That was going to be my next question. I understand the intention, and I certainly don't want anyone draining the rivers. But it seems foolish that we don't capture more water in reservoirs when we get excess.Originally Posted by bigtimeduckhunter
Senior Member
That was going to be my next question. I understand the intention, and I certainly don't want anyone draining the rivers. But it seems foolish that we don't capture more water in reservoirs when we get excess.
Senior Member
We do a terrible job of utilizing surface water. to be better users though we would need irrigation districts like the west
cut\'em
Senior Member
Ground water permitting will be here in the Edisto Basin within the next 2 years. I've financed my fair share of wells and pivots and the ball has started rolling on the restriction. I thought it was funny that one of the men interviewed in the article has a son who farms, with a couple pivots.....
Senior Member
They said that the permittee can show historical usage which will give him the "right" to that water, if it is available. Basically they said someone could not move in upstream and take the water you have been using. They would not issue the new permit if the water was not available.
Rush Chairman
Faucets go dry near SC mega-farms
According to Aiken county resident Julie Worley, the new corn farm has caused runoff into a wetland area and killed wildlife in a small pond that is near her horse farm. The wetlands runs through her property. She has concerns that pollution from the fertilizers may have an impact on her family and her neighbors.
Ground water not regulated, Megafarms siphon billions of gallons from wells near Edisto river 5:35
Water falls from an artesian well in rural, Aiken county. Many Aiken and Barnwell county residents are concerned that mega-farms in the area are being allowed by the state of South Carolina to draw too much groundwater and Edisto river water. Water falls from an artesian well in rural, Aiken county. Many Aiken and Barnwell county residents are concerned that mega-farms in the area are being allowed by the state of South Carolina to draw too much groundwater and Edisto river water. The large irrigation pivot on a Woody farm draws water from the ground. According to Aiken county resident Julie Worley, the new corn farm has caused runoff into a wetland area and killed wildlife in a small pond that is near her horse farm. The wetlands runs through her property. She has concerns that pollution from the fertilizers may have an impact on her family and her neighbors. According to Aiken county resident Julie Worley, the new corn farm has caused runoff into a wetland area and killed wildlife in a small pond that is near her horse farm. The wetlands runs through her property. She has concerns that pollution from the fertilizers may have an impact on her family and her neighbors.
Ground water not regulated, Megafarms siphon billions of gallons from wells near Edisto river 5:35
Thirteen years ago, state planners recommended that rules be adopted to limit groundwater withdrawals and control irrigation from Aiken through Lexington and Richland counties. But the state Department of Health and Environmental Control didn’t think withdrawals in the state’s mid section were enough of a threat to justify regulation. Tim Dominick, Matt Walsh, Sammy Fretwell mwalsh@thestate.com
BY SAMMY FRETWELL
sfretwell@thestate.com
WINDSOR, SC
Air whistled through the kitchen faucet when Earldell Trowell turned on the tap one morning last summer.
On July 4, one of the hottest days of the year, she had no water. None in the kitchen, none in the bathrooms, none at a spigot outside.
It would take a week, $150 and the help of neighbors to get water flowing again to her mobile home in rural Aiken County.
But today, as summer nears and the weather warms, Trowell worries that she could again face a water outage. Her concern is a mega corn farm that opened last year, just down the road from her property.
In its first year of operation, the farm pumped nearly 700 million gallons of groundwater to irrigate crops, contributing to what federal scientists said was a 22-foot drop in groundwater levels near Trowell’s home. The extent of the drop is unprecedented, local utilities say.
“None of this happened until the farm came in,” said Trowell, a 54-year-old widow who lives on a fixed income.
Trowell’s troubles occurred as areas of her county transition from small farms to industrial-scale growing operations – and those larger farms face no restrictions on the amount of groundwater they can use.
Thirteen years ago, state planners recommended that rules be adopted to limit groundwater withdrawals and control irrigation from Aiken through Lexington and Richland counties. But the state Department of Health and Environmental Control didn’t think withdrawals in the state’s mid section were enough of a threat to justify regulation.
Now, industrial-grade farms are taking plenty of water. Since 2015, out-of-state farmers have withdrawn about 2.1 billion gallons of groundwater in the Windsor area. The amount exceeds what some local utilities typically use to supply drinking water to customers.
Walther Farms, headquartered in Michigan, withdrew 1.2 billion gallons during 2015 and 2016, according to the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control. The Woody agribusiness group of Texas and New Mexico siphoned 912 million gallons last summer, including 700 million gallons for the big corn farm near Trowell’s home.
Overall, Walther ranked seventh highest in South Carolina in the amount of groundwater used for irrigation that year, according to DHEC.
While the withdrawals are significant, they’re not the largest in the state. One farm in Calhoun County, Haigler Farms, sucked up 2.3 billion gallons of groundwater in 2015, state regulators say. Overall, farms siphon about one-third of the 86 billion gallons of groundwater used statewide in a year’s time.
In the Edisto Basin, however, people are noticing groundwater problems.
At least eight people have complained about wells sputtering or going dry, although the specific cause of their problems and Trowell’s hasn’t been determined. But public water suppliers worry about how future withdrawals by farms will affect their ability to provide drinking water. Local utility officials who are tracking the issue say they don’t remember a decline like the one last summer. Federal scientists are investigating the cause of the groundwater drops to learn more about how farms might have affected groundwater levels.
Jim Landmeyer and Bruce Campbell, groundwater experts with the U.S. Geological Survey, said it’s likely the Woody corn farm contributed to the drop in water levels nearby. Records show the company installed a half-dozen production wells.
“I think they probably did all of it,’’ Campbell said of the corn farm. “I don’t think anybody would dispute that. You have that many big (wells) like they’ve got right there, all close together, you are going to generate a water level decline.’’
The drop in water levels was temporary, but residents and others worry about what might happen this summer.
Trowell, a peppery but good-natured Mississippi native, said big farms should realize how they can affect others. To get her water flowing again, Trowell was forced to have the pump in her well lowered — at her own expense, she said. Her brother-in-law and friends helped out.
After last summer’s troubles, Trowell said she appreciates how precious water is.
“I had to buy water and get water from my neighbors and my kids,’’ Trowell said. “It was hard. I took the water for granted, but when I didn’t have none, it was a hurting feeling.’’
Efforts to reach officials with the Woody companies were unsuccessful. The Woodys are farmers who at one time grew corn, potatoes and other crops in eastern New Mexico. The family also has farmed in west Texas. Woody family members are listed as registered agents for a handful of companies, including Colt Farms Inc., BC Farms of South Carolina Inc., and Outback Farms, according to the S.C. Secretary of State’s office.
Jeremy Walther, an executive with Walther Farms in South Carolina, said his company recruited the Woodys to South Carolina as a partner to rotate crops with.
Walther said his company is a responsible user of water and the Woodys run sustainable farms. Among other things, Walther Farms has taken steps to make water use more efficient by discontinuing water cannons to spray fields, he said. Walther said his family-owned corporation is a “poster child’’ of responsible farming.
In the past four years, the Woody group and Walther Farms have purchased nearly 10,000 acres for extensive vegetable fields in a small stretch of the Edisto River Basin in Aiken and Barnwell counties. Put in perspective, the amount of land acquired is about 20 times greater in size than the University of South Carolina campus in Columbia. About 6,000 acres are known to have been cleared. In some cases, fields approaching 1,000 acres can be found. The average farm in South Carolina is about 200 acres.
Timid regulators
State oversight of groundwater use in the upper Edisto River basin is lacking for a simple reason: the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control has been reluctant to push for regulation, said Bud Badr, a retired state Department of Natural Resources scientist whose agency for years recommended requiring permits for major groundwater withdrawals.
South Carolina’s 2004 state water plan, developed by the DNR at Badr’s direction, said the entire area from Columbia to the coast needed oversight. But today, only half of the 28 coastal plain counties have been designated for regulation. Those areas are near Myrtle Beach, Charleston, Florence and Hilton Head Island. Interior counties, including Richland, Lexington, Aiken, Kershaw, Calhoun, and Orangeburg, are not regulated.
DHEC has in the past said it found no measurable signs that groundwater was under stress in the inner coastal plain near Aiken and Barnwell – but not taking action was a mistake, Badr said. Groundwater regulations should have been adopted years ago, said Badr, the DNR’s former hydrology chief.
“It is long overdue,’’ he said. “If that program was in (place), we would never have a disagreement on those big farms.’’
The 2004 state water plan said South Carolina needs regulations “to ensure the long-term sustainability” of groundwater.
Only now is the state considering regulation of groundwater in the Aiken area. DHEC, at the request last year of the Aiken County Council, began work on a plan to regulate withdrawals. The changes could require permits and justification that withdrawals are needed for those wanting to siphon more than 3 million gallons of groundwater per month.
But it could be months before the agency decides whether withdrawals should be limited. Opposition by farms to the plan could make it difficult to approve.
“Technical data is being compiled and evaluated’’ to determine if regulation is worthwhile, DHEC spokeswoman Jennifer Read said. “A report will be generated outlining this data within the next few months and shared with stakeholders to gather additional input.’’
Read said Monday that DHEC expects to unveil a report on the issue next month.
Harry Ott, president of the influential S.C. Farm Bureau Federation, said his group will support withdrawal limits for Aiken County but only if the agency’s research shows a need.
In areas with withdrawal regulations, anyone seeking large amounts of groundwater would have to list the amount to be taken and explain how that might affect the environment. DHEC can ask for an array of information, including what types of crops would be irrigated, how much water would be used and the length of the growing season.
When considering a groundwater permit application, DHEC looks at how the withdrawal would affect public water supplies. Permits are for five years and public notice is required.
The system isn’t foolproof. Issues pop up sometimes about whether the withdrawal regulation program is strong enough, but many folks say it’s better than no regulation.
Drinking water issues
Virtually all of Aiken County’s major water agencies rely on groundwater to supply thousands of homes.
But last year, the amount of water pumped by the Walther and Woody farms was more than what some community water districts used.
The Breezy Hill Water District withdrew 451 million gallons of groundwater to supply its 6,200 customers, the district’s Charles Hilton said. In comparison, the Walther and Woody farming operations collectively withdrew more than 1 billion gallons of groundwater, DHEC records show.
“One billion gallons is a lot of water,’’ Hilton said.
Among the districts most concerned about irrigation is the Montmorenci-Couchton Water and Sewer District, which serves about 1,500 customers where the mega-farms have located. The Montmorenci district withdrew about 100 million gallons of groundwater last year to supply customers.
Sherry Nestor, the Montmorenci district’s general manager, said a more than 20-foot drop in groundwater levels last summer was the most pronounced that she’s seen in two decades of working for the water agency. Previously, the biggest groundwater drop was 2 to 3 feet, Nestor said.
“We are just concerned because they weren’t at full harvesting’’ last year, Nestor said of the Woody’s corn farming operation. “What is full harvesting going to do to shallow wells? That’s why we have to watch. We really don’t have any back history on this.’’
Jeremy Walther questioned how significant the impact of farm irrigation could be on water levels. With his company, Walther said irrigation for potatoes ends in mid-summer.
“I’m not even irrigating past the first of July,’’ he said. “So part of the year, we are not using any water to irrigate potatoes.’’
DHEC records show that the company’s largest groundwater withdrawals last summer were in June at 168 million gallons. Another 105 million gallons were withdrawn in July, according to water use data provided by DHEC. Walther said the company also has grown spinach, sweet potatoes, black beans and broccoli.
Walther Farms has about 13,000 acres of farms in states from Colorado to south Georgia. It provides potatoes for the Frito Lay company, as well as grocery stores. The Woodys grow corn for chicken feed in South Carolina, Jeremy Walther said in a Facebook post this week.
What’s occurring near Windsor isn’t unique to eastern Aiken and Barnwell counties. With aquifers diminishing in parts of the West and irrigation dwindling in that region, irrigation is on the rise in the Southeast as a way to ensure crops don’t wither and die during dry spells.
In Aiken County, the U.S. Geological Survey is studying the impact of agricultural withdrawals on groundwater supplies as part of a larger investigation of the area’s groundwater. Agency researchers say they hope their work will determine the groundwater challenges facing Aiken County.
Last year, researchers noted water levels dropped in a deep well they tested at an elementary school near the Woody’s Outback/BC corn farm. Since most private wells are in a shallower aquifer and agricultural withdrawals extended into a deeper aquifer, the geological survey plans more extensive testing this year.
For now, the good news is that water levels rose after the irrigation ramped down last summer, researchers said. Earldell Trowell hopes it stays that way. .
“I’m not against farming. I’m against people that come in and just totally run an irrigation system 24 hours and not considering the people that have wells — that they need water, too,’’ Trowell said.
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/a...#storylink=cpy
Senior Member
If they already cleared 6000 acres , water will flow. They have already padded politicians pockets. Money is not a problem.
Senior Member
This is probably true Tim. No doubt increased regulation will have more of an impact on the smaller farms and make it harder for the small farmer to compete.
Village Idiot
Here's what bothers me:
I think there are too many of them as it is.
You being so excessively vocal regarding the obvious butthurt about not being able to dig one on a piece of land you apparently own, lease or have access to.
You obviously believe duck ponds to be what will save duck hunting in SC. I fundamentally disagree and believe that it will be absolutely essential that the S-C lakes be in great shape before duck hunting will make a significant rebound in this area.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Delta in a nutshell: Breeding grounds + small wetlands + big blocks of grass cover + predator removal + nesting structures + enough money to do the job= plenty of ducks to keep everyone smiling!
"For those that will fight for it...FREEDOM...has a flavor the protected shall never know."
-L/Cpl Edwin L. "Tim" Craft
Senior Member
It took awhile for that author to make it clear that irrigation water and house water are coming from two different aquifers and really are not interconnected. These articles are a witch hunt.
If that is all Harry Ott said to the paper then he should be questioning his job, if that is not all he said than he should make a stink because that further presses my point that Ag still has the steering wheel but will be just a bus rider here soon.
cut\'em
Senior Member
It will cost close to $1000 a acre to get land row crop ready. Trackhoes, doziers, loaders, rootavator, fuel,manpower, newground harrows with big tractors. It costs them a bank load of money to purchase,clean,wells,pivots,power to wells. These boys ain't playing and water will not be a issue.
Senior Member
Agreed on the witch hunt. They are trying too hard for the emotional connection. Present the facts and lets have a real discussion about it. I can't take it serious when the author jumps around to noise pollution, bad smells, and pollution run off. And give me something more concrete than a story about a widow that had to spend $150 to lower her well.
Rush Chairman
Thirsty mega-farms siphon S.C.’s rivers as state watches
BY SAMMY FRETWELL
WINDSOR
During the summer of 2015, a national potato grower pumped more than 1 billion gallons of water from a small river onto the large crop farm it had recently opened in South Carolina.
The irrigation effort kept potatoes alive and growing in the hot, dry weather – but it also did what many people feared: The Walther Farms irrigation pipe lowered water levels in the South Fork of the Edisto River, the S.C. Department of Natural Resources says.
From May through July, the amount of water flowing near the pipe dropped an average of 7 percent, according to river data analyzed this year by the DNR’s water division. And on some days, river flows might have dropped as much as 12 percent, the DNR says.
How billions of gallons of ground water are pumped from the aquifer by megafarms in South Carolina
This is how ground water is pumped from the aquifer by Megafarmers in South Carolina. Pumping water from the aquifer is unregulated by the government in that part of the state.
The findings are among the first to show how the potato farm has affected the South Fork – and they are adding fuel to arguments for a crackdown on river irrigation by big crop growers across South Carolina.
An array of interests, from Blue Ridge Mountain kayakers to Pee Dee landowners, say South Carolina should tighten its water law before industrial-scale agriculture siphons too much water from rivers. In some cases, rivers supply drinking water. In others, they provide water that small farmers need. And almost all have fish and wildlife that draw recreational users on weekends.
The DNR’s findings “support concerns we have for this basically unregulated use of rivers,’’ said Rep. James Smith, D-Richland, who has introduced legislation to tighten state oversight of mega-farm withdrawals. “It shows that (river irrigation) is having a negative impact. I’m concerned that without us taking action, it’ll just get worse.’’
This area outside of Springfield, near the South Fork of the Edisto River, was forest before loggers cleared it to make room for row crops. The large irrigation pivots draw water from the river or from the ground.
Walther Farms executive Jeremy Walther questioned the DNR’s findings, saying he’d heard nothing about any problems his company had caused on the river from irrigation.
But there’s little question the state doesn’t look as carefully at farm withdrawals as it does other types.
South Carolina law is filled with exemptions for agriculture that, among other things, grant qualifying farms the use of the state’s rivers forever.
Loose regulations attract megafarms to South Carolina
In the past four years, out-of-state agribusinesses have purchased nearly 10,000 acres in the Edisto River basin, chopped down forests and established mega vegetable farms that today are sparking concerns about South Carolina’s ability to handle the expansion of industrial-scale agriculture. The big crop growing operations sucked up more than 2 billion gallons of water last year, an amount greater than some local utilities used to supply drinking water.
Tim Dominick, Matt Walsh and Sammy Fretwell mwalsh@thestate.com
Unlike industries, commercial farms don’t need to show how their water use will affect downstream crop growers, wildlife or people in other states. They can pull water from rivers without telling the public. And if a farm wants to increase the amount it takes for irrigation, it undergoes only a superficial review by state regulators.
The state relies on a mathematical formula in deciding whether to approve major farm withdrawals. The method, however, does not always take into account how a withdrawal will affect rivers at times of the year when water levels are naturally low, DNR officials say. As a result, state regulators can allocate more water for irrigation than actually is moving through a river channel, critics say.
South Carolina’s water law has so many breaks for large-scale agriculture that residents of Greenville, Bamberg and Darlington counties have filed suit in an attempt to throw out the exemptions. The matter is now before the S.C. Supreme Court, and a decision could come at any time.
Lawyer Amy Armstrong said the case results from problems highlighted in the Edisto River basin. Out-of-state farm corporations have acquired about 10,000 acres in the basin and converted forested land to expansive vegetable fields during the past four years.
“The people in the Edisto basin have been aware of what happens when there is not enough water flowing,’’ Armstrong said.
In the Edisto basin, much of the concern focuses on how big farms affect small farms that also irrigate with river water, as well as people downstream who fish and kayak. The South Fork of the Edisto, where the farms are located, drains into the main channel of the Edisto and through the ACE Basin nature preserve.
Ground water not regulated, Megafarms siphon billions of gallons from wells near Edisto river
Thirteen years ago, state planners recommended that rules be adopted to limit groundwater withdrawals and control irrigation from Aiken through Lexington and Richland counties. But the state Department of Health and Environmental Control didn’t think withdrawals in the state’s mid section were enough of a threat to justify regulation.
The main stem of the Edisto River also has at least one drinking water intake that supplements the Charleston water system. No problems have been noticed so far, but Charleston officials are watching what happens upriver.
Smith’s bill, introduced last month with little fanfare, attempts to tighten the rules on major agricultural withdrawals. The bill requires farms withdrawing 3 million gallons or more per month to get permits, just like industries must obtain. That would require tighter scrutiny by state regulators before they decide on a major farm withdrawal. The public would also receive notice when a big farm seeks a river withdrawal permit.
Irrigation hot spot
Lax regulation of farms is a big issue for some people who live in the upper Edisto River basin. That’s where Tom Tyler’s ancestors settled in the 1600s.
Tyler, 74, owns 1,400 acres, with much of the land on small streams that drain into the South Fork of the Edisto. He has in the past used the land for quail hunting, but Tyler also farms cattle on some of the property. These days, he uses his property to access streams so he can fish in the dark, tea-colored water.
In his view, industrial-scale farms threaten water supplies for others who rely on the South Fork.
“I don’t think you need to sacrifice everybody else – particularly those on that little tiny South Edisto River – for just a few,’’ Tyler said. “It’s going to have to be addressed sooner or later. (Mega-farm boosters) just don’t want to admit that there’s a problem.’’
Walther Farms, the Michigan corporation that has opened two expansive potato farms since 2013, is by no means the only crop-grower that relies on river water to irrigate its fields in the Edisto River basin. More than half of the 10 billion gallons withdrawn statewide annually from S.C. lakes, ponds and rivers come from the Edisto basin..
But Walther is among the thirstiest of farms, records show. The company’s potato fields near Windsor ranked fourth in the state in the amount of surface water used for irrigation in 2015, according to the Department of Health and Environmental Control. Surface water includes rivers, ponds and lakes.
Walther siphoned about 1 billion gallons from the South Fork that year. Titan Farms, a peach-growing giant that arrived in the Edgefield area more than 15 years ago, withdrew about 1.7 billion gallons of surface water in 2015. A Titan official said most of that was from storage ponds, not from rivers.
Questions about using rivers to supply large crop farms are heightened by data showing that surface water irrigation is on the rise in the Edisto River basin.
Surface water withdrawals by agriculture jumped 30 percent in the area from 2010 to 2015, DHEC said in response to questions from The State.
Scott Harder, a hydrologist with the DNR, said there’s little doubt Walther Farms’ irrigation pipe affected the South Fork in 2015. The question is whether the 7 percent drop in flows during the summer of 2015 hurt the river — and if so, how.
He said farms will almost always reduce flow in the summer. “It’s just going to vary in magnitude depending on whether it’s a wet or dry summer,’’ Harder said of Walther.
While the impacts on fish and wildlife aren’t fully known, his agency has said in the past it was worried about how the Walther withdrawals would affect aquatic species. A Dec. 15, 2013, draft letter from the DNR to DHEC said the Walther withdrawal could disrupt the spawning of shad, herring and sturgeon, while degrading the cool water habitat striped bass thrive in. The draft letter said the Walther Farms withdrawal could remove one-quarter of the river’s flow during droughts.
In addition to Walther, DHEC also has approved other withdrawals in the Edisto basin during the past four years. One of the largest agricultural withdrawals, aside from Walther’s, is a 1 billion gallon plan the agency authorized from a tiny tributary of the Edisto’s South Fork near the town of Springfield.
SC megafarms clear cutting near Edisto are driving away deer, causing flooding
DHEC approved that plan in June 2016. Adjacent land was then cleared, and about 300 acres sold to FPI Properties of Colorado last month. FPI officials said the land would be farmed. RRR Farms, a South Carolina company that sold the property to FPI, was unavailable for comment to discuss the FPI sale.
Wagener auto parts dealer Doug Busbee, an outdoorsman who has become one of the area’s most outspoken proponents of a tighter water law, said the FPI purchase shows him national investment companies are interested in South Carolina farmland because of the state’s water, which costs nothing to use. Unlike Walther and the Woody agribusiness group, both of which are farming the land in the area, FPI buys farmland and rents it out. The company owns land across the country, including about 13,000 acres in South Carolina.
“You’ve got a public trust resource being traded for profit,’’ Busbee said.
‘Different league’ of farm
Jeremy Walther, who runs Walther’s potato farm in South Carolina, emphasized his operation isn’t the only one in the basin that irrigates. But he said people should not be concerned about his farm.
Walther Farms uses water only when it needs it, he said. Walther said he’s unaware of any verifiable problems in the river, despite the recent DNR calculations that river flows had dropped 7 percent near his company’s irrigation pipe.
“In the last four years, no one has mentioned the river dropping,’’ Walther said.
The S.C. Farm Bureau also downplayed concerns about large farms drawing down rivers. Farmers are responsible users of water who have no interest in depleting rivers, a top official said.
“We are not just out there dumping water willy-nilly,’’ Farm Bureau President Harry Ott said. “We are only doing it when we absolutely need to.”
That’s why South Carolina should step carefully before tightening the law on river irrigation, the bureau says. South Carolina rivers appear to be healthy, the bureau says.
“Since 2010, we’ve had some pretty extreme weather events, and there has been no negative impact on any river system where we have water withdrawals taking place,’’ Ott said. “To anticipate something in the future that may or may not happen, I would not just open the book that wide open.’’
Part of the reason South Carolina hasn’t addressed changing the 2010 water law is simple: momentum for change was hurt by a record flood in the fall of 2015 and Hurricane Matthew in the fall of 2016. Concerns about water drying up became less urgent because of flooding.
But the S.C. Farm Bureau also has played a role. The Farm Bureau, which has spent about $1 million lobbying the Legislature since 2009, has forcefully opposed efforts to tighten controls on farm withdrawals.
Agriculture officials say the state should be cautious about a crackdown because farms supply food. Excessive regulation could hinder that effort, they say.
Agribusiness, which includes food processors, has a total economic impact on South Carolina of $41.7 billion and provides more than 200,000 jobs, according to the state Department of Agriculture.
For now, DHEC, the Farm Bureau and the Department of Natural Resources are awaiting a major river basin report they say will provide more details on how – or whether – to tighten control of farms that take billions of gallons of river water each year.
How that would influence any decisions to tighten the state’s river irrigation rules is unknown. But the DNR continues to express reservations about the 2010 law.
“We were the last entity standing with concerns,’’ Ken Rentiers, a deputy chief at DNR, said in a recent interview. “Those (concerns) haven’t really changed.’’
DHEC, which approves farm withdrawals, hardly looks at environmental impacts in making its decision, nor does the department consult with the natural resources agency, DNR records show. DHEC’s decision to approve the Walther Farms irrigation project is a good example, according to a Dec. 15, 2013, draft memo by Rentiers.
“Walther Farms represents a different league of agricultural water use in our state, equivalent to the use of an electrical power plant or large municipal water supply,’’ Rentiers wrote. “The magnitude of this withdrawal, particularly in context of the small stream from which it is to be taken, presents a situation that should undergo a public review and consultation process.’’
STAFF WRITER JOHN MONK CONTRIBUTED. REACH FRETWELL AT (803) 771-8537.
Agricultural irrigation top users (rivers), 2015
1. Titan Peach Farms, Edgefield, 1.7 billion gallons
2. Titan Farms, Saluda, 1.3 billion
3. Millwood Farm, Orangeburg, 1.08 billion
4. Walther Farms, Aiken, 1.04 billion
5. Sharp & Sharp Certified Seed, Allendale, 632 million
6. S.C. Department of Corrections, Wateree prison, Sumter, 410 million
7. Black Crest Farms, Sumter, 304 million
8. Connelly Farms, Allendale, 244 million
9. Shady Grove Plantation & Nursery Inc., Orangeburg, 239 million
10. Spring Grain Co., Brown Kirby & Sons, Orangeburg, 199 million
Source: S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control
Agricultural irrigation top users (groundwater), 2015
1. Haigler Farms Inc., Calhoun, 2.3 billion gallons
2. Williams Farms Partnership, Colleton, 2.2 billion
3. Walter P. Rawl and Sons./Rawl Farm, Lexington, 1.8 billion
4. Super Sod Patten Seed Co., Orangeburg, 1.2 billion
5. Shady Grove Plantation & Nursery Inc., Orangeburg, 793 million
6. Atlas Farms, Sumter, 727 million
7. Walthers Investments, Wiley Fork Tract, Barnwell, 622 million
8. Palmetto Farms, Calhoun, 596 million
9. K & R Farms LLC, Calhoun, 583 million
10. Morris W S Creek Plantation, Allendale, 573 million
Source: S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/a...#storylink=cpy
Senior Member
Well done article. The numbers are pretty compelling.
Am I misunderstanding this part?
That number, can't be right, can it? If so you are telling me that the top 4 farms account for more than 50% of the water removed from lakes and rivers?More than half of the 10 billion gallons withdrawn statewide annually from S.C. lakes, ponds and rivers come from the Edisto basin..
Senior Member
I'da never thought that Mr. Joe used a billion more gallons than Mr. Jim.
Be proactive about improving public waterfowl habitat in South Carolina. It's not going to happen by itself, and our help is needed. We have the potential to winter thousands of waterfowl on public grounds if we fight for it.
Senior Member
The SC Peach growers won't be using that much water in 2017.. Mother Nature threw them a major league curve ball ....
F**K Cancer
Just Damn.
Rush Chairman
To put it in perspective, if you poured a gallon of water a second out on the ground, it would take you 31 years to pour your billionth gallon...
Senior Member
Seeing as I talked to one of the growers on that list this morning specifically about that list and he questioned it sharply I wouldn't put much faith in it.
UGA the peach boys are drawing out of ponds that are spring and well fed so the numbers are very skewed. Another one on the surface water list is not within 3 miles of a river.
In short those lists are very misleading. I am not saying the withdrawls are not there but I don't believe that list. I also don't see some names that I feel certain should be on those lists but aren't there. The entire reporting deal is voluntary right now so it is not a very accurate list.
cut\'em
Senior Member
Is that actual usage? Or what their potential flow could be? My Surface Water Withdrawal permit is enough that I could pump at full capacity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. No way I come close to using that much water, but SCDHEC recommended me to size the permit that large.
Senior Member
Water & Power - A California Heist was on demand a few weeks ago. Greed knows no bounds.
Senior Member
I noticed the word ponds in there. If the pond was built exclusively for irrigation and is a reservoir, it shouldn't count.
I wondered about where the numbers came from as well since the article said there is no regulation. If they start publishing the voluntary numbers, you can bet the numbers will change drastically next year.
Last edited by uga_dawg; 04-26-2017 at 11:29 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks