• E-Mail
• Print
• Larger
• Smaller

Published: Thursday, Feb. 04, 2010 / Updated: Tuesday, Feb. 02, 2010 11:52 AM

Water permit bill gains steam

LAKE WYLIE -- 

Whether an effort by S.C. Sen. Wes Hayes to require permits for water users in South Carolina becomes law won’t be for lack of interest.

“It’s been a multi-year process. It’s not easy,” Hayes said.

And opponents say one thing is for certain.

“Without this certainty, other states have an advantage in recruiting new businesses because South Carolina is unable to guarantee the water will not be taken by an upstream user,” said Riverkeeper David Merryman of the effort spawned by a record drought beginning in 2007.

Supporters and opponents of the latest water-permitting legislation – close to 60 people in all – showed up last week for a Senate committee meeting in Columbia to debate the issue. A unanimous vote eventually passed S.452 to the full Senate for discussion. A similar bill currently sits in the House Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs.

Hayes introduced a bill in 2008 that would require anyone drawing 3 million gallons of water per day or more from South Carolina water bodies to have a permit. Help on drafting the bill came from then-Catawba Riverkeeper Donna Lisenby and then-public services administrator for Rock Hill Nick Stegall. The Hayes bill passed in Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, but was failed in the Senate. Hayes, undeterred, re-introduced a similar bill last year, and another bill currently sits in the same Senate committee.

“I had no idea then that it would remain in limbo so long,” Merryman said. “Unfortunately, when the immediate crisis over water eases, so does the urgency to protect our state’s rivers and lakes – but I’m hopeful of Senate approval in February.”

Jimmy Bagley, utilities supervisor for Rock Hill, is a member of the Catawba/Wateree Bi-State Commission and the Drought Management Advisory Group started through Duke Energy’s 2008 hydroelectric relicensing process. While Bagley agrees with Merryman that someone needs to control who takes what from the river, he disagrees it’s a role government should play.

“We think there needs to be a body to manage who’s taking water out of the Catawba,” he said. “Somebody needs to be looking after it, no doubt about it.”

Bagley says water professionals have more expertise in the field than an agency such as the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.

“It depends on how it’s managed,” Bagley said. “I don’t know that a permit’s a bad idea, it just depends on whose hands they put it in.”

Hayes says the main issue to be resolved is wording.

“The issues have been greatly narrowed to where we’re basically down to the issue of wording with minimum flow,” he said.

Minimum flow relates to the minimum amount of water that must remain in a river or reservoir to ensure adequate coverage for water users as well as wildlife and other environmental concerns. Merryman said by determining minimum flow and requiring permits, South Carolina could see an economic boost not allowed with its current system.

“Voluntary reporting alone has created a situation where we are not sure who is withdrawing what, when and where,” Merryman said. “A strong withdrawal permitting system would give existing users assurances that the water they need will not be taken by an upstream user, while allowing new industries to insure that the water they need will be there when they need it.”

Hayes would not be surprised to see the current bill changed before becoming law, but he does expect it to eventually pass.

“Water affects everybody,” he said. “So many players and so many pieces, it’s hard to reach a consensus.”