Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Septic Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Environmental groups praise septic overhaul but urge pause to refine technical rules
Summary
A staff attorney with the South Carolina Environmental Law Project and Andrew Wrley of Charleston Waterkeeper supported Awendaw’s proposed septic ordinance (2026-05) for protecting waterways but recommended delaying second reading to address the 12-inch vertical separation requirement, equity concerns and possible minimum-lot-size limits.
Environmental advocates told the Awendaw town council they largely back a proposed septic ordinance but urged the council to delay final action to refine technical language and consider social equity and practical feasibility.
A staff attorney for the South Carolina Environmental Law Project commended the town’s effort but flagged that the ordinance, as written, would "require a 12in zone of saturation for use of a conventional septic system," a standard that could be impossible to meet on many lots and could force homeowners to adopt more costly advanced engineered systems. The attorney also suggested adding a minimum-lot-size rule for major subdivisions to reduce density of septic-dependent development and recommended postponing the ordinance’s second reading so those issues can be addressed.
Andrew Wrley, who identified himself as "Charleston Waterkeeper," told council members that more than a decade of water-quality testing by his organization has "frequently seen persistent and high levels of bacteria in waterways that have dense clusters of septic tanks." He praised the ordinance’s environmental aims but warned that advanced systems are more expensive and require routine maintenance, and he recommended variance language, lot-size thresholds for subdivisions and a septic management program for existing systems.
Resident John Baker urged caution about permitting advanced treatment systems, saying conventional systems are better understood in the town’s sensitive environment and arguing the draft should limit options to the "tried and true" for now.
The public hearing closed without a council vote on ordinance 2026-05; several speakers recommended a short delay to incorporate technical changes and community input.
