Camp v. Board of Public Works of City of Gaffney, 17798
| Decision Date | 13 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 17798,17798 |
| Citation | 238 S.C. 461,120 S.E.2d 681 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | W. C. CAMP, Chairman, and Loy Mayfield, Miles Gettys, Claude Hoyle, and Lewis Blanton, constituting Supervisors of Cherokee County Soil Conservation District, Respondents, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF CITY OF GAFFNEY and South Carolina Water Pollution Control Authority, Appellants. |
Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Julian L. Johnson, William L. Pope, Asst. Attys. Gen., Wade S. Weatherford, Jr., Gaffney, Sinkler, Gibbs & Simons, Charleston, for appellants.
E. W. Johnson, Spartanburg, for respondents.
This action was brought in their official capacities by the Supervisors of Cherokee County Soil Conservation District to have declared null and void a permit issued by the South Carolina Water Pollution Control Authority to the Board of Public Works of the City of Gaffney for the enlargement of the sewerage disposal plant on Beaverdam Creek in Cherokee County, and to enjoin the Board of Public Works from proceeding under said permit. Upon the filing of the complaint, the Court below issued a temporary restraining order and directed the Board of Public Works and the Authority to show cause why the temporary injunction should not be continued. Each of the defendants filed a demurrer and also answered and made a return to the rule. Thereafter a hearing was had on the pleadings, certain documentary evidence and data furnished by the Water Pollution Control Authority, after which an order was issued in which the Court held the permit issued to the Board of Public Works was null and void. From this order, both the Board of Public Works and the Authority have appealed.
We have the rather unusual situation of litigation between three public agencies, each of which was created under statutory authority with certain specified powers and duties.
The Cherokee District was organized under the 'Soil Conservation Districts Law' which was enacted in 1937. Sections 63-51 to 63-167, inclusive, of the 1952 Code. The underlying purpose of this legislation was to conserve the soil resources of the State and control or prevent soil erosion. General supervision is placed under the State Soil Conservation Committee. The Act further authorizes the creation of soil conservation districts to be operated under the direction of soil supervisors. The State Committee is required to furnish assistance and information to the supervisors. Briefly stated, the supervisors of the districts are empowered to determine by investigation and research measures needed to control soil erosion and disseminate information thus obtained; to make demonstrations of methods and measures by which soil resources may be conserved; to carry out preventive and control measures on State owned lands within the district or other lands upon obtaining the consent of the owner; to cooperate with and furnish financial assistance to land owners in the carrying on of erosion control; to purchase, improve and sell property in furtherance of the purposes of the Act; to make available to landowners such machinery, fertilizer, seeds, seedlings, and other materials and equipment as will assist them in conserving their soil and preventing erosion; to develop comprehensive plans for the conservation of soil resources and for the control and prevention of soil erosion within the district and bring them to the attention of the landowners; to formulate regulations governing the use of lands within the district in the interest of conserving soil resources and preventing erosion; and 'to sue and be sued in the name of the district.'
Appellant South Carolina Water Pollution Control Authority was created 'within the State Health Department' under the Water Pollution Act of 1950. Sections 70-101 to 70-139, inclusive, of the 1952 Code. It is given jurisdiction 'to abate, control and prevent the pollution of the waters of the State.' It is declared to be the public policy of the State that reasonable standards of purity of its waters be maintained, consistent with public health, the public enjoyment of such waters, the propagation and protection of fish and wildlife, the operation of existing industries and the future industrial development of the State, 'with a reasonable balance of consideration of the public welfare and, to that end, that the use of reasonable methods to prevent and control pollution of the waters be required.' The Authority is empowered to safeguard the waters of the State from pollution; to prepare and develop a general comprehensive program for the abatement of existing pollution and the prevention of new pollution; to regulate the discharge of sewage into any waters of the State; to approve plans for the construction of disposal systems; and after proper study and a public hearing upon due notice, to group the designated waters of the State into classes. Such classifications must be in accordance with the best usage to be made of such waters in the interest of the public. Any classification of a stream may from time to time be altered or modified. Under the terms of this Act, a permit from the Authority is necessary for the construction of a disposal system having as its object the discharge of sewage into any of the waters of the State or for a change in or addition to any existing disposal system which would materially alter the method of disposing of sewage and industrial waste.
As required by the Act, all the streams in the State have been classified by the Authority as to quality and purity. The classifications adopted run from Class 'AA' to Class 'D'. The highest classification is 'AA', which is water meeting the State Board of Health regulations as suitable for use for domestic and food processing purposes with sterilization as the only treatment required. Class 'B' is water suitable for domestic supply after complete treatment in accordance with regulations of the State Board of Health. Class 'C' is water suitable for progration of fish, industrial and agricultural uses and others uses requiring water of lesser quality. No stream has ever been classified as low as 'D'. A description of the other classifications is not necessary.
Appellant Board of Public Works of the City of Gaffney is a municipal agency initially created in 1907, 25 St. at L. 808, through whose management and control the City of Gaffney operates its waterworks and sewerage systems. We had occasion recently to discuss its functions in Sossamon v. Greater Gaffney Metropolitan Utilities Area, 236 S.C. 173, 113 S.E.2d 534.
For a long number of years and Board of Public Works of the City of Gaffney has discharged sewage and industrial waste into Beaverdam Creek which is a tributary of Thicketty Creek. After a hearing in 1953, the Authority classified both Thicketty Creek and Beaverdam Creek as Class 'C'. In April, 1959 Beaverdam Creek was reclassified downward from Class 'C' to Class 'C-a' in order to permit the Board of Public Works to enlarge its disposal plant on Beaverdam Creek. Later during that year application was made to the Authority to reclassify Thicketty Creek upward from Class 'C' to Class 'A'....
To continue reading
Request your trial