A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING ARTICLE 25 TO CHAPTER 55, TITLE 44 SO AS TO REQUIRE OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF CERTAIN FRESHWATER LOCATIONS TO POST A NOTICE TO RAISE AWARENESS OF THE AMOEBA NAEGLERIA FOWLERI AND HOW TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF INFECTION, TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE A STANDARD NOTICE FOR POSTING AND INSPECT LOCATIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE, AND TO CREATE CIVIL PENALTIES.
H4929 would add a new article to South Carolina law requiring owners and operators of freshwater locations where swimming is allowed to post a notice about Naegleria fowleri, a rare but potentially fatal amoeba found in warm freshwater and soil. The required notice must explain what the amoeba is, how infection occurs, and steps swimmers can take to reduce risk, such as avoiding warm freshwater during high-temperature/low-water conditions, using a nose clip, keeping water out of the nose, and avoiding stirring up sediment.
The bill also directs the Department of Environmental Services to provide a standard notice at no cost, inspect covered freshwater swimming locations at least annually before summer, and re-inspect as needed to ensure compliance. If a location fails to post the notice, the department must notify the owner or operator, who must then post it immediately. Violations are subject to a civil penalty of $100 per violation, with each day after notice treated as a new violation until compliance, though the department may waive the penalty if the owner or operator complies in a timely manner. Penalty revenue must be used to offset implementation costs, and the department must adopt regulations and guidance to enforce the new requirements.
The bill’s impact would be to create a new public-notice and enforcement regime for freshwater swimming sites in South Carolina, adding duties for private and public owners/operators and expanding the Department of Environmental Services’ inspection and rulemaking responsibilities. It would not change water quality standards or regulate the amoeba itself, but instead focuses on warning signage and compliance oversight at lakes, rivers, hot springs, and similar locations where swimming is permitted.
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 appears to be framed as a public health and swimmer-safety bill with a straightforward informational purpose, and its requirements are relatively limited and administrative in nature.
The main point of contention likely would be the compliance burden on freshwater location owners and operators, especially the need to post notices and respond to inspections, versus the public health benefit of warning swimmers about a rare but severe infection. Another possible issue is the scope of annual inspections before summer and whether the Department of Environmental Services has sufficient resources to carry out the new mandate.
H4929 would amend Title 44 of the South Carolina Code by creating Article 25 in Chapter 55, imposing new posting, inspection, enforcement, and rulemaking duties related to Naegleria fowleri warnings at freshwater swimming locations. It would require owners and operators to display a standardized notice, authorize annual inspections by the Department of Environmental Services, and establish civil penalties for noncompliance, thereby adding a new regulatory obligation for freshwater recreation sites and a corresponding administrative role for the department.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so the available record does not show formal legislative sentiment. From the bill text, the measure appears generally preventive and public-health oriented, with a neutral-to-supportive policy posture centered on warning the public about a rare but serious risk. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the supplied materials suggests no documented controversy in the available context.
The likely areas of contention are practical rather than ideological: whether owners and operators of freshwater swimming sites should bear the burden of posting and maintaining notices, whether annual pre-summer inspections are necessary or too resource-intensive, and whether the $100-per-violation penalty is appropriate. Another possible concern is the breadth of the term 'freshwater location where swimming is allowed,' which could affect a wide range of public and private sites, and whether the department can feasibly inspect and enforce compliance statewide.