A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 48-35-50, RELATING TO THE STATE FORESTER PROHIBITING FIRES, SO AS TO REQUIRE NOTICE OF THE PROHIBITION TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION FOR BROADCAST OF THE PROHIBITION ON ALL TELECOMMUNICATION DEVICES WITHIN SOUTH CAROLINA.
Summary
H4478 amends South Carolina law governing burn bans and fire prohibitions issued by the State Forester. Under current law, the State Forester may prohibit certain fires or all open burning when necessary for public safety, including campfires, bonfires, and other recreational fires, while still allowing fires for nonrecreational purposes such as warmth or immediate food preparation. The bill keeps that authority in place and adds a new notification requirement when such a prohibition is issued.
Specifically, the bill requires the State Forester to send notice of any fire-starting prohibition or open-burning ban to the South Carolina Emergency Management Division. The Emergency Management Division must then broadcast the prohibition on all telecommunication devices within South Carolina. The act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Impact
The bill would amend Section 48-35-50 of the South Carolina Code of Laws by adding a statewide emergency notification mechanism for burn bans. It does not change the State Forester’s underlying authority to issue fire restrictions, but it expands the dissemination of those restrictions through the Emergency Management Division and mass telecommunications alerts. The practical effect is to improve public notice and compliance during wildfire risk or other public safety conditions affecting open burning, campers, recreational users, and others who may be subject to the ban.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. The House passed H4478 on May 6, 2025 by a vote of 114-0, indicating unanimous approval among members voting. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate in the materials, but the vote total suggests the measure was viewed as a straightforward public-safety and alerting enhancement rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
No specific points of contention appear in the provided record. Because the bill preserves the State Forester’s existing authority and focuses on notification rather than expanding the scope of burn bans, any disagreement would likely have centered on implementation details such as the reach of telecommunication broadcasts, administrative burden on the Emergency Management Division, or the balance between public safety and notice to affected property owners and outdoor users. However, the unanimous House vote indicates no visible opposition in the chamber.