2014 Lieutenant Governor Questionnaires

Henry McMaster

What do you consider to the be the most pressing issues of climate change facing South Carolina and how do you plan to address the impacts of sea level rise on coastal communities and severe weather on agriculture?
[expand title=”View Full Answer”]The questions about climate change, its causes, consequences and remedies are important.

I note that there is still disagreement among respected authorities on many points.

However, I believe that efforts should be undertaken to reduce carbon pollution, even though efforts taken in the US will be greatly outweighed for Years by the lack of efforts in the developing countries and others, notably China. Nuclear power is part of the answer, but coal and gas are much cheaper. And inexpensive electric power is essential to economic development and prosperity. Methods are being developed to make coal burn cleaner.

South Carolina is moving from coal to nuclear. Solar power, wind power and wood chips are attracting interest. Government’s task is to cooperate with private industry and scientific innovation to keep the environment clean and healthy while allowing and encouraging business and industry to prosper and grow. Productive, meaningful work for all our people is a big part of the answer to most of our challenges in South Carolina and elsewhere, including not only poverty but crime, health and education. I believe that careful, informed policy decisions can protect the environment and promote economic prosperity at the same time.[/expand]

Should Carolina develop its own “Clean Power Plan” to meet the reduced carbon goalsestablished by the EPA or fight the EPA and risk the imposition of a federal plan for compliance?
[expand title=”View Full Answer”]If the EPA regulations are wrong, unnecessary or destructive, we should fight them. If we in South Carolina have a better way, we should pursue it. Our government is constructed on a system of checks and balances. Legal battles are expensive, but they are often necessary. That is why as attorney general I brought the case in the US Supreme Court to stop North Carolina from allowing excessive withdrawals from the Catawba River, withdrawals which would be discharged into a different basin from that from which they came, thus permanently reducing the Catawba’s flow into South Carolina. After arguing the case in the Supreme Court, we settled in terms favorable to us and protected our water flow indefinitely. That was not an EPA case, but it was one which had to be brought. The costs to our state treasury were miniscule compared to the benefits we secured for business, industry, agriculture, wildlife and tourism.[/expand]

Do you view offshore drilling for oil and gas as worth the risk to coastal communities andtourism and what is your position on the use of “sonic cannons” to explore for reserves off our Coast?
[expand title=”View Full Answer”]We should never put our coastal communities, our tourism industry, our sport andcommercial fishing or aquaculture in jeopardy. The question is whether off-shore drilling would do so, and if it would, can this risk be reduced to an acceptable level. I believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We need no more Deepwater Horizon disasters. But we must also not unnecessarily impede our own economic prosperity or our country’s energy independence and national security. Thus, questions must first be satisfactorily answered about the presence and amount of gas and oil off our shores, the distance from shore, the safety, integrity and impact of the methods to be used, including the sonic cannon, and the economic growth likely to result in our state from this industry. To date, much of the literature on the use of sonic cannon seems critical. Some ask if there is a better way. If the answers indicate a positive path, the presence of these natural resources off our coast could add significantly to our prosperity and national security.[/expand]

Do you believe a governor should speak about the mission of SRS and what would yourposition be on shipment of foreign nuclear waste from Germany or Canada to SRS or use of the site for “interim storage: of domestic nuclear waste?”
[expand title=”View Full Answer”]Yes, a governor and every other citizen should speak about the mission of SRS. Until the Yucca Mountain repository or an alternative is completed, there is no such thing as “interim storage of domestic nuclear waste.” All of the waste produced by our nuclear power plants since they were built is still on site at those plants. Our federal government has failed miserably to do what it is required by law to do: open and maintain the Yucca Mountain facility. That is why as attorney general I brought the lawsuit against the US Department of Energy to require the Obama administration to finish the permitting process for Yucca Mountain. We won the case, but we are stymied because the Obama administration and Senator Harry Reid will not allow the process to be funded. We should not allow waste from outside of our borders to be stored here for any period of time, because -so far- it never leaves and always causes or threatens problems. The landfill near Rimini is a perfect example of such a mistake.[/expand]

Currently, the Conservation Bank is funded by a small percentage of the documentary deedstamp and generating between $9-12 million annually, but it is set to sunset in 2018. Would you publicly advocate for increased funding for the Conservation Bank and for removal of the sunset provision?
[expand title=”View Full Answer”]Yes. The Conservation Bank promotes an important goal and concept of preserving portions of our state in its natural condition for the benefit of all. We probably do not fully understand the benefits and significance of this. I believe this preservation of nature enhances the attractiveness of our state for business, agriculture, tourism and industry and will help our people lift themselves out of poverty with meaningful work while enhancing the quality of life for everyone. I support the bank. As attorney general, I recognized that South Carolina law protects our marsh islands, and I issued an important legal opinion confirming that protection.[/expand]

When regulating surface water use, should we regulate agriculture in the same way that we regulate industry, utilities and businesses? If not, please elaborate.
[expand title=”View Full Answer”]Assuming that we do not over-regulate industry, utilities and businesses, the answer is yes. If those regulations go too far, the answer is no. Everything we do depends on water at one point or another, including agriculture, tourism, business, recreation and industry. In South Carolina, we have much water. But our aquifers are being depleted by municipalities outside our borders and large agricultural and farming interests require large quantities to be successful. So we must be well-informed and careful in our policies. Most people understand the importance of low taxes and reasonable regulations to our economic prosperity. But we often fail to realize our critical need for plentiful, clean water. The situation in the western states where the lack of water is causing great alarm is illuminating. Unsafe water is as bad as no water at all.[/expand]