It’s my understanding that in S.C., no permit is necessary to go to a river and walk away with a bucket of water. That principle carries over to industry and business as well, which is a problem at a point in time when North and South Carolina are going to the Supreme Court over who has rights to water in the Catawba River. 
This kind of debate has occurred in the arid Southwest for nearly a century, but is relatively new to the South with the ongoing drought.
Here’s the Coastal Conservation League’s take on the bill being debated right now over how to control water rights …
This week the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee once again debated Chairman Danny Verdin’s (R-Laurens) draft amendment to S.428 by Senator Wes Hayes (R-York). The Committee heard two-and-a-half hours of testimony on the water withdrawal bill, mostly relating to the amount of water to keep in the State’s rivers and streams for use by the public and for the health of the riverine environment. Senator Verdin’s draft amendment, which is supported by business and industry, currently leaves a mere 20% of the available mean annual daily flow (madf) in our rivers and streams for the public for boating, fishing and other recreational uses. The amendment further requires the public to bear the burden of proving to a permit applicant why more than 20% is necessary to protect the public’s interests. Those who stand to gain financially should bear this responsibility.
After almost two hours of debate, Committee members decided to carry the bill over until next week, though members have promised the Chairman that they will vote at Wednesday’s meeting. We commend Committee members for the amount of time and effort they have devoted to this critical legislation. We would like to give special recognition to Senator Chip Campsen (R-Charleston), whose leadership has been critical to ensuring that the public’s interests are represented in this bill.
The League will continue to advocate for a water withdrawal permitting program that allows the State to manage its finite water resources in the best interests of the public, our communities, the natural environment and the economy. We remain strongly opposed to the bill’s current allocation of only 20% of madf for the public. If you have not already written Committee members, please click here to do so now.
Looks like we’ll know more on Wednesday.
