From the President: Where We Stand (H-3564)

First of all, I want to shout out a special thank-you to the many folks who responded to our “action alert” about the SC House Ag Subcommittee hearing yesterday, May 6, on H-3564.  These marked our first two FRED action alerts and we really appreciate all the great response.

Second, on behalf of FRED, I want to reiterate our gratitude for all the hard work on the part of everyone who invested so much effort to protect our iconic river and to advance this critical legislation.  FRED took this issue on over a year ago when we pledged to take our case to the South Carolina General Assembly, knowing the degree of difficulty we would encounter.  We quickly found support from many of our sister conservation organizations and many individuals who know and love the Edisto and who care about the sustainability of the health of all our rivers.  Led by American Rivers, we joined a new coalition of South Carolina Rivers Forever to pool our resources and form a unified effort for reform.

Our quarterback, lead author of H-3564, FRED Board Member Rep. James Smith, introduced this bill along with Rep. Bill Taylor and eleven co-sponsors, and requested a subcommittee hearing.  May 6 was chosen as the date, and the Blatt Building hearing room was packed.  Rep. Smith did a fantastic job articulating the need for the bill and the simple terms of its proposed reform.

He was followed by a concise presentation by small number of speakers on behalf of  the Rivers Forever coalition.  The quality of the coalition presentation ended up being overwhelmed by several times as many speakers organized and orchestrated by the main opposition to reform, as it has been consistently throughout, the South Carolina Farm Bureau.

After almost four hours, the four-member subcommittee, as anticipated, unanimously voted to adjourn debate on H-3564, leaving the entire matter in precisely the same posture as it was in the beginning of the hearing.  The one material occurrence was the assignment of the bill to this particular subcommittee, one of several that could have been chosen.

The good news is that the bill could still be taken up next year or at any time really, under the rules.

The bottom line is that the bill is subject to a skeptical subcommittee, which is obviously sensitive to the firmly stated opposition of one of the most powerful lobbying organizations at the state house, the SC Farm Bureau.  So we face this reality: the rolling black waters of the Edisto can be mined at will to enable the private production for profit of any private interest engaged in agricultural production.  No citizen has standing to protest or even receive notice.  The Edisto River is at the mercy of such an abdication of process.  The public trust carries no weight in the balance.

The good news is that we can change this political reality, vote by vote, if we are smart enough and persistent enough.  Time is not our ally, but try we must.

The issue really comes down to whether or not there will be an objective process to determine whether or not a withdrawal meets certain standards.  That would be called a permit.  Now, none is required for agricultural use.  A good number of the Farm Bureau speakers argued that any permitting process would be burdensome and costly, and therefore there should be no process.  Unable to resolve the conflict, the subcommittee simply adjourned the debate.

So that’s where we stand.  We will continue the fight.  How does your Representative think about this issue?