New South Carolina Law Requires Permits for Water Withdrawals

By Jessie King

On June 11, 2010, Governor Sanford signed into law S452, a bill amending the South Carolina Surface Water Withdrawal and Reporting Act, §49-4-10 et seq. (Supp 2008) (the “Act”). The law takes effect on January 1, 2011.

The amendments to the Act are designed to stop the taking of water from South Carolina in unlimited quantities, protect existing water users, and maintain seasonal river water flows.

The amended Act creates a regulatory permitting system for water withdrawal. The need to regulate water withdrawals came to a head recently after recurring droughts, legal battles with neighboring states over shared water supplies, and population growth.

Prior to the amendment, persons wishing to take millions of gallons of water out of South Carolina rivers and lakes needed only to “register” with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), report the quantity of water withdrawn and the method for measuring the quantity, and notify DHEC of any change in the information provided in the previous registration and reports. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 49-4-50 & -70 (Supp. 2008). Now, a permitting scheme will replace these registration requirements and allow the State to limit water withdrawals.

Among other things, the amended Act does the following:
• Renames the Act the “South Carolina Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use and Reporting Act.”
• Requires persons withdrawing three million gallons or more a month to apply for and receive a permit from DHEC.
• Requires agricultural surface water withdrawers to register their use with DHEC.
• Requires existing registered withdrawers to be grandfathered in at their authorized quantities.
• Requires DHEC to consider the biological, chemical, and physical state of the waterway and the potential effect on the public before issuing new permits.
• Provides public hearing procedures for new surface water withdrawal permit applications, including applications for interbasin transfers and applications for significant water quantity increases to existing permits.
• Lays out requirements to protect fish and wildlife and downstream users. For example, it sets seasonably variable minimum in-stream flows for new users that are intended to protect migrating fish populations and floodplain wetlands.
• Requires permittees to prepare and maintain operational and contingency plans to promote an adequate water supply when the flow of the surface water is less than the minimum instream flow for the surface water segment.

To see the full-text version of the Bill, click here:

Popular posts from this blog

Legalized, But Regulated: Commercial Hemp in South Carolina

Image
On December 20, 2018 the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018  (the "2018 Farm Bill") became law.  Following closely on the heels of the 2018 Farm Bill, on March 28, 2019 the South Carolina Hemp Farming Act  ("S.C. Hemp Farming Act") was signed into law.  The following is a brief overview of the status of hemp (also called "commercial hemp" or "industrial hemp") farming and regulation in South Carolina in the wake of the 2018 Farm Bill and the S.C. Hemp Farming Act. Background The terms "hemp" (which has non-drug connotations and uses) and "marijuana" (no further explanation necessary) describe the same plant genus: cannabis. The difference between the two is generally based on the relative amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the plant. Hemp plants are cultivated to produce fiber and seeds and very little if any THC. Marijuana plants, on the other hand, are cultivated to produce more THC. THC...
Read more

What Authority the Principal Chose: Arredondo, POAs, and Arbitrability

Image
It was only a matter of time before arbitrability (the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate) put a South Carolina courts in the position to construe the language in a power of attorney ("POA"). And this opinion did.  I try to view these decisions through the lens of how an attorney practicing in South Carolina might learn from them. And this decision, like some others involving the FAA and arbitrability, (for example, Grant v. Kuhn Chevrolet  or Herron v. Century BMW  , had the litigator and the drafter in me scratching my head.  Or at least I was confused until I learned about what had happened legislatively in the time since the POAs at issue in Arredondo were scrutinized by three (3) South Carolina courts. This decision, involving a POA executed before January 1, 2017, is likely an anomaly or a one-off, as going forward the S.C. Uniform Power of Attorney Act (SCUPOA) provides a guide for the creation of POAs that may avoid the necessity for so much j...
Read more

The SC Insurance Data Security Act: Ask Some Questions to Evaluate Your Security Program

Image
The  South Carolina Insurance Data Security Act  (“Act”), fashioned after the  NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law  (Model Law), went into effect on January 1, 2019. South Carolina was the first state in the nation to pass this legislation, and others (Ohio, Mississippi), have followed suit. The Act requires that each South Carolina person licensed or authorized by the South Carolina Department of Insurance (DOI) a “Licensee” must implement, no later than July 1, 2019, a “comprehensive written information security program” (“Program”) designed to protect nonpublic information (NPI) and the security of the Licensee’s information system. In addition, the Act requires a Licensee to report to the Director of the DOI within 72 hours following an actual or potential “cybersecurity event.” S.C. Code Section 38-99-40(A) (Section 6(A) of the Model Act). While South Carolina Licensees (hopefully) are well down the path to meeting the Act’s requirements, the...
Read more