Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
United States of America v. John Lorick
Date: 11-02-2026
Case Number: 3:26-cr-00828
Judge: Sherri A. Lydon
Court: United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (Richland County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Winston Holliday
Defendant's Attorney: Deborah Barbier
Description:
Columbia, South Carolina, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with violating a permit issued under the Clean Water Act, in violation of 33 U.S.C. 1319.
John violating a permit issued under the Clean Water Act.
Lorick failed to operate the plant properly because he knowingly allowed the plant to discharge wastewater without a functioning chlorination system. Lorick took no steps to repair the system or notify any regulators of the issue. Without a functioning chlorine treatment system to kill E. coli bacteria, for instance, the plant would discharge E. coli above its permit limitations.
To conceal the plant’s elevated E. coli levels, Lorick diluted compliance samples with tap water and falsified sampling results. He knew that the samples would otherwise show elevated E. coli levels due to the inoperative chlorination system.
From approximately 2022 to March 2025, the plant disposed of sludge primarily by allowing it to discharge raw, untreated sewage directly into the Little Saluda River. Beginning in or before 2023, the Saluda plant used a bypass 10 to 12 times a year due to operational failure, malfunctions, or inflow and infiltration. Lorick was aware the bypasses were occurring and took no steps to report the bypasses to the State of South Carolina. A bypass that occurred from July 27 to 28, 2025, killed approximately 1,529 fish, which were observed about a mile downstream from the plant.
John violating a permit issued under the Clean Water Act.
Lorick failed to operate the plant properly because he knowingly allowed the plant to discharge wastewater without a functioning chlorination system. Lorick took no steps to repair the system or notify any regulators of the issue. Without a functioning chlorine treatment system to kill E. coli bacteria, for instance, the plant would discharge E. coli above its permit limitations.
To conceal the plant’s elevated E. coli levels, Lorick diluted compliance samples with tap water and falsified sampling results. He knew that the samples would otherwise show elevated E. coli levels due to the inoperative chlorination system.
From approximately 2022 to March 2025, the plant disposed of sludge primarily by allowing it to discharge raw, untreated sewage directly into the Little Saluda River. Beginning in or before 2023, the Saluda plant used a bypass 10 to 12 times a year due to operational failure, malfunctions, or inflow and infiltration. Lorick was aware the bypasses were occurring and took no steps to report the bypasses to the State of South Carolina. A bypass that occurred from July 27 to 28, 2025, killed approximately 1,529 fish, which were observed about a mile downstream from the plant.
Outcome:
The Defendant elected to plead guilty.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of United States of America v. John Lorick?
The outcome was: The Defendant elected to plead guilty.
Which court heard United States of America v. John Lorick?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (Richland County), SC. The presiding judge was Sherri A. Lydon.
Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. John Lorick?
Plaintiff's attorney: Winston Holliday. Defendant's attorney: Deborah Barbier.
When was United States of America v. John Lorick decided?
This case was decided on November 2, 2026.