites aim to avoid long-term co-disposal and the high costs of hauling to distant facilities.

The presentation drew a written submission from an Ory County resident opposing the project; council members noted the packet included an alternatives analysis and that the Army Corps public comment period had closed. After additional discussion about procedural concerns and the authority’s alternatives analysis, council member [name on motion not specified in transcript] moved to approve Resolution 26-207 and the letter of support to the Army Corps. The motion passed on a roll call with all members voting yes.

What happens next

The Solid Waste Authority will continue responding to the Army Corps’ questions and proceed with state permitting if the Corps’ review moves forward. The council’s approval expresses municipal support for the authority’s chosen on-site expansion alternative but does not itself change permitting outcomes or funding decisions; those will be determined through the Corps’ review, state permitting and any future bond-financing process.

Votes and documents

- Motion: Approve Resolution 26-207 and a letter of support to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (text in council packet). Mover and seconder: not specified in the transcript. Roll call: Miss Bon — yes; Mr. Hyatt — yes; Mr. Lawren — yes; Mr. Walls — yes; Mr. Coleman — yes; Mr. Speedy — yes; Mayor Crafts — yes. Outcome: approved unanimously.

Reporting note: This article relies on the authority presentation and council debate recorded in the March 10 meeting and the resolution and letter text included in the council packet. The council's vote expresses support for the authority's preferred on-site expansion alternative and for submitting those comments to the Army Corps; final permitting and funding decisions remain with the Corps and state regulators.