|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
Long before lawsuits or legislative resolutions, the work being done along the shoreline of Lake Wateree was described as routine mosquito abatement.
Every summer, per court filings and sworn testimony, workers moved across stagnant coves and shallow shoreline areas by boat — spraying oil-based mixtures supposedly intended to suppress mosquito breeding around the lake.
For decades, this work was viewed as a service to property owners. Now, it sits at the center of a federal class-action lawsuit – one which claims these practices may have contaminated one of South Carolina’s most picturesque lakes with toxic industrial chemicals.
Chemicals which persist in the environment to this day…
While specific scientific and legal questions remain unresolved, the historical practices themselves are no longer merely allegations buried inside a complaint – they are being described in detail by the people who say they carried them out.
***
A PROGRAM SPANNING GENERATIONS…
According to the federal lawsuit (.pdf), Duke Energy and its predecessor entities operated what plaintiffs have described as one of the oldest continuous mosquito-control programs run by a utility company in the United States — beginning in the early twentieth century and continuing until 2016.
The rationale was straightforward. Lake Wateree — created in 1919 as part of the larger Catawba-Wateree hydroelectric system — contained extensive shoreline areas, backwater coves and stagnant pockets where mosquitoes naturally thrive during South Carolina summers.
Controlling those populations was viewed as part of a broader lake management obligation tied to the operation of Duke’s hydroelectric reservoirs.
But plaintiffs now insist the methods used in these insect abatement efforts may have created long-term environmental consequences extending far beyond what anyone publicly understood at the time.
At the center of these allegations is a claim that the oil mixtures used during mosquito-control operations contained PCB compounds — chemicals historically associated with industrial oils and electrical equipment.
PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, were widely used throughout much of the twentieth century because they resisted heat and chemical breakdown. But those same characteristics later made them a major environmental concern. Once released into water or sediment, PCBs can persist for decades.
***
Lake Wateree is facing new scrutiny.
— Jennifer Wood (@IndyJenn_) May 5, 2026
A federal lawsuit and a legislative push are raising questions about long-standing PCB contamination — and whether it traces back to decades-old practices.
The chemicals are there.
The source? Still in dispute.
This is the first story in… pic.twitter.com/o79VNAjHWB
***
The most detailed accounts of the mosquito-control program come from two brothers — William Beckham and Henry Beckham — who provided sworn affidavits and deposition testimony in the federal case.
Both men say they worked summers on Lake Wateree as teenagers during the 1960s and early 1970s.
According to William Beckham’s affidavit (.pdf), he was hired beginning in 1965 and instructed to spread oil from two 55-gallon barrels loaded onto an aluminum boat. He described traveling along shoreline areas around the lake — particularly stagnant-water locations where mosquitoes bred — and estimated that crews distributed roughly 500 gallons per week during active treatment periods.
He described the material as brown to golden-brown in color with a smell similar to motor oil. At times, he said, thick black sludge-like material was visible in the mixture.
His brother, Henry Beckham, later provided similar testimony.
According to court filings (.pdf), Henry Beckham stated supervisors specifically told workers the mixture included burned transformer oil along with motor oil. He described filling barrels from a larger holding container located on Duke-owned property and spraying shoreline areas throughout the summer months.
Obviously, neither affidavit independently conclusively established the chemical composition of the mixture. But taken together, the affidavits and testimony form a major part of the plaintiffs’ effort to establish that the spraying not only occurred — but that the substances involved may have contained PCB compounds.
***
RELATED | BENEATH THE SURFACE
***
THE SCALE OF THE ALLEGATIONS…
One reason the lawsuit has drawn increasing attention in recent months is the sheer scale of pollution implied by the allegations.
According to plaintiffs, this was not a single dumping event or isolated contamination incident, but a repeated seasonal practice carried out over years — potentially decades — across a lake system containing hundreds of miles of shoreline. That distinction matters both legally and scientifically because contamination patterns associated with long-term applications can look very different from those tied to a singular industrial release.
Plaintiffs argued the contamination patterns identified in parts of the Catawba-Wateree basin are more consistent with ongoing operational practices than with a one-time spill. Supporting that theory is a 2021 scientific study (.pdf) cited in the lawsuit. This study examined PCB contamination patterns throughout South Carolina waterways. Researchers suggested historical mosquito-control programs involving used transformer oil may help explain contamination patterns in reservoirs where no obvious industrial discharge source has been identified. The study specifically identified Duke-operated reservoirs within the Catawba-Wateree system as fitting that pattern.
Still, many of the lawsuit’s central allegations remain hotly contested.
Duke Energy has not been found liable for any of the contamination, and experts retained by the company have argued in court filings that existing environmental data does not clearly identify a specific contamination source within Lake Wateree. That dispute is likely to become one of the defining issues in the litigation moving forward.
While plaintiffs point to historical mosquito-control practices as a likely explanation for contamination patterns, establishing legal responsibility requires more than proving contamination exists — it requires proving causation. And after more than a century of industrial activity throughout the broader river basin, that may prove extraordinarily complex.
***
A DIFFERENT KIND OF QUESTION…
For many residents around Lake Wateree, however, the issue has already moved beyond technical debates over environmental modeling or historical operational practices.
The questions now being asked are simpler — and more personal.
What exactly was put into the lake?
How long has it been there?
And why are many people only hearing about these allegations now?
Those questions have transformed what was once viewed as a quiet environmental dispute into something much larger — an ongoing examination of how industrial history, environmental stewardship and public trust intersect at one of South Carolina’s most recognizable lake destinations.
As both the lawsuit and proposed state investigation move forward, the mosquito-control program itself is no longer background context – it is becoming the focal point of the entire debate.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
