Legislative Update, March 22-26
We have reached the mid-way point of this year's legislative session and our conservation issues continue to receive significant attention in the South Carolina General Assembly. While we try to keep the update mail short and to the point, we try and give a better picture of what is going on with each issue here on the blog. If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact us.
S.1054 Mega Mall Tax Incentives
A very contentious debate over the last 10 days has been resolved in the Senate. S.1054 by Sen. Pickney (D-Jasper) passed on second reading with an amendment that rewrites the tax incentives. The bill would have provided tax breaks/hard cash to Sembler Corp. to build a mega mall in Beaufort/Jasper Counties from general revenue funds. Proponents, fearing a defeat, agreed to an amended version with scaled back incentives that does not use general fund monies but allows for increased sales taxes to be collected at the mall.
Sen. Tom Davis (R-Beaufort) was very impressive in arguing against the bill in it's original form and many Senators from around the state came to his aid during debate. An amendment offered by Sen. Leatherman (R-Florence), Chairman of the Finance Committee, has restructured the bill.
Hardeeville City Council will be allowed to add one additional cent sales tax on merchandise sold at the mall. The can add a second penny if the residents vote for it in a referendum. Funds can only be used for infrastructure improvements: roads, storm water runoff, etc. No monies can be used for building the mall facilities and none of this money counts towards the investment commitments Sembler must make to be paid for these infrastructure improvements.
While we are concerned with environmental impacts associated with this project, that fight will be fought through regulatory agencies if the project moves forward. The fight in the statehouse seems to be focused almost completely on fiscal policy.
Staff Contact: Dennis Glaves
Subcommittee members heard testimony in favor of the bill from CCL, South Carolina Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation Voters of South Carolina, Sierra Club, American Rivers, The SC Manufacturers Alliance, The South Carolina Farm Bureau, SCDHEC and others. The SC Department of Natural Resources expressed concern about making the bill clearer as to how minimum instream flow will be set for new withdrawers. Throughout the discussions on the water withdrawal permitting bill, much of the focus has been on how much water must be left in the river to protect fish and wildlife. Ultimately, there are 2 categories of use in our surface waters: instream and offstream. Instream uses are recreation, navigation, and fish and wildlife while offstream uses are drinking water, power production and manufacturing processes. CCL supports this bill because it recognizes that a seasonally variable minimum flow is necessary to protect fish and wildlife. The bill protects this seasonal flow by requiring new users to go to implement their contingency plans when flows in the river get too low. This will generally consist of an offstream pond or water source that is filled when flows are high. S. 452 is a fundamental recognition that our surface waters are public resources and private use should require a permit to protect the public's interest in the water.
The subcommittee will likely hold another hearing on S. 452 when they return the week of April 12, 2010. Look out for an action alert on this important issue after the Easter Holiday.
Staff Contact: Patrick Moore
H. 3924 Prescribed Fire
H.3924, introduced by Chairman Jim Harrison (R-Richland), passed out of the full House Judiciary Committee on March 23rd. This bill provides greater protections for landowners who choose to conduct prescribed burns on their property. CCL supports the passage of this important legislation because it promotes the most efficient and cost effective forest management tool within South Carolina.
Staff Contact: Merrill McGregor
H.4093 E-waste
H.4093, introduced by Rep. Dwight Loftis (R-Greenville) passed the Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee last week. The bill has previously passed the full House. The bill requires manufacturers who sell most TVs, computers and printers in S.C. to establish recovery programs at no cost to the consumer. The bill is supported by industry and conservation groups and appears that it will have a positive impact on landfills within the State.
Staff Contact: Dennis Glaves
H. 4503 Phosphates Restriction
H. 4503, introduced by Rep. Mike Pitts (R-Laurens) places restrictions on the inclusion of phosphates in the use, sale of manufacturing of cleaning agents, which will help to protect the quality of water in South Carolina. CCL supports this legislation because it will help control excessive levels of harmful nutrients in our waterways.
Staff Contact: Catherine Warner
H. 4445 Permit Extensions
After considerable debate among members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Permit Extension Joint Resolution Act of 2010 introduced by Rep. Dwight Loftis (R-Greenville) , which would extend permits in existence as of January of 2008 and extend them until 2012, received a favorable report and will move on to the Senate floor. CCL supports the amendment adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee that protects marsh islands and allows local governments to decide whether or not to review development agreements but concerns about public notice and some types of permits remain to be worked out on the Senate floor.
The idea behind this resolution is that times are tough and the cost of renewing permits could be the difference in the viability or non-viability of projects throughout the State and we should renew any permit that was in effect on Jan.1 2008 and extend it through 2012, even if the permit has expired or the rules for the same permit have changed. This will in theory encourage economic activity by reducing the burden of all state and local regulatory permitting systems.
The logic is clear: the permit was granted the first time but the economy meant I could not get a loan, things are picking up, help out by not requiring me to get the same permit. It makes sense. The problems come in when you consider laws that have changed since 2008, meaning that you would be reviving permits for projects that would be impermissible today under the rules approved by the General Assembly. Bridges to Marsh Islands and Community Docks are examples of changed permitting requirements.
Then there are home rule considerations. The resolution extends almost all local approvals too, but then declares that it does not keep any government from exercising its legitimate powers. This contradiction puts local governments in a defensive position of litigating against applicants for projects that the Town now deems incompatible with surrounding land uses who claim that the resolution entitles them to a revived permit.
There are also due process of law questions that were raised at full Committee. If my neighbor had a dock permit in 2008 and it expired and suddenly this bill revives that permit with no property specific notice in the newspaper, what happens? What if I bought the property specifically after checking to see if there were any active dock permits? What about my right to appeal? These questions were raised but not fully answered at full committee.
An amendment was adopted at full committee that excluded bridges to marsh islands and development agreements, which improves the bill significantly. CCL would like to see the resolution not apply to any permits where the rules have changed since the expiration of the permit.
We would like to thank Sen. Glen McConnell (R-Charleston), Sen. Chip Campsen (R-Charleston), Sen. Mike Rose (R-Dorchester), and Sen. Tom Davis (R-Beaufort) for working to make this a better resolution.
Staff Contact: Catherine Warner Read more...
