A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE SURFACE WATER STUDY COMMITTEE MAY STUDY THE CURRENT STATE OF GROUNDWATER IN THIS STATE AND TO POSTPONE THE DUE DATE OF THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
Summary
H. 3814 is a joint resolution that expands the mandate of the existing Surface Water Study Committee. The committee was originally created in Act 226 of 2024 to study surface water in South Carolina and report its findings to the General Assembly by March 1, 2025. This resolution authorizes the committee to also study the current state of groundwater in the state, along with other related surface water and groundwater topics.
The resolution also extends the committee’s reporting deadline from March 1, 2025, to March 2, 2026. It leaves the underlying proviso in place except where the new resolution conflicts with it, and it takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Impact
The bill does not create a new regulatory program or directly change environmental permitting or water law; instead, it modifies the scope and timeline of a legislative study committee established in a prior appropriations proviso. It affects the responsibilities of the Surface Water Study Committee and, indirectly, the House and Senate members appointed to it. Fiscal analysis indicates no expenditure impact to the Department of Environmental Services and no additional cost to the General Assembly beyond existing appropriations.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support and little visible opposition. It passed the House overwhelmingly, 107-1, and later cleared Senate second reading unanimously, 40-0. The committee report also described the measure as having been polled out of committee with a majority favorable recommendation, suggesting general agreement that the study should be broadened and given more time.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive controversy in the available record. The only potential point of discussion is whether the committee should be expanded from surface water to groundwater and whether the reporting deadline should be delayed by about a year. Any concern would likely center on the extended timeline and the broader study scope, but the vote totals and committee action indicate these changes were not strongly disputed.