Mega-farms targeted by lawmakers

Some state legislators are pushing for tighter controls on mega-farms that have irked neighbors, siphoned billions of gallons of water from rivers and aquifers, and sprayed chemicals on vegetable fields.

Rep. James Smith, D-Richland, has demanded a hearing on a bill that would require greater scrutiny of mega-farms seeking to withdraw large amounts of water from rivers.

Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Charleston, said he’ll push for a hearing on his own bill to limit river withdrawals. And Rep. Bill Taylor, R-Aiken, introduced a bill last week to limit crop-dusting near rural schools.

Meanwhile, the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control is considering groundwater regulations for a swath of counties, between Aiken and Columbia, that now place no limits on how much farms or industries can siphon from the ground.

Whether the proposals will go anywhere depends on how much opposition comes from the S.C. Farm Bureau, an influential organization at the state Legislature. The Farm Bureau has in the past opposed tighter controls on big farms that take water from rivers, saying it has seen no proof of any problems.

But at least one state study found a reduction in river levels near a big farm over the summer two years ago – and federal scientists noted a temporary drop in groundwater levels near a mega corn farm last summer, The State newspaper reported in a recent series on mega-farms.

As it stands now, mega-farms can withdraw water from rivers under much looser standards than industries can. Also, farms can take all the groundwater they want, without state oversight, in a 14-county area that includes Aiken, Lexington, Orangeburg and Richland counties.

Those issues have some lawmakers saying changes are needed to better oversee mega-farms.

“We should all be very concerned,’’ Taylor said. “We don’t want to go down another decade and look back and say, ‘Why didn’t we do something?’”

Campsen said anyone who uses rivers should pay attention to what’s going on in Aiken County, particularly small farmers who also use river water for irrigation.

“This is hurting the interests of South Carolina farmers and they need to understand that,’’ Campsen said. “It is not in their interests to have a policy in which a farm operation from out-of-state comes in and sucks up as much surface water as it wants upstream of you.’’

None of the measures will be debated in the Legislature before the session ends this week, but lawmakers concerned about mega-farms say they’ll push for tighter restrictions when they return early in 2018.

Campsen said South Carolina needs to tighten controls on river withdrawals by big farms, as well as better regulate groundwater. That means adding some counties in the state’s interior to the list of those with groundwater regulations, as well as toughening the groundwater law itself, he said.

“South Carolina gives away so many resources,’’ Campsen said. “We are stuck in a time warp. In the mid-20th century, you had to bribe people to come to South Carolina. We hadn’t recovered from the Civil War and Reconstruction and the Depression. But you don’t have to bribe people to move to paradise now. They are coming. We ought to make them pay their fair share.’’

State Sen. Nikki Setzler, D-Lexington, agreed that better oversight of large water withdrawals is needed.

The greatest concerns have centered on a handful of sprawling farms, operated by out-of-state agribusinesses, in eastern Aiken and Barnwell counties. The agribusinesses have purchased about 10,000 acres, clearing at least 6,000 acres of trees since arriving in South Carolina about four years ago, The State newspaper found. Farms approaching 1,000 acres dwarf the average farm in South Carolina, which is about 200 acres.

In eastern Aiken and Barnwell counties, the Walther and Woody farm corporations have taken more than 4 billion gallons of water from the ground and from rivers since their arrival, The State reported. The amount is in some cases greater than the amount taken by small nearby water utilities.

While the dispute has centered on the upper Edisto River basin, critics say issues there have exposed holes in the state’s system of regulating large farms. Mega-farms exist in other parts of the state, although those operations grew gradually from locally owned businesses.

Plans to more tightly oversee mega-farms include:

▪ Smith’s bill, co-sponsored by Taylor. It would no longer exempt agriculture from rules that apply to industries seeking large withdrawals of surface water, such as from rivers or lakes. Farms seeking to withdraw 3 million gallons or more per month would need permits, which triggers a tougher state review.

▪ Campsen’s bill. It also would no longer exempt agriculture from having to get permits for large surface water withdrawals. The bill relies on a formula and applies to farms seeking to withdraw 425 million gallons or more per month.

▪ Taylor’s bill. It would ban crop dusting within 1,000 feet of schools during school hours or during extracurricular activities.

▪ DHEC’s groundwater report. The agency is expected to release a report as early as this month that looks at whether groundwater should be regulated in some counties with large farms. Multiple counties, including Lexington and Aiken, could be affected by rules that would limit groundwater withdrawals.

South Carolina’s surface and groundwater withdrawal laws are stronger than those in some southeastern states, but weaker than others. Unlike South Carolina, Georgia requires farms wanting to withdraw large amounts from rivers or other surface water to receive state permits, according to the River Network, which conducted a study in 2016 comparing state laws.

One of the biggest criticisms of the South Carolina law is a formula known as “safe yield,’’ which essentially allows the state to approve the withdrawal of more water than a river has at certain times of the year.

Farm boosters

So far, the outcry for change has come mostly from grassroots citizens groups, such as Save Windsor and Friends of the Edisto. Major environmental groups have been focused on other issues at the State House.

At the same time, the Farm Bureau has said it won’t endorse any change in state law without a compelling, scientific reason to do so. A report, commissioned by state agencies, is expected out this year. It will provide more data on how much water might be at risk.

“We support the current law until and if some scientific study says the law is flawed,’’ Farm Bureau President Harry Ott said, noting that, otherwise, “what are we going to talk about?’’

Ott said he has heard that the river basin report will “be very revealing in a positive way that we are doing things correctly.’’ Ott’s organization is one of the most influential at the Legislature. It is annually among the top spenders on lobbying and has an extensive network of supporters.

Rep. Bill Hixon, R-Aiken, is among the lawmakers leery of tightening state oversight of mega-farms. He said he wants to see the results of the DNR’s river basin study and a DHEC study on groundwater before he can determine if changes are necessary.

“I ain’t going to just pass something to be passing something,’’ Hixon said. “I haven’t seen any information. I came up here and joined the House of Representatives trying to make decisions based on facts and figures and putting it all together trying to make a business decision. I’m not a Nancy Pelosi – ‘Let’s pass it and read it later.’”

Last week, however, Smith formally asked the House agriculture committee for a hearing on the water bill under a House rule that requires the public session to be held within seven legislative days. The seventh day would be during the first two weeks lawmakers return to office in January 2018.

Rep. Davey Hiott, a Pickens Republican who chairs the House agriculture committee, said tightening the state’s surface water withdrawal law has not been a front-burner issue this year. His committee had other priorities, such as discussing a dam safety bill and a bill that would loosen regulation of chicken farms, he said.

“He understands we’ll get together,’’ Hiott said of Smith.

Air raid

While efforts to regulate surface and groundwater have been under discussion for several years, issues with crop dusting also are a concern near mega-farms.

That’s why Taylor introduced a bill Thursday to ban aerial spraying within 1,000 feet of a school during times when students are on campus. Anyone spraying during the school day nearby could be fined up to $5,000 and lose his or her aerial application permit, according to the legislation.

Taylor’s legislation follows an incident two weeks ago near an elementary school that lies next to a mega corn farm in Aiken County. Students were moved inside and outdoor activities were canceled after a strange odor wafted onto school grounds. School district officials blamed a crop duster spraying nearby, but the crop duster said he didn’t cause the odor.

Crop dusting also has upset local residents who say aerial spraying is disruptive and sometimes sends chemicals onto their land.

Taylor said the broader issue is to shield school kids from crop dusting while they are trying to learn. No state law bans crop dusting near schools, he said. “Don’t spray over schools when kids are there,’’ Taylor said. “It’s pretty straightforward.’’

South Carolina has scores of schools in rural, farming areas. More than a dozen companies crop dust in South Carolina as a full-time business, according to Clemson University, which regulates pesticide applications in the state. Crop-dusting complaints aren’t common, the university said. But Clemson is aware of the recent incident in Aiken County and is considering holding a community meeting about crop dusting, university officials said.

This story was originally published May 7, 2017 at 7:18 PM with the headline "Mega-farms targeted by lawmakers."