A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ENACTING THE "SOUTH CAROLINA CLEAN AIR ACT"; BY AMENDING SECTION 48-1-110, RELATING IN PART TO UNLAWFUL DISCHARGES OF AIR CONTAMINANTS, SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE INTENTIONAL EMISSION OF ANY AIR CONTAMINANT WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO AFFECT TEMPERATURE, WEATHER, OR SUNLIGHT INTENSITY; TO ESTABLISH CRIMINAL PENALTIES; TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
H3915 proposes to enact the “South Carolina Clean Air Act” and amend South Carolina’s air pollution law, Section 48-1-110, to make it unlawful to intentionally inject, release, or disperse chemicals, chemical compounds, substances, or related apparatus into the atmosphere for the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, storm intensity, or sunlight intensity. The bill frames these activities as a form of harmful geoengineering and also preserves an exception for cloud seeding conducted under a publicly approved contract.
The bill also directs the Department of Environmental Services to provide public information about alleged health and property harms from atmospheric chemical releases and states that records related to stratospheric aerosol injection or other prohibited conduct are not exempt from disclosure under the state Freedom of Information Act. In addition, it creates a private right of action against the federal government for destruction of health and personal property and grants civil, criminal, and whistleblower immunity for testimony given in such actions.
If enacted, the bill would expand South Carolina’s environmental and criminal law by adding a specific prohibition on intentional weather modification or sunlight-dimming activities, with felony penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a minimum $500,000 fine for each day of violation. It would also require the Department of Environmental Services to publish information on alleged harms and to disclose related records upon request, overriding any state FOIA exemption for the covered materials. The bill would further attempt to authorize private lawsuits against the federal government, though that provision could raise significant questions about federal sovereign immunity and enforceability.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure is strongly precautionary and anti-geoengineering in tone, presenting itself as a public health and environmental protection bill. The overall sentiment in the text is alarmed and restrictive, emphasizing potential harms to people, property, and the environment.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s premise and scope: whether atmospheric activities described as geoengineering or weather modification are occurring in a way that justifies criminal prohibition, and whether the bill’s language is scientifically precise enough to be enforceable. The felony penalties, broad disclosure mandate, and especially the provision authorizing private actions against the federal government are likely to draw legal and constitutional objections, including concerns about federal preemption, sovereign immunity, and vagueness. The cloud-seeding exception may also be debated as an attempt to distinguish permitted weather modification from prohibited conduct.