State water plan shows rising strain on S.C. rivers

South Carolina’s rivers and streams are under increasing strain due to a torrent of new residents, industries and megafarms that threaten their long-term sustainability.

Environmental advocates tell Statehouse Report that’s the key takeaway from a new draft water plan, released Nov. 17 by the S.C. Department of Environmental Services (SCDES) that state officials say will guide water management over the next several decades.

Weighing in at nearly 200 pages, the data-heavy report was developed by WaterSC, an executive working group established by S.C. Gov. Henry McMaster in 2024 and tasked with updating the state’s now-outdated 2004 water plan. It includes input from S.C.’s eight major river councils and various state agencies.

SCDES Director Myra Reece, who chairs WaterSC, sounded a cautiously positive note in a news release accompanying the report, praising the governor’s “foresight” in seeking a sustainable path forward.

“While our state’s groundwater and surface water resources are abundant, it’s a critical time to update the water plan and ensure South Carolina is prepared for the responsible management and protection of our water resources – especially as the state experiences unprecedented economic growth and prosperity,” Reece said.

Looming issues

But while advocates praise the plan’s detailed modeling and emphasis on improved data collection, they say it downplays the challenges posed by large-scale withdrawals and a regulatory system that does little to manage some of the state’s biggest drawdowns.

As a result, they note, several rivers are what the report describes as “overallocated” — meaning that, on paper at least, authorized users have a legal right to take more water than the river contains during certain times of the year. According to the report, potentially overallocated basins include portions of the Edisto, Saluda and Pee Dee Rivers.

Riverkeeper Bill Stangler, whose Midlands coverage area includes the Broad, Lower Saluda and Congaree rivers, cheered “the wealth of information and data” in the plan, as well as its strong recommendations for comprehensive long-term planning and better coordination with neighboring states.

But at the same time, he warned that some critical issues were left unaddressed.

“The biggest concern I have is what didn’t make it into the plan,” he said. “In particular, necessary fixes to the flawed 2010 Surface Water Act that just isn’t protective enough of rivers.”

To illustrate his concerns, Stangler points to provisions in the law that grandfathered in existing withdrawal agreements and exempted agricultural users from the permitting requirements it imposed on new industrial and municipal operators.

As a result, he said, 97% of all withdrawals of 3 million gallons or more per month are effectively beyond the reach of state regulators, absent an emergency declaration by the governor.

“We currently have a system that allows rivers to be run dry with very little recourse under the law,” he said. “And while that was discussed, it didn’t make it into the final plan due to pushback from industry groups.”

More safeguards needed, advocates say

Other areas that still need to be addressed in the planning process, Stangler said, include water quality as opposed to simple quantity, and the growing demands of data centers, whose large drawdowns sometimes hide in county and municipal water withdrawals.

“We need to put some safeguards around these big industrial users so we’re not caught after the fact wondering where all our water went,” he said.

The withdrawal concerns Stangler described are currently at issue in a 2024 lawsuit filed by the Southern Environmental Law Center, which argues that SCDES’s regulations ignore the most basic requirement of the 2010 Act.

“The statute clearly says that everyone, including agriculture, has to leave enough water in the river to preserve the integrity of the river,” said SELC staff attorney Carl Brzorad.

But the current regulation, which allows for the year-round withdrawal of up to 80% of a river’s mean daily flow, is in “direct violation” of that requirement, he said.

“Because of seasonal variations in river flow,” he said, “that standard will result in the complete and total dewatering of the river for over half the year.”

He added: “The agency’s own calculations say that. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said that. The SC Department of Natural Resources has said that. It’s just an undisputed statement of fact.”

In a Nov. 26 email, SCDES declined an opportunity to respond to the lawsuit or its claims, noting that “the agency doesn’t comment on pending or active litigation.”

As for the plan, Brzorad focused on the overallocation problem, calling it “true and damning.”

“That needs to be the centerpiece of a report instead of a footnote,” he said. “There should be universal consensus on this being a bad thing, because everyone needs water and rivers.”

The public comment period on the water plan runs through Dec. 7. Comments can be submitted by email at WaterSC@des.sc.gov or through an online form at des.sc.gov.