OCR Text |
Show 664 SOUTH CAROLINA impair the existing public use.15 Funds for maintenance are secured through a special real property tax. The watershed districts are under the general supervision of local soil and water conservation districts. The history behind the eminent domain provision, quoted above, is interesting. In 1962, in the case of Young v. Wiggins,™ a similar district was organized under a special act of the legislature and was given the power of eminent domain. The majority of the landowners in the district decided to dam a swamp and create a lake which would flood about 250 acres. There is some evidence that the land surround- ing the lake would be increased in value for suburban development purposes and that the lake would be beneficial for irrigation purposes to farmers surrounding the lake. The State supreme court felt that the taking was for a private rather than a public use, and held the act invalid under the State constitution. The power of eminent do- main may not be used for private purposes, and the court seemed to suggest that a watershed district was not a public purpose, or at least that the project under review was not for a public purpose. The general statute authorizing watershed districts, as enacted in 1967, contains the provision quoted above to the effect that eminent domain powers may be exercised only where absolutely necessary. There may still be doubt about the constitutionality of the law. The approach of the court as to what constitutes a public purpose has been severely criticized.17 3. Surface Waters 3.1 Method of Acquiring Rights Since there is no administrative control or procedure over the ac- quisition of surface water rights in South Carolina, water use rights are determined by ownership of riparian lands, and are acquired as an incident of acquiring such lands, as discussed more fully in section 3.2 below. Rights to use ground water are regulated to some extent, however, and water use permits must be acquired from the water re- sources planning and coordinating commission if the individual use exceeds 100,000 gallons per day, as discussed in some detail in section 4, infra. 3.2 Nature and Limit of Rights a. LEGISLATION PROPOSED Before discussing judicial decisions which define, limit, or clarify riparian rights, it seems useful to discuss the legislative effort, with respect to bills not enacted as well as those that became law. First of all, it is appropriate to review the substance of the bills considered but rejected by the South Carolina Legislature in 1954 and 1955. At that time several other States were considering variations of a modi- fied appropriation system. The South Carolina bill purported to establish the prior appropriation system for natural surface water- courses, subject, however, to an exception for customary domestic uses of water. Also preserved were actual riparian uses at the date of 15 Sec. 63-181(1) (1971 supp.). M 240 S.C. 426, 126 S.B. 2d 360 (1962). Compare the Dillon case, note 11, p. 663. 17 The subject Is effectively covered in J. Toal, Edens: The Prime Obstacle to a) Re- development of South Carolina Water Law, 23 S.C. L. Rev. 63 (1971). |