In Oconee County, South Carolina, there’s something in the water–taxation. In the fall of 2023, the county issued $25 million in bonds to fund wastewater and sewer treatment for an area near Interstate I-85, but it only benefits part of the county. When the bond proposal was first discussed during County Council meetings, several citizens took issue with the idea and attempted to engage the council to express their concerns. With no firm budget being presented on how the bond monies would be spent, the group publicly called for a town hall meeting to discuss the issues and question the legality of the proposal. That offer was firmly rejected, and the county quickly moved to secure the bond amidst public opposition. The public learned shortly after that the bond was secured, and the monies were to be spent on sewer expansion. It was then that the citizens approached SCPIF for legal help. Knowing this was a blatant violation of the clear and plain language contained within our state’s constitution, we knew we needed to help.
Click here for link to information about the Oconee County Case
“It’s just one of these cases where you have to hold the feet to the fire of the powers-that-shouldn’t-be,” said SCPIF Chairman Vince Graham. “It has ramifications that go beyond Oconee County with a potential negative precedent.”
South Carolina’s Constitution prohibits using general obligation bonds for such projects unless a special taxing district is created specifically for those who benefit. Article X, Section 12 of the State Constitution reads:
“No law shall be enacted permitting the incurring of bonded indebtedness by any county for sewage disposal or treatment, fire protection, street lighting, garbage collection and disposal, water service or any other service or facility benefiting only a particular geographical section of the county unless a special assessment, tax or service charge in an amount designed to provide debt service on bonded indebtedness or revenue bonds incurred for such purposes shall be imposed upon the area or person receiving the benefit therefrom.”
In this case, that didn’t happen. Supporter of the case against Oconee County Debbie Krueger told Fox Carolina, “I just feel this kind of thing requires a referendum. Ask the people if this is what they want.” The county argued that the bonds were part of a county-wide economic development plan which aimed to attract businesses through an industrial park, but that attempt at creating a loophole doesn’t make it legal.
A judge granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, but the county filed a motion for reconsideration. The judge has indicated he’s going to grant the County’s motion for reconsideration, but he also invited another similar motion from the plaintiffs. The county has already spent nearly $400,000 taxpayer dollars in legal fees, and further costs are still to come. This is a county of around 75,000 people, and the decision made here could set an important precedent for the rest of the state.
Throughout American history, the question of how to distribute taxpayer funds to pay for infrastructure has been hotly contested. Benjamin Franklin tried—and failed—to empower Congress to fund canals that would only benefit a few states in 1787, and then-President James Polk vetoed an infrastructure bill in 1847, saying that the federal government didn’t have the right to fund certain improvements within the states. To do so, he said, would lead “to a consolidation of power in the federal government at the expense of the rightful authority of the States.”
What’s happening with taxpayer dollars to fund infrastructure in Oconee County, however, shouldn’t be open to debate. It’s clearly ruled out in the Constitution. And, as SCPIF’s lead attorney Jim Carpenter told the court, “Violation of the constitution is in of itself irreparable harm to the citizens of this county.”
On Tuesday, August 18, 2025, the SCPIF and citizen taxpayer plaintiffs of Oconee County filed their brief in appeal with the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Their summary STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL are as follows:
When Taxpayer were denied basic discovery responses, but the county submitted exhibits and testimonial statement in support of its motions, should the Court have dismissed the case with prejudice?
When a County uses bonded indebtedness to provide sewage disposal or treatment to one small area, does an alleged incidental benefit to the County make the whole County “the area or persons receiving the benefit?”
When the County generates alleged “legislative history” of an ordinance more than a year after the enactment, after several months of litigation, and after an injunction had been issued, must the Court defer to the alleged “legislative history?”
Click here for the case history of this situation
Step by Step Guide to access case materials in the link above:
- Click link
- Select on document icon in the Event Information section
- Select document you would like to access