A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTIONS 5-31-1610 AND 5-31-1620 SO AS TO EXEMPT PROPERTY FROM CONNECTING TO MUNICIPAL OR COUNTY WATER OR SEWER SYSTEMS IF THE SYSTEM LACKS CAPACITY TO EXTEND SERVICES TO THE PROPERTY AND TO ALLOW A PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN ANY MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY LIMITS TO INSTALL A WELL OR SEPTIC TANK IF IT IS MORE ECONOMICAL FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER THAN CONNECTING TO THE MUNICIPAL WATER OR SEWER SYSTEM.
Summary
H4168 would amend South Carolina law to create two new exemptions from mandatory connection to municipal or county water and sewer systems. First, a property would not have to connect if the local system lacks the capacity to extend service to that property. Second, a property owner within a municipality or county could be exempt from a connection requirement if the owner can show the governing body that installing a private well or septic tank would be more economical than connecting to the public system.
The bill adds new sections to Title 5, Chapter 31 of the South Carolina Code, which governs municipal water and sewer systems. It would apply notwithstanding other laws and would take effect upon gubernatorial approval. In practical terms, it would give property owners an alternative to public utility hookups in cases of infrastructure limitations or higher connection costs, while also limiting the ability of local governments to require connection in those circumstances.
Impact
The bill would directly affect state law governing municipal and county water and sewer service requirements by creating statutory exceptions to mandatory connection rules. It would give property owners a legal basis to avoid forced connection when a system cannot extend service or when a private well or septic system is cheaper, and it would require local governing bodies to evaluate and accept those showings. The measure could reduce the reach of local utility connection mandates and shift some development and infrastructure decisions toward private onsite systems.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the limited available context, the measure appears to be framed as a property-owner and cost-relief bill rather than a controversial regulatory expansion. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, opposition, or support in the available materials. The caption and language suggest a practical, pro-development or pro-property-rights approach focused on flexibility and affordability.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are likely to be between property owners seeking lower-cost alternatives and local governments or utility providers concerned about planning, public health, and infrastructure financing. Municipalities and counties may object to losing mandatory connection authority, especially where centralized water and sewer service is part of long-term growth management. Supporters would likely emphasize economic fairness and the inability of some systems to extend service, while critics may worry about inconsistent standards for wells and septic tanks or reduced utility revenue.
Requires that the tax imposed upon the conveyance of any real property that is located in more than one municipality to be allocated between or among the municipalities in proportions to the assessed value of the property located in each municipality.
Requires that the tax imposed upon the conveyance of any real property that is located in more than one municipality to be allocated between or among the municipalities in proportions to the assessed value of the property located in each municipality.
Allows counties and municipalities to use open space trust funds for remediation of collapsed mine shafts and sinkholes on property owned by county or municipality.