Georgetown Times is a class act to admit a mistake. DeBordieu has gone overboard to be environmentally responsible and deserve this community's thanks.

Posted by Pawley's resident on 1/24/2010

Since my Letter to the Editor was not published, I will post my letter on your web site. Thank you for your apology concerning the headline regarding DeBordieu Sewage.
Under a 1986 DHEC permit, DeBordieu disposes of its treated waste water by land spraying on its golf course. DeBordieu is the only community on the Waccamaw Neck re-using waste water in this manner. The growth on the Waccamaw Neck in the past twenty years has been accompanied with growth in treated waste water which must be disposed of. Discharges into rivers have increased. DeBordieu has also grown during the past twenty years and the waste water generated has increased. As reported the golf course is no longer performing the required filtration because it is overwhelmed with the volume of waste water.
DeBordieu is the only community that borders the pristine waters of North Inlet which is designated as an Outstanding Resource Water by DHEC. With this designation are rigorous restrictions on runoff and discharges to protect these waters. As waste water sprayed on the golf course has increased, there are risks that this waste water can seep into North Inlet. Because of this risk the residents of DeBordieu have requested a disposal alternative to protect North Inlet.
The water that will be discharged is secondarily treated waste water that is treated to the same extent as the waste water that is discharged into the Waccamaw River by all the sewage treatment plants on the Waccamaw Neck. The city of Georgetown also discharges secondarily treated waste water into the Sampit River. All major communities and towns from Georgetown up to Myrtle Beach and Conway discharge waste water in this manner except DeBordieu.
Although part of the public record, your reporting has failed to include the alternatives that DeBordieu has already explored such as spraying on forest land owned by Clemson University and the creation of artificial wetlands. Because of the restrictions of North Inlet, these alternatives would not comply with regulatory requirements. And there was no mention that DeBordieu voluntarily reduced the number of residences to be built from 3,000 in the originally approved Planned Unit Development to 1,235 thereby reducing our environmental footprint and generated waste water. The land that would have been built on was donated to Clemson University for research projects and will not be developed.
The proposed river discharge meets all state and federal requirements and is treated to the same level as other towns and communities. And your reporting has not made it clear that DeBordieu will continue to irrigate waste water on the golf course when it is dry enough to absorb and filter the waste water without creating runoff which could damage the waters of North Inlet. And there is no mention that DeBordieu will still be the only community re-using waste water on the entire Waccamaw Neck. And none of your articles on this subject have informed your readers that the current permitted discharge of treated waste water from all the other towns and communities on the Waccamaw Neck into the Waccamaw River is over 40,000,000 gallons per day. The average daily rate of discharge for DeBordieu will be about 150,000 gallons per day depending on rainfall and drought conditions. Nor does your reporting make it clear that DeBordieu residents are so concerned with protecting the cleanliness of the waters of North Inlet that we have accepted the financial obligation to pay for this project and no public funds will be utilized nor will there be any increased costs for other customers of Georgetown County Water and Sewer District.
The overall implication of your coverage on this subject is that discharging over 40 million gallons of treated waste water into the Waccamaw and Sampit rivers by all other communities in the area is acceptable but DeBordieu should not be allowed to do this, even with scientific data showing this alternative will protect North Inlet with negligible impact on the Waccamaw River. Why?
While your reporting has included accurate information, omissions in fact and perspective and sensationalistic headlines have been misleading to your readers. Journalistic standards require you to include all relevant facts so your readers get the entire story. In this case your paper has failed that standard.
Wilson Lowery
Georgetown, SC
January 20, 2010

Posted by Wilson Lowery on 1/22/2010