The Charleston region — Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester counties — is growing at a pace few communities in the Southeast can match. New families, employers and retirees arrive every day, drawn by economic opportunity and the natural beauty of the Lowcountry. That growth brings opportunity — but also responsibility. Chief among our challenges is how to provide housing and infrastructure without compromising the water, marshes and waterways that define this place.

In recent years, individual septic systems have increasingly been cast as an environmental threat — often blamed broadly for water quality concerns and portrayed as incompatible with responsible development. That narrative may be politically convenient, but it is technically incomplete. More importantly, it risks pushing Charleston toward infrastructure decisions driven more by ideology than by sound engineering.

Growth is not theoretical. Berkeley and Dorchester counties are absorbing thousands of new residents annually while Charleston County continues to densify and redevelop. Workforce housing is already scarce. Delaying or restricting development based solely on sewer availability does not stop growth — it displaces it, pushes housing farther from job centers, increases vehicle miles traveled and worsens affordability.

Infrastructure must meet reality.

Centralized sewer systems are often treated as the default solution, and in many contexts they are appropriate. But sewer is not inherently superior, nor is it without risk. Sewer systems are capital-intensive, slow to expand, energy-dependent and vulnerable to failure during storms — an increasingly important concern in coastal South Carolina. Even the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services — formerly the Department of Health and Environmental Control — recognizes that wastewater infrastructure must be evaluated in the context of flooding risk, groundwater conditions and long-term resilience, not as a one-size-fits-all mandate.

Modern septic systems are not the outdated technology many imagine. Today’s engineered onsite wastewater systems — which Environmental Services regulates and permits throughout the coastal zone — include advanced pretreatment, aerobic treatment units, nitrogen-reducing media, pressure distribution, drip irrigation and enforceable maintenance requirements. Properly designed, sited and maintained, these systems can significantly reduce nutrient and pathogen loading before effluent ever reaches groundwater or surface waters. 

In fact, Environmental Services’ own guidance acknowledges that advanced onsite systems can be appropriate in coastal environments when soil conditions, separation distances and system density are properly addressed. These systems are engineered solutions, not temporary compromises.

From an engineering perspective, risk is not defined solely by whether failures occur, but by the scale and consequence of those failures. Septic system failures are typically localized, incremental and correctable at the parcel level. Sewer system failures — such as lift station overflows and wet-weather bypasses — are sudden, high-volume and discharge directly into creeks, rivers and marshes. Distributed systems fail quietly. Centralized systems fail loudly.

This distinction matters in a region increasingly shaped by storm surge, tidal influence and power outages.

The real environmental variable in this debate is not septic versus sewer — it is density. When development intensity exceeds what soils, groundwater depth and site elevation can support, any wastewater system will struggle. Poor outcomes often attributed to septic systems are more accurately the result of excessive density, poor siting or lack of long-term maintenance — issues that Environmental Services already addresses through permitting standards and coastal regulations.

Responsible planning aligns density with natural carrying capacity. Engineered septic systems, when paired with appropriate lot sizes and mandatory service agreements, can support thoughtful growth without overburdening public sewer systems or shifting massive infrastructure costs onto taxpayers.

There is also an unspoken governance reality. Centralized sewer offers centralized control. Individual systems require individual responsibility and enforcement. But environmental policy should be judged by outcomes, not convenience.

If the goal is clean water, resilient infrastructure and attainable housing for Charleston’s workforce, then modern engineered septic systems deserve a legitimate place in the conversation — not as a last resort, but as a proven, regulated tool already recognized by South Carolina’s own environmental authority.

Preserving the Lowcountry — a place many of us have lived in, worked in and raised families in for decades — does not mean freezing it in time and relying on outdated assumptions. It means applying the best science, the best engineering and local regulatory expertise to today’s challenges.

Septic systems are not the enemy of Charleston’s environment.

Poor planning is.

Burt Rhodes is a Charleston-area real estate professional with experience in land development and infrastructure planning.