Three environmental groups are threatening to sue the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control over what they say is a failure to protect the state’s rivers from industrial scale crop farms. A 2010 water law was supposed to prevent rivers from being sucked dry by farms, factories and drinking water plants, but DHEC’s interpretation of the law has left rivers and creeks vulnerable from farm withdrawals across South Carolina, the environmental groups say. In short, the department wrote rules that conflict with the 2010 law – and those regulations go easy on industrial-scale farms, said Carl Brzorad, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charleston. Regulations written by agencies are supposed to support state laws, but in this case, they did not, he said.
A petition the law center filed Monday with DHEC says the agency has 30 days to change the rules to match state law, or conservation groups “may exercise their right to initiate a civil action against the department.’’ The Southern Environmental Law Center is a legal service representing the S.C. Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Edisto and American Rivers.
“The DHEC rules allow major agricultural corporations to take all the water for themselves,” according to a statement from Frank Holleman, a senior law center attorney who works with Brzorad. “We’re asking that DHEC follow the law passed by our elected representatives and stop writing blank checks to de-water South Carolina’s rivers.”
Depleting rivers takes away water that other farms might need for irrigation, as well as drinking water utilities need to provide customers. Not enough water in a river also makes it hard to dilute wastewater discharges, while taking away fish habitat and places for people to boat or kayak..
The letter to DHEC questioning the state’s effectiveness at protecting rivers from overuse is the second of its kind in less than two years. In May 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said the state’s 2010 water withdrawal law and accompanying regulations don’t prevent rivers from being pumped dry. Among other things the EPA letter said the law is not scientifically sound, doesn’t preserve fish and wildlife, and actually allows overuse of rivers, instead of protecting them.
Despite the EPA’s admonition, neither the Legislature nor DHEC have made recommended changes to the law or to the regulations, environmentalists say. DHEC, whose mission is protecting the state’s environment, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The environmental groups’ lawsuit threat is the latest dust up in a disagreement that has simmered since soon after the water law took effect more than a decade ago. Critics say the surface water law and its regulations are so filled with loopholes that they don’t provide much protection for rivers.
In this case, the environmental groups are challenging the regulations. They say the law needs improvement, but the regulations are worse. At the very least, the rules need to match the law, Brzorad said.
The biggest issue through the years has been the lack of oversight of huge farms that, in some cases, have already taken a toll on groundwater in rural areas of South Carolina. Those farms, often referred to as “megafarms,’’ are massive crop-growing operations that have cleared thousands of acres of forests. Unlike industries, megafarms aren’t required to get permits to withdraw large quantities of water from rivers, The State reported in a 2017 series on the impacts of megafarms on South Carolina. That allows the farms to gain approval without receiving the same level of scrutiny from DHEC as industries. Farms also don’t have to notify the public of their plans to take major amounts of water from rivers.
The trigger for concerns over the 2010 surface water withdrawal law was the opening of a large potato farm east of Aiken. The farm gave no public notice it was opening or that it would take water from the South Fork of the Edisto River because the law didn’t require it. Walther Farms, an agribusiness from Michigan, gained approval to siphon away billions of gallons from the South Fork to water its potatoes. People living in the area were incensed and began pushing for changes to the state’s rules and regulations overseeing large water withdrawals.
But while megafarms are not regulated as tightly as industries, they do have to comply with a section of the water withdrawal law, known as safe yield, that was intended to protect rivers from over-pumping. That section of the law is intended to make sure some water is left in rivers after big farms siphon water away for irrigation. But DHEC has interpreted that in such a way that it allows rivers to be drained completely, say environmentalists and some state river experts. The agency allows those seeking to withdraw water the ability to take 80 percent of a river’s capacity, based on a mean annual daily flow. But at certain times of the year, river flow is below the daily annual mean, which would allow a waterway to be completely drawn down.
It is not known if rivers or streams have, at any point, dried up as a result of too much pumping by large farms, but statistics provided by the Southern Environmental Law Center show that some rivers are in trouble. Rivers that often exceed the safe yield include the South Fork of the Edisto between Columbia and Aiken; the Reedy River, which runs through Greenville; and the Tyger River near Spartanburg, according to the environmental group’s petition to DHEC.
Doug Busbee, a Wagener businessman who has fought for tougher surface water controls on megafarms, said the battle over river withdrawals needs to end in the public’s favor. Busbee was so upset with the law that he applied for – and won – DHEC approval to use all of the capacity in parts of the upper Edisto River basin. He is not using the water, but sought the approval to prove a point that the law is flawed. Since Busbee is not using the water, his actions have saved some parts of the basin from new withdrawals by megafarms.
“We’ve got a law that is dangerous, and the bottom line is I hope our lawmakers will listen to the people who understand the complexity of dealing with this situation,’’ Busbee told The State newspaper. “I hope they will try to come together to get us a law that would be safe for everyone.’’ Neighbors say mega-farms like this 3,700-acre potato farm in Aiken County threaten the water supply. Such growing operations clear forested land to the horizon line to make room for crops.
Sammy Fretwell has covered the environment beat for The State since 1995. He writes about an array of issues, including wildlife, climate change, energy, state environmental policy, nuclear waste and coastal development. He has won numerous awards, including Journalist of the Year by the S.C. Press Association in 2017. Fretwell is a University of South Carolina graduate who grew up in Anderson County. Reach him at 803 771 8537.
“Next time”, said Representative Heather Bauer after climbing out of the deer stand recently. Although she did not harvest a deer on that hunt, Representative Bauer spent the day learning about deer hunting including safety, types of gear, what to wear, how to prepare, and more. Representative Bauer, a state representative from Richland County is co-chair of the Sportsmen’s Caucus and serves on the Wildlife subcommittee of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and sponsored the bill to designate the third Saturday in November as “Women in Hunting and Fishing Awareness Day” each year.
Representative Bauer on a deer hunt with SCDNR officers.
Representative Bauer not only wants to bring awareness to women that participate in outdoor traditions, but she also wants to help share information about where women can go to learn more and receive proper training. She brought together a group of entities that are committed to helping women gain more skills in the outdoors including the South Carolina Wildlife Federation, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, the National Wild Turkey Federation, and more. The group compiled a list of clinics and workshops that are available to women across the state and will be updated as opportunities arise. The South Carolina Wildlife Federation is excited to be a part of this effort to help encourage women to participate in hunting and fishing and to inspire them to advocate for and conserve our natural resources.
SCWF is proud to support S. 96, the South Carolina Boating Safety and Education bill which will make South Carolina’s waterways safer. This legislation will require boaters born on or after July 1, 2007 to receive a boating safety certificate by completing a boating safety course administered or approved by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) before operating a boat with a 10-horsepower engine or greater. Our Director of Education, BeBe Dalton Harrison, attended the ceremonial bill signing yesterday on Lake Murray with Governor Henry McMaster, Lieutenant Governor Pamela S. Evette, state and local law enforcement officers, state agency leaders, members of the General Assembly, and many bill supporters who had lost loved ones in boating accidents.
SCWF continuously works with state legislators and policymakers to protect precious wildlife habitats and ensure that sound scientific data is used to make decisions that affect wildlife. Below is an update on several issues and bills that we’ve been tracking this session. Our Government Relations Manager, Trip King, represents the SCWF, as well as our conservation partner, Audubon South Carolina (ASC) at the State House.
If you haven’t had a chance, please check out our new state advocacy page on our website here. This page is updated daily during the Session to help you stay informed on the latest status of the bills that SCWF is monitoring in the SC Legislature.
The South Carolina General Assembly adjourned promptly at 5:00 pm on Thursday May 11, 2023. Normally, the constitutionally mandated adjournment of the Legislature on the second Thursday in May is accompanied by a sine die resolution which stipulates what business the House and Senate can take up when they return, usually two weeks after adjournment, to accept and approve conference committee reports and consider vetoes issued by the Governor. This year, the Legislature did not pass a sine die resolution but instead returned to Columbia on Tuesday, May 16, upon the call of the Governor, an agreement that was worked out weeks ago between the Legislative leadership and the Governor. This is an unusual circumstance which was precipitated by a lingering abortion bill that was passed by the Senate but not taken up by the House during the regular session. Because the Legislature will be reconvening at the call of the Governor, the state constitution allows the House and Senate to take up any matters they wish including bills that were still pending when they adjourned at the constitutionally prescribed date and time.
Since neither chamber agreed with the other on a state budget, House and Senate conferees will also meet during the next several weeks to iron out the differences between the Senate and House versions of the state appropriations bill and, once they find agreement, a conference committee report will be presented to each chamber for a final vote on the state budget.
As of June 6, both the House and Senate have met (the House on May 16 and May 23; the Senate on May 16 and May 23) and have passed several bills that were carried over from the regular session which concluded May 11. While House and Senate negotiators on the Budget Conference Committee have also met several times since the regular session adjournment, as of this date, they have yet to reach a compromise on the state appropriations bill and it is unclear when they might find agreement. Both the House and the Senate passed a Continuing Resolution that would fund state government functions after July 1, the beginning on the state’s fiscal year, should conferees be unable to reach an agreement on the FY 2023-2024 spending bill and have it pass both chambers of the General Assembly by midnight June 30.
Conservation Funding in the State Budget
South Carolina Office of Resilience (SCOR) – SCWF supported SCOR’s budget request for $200M to be used for disaster relief, mitigation and statewide resilience planning and implementation because these measures protect and enhance critical wetland habitat for wildlife. The House version of the budget included this amount, but the Senate only included a placeholder amount of $1.00. House-Senate budget committee conferees must now agree on funding SCOR’s non-recurring budget request between the $1.00 and $200M mark.
SC Conservation Bank – The Bank’s baseline recurring annual budget was increased by both the House and the Senate to $12,094,515, a $3M increase from 2022. The House gave the Bank an additional $18M in non-recurring funds for their grants program while the Senate upped that amount to $25M. SCWF has advocated for $25M in the Senate version of the budget and we are hopeful the House-Senate budget conference committee report will reflect that higher amount. This agency is the single most important tool the state has to ensure South Carolina’s most iconic and precious natural resources are preserved and protected for future generations.
Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) – House and Senate appropriators were generous in supporting SCDNR’s budget request which included significant funding for deferred maintenance on our state’s fish hatcheries, maintenance for Marine Resources facilities, waterfowl impoundment infrastructure maintenance, state water planning initiative, and maintenance on public recreational properties. Additionally, for the second year in a row, the Legislature has agreed to provide $20M to DNR for habitat protection and unspecified land conservation acquisitions. SCWF supported the Department of Natural Resources overall budget request and advocated strongly for the additional funding for habitat protection and land conservation acquisitions.
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism (PRT) – The House earmarked $25M for state parks development, upgrades, and maintenance while the Senate recommended only $11.75M for this line item in the budget. SCWF and many of our conservation partners support the higher spending level recommended by the House which will include some funding for the new Black River State Park being established on segments of the Black River between Kingstree and St. Andrews. This is an exciting new project that holds great promise for wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation.
SC Forestry Commission (SCFC) – For many years, SCWF has supported the budget requests of the SCFC. This agency does a tremendous job of managing our state’s forests and protecting our citizens and doing so with severely limited resources, aging equipment, and staff shortages. For the last several years, SCFC has made significant priority funding requests for staff recruitment and retention and for modernized firefighting equipment. SCWF has supported those requests and has advocated to House and Senate appropriators by letter and in-person with our support for these critically needed funds. The Senate version of the budget is more advantageous to SCFC and more in-line with their original request. SCWF supports the Senate budget recommendations pending before the House-Senate budget conference committee.
Some Priority Bills and Legislation of Interest to SCWF (not all inclusive)
S.280 and H.3786 (SC Conservation Enhancement Act) – Both S.280, and its House companion bill, H.3786 would re-instate the deed recording fee funding mechanism to the Conservation Bank that was the primary source of funding for the Bank from its inception in 2004 until its re-authorization in 2018 when this dedicated stream of funding was dropped in favor of an annual appropriation from the General Assembly. S.280 was introduced in the Senate by Senators Campsen and Davis on 1/10/23 and was referred to the Senate Finance Committee. H.3786 was introduced by Rep. Lowe, and others, in the House on 1/24/23 and was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. The House bill received a favorable report by the Ways and Means Committee on March 30, and was placed on the House calendar. On March 4, the House voted 93 to 20 in favor of the bill and it was sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Senate Finance Committee. Unfortunately, despite much widespread support, Finance Committee Chairman Peeler never scheduled a subcommittee or full committee hearing on either version of the Conservation Enhancement Act before the end of the legislative session. Both bills remain in the Senate Finance Committee and will be carried over into the 2024 session.
Passage of the Conservation Enhancement Act was a priority for SCWF and the SC Conservation Coalition in 2023. Restoration of a portion of the deed stamp fee would have provided considerably more funding to the Bank than the current appropriations from the General Assembly. The additional funding that the deed stamp provides would give the Bank the ability to fund considerably more projects in the ensuing years. We are hopeful that one of these bills will be given a favorable hearing in early 2024 by the Senate Finance Committee and subsequently be approved by the Senate and, if needed, be sent back to the House for a second vote.
Image Credits from L to R: Pawleys Island by Carl Beard; Table Rock by Julie Wyatt; Hunting Island by Teresa Kopec.
H.3951 (Working Agricultural Lands Protection Act) – This legislation, introduced by Rep. Patrick Haddon from Greenville, would create the Working Agricultural Lands Preservation Program and Fund that would be housed within the SC Conservation Bank. The Program and Fund would be funded by a line-item appropriation separate from those annual funds appropriated to the Conservation Bank. The purpose of the Program and Fund is to facilitate the use of conservation easements on working farmlands to permanently protect farmland properties using a selection criterion slightly different from the criteria used by the Bank for its normal grants program.
H.3951 passed through the legislative process in the House and was approved by a vote of 104-2 on March 29th. The bill was sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. Senator Campsen had an amendment attached to the bill during the committee process which basically included the language of S.280, the Conservation Enhancement Act to re-instate the deed stamp funding mechanism to the Conservation Bank. H.3951, as amended, passed out of the Committee, and was placed on the Senate calendar. Senator Peeler, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, objected strongly to this effort to bypass the Senate Finance Committee where the House and Senate versions of the Conservation Enhancement Act had previously been referred. As a result of his objection, the Working Agricultural Lands Protection Act, as amended, was recommitted to the Senate Finance Committee where it remained when the Legislature adjourned.
SCWF and our legislative partner, Audubon South Carolina, along with Upstate Forever and the SC Farm Bureau strongly supported the original Working Agricultural Lands Protection Act as passed by the House and actively worked to shepherd the bill through the legislative process. Had the Conservation Enhancement Act language not been added to H.3951 as an amendment, the bill would have likely sailed through the Senate and would have become law this year. Our efforts to have the amendment stripped from the bill on Senate floor and the original farmland bill taken up by the Senate failed, so we will have to wait until the 2024 session to right the ship and get this important piece of legislation enacted into law.
H.3868 (Women in Hunting and Fishing Awareness Day) – This legislation introduced by Rep. Heather Bauer of Columbia designates the third Saturday in November as Women in Hunting and Fishing Awareness Day. The bill passed both legislative chambers overwhelmingly and SCWF Executive Director Sara Green testified in support of the bill in both the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction. The bill was signed by the Governor on May 16.
S.96 (Boater Safety and Training Legislation) – This legislation sponsored by Sen. Campsen, Davis and McElveen states that anyone born on or after July 1, 2007 must successfully complete a boater safety training program and be in possession of a boater safety certificate in order to operate a vessel powered by an engine of ten horsepower or greater or equivalent to ten horsepower or greater. The bill passed the Senate and was amended in the House. The Senate amended the bill again by stripping out some of the House amendments and sent it back to the House. The House non-concurred in the Senate amendments thus creating a conference committee to iron out the difference between the two versions. The conferees issued a compromise Conference Report which was agreed to by the Senate by a vote of 43-0 but approval was held up in the House on May 11, the last day of session. After much debate in an extended session, the House finally passed the Conference Report by a 97-7 vote when they returned to the Capitol on June 7. The bill will now go to the Governor for his signature and become state law.
Image Credit: Venus Flytrap in Horry County, SC by Austin Jenkins.
S.581 (A Bill to Name the Venus Flytrap as the Official State Carnivorous Plant of the State) This bill passed both the House and the Senate and was signed into law by the Governor on May 8. The bill would bring awareness to the Venus flytrap which is federally designated as an At-Risk Species and the State of South Carolina is just one of two places in the world where the Venus flytrap naturally occurs. SCWF Executive Director Sara Green testified in support of this bill before House and Senate legislative Committees. You can read her remarks here.
H.3121 (Trails Bill) – This bill states that a taxpayer who encumbers his property with a perpetual recreational trail easement and right of way is allowed a one-time income tax credit equal to ten cents for each square foot of the property that is encumbered by the recreational trail easement. If passed, this legislation would help facilitate the continuation of public trails from publicly owned lands through privately owned property. Late in the session, this legislation passed the House and was sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Senate Finance Committee. This exact same bill passed the House overwhelmingly in 2022, but time ran out before the Senate could consider it. Since 2022 was the end of a two-year legislative session, the bill needed to be re-introduced in 2023 and will be consider by the Senate in 2024.
S.281 (SC Public Lands Enhancement Act) – This legislation would capture an amount equal to the annual general fund portion of sales tax revenue derived from sporting goods stores, designated under the 2007 North American Industry Classification System with code 451110, and credit that amount to the Public Lands Enhancement Fund (created by the bill). Funds derived from these sales tax proceeds would be used to create, improve, or restore access to public lands and waters, facilities, natural resources including fish and wildlife populations, or recreational opportunities on parks, forests, wildlife management areas, and heritage preserves that are owned, leased, or managed for public use by an agency of this State. The Bill was sponsored by Sen. Campsen and introduced in the Senate on January 10th where it was referred to the Senate Finance Committee. No further action taken in 2023. Hopefully, this legislation will advance in the 2024 session.
Sunday Hunting on WMAs – The SC Department of Natural Resources promulgated regulations that would allow for Sunday hunting on selected Wildlife Management Areas around the state that are owned or leased by the Department. Committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate approved these new regulations and they became effective May 26, 2023. Since Sunday hunting was not recommended nor approved for all WMA’s, hunters should check with SCDNR to determine which WMA’s are affected and which are not by the new regulations.
Endangered Pine Barrens Treefrog, photo by Nathan Shepard
H.4047 (Endangered Species Disclosure Prohibition) – This legislation authored and introduced by Rep. Ott states that the Department of Natural Resources may not release records in its possession that contain site-specific information, including but not limited to, unique numeric identifiers of precise geographic locations, telemetry, or other locational data, regarding the occurrence of federal- or state-listed rare, threatened, species in need of management, endangered, or otherwise imperiled plant and animal species on public or private property, except in support of scientific, conservation, or educational purposes. The owner or owners of private property upon which threatened, endangered, or at-risk species occur shall be entitled to records specific to said property upon the request to the department. The bill passed the House on a vote of 97-0 on May 3 and was sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Senate Fish, Game and Forestry Committee. The bill will receive Senate consideration in the 2024 session. SCWF favored this legislation and Sara Green testified in support of the bill before the House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee prior to the bill’s passage in the House.
S.484 (SC Waterways Protection Act) – Legislation would create the South Carolina Waterways Protection Fund. Funds would be expended from the trust account primarily for the removal of hazardous, abandoned, or unattended vessels, marine debris, or hazards to navigation from the waters of this State. This bill passed the Senate 41-1 and was sent to the House and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. It will be taken up by the House in the 2024 session.
COLUMBIA — Senator Lindsey Graham has signed onto a bipartisan wildlife conservation bill, the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, that will dedicate $1.4 billion annually to locally-led efforts to help at-risk wildlife species nationwide.
“America’s wildlife are in crisis. This ground-breaking legislation tackles the problem at the scale necessary,” said Sara Green, Executive Director of the South Carolina Wildlife Federation. “We thank Senator Graham for cosponsoring this fiscally responsible effort to help at-risk wildlife with collaborative, conservation measures across every state, territory and Tribal nation.”
“This bill is modeled after historic laws passed decades ago that have long helped keep our game and sportfish populations healthy,” said Robert H. Boyles, Jr., Director of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. “Today, most people don’t know that wild turkey or inland striped bass were ever in trouble. Funding from this bill will allow us to do the same kind of work on behalf of South Carolina’s at-risk species like gopher tortoises, wood storks, and loggerhead sea turtles. We wholeheartedly thank Senator Graham for supporting this legislation that will benefit our state’s wildlife and our way of life.”
Loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings, photo by Peggy Lucas.
“Saving the thousands of at-risk wildlife species will require bold, bipartisan leadership,” said Collin O’Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “We are so grateful to Senator Graham for leading the way on the historic Recovering America’s Wildlife Act. This bill will have an immediate impact – saving species, creating jobs and protecting our way of life in South Carolina and all across the country.”
A similar bill passed the House last session, with support from Representative Jim Clyburn. Senator Graham also cosponsored a Senate version last session. It passed out of committee but never received a floor vote, despite having 47 bipartisan cosponsors.
“Preserving the wildlife and natural resources of South Carolina is crucial not only for the benefit of future generations, but it’s a vital source of local economic growth. Furthermore, by providing important resources, this legislation will support habitat restoration across South Carolina by voluntarily bringing together private and public stakeholders,” said Senator Graham in a press release put out by Senator Heinrich’s office.
Federally recognized tribal nations, including South Carolina’s Catawba Indian Nation, would share $97.5 million annually to fund wildlife conservation efforts in the lands they manage.
“Wildlife conservation is an issue that unites all Americans. We hope Senator Scott and the rest of the South Carolina delegation will join Senator Graham in cosponsoring this commonsense bill and help it get across the finish line,” said Green.
Senator Hembree of Horry County has introduced a bill (S.581) which would designate the Venus Flytrap as South Carolina’s Official State Carnivorous Plant. SCWF spoke in support of this bill at a recent sub-committee meeting, where it passed unanimously out, and will next be considered by the full Senate Family & Veterans’ Services Committee. If approved by the Committee, it will be placed on the Senate calendar for a floor vote.
Here is a copy of remarks from Sara Green, Executive Director, at the sub-committee hearing:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. I am the Executive Director of the South Carolina Wildlife Federation. We are the oldest conservation organization in the state, founded in 1931 by Harry Hampton and Zan Heyward.
Our mission is to conserve and restore habitat for wildlife through education and advocacy.
We hold classes and events throughout the state to teach people of all ages about our beautiful state’s natural resources, and how they are connected with the local ecosystem, as a way to inspire folks to take action to preserve our natural treasures
We have taken people to see and experience many of the special gems all across South Carolina, and this includes the Venus Flytraps in Horry County.
Like all plants, the Venus flytrap gets its energy from the sun through photosynthesis. However, it lives in very nutrient-poor soil, so it has adapted a method of luring insects with sweet nectar, and capturing and digesting insects and arachnids to get nutrients that are not available in the surrounding environment.
The “trap” is made of two hinged lobes at the end of each leaf. On the inner surfaces of the lobes are hair-like projections that cause the lobes to snap shut when prey comes in contact with them. The hinged traps are edged with small bristles that interlock when the trap shuts to ensure the prey can’t squirm out. There are other carnivorous plants in the wild, but the Venus flytrap is one of the very few that exhibits motion to actively trap its prey.
Once the trap closes, the digestive glands that line the inside of the leaf secrete fluids that dissolve the soft parts of the prey, kill bacteria and fungi, and break down the insect with enzymes to extract the essential nutrients. These nutrients are absorbed into the leaf, and five to 12 days following capture, the trap will reopen to release the leftover exoskeleton.
These plants were historically found as far south as Charleston, but many threats have limited its range to today’s small populations.
This species is often poached because there is a market for these plants for backyard gardens. There are specific guidelines online for how to buy plants which were farmed rather than ones that were illegally dug up from native populations.
New housing developments are a threat due to clearing of land and draining of the boggy habitats where this species thrives.
This is a highly fire-dependent species and it flourishes best when the landscape is burned every 2-3 years. Managing habitat for this one species with fire protects many other species of plants and animals including maintaining viable habitat for our game species like quail, turkey, and deer.
This designation will help promote education and awareness of this globally unique and rare species found in our state, and help to promote stewardship and conservation. Since our state symbols are part of an education standard taught in elementary schools across the state, this designation will also help develop curriculum in our schools for a species that is right here in our own state, and is sure to capture the attention of students!
I thank you for your consideration of this bill this morning. The South Carolina Wildlife Federation fully supports passage of this bill.
SCWF’s Sara Green speaks in support of the bill – photo by Trip King.
SCWF Executive Director, Sara Green, had the opportunity to speak on behalf of the SC Conservation Coalition about land conservation at the recent “Conversations with Conservationists” Senate Briefing.
You can find the recording from this event in the State House website’s video archives through the button below – it’s titled “Conversation with Conservationists”:
SCWF’s Sara Green speaking at the Senate Briefing. Photo by Trip King.
Good morning, I thank each of you for being here today. I am Sara Green, Executive Director of the South Carolina Wildlife Federation – the oldest conservation organization in the state just recently having celebrated our 90th year as a trusted voice on conservation issues.
I’m here this morning to ask for your support for the Conservation Enhancement Act – S.280.
This bill would reinstate the initial funding source for the South Carolina Conservation Bank and significantly increase this agency’s ability to conserve private land. The Bank is the single most important tool the state has to ensure South Carolina’s most iconic and precious natural resources are preserved and protected for future generations.
From the scenic vistas of the Blue Ridge, rolling piedmont and sandhills, giant towering trees of the coastal plain, productive marshes and expansive beaches – we all know that South Carolina is blessed with an incredible diversity of natural resources that are both beautiful and accessible.
Photo Credits: Inlet Point Marsh on Pawley’s Island by Carl Beard; Lake Jocassee by Ellen Haynes; Reedy River by Adam Roberto.
But this treasure trove of land and water is not immune from destruction or neglect; we must be vigilant to protect these amazing places and the wildlife they sustain. It is our duty to protect, nurture, and safeguard these irreplaceable ecosystems so that they may be enjoyed for generations to come. And South Carolinians from all walks of life have spoken; they want their fishing holes, hiking trails, vista views, lakes and streams protected from unwanted and ever-increasing development.
Originally established by the General Assembly in 2002 and funded in 2004, the SC Conservation Bank has helped preserve more than 300,000 acres of threatened lands in our state since its inception by providing funding for fee simple land purchases and conservation easements. And we’re talking mostly about private land conservation. Since 90% of our state’s land is privately held, the Conservation Bank is uniquely qualified to lead the state in private land conservation because it’s grants process was specifically designed for the protection of private lands. The Bank has financially supported some of the largest conservation easement deals in South Carolina’s history.
The Bank was due to sunset in June 2018. The re-authorization bill which extended the life of the Bank, made it a permanent state agency for the first time ever, and also removed the historically dedicated deed stamp funding for the Bank in favor of an annual appropriations through the legislative state budgeting process.
While we sincerely appreciate the General Assembly’s work to make the Bank a permanent agency, in the course of doing so, the dedicated, reliable funding from the deep stamp was repealed. Last session, the Conservation Enhancement Act was introduced in the House and Senate to reinstate that funding mechanism. That bill was introduced late in the session and ultimately did not pass either body before adjournment.
The Senate version of the bill last year also included language directing revenues from the state sales tax on outdoor recreational equipment to be set aside for use by the Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism, the Forestry Commission and the Department of Natural Resources, to enhance lands owned or managed by those agencies.
This year, these two aspects have been introduced by Senator Campsen and Senator Davis separately – the Public Lands Enhancement Act (S.281) deals with setting aside the tax on outdoor recreational equipment, while the Conservation Enhancement Act focuses on reinstatement of the deed stamp funding. Just yesterday, Representative Phil Lowe, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, introduced a companion bill to the Conservation Enhancement Act and we anticipate early movement in the House on this measure.
Over the years, the General Assembly has been very conservation-minded. Last year, the General Assembly appropriated $40M to DNR for land acquisition, which was incredibly helpful for public lands in our state. And the Conservation Bank received $25M of non-recurring funds to help with private land conservation. We are very appreciative of your leadership in providing such funding and hope you will continue to allocate more financial resources as growth in our state continues to explode.
Also last year, the Green Space Sales Tax bill passed the General Assembly which enabled Counties to approve by referendum an up-to 1% sales tax dedicated to land acquisition for green space, so we greatly thank the legislature for passing that bill as well. Beaufort County has already enacted and passed this measure. Counties that take advantage of this can then leverage their funds with Conservation Bank funds to get more bang for their buck and have a greater impact for their communities.
The SC Conservation Bank has been incredibly effective with the funds available to them so far – The Bank has conserved over 329,000 acres of significant lands statewide at an average price of $527 per acre, while the appraised value of their land conservation grants up to this point is $1.15 billion. That represents a 7 to 1 rate of return on the investment as a ratio of what the Bank expended, as compared to the fair market value of the property.
Passing the Conservation Enhancement Act, S.280, and reinstating the deed stamp funding is the best way to sustain these efforts and significantly increase private land conservation in our beautiful state.
I thank you for your time and consideration. I hope the Senate will advance the Conservation Enhancement Act and other measures that may come up that will promote public and private land conservation, and protect our beautiful state.
Bear Island with Roseate Spoonbills by David Ramage.
Reviewing several new large developments in the Charleston area, I have become convinced that it is far past time for developers to shift development practices in order to achieve new sustainable development in light of higher flooding potentials and large losses of valuable ecosystem elements.
Two large recently proposed developments (and likely many more I have not reviewed) have been planned with problematic design standard practices. These practices include attempting to fit unrealistically high numbers of dwellings including placing residential dwellings in the 100-year floodplain (which these days is probably now closer to a 50-year floodplain). In addition, these practices result in destruction of large acreages (approximately 200+ acres at each site) of onsite wetlands that provide wildlife habitat and naturally detain, retain and filter runoff destined for our streams and rivers. They also often result in loss of valuable forested habitat, natural drainage and carbon storage patterns and attempt to control onsite flooding by building large retention ponds in areas with a high-water table.
To achieve sustainable development, avoid future flooding in new developments, loss of important habitats, and harmful discharges to our state waters, we must shift our development strategies in many ways.
We can not continue to fill large acreages of wetlands and replace them with retention ponds especially in areas like the Lowcountry that have a high- water table that is often not adequately considered when sizing retention ponds. We also need to have developments utilize pervious surfaces for roads and driveways, elevate houses for water movement where appropriate, consider using constructed wetlands instead of retention ponds when necessary, leave more large trees and wetlands for carbon sequestration and reject building in our floodplains.
Steve Gilbert, of Charleston, is the Special Project Manager for the South Carolina Wildlife Federation.
SCWF and other conservation groups are working to ensure that new housing developments conserve critical wildlife habitat and protect residents from increased flooding. The article below describes our challenging of a permit for the almost 10,000-acre proposed Cainhoy development, near the Francis Marion National Forest, which would destroy nearly 200 acres of wetlands that offer critical protection from flooding by storing flood waters.
“Not only does the planned development put new residents in the direct path of flood waters, but it will also impact the nearby national forest and wildlife,” said Sara Green, Executive Director of the South Carolina Wildlife Federation. “The development will remove critical habitat for animals like the red-cockaded woodpecker on the Cainhoy site and negatively impact the national forest, an invaluable natural resource for all.”
Federal regulators have approved plans for a city-sized development on the Cainhoy Peninsula. Environmental groups say the project will make the area more vulnerable to flooding. File/Staff
CAINHOY — Environmental advocacy groups in South Carolina filed a lawsuit challenging a permit for a proposed 9,000-acre community along Clements Ferry Road they say would make the area more vulnerable to flooding.
The Point Hope project has been approved for as many as 18,000 homes on land that straddles Clements Ferry Road between S.C. Highway 41 and Interstate 526. Permits were authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on May 11.
The lawsuit filed Aug. 17 claims issuance of the Army Corps permit violates the federal Clean Water Act’s prohibition on filling wetlands if there is a less environmentally damaging alternative.
Environmentalists said the project would destroy nearly 200 acres of wetlands needed for floodwater storage, plus place about 45 percent of the planned housing in the floodplain. And more than 45,000 people would be added to the Cainhoy Peninsula beyond Daniel Island, according to a news release from the Southern Environmental Law Center detailing the case.
The center filed the suit in federal court in Charleston on behalf of the Coastal Conservation League, Charleston Waterkeeper and the South Carolina Wildlife Federation.
The Corps referred requests for comments on the lawsuit to the U.S. Department of Justice. A DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment through an email sent on Aug. 18.
Charleston Waterkeeper Director Andrew Wunderley said the developers should be doing everything they can to minimize destroying wetlands that protect residents from floodwaters.
“Damaging hundreds of acres of wetlands is clearly reckless for future occupants of the development,” Wunderley said in the news release.
Several other defendants and issues of concern were also listed in the complaint.
The Environmental Protection Agency is being sued because of its failure to veto the Corps’ permit, the plaintiffs said. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is listed in the complaint because it “unlawfully issued a biological opinion authorizing the extirpation (elimination) of endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers from the property.”
“It’s the biggest poster child for a bad idea with filling a wetlands, housing in a floodplain and endangered species,” said Catherine Wannamaker, a senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center.
In addition, the development is planned on an already-crowded road that has its share of traffic issues, environmentalists said.
Because of its proximity to the Francis Marion National Forest, wildlife there, like the red-cockaded woodpecker, could be impacted by city-sized development.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers nest in live trees and depend on mature pine trees to build their internal nests. The Francis Marion once had the nation’s second-largest naturally increasing population. The animals were listed as endangered in 1970, and about half of the population in the forest here was displaced after Hurricane Hugo in 1989.
Point Hope could further remove critical habitat for animals like the woodpecker and negatively impact the forest, environmentalists said.
The environmental groups say they are not opposed to development occurring on the Point Hope property. Instead, they are advocating for a development plan that is resilient and sustainable, said Jason Crowley, a senior program director for the Coastal Conservation League.
He said environmentalists hope to work with the federal agencies and developers on a resolution that substantially minimizes the impacts to natural resources and avoids putting homes in the floodplain “at the same time that the Army Corps is trying to build a billion-dollar seawall downtown.”
The federal government has 60 days to file an answer to the suit, Wannamaker said.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include Department of Justice confirmation it would not be commenting on the lawsuit.
By Shamira McCray smccray@postandcourier.com – Shamira McCray covers climate change and the environment for the Post and Courier. Follow her on Twitter at @ShamiraTweets.
Update 9/24/20: GREAT NEWS!! The Beaufort County Zoning Board of Appeals voted 5-0 to reject the proposed Bay Point development. Thank you to all who spoke up for the vast amount of wildlife that depend on our barrier islands for their survival!
Bay Point Island, a vulnerable barrier island bordering Port Royal Sound in Beaufort County, is the site of a proposed “ecotourism” development which will include fifty beach bungalows, four spa and wellness centers, several restaurants, and areas for listening to music and watching movies—all to be constructed on the island. A solar field is included in preliminary designs, however it is insufficient to generate the amount of electricity the resort indicates it will use. Ten septic fields are also planned on the small island, along with stormwater ponds – and 33,000 gallons per day will need to be withdrawn from a local aquifer, straining already depleted groundwater resources and exacerbating saltwater intrusion.
SCWF is proud to stand with our partners at the Coastal Conservation League and the Gullah/Geechee Nation to oppose this project.
Development on barrier islands in general is short-sighted, as they are highly erosional. This island is also a nationally-designated “Important Bird Area,” holding up to 8,000 shorebirds at some times. It provides critical habitat for threatened Loggerhead Sea Turtles and adjoins sensitive salt-marsh areas which are a nursery ground for shrimp, crabs, oysters, and many species of bony fish which are important to South Carolina’s seafood industry, as well as being extremely valuable to the culture and livelihood of the Gullah/Geechee Nation.
Bay Point Island, in its natural state, is ecologically essential for its wildlife habitat value, economically valuable to the seafood industry in South Carolina, and culturally significant to the people of the Gullah/Geechee Nation as well as the people of Beaufort.
You can learn more about the proposed development at the Coastal Conservation League’s website here, and see links above and below to sign a petition opposing this project.
How can you help save bay point island?
Please sign the petition linked below – we are hoping to get 35,000 signatures before the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting Thursday!!
In addition, you may attend the next meeting of the Beaufort County Zoning Board of Appeals where they will discuss this issue – details below. Also below is a letter from SCWF Executive Director, Sara Green, to the Zoning Board members urging them to deny this application.
Beaufort County Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
September 24, 2020 at 5 pm
Burton Wells County Park Gymnasium
1 Middleton Recreation Drive
Beaufort, SC 29906
MASKS ARE REQUIRED TO ATTEND.
The County will be providing socially-distanced seating and hand sanitizer.
UPDATE 9/23: This meeting will ALSO be live-streamed over Beaufort County’s Facebook Page HERE. Virtual attendees can submit comments using Facebook’s chat feature during the live stream. While attending in person is the best way to ensure your comments are heard, this option provides a way to comment for those who don’t feel they can attend safely.
Related News Stories:
09/20/20 – Editorial: Don’t let Bay Point Island fall – Post and Courier
09/16/20 – Beaufort County should reject Bay Point development – The Island News
09/14/20 – Gov. McMaster’s Bay Point Island letter – Post and Courier
08/19/20 – Gov. McMaster calls for luxury ‘ecoresort’ plan for SC barrier island to be rejected – Post and Courier
07/21/20 – Contested SC eco-resort plan, flagged as ‘greenwashing,’ up for key decision soon – Post and Courier
07/07/20 – Commentary: Bay Point Island is no place to put a resort – Post and Courier
05/11/20 – Editorial: Oppose barrier island development – Post and Courier
05/06/20 – Resort plan for SC barrier island advances with county now saying it’s ecotourism – Post and Courier
12/20/19 (updated 04/24/20) – $100M resort plan for undeveloped SC barrier island isn’t ‘ecotourism,’ county staff says – Post and Courier
Bay Point Island, a vulnerable barrier island bordering Port Royal Sound, is the site of proposed “ecotourism” development. Photo credit: Richard Porcher/Post and Courier
On behalf of over 10,000 supporters of the South Carolina Wildlife Federation, I write to you today to urge you to deny the application to build an “ecotourism” resort on Bay Point Island.
Barrier islands, such as Bay Point, serve to protect our coastline and our communities from the impacts of major storms and sea level rise. In this case, Bay Point Island is acting as a natural buffer to Parris Island Marine Base and other Beaufort communities. Alteration of this barrier island could result in less protection for these communities.
The very nature of barrier islands is highly erosional, often “migrating” on shifting sands. To see the intense natural erosion of barrier islands, you can look at the undeveloped Pritchards Island nearby as an example. Having spent much time there several years ago as a marine science undergrad at the University of South Carolina, I can testify to how much it has changed since then. The research station facility (my home for a summer), which now stands precariously in the surf, used to be approximately 100 yards from the dunes, situated deep in the maritime forest.
With the increasing intensity and frequency of hurricanes recently, scientists anticipate faster erosion on barrier islands in the future. If any structures are built on Bay Point Island, you can be assured that Beaufort County will be investing a significant amount of money in erosion control measures. Those measures will absolutely destroy valuable habitat for federally threatened sea turtles, as well as nesting shorebirds, and many other species which depend on the fragile ecosystem of our coasts.
Bay Point Island is a nationally-designated “Important Bird Area” sometimes holding up to 8,000 shorebirds! Wilson’s Plovers have been observed on the island – these shorebirds are listed as federally threatened. The natural areas on our coast are also a critical stopping point for Red Knot shorebirds on their 19,000 mile roundtrip migration from the southernmost tip of Argentina to the tundra of the Canadian Arctic. They stop to rest in South Carolina and fatten up on the eggs of Horseshoe crabs which come up on our beaches to spawn. Undisturbed areas like Bay Point are critical feeding grounds for this bird on its incredible annual journey.
In addition to the certainty of erosion issues and disturbance of important habitat for vulnerable wildlife on the island, the transportation of supplies for, and waste from, this resort would assuredly go through sensitive estuary/marsh habitat which is an important nursery area and critical habitat for shrimp, crabs, oysters, and many species of bony fish which are important to South Carolina’s seafood industry, as well as being extremely valuable to the culture and livelihood of the Gullah/Geechee Nation.
The amount of water that developers plan to extract from the already depleted groundwater in the area would also exacerbate saltwater intrusion already happening as evidenced by the loss of 50% of the island’s former tree canopy. Any disruption to the natural balance of the salinity of the marsh could have disastrous effects on the plants and animals which depend on this fragile environment.
Bay Point Island, in its natural state, is ecologically essential for its wildlife habitat value, economically valuable to the seafood industry in South Carolina, and culturally significant to the people of the Gullah/Geechee Nation as well as the people of Beaufort. The South Carolina Wildlife Federation urges you to protect this valuable natural resource from development.
Thank you for your consideration of this very important issue.
