Governor’s State Water Law Review Committee Recommendations 1982: Implementation Update David G. Baize Bureau of Water

Recommendation A The State’s role in water resources be recognized so that water, in all its forms, be viewed as subject to a public trust Recommended a comprehensive state water policy be enacted

Recommendation A: Implementation Legislative declaration in Groundwater Use and Reporting Act: The groundwater resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent to which they are capable…to conserve and protect these resources, prevent waste, and to provide and maintain conditions which are conducive to the development and use of water resources

Recommendation A: Implementation No such Legislative declarations in other Acts: –Surface Water Withdrawal and Reporting Act –Drought Response Act –Interbasin Transfer of Water Act –Water Resources Planning and Coordination Act

Recommendation B The state be made aware of, and if appropriate, intervene in, actions affecting water rights. Recommended a notice/intervenor statute be adopted

Recommendation B: Implementation Not adopted

Recommendation C As large withdrawals of surface water are not regulated, and impacts will be significant, develop a state policy to regulate them –Significant diversion of water from surface water courses and diversions of water from one watershed to another

Recommendation C: Implementation Interbasin Transfer Act promulgated Large surface water withdrawals registered and water use reported, but no permit required

Water Use for South Carolina

Water Use Reporting Requirements Any source or system that withdraws over 3 million gallons of groundwater or surface water in any month must be registered with the Department Registered users report the actual groundwater or surface water withdrawals and uses annually

Reported Power Vs. Non-Power Water Withdrawal for 2002 (Ground and Surface) 97% of the 14.3 trillion gallons of water withdrawn in the State is for non-consumptive (power production) use

Reported Total Water Withdrawal for 2002 by Non-Powered Users 81% of the 428 billion gallons of water withdrawn for consumptive use is surface water

Reported Total Water Withdrawal for 2002 by Non-Powered Users (Ground and Surface) 50% of the 428 billion gallons of water withdrawn for consumptive use is withdrawn for water supply

Reported Groundwater Withdrawal for 2002 by Non-Powered Users 54% of the 80.5 billion gallons of groundwater withdrawn for consumptive use is withdrawn for water supply

Reported Surface Water Withdrawal for 2002 by Non-Powered Users 49% of the 348 billion gallons of surface water withdrawn for consumptive use is withdrawn for water supply

Recommendation D Legislation to provide for the establishment and maintenance of minimum in-stream flows

Recommendation D: Implementation Recommended in-stream flows listed in State Water Plan Limited regulatory authority to directly enforce minimum flows

Recommendation E Obtain comprehensive information about South Carolina’s groundwater resources

Recommendation E: Implementation Many different efforts to map aquifers, quantify resources

Recommendation F Update the Groundwater Use Act of 1969 –State declare Capacity Use areas upon its own motion

Recommendation F: Implementation The Act was updated in 2000 –Anyone can initiate the designation process –Simplified permit trigger to 3 million gallons in any one month and reduced reporting to annual –Local groundwater management plans –Water Use Reporting Enforceable

Current Designated Capacity Use Areas Waccamaw – Horry, Georgetown, and part of Marion Counties Lowcountry – Beaufort, Colleton, and Jasper Counties 2002 – Trident – Berkeley, Dorchester, and Charleston Counties Currently evaluating Pee Dee Region for Designation

Locations of existing Capacity Use Areas and the proposed Pee Dee Capacity Use Area.

Middendorf Aquifer Water Level Decline 1927 pre-development feet above sea level feet below sea level

Recommendation G Develop a drought response plan

Recommendation G: Implementation Drought Response Act promulgated Updated in 2000

Interstate Agreements The Groundwater Use and Reporting Act and the Interbasin Transfer Act have provisions for the negotiation of interstate agreements and compacts

Legislative Gaps Identified from 1982 Recommendations No Legislative “public trust” or “beneficial and reasonable use” policy for surface waters No water rights suit notification No permit needed for large surface water withdrawals No pro-active mechanism to enforce minimum stream flows

Potential Solution to Legislative Gaps Combine the existing Surface Water Withdrawal and Reporting Act with the Interbaisn Transfer Act – add a permitting component

Why? No authority to regulate withdrawals that are not interbasin transfers Any regulatory actions would be after a withdrawal caused an impact The effects on a withdrawal on surface water body are the same at the point of withdrawal regardless of transfer out of basin or if consumed for use in basin

Why? Existing permitting criteria in Interbasin Transfer Act can be easily used Consistent with other states – FL, GA, KY, VA, and NC all have authority to permit withdrawals

Effects Existing surface water users would be grandfathered into the program “Plug” identified legislative gaps Permitting criteria based on reasonable and beneficial use consistent with groundwater permitting Drought Act still controls drought response

Questions?