Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulatory Review Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews regs: conservation-bank appraisals codified, navigable-waters permit appeal extended and DHEC renamed
Summary
The Synod Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday reviewed three regulations that the subcommittee described as largely technical: a conservation-bank appraisal rule, a renaming of DHEC references to the Department of Environmental Services and an extension of an appeal period for navigable-waters permits.
The Synod Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee examined three regulatory items that the subcommittee characterized as largely technical and non-substantive, while a senator urged the legislature to clarify the definition of “navigable waters.”
The subcommittee chair, the Senator from Georgetown, said the conservation bank regulation (Reg. 5271) “basically codifies their existing practices regarding appraisal of property,” adding that it is not introducing new procedures. For the navigable-waters permit regulation (Reg. 5326), the chair identified a single substantive change: the appeal period was extended from 15 to 30 days to conform with Administrative Law Court rules. “There is one substantive change where they go from 15 to 30 days for an appeal of the decision ... The Administrative Law Court rules ... say you appeal in 30 days,” the chair said.
The chair also described a renaming exercise in the final regulation (Reg. 5337) to replace references to the Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC/DHEC) with the Department of Environmental Services (DES). He said, “anything that was SCDHEC or DHEC goes to Department of Environmental Services or SCDES.”
The Senator from Chester voiced concern about subjectivity in defining navigable waters and urged legislative clarification so “everyday citizen and DES ... can have a clear understanding of what is and is not waters owned by the people of South Carolina versus privately owned waters.” The Senator from Georgetown acknowledged the issue but warned that defining navigable waters could “open up a can of worms,” particularly on the coast, and offered to engage further on clarification.
No formal committee vote on these regulations is recorded in the transcript; subcommittee members described the items as technical and subject to the committee’s standard review process. Senators asked for continued attention to the navigable-waters definition despite the largely clerical nature of the proposed changes.
The committee adjourned after the regulatory review.
