Government Affairs

WSC is fully committed to keeping you up-to-date on developments that may impact you and your business.

This dedicated page will be updated with new information as it becomes available.

Listen to our Virtual Town Hall Meetings with various water well industry members.

Click the image below.

South Carolina House Bill 5111 Advances to Senate Floor

House Bill 5111 (H. 5111), legislation focused on protecting private water well rights while maintaining strong public health safeguards, continues to gain momentum in South Carolina. The bill passed the House unanimously by a vote of 109-0 and was initially referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 15.

In a significant development, Senate Judiciary Chairman Luke Rankin has recalled the bill from committee. H. 5111 now sits on the Senate’s Second Reading calendar, allowing it to bypass the subcommittee and full committee process and move directly to the Senate floor for consideration.

Overview

H. 5111 is designed to protect the rights of South Carolina property owners to utilize private water wells while ensuring public health standards remain intact and supporting long-term, sustainable water infrastructure. The amended version reflects collaboration with key stakeholders and is positioned to advance during the current legislative session.

Key Provisions

Protection of Property Rights: Political subdivisions may not unreasonably restrict property owners from drilling or using private wells on agricultural or single-family residential properties of at least one-half acre.
Backflow Prevention Requirements: Property owners who maintain both a private well and a connection to a public water system must install backflow prevention devices, an existing standard practice to prevent cross-contamination.
Well Registry Alignment: Local water systems must maintain a registry of wells within their service areas, consistent with existing state requirements through SCDES permitting and reporting processes.
Public System Fee Structure: Use of a private well does not exempt property owners from applicable base fees if public water service is available.
Safeguards for Failing Systems: If a public water system is found out of compliance with state or federal standards, political subdivisions cannot prevent property owners from accessing safe water through private wells.
Service Accountability: Political subdivisions cannot require connection to a public system unless service can be provided, and they must confirm service availability in writing within 30 days.
No Disconnection Provision: The bill does not allow property owners to disconnect from an existing public water system.
No Change to State Oversight: State regulation of public and community water systems remains unchanged.

As H. 5111 moves toward potential Senate consideration, it represents a balanced approach, preserving individual property rights while reinforcing protections for public health and water system integrity.

The Open Fields Doctrine and Water Well Contractors

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A doctrine laid out over 100 years ago by the United States Supreme Court limits the protection of the Fourth Amendment significantly. This doctrine, the open fields doctrine, provides that the Fourth Amendment protects a person’s home and business from warrantless searches, along with their physical body, clothing, and bodily integrity. However, in Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), the Court states that the protection of the Fourth Amendment in ““persons, houses, papers and effects” is not extended to the open fields.”

This ancient doctrine is now raising concerns for landowners and businesses owners, including water well contractors, in 2026. Game wardens and other state officials have used the open fields doctrine to inspect water wells, seize trail cameras, and conduct other activities that many find objectionable. This article provides a very brief overview of the open fields doctrine and does not intend to provide legal advice.

Continue reading the Richardson Report

Texas v. New Mexico – A New Agreement that Targets Domestic Water Wells

The battle between Texas and New Mexico over groundwater pumping and the Rio Grande appears to be ending, at least in some respects. Although Texas and New Mexico reached an agreement over two years ago, on June 21, 2024, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the federal government could block an agreement between Texas and New Mexico to resolve their dispute over the 1938 Rio Grande Compact. Read more

Another Definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS)

On November 20, 2025, the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released a draft updated definition of “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”). This draft continues a back and forth that began under the Obama administration and has been repeated under each administration since.

The tug of war began when the United States Supreme Court issued a fractured ruling in 2006. The ruling failed to get a majority, with the justices splitting 4-4-1. The Obama administration began the series of competing definitions with a rule that became effective in 2015. Subsequent administrations have each issued their own updates.

The latest iteration seeks to conform the rule to the United States Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023). The proposed rule deletes the interstate waters category and deletes “intrastate” from the lakes and ponds category. The agencies also propose to add definitions of “continuous surface water connection,” “ditch,” “prior converted cropland,” “relatively permanent,” “tributary,” and “waste treatment system.”

Most importantly for the groundwater industry, the proposed rule adds back the groundwater exclusion in paragraph (B)(9), which excludes “[g]roundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems” from the definition of WOTUS. This identical exclusion was included in the rule issued by the Obama administration and the first Trump administration but was removed in the rule promulgated under the Biden administration.

Read the full Richardson Report here.

Exempt Well Lawsuit Filed in Montana

On November 12, 2025, a powerful coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the administration of exempt wells in Montana. The Clark For Coalition, an environmental group that has long challenged exempt wells, joined by the Montana Environmental Information Center, Trout Unlimited, the Montana League of Cities and Towns, the Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators, and the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, along with individual water users, filed suit against the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. The lawsuit alleges that the administration of the exempt well provisions in Montana violates the property rights, water rights, and other constitutional rights of senior water users in the state.

Click here to read the full article.

Eighth Circuit Rejects Mandatory Hookup Challenge

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently rejected a challenge to a mandatory hookup ordinance in Missouri in the case of Becker v. City of Hillsborough (8^th Cir. 2025). The landowner brought a regulatory takings claim, alleging that the city’s mandatory connection ordinance took his property since the cost of connecting the eight lots to public water would cost between $963,000 and $1,578,000, making development economically impossible. In a poorly reasoned opinion, the court affirmed the lower court's decision that the regulation was not a taking.

Click here to continue reading the Richardson Report..

Legal Perspectives for 2025

The legal landscape for the water well industry is shifting from defense to offense in 2025, with mandatory connection emerging as the key issue. Local and state governments are pushing regulations that require property owners to connect to municipal water systems, often for economic reasons. Some states, like Georgia, have successfully passed anti-mandatory connection laws, while others are actively lobbying to protect private wells.

PFAS Regulations continue to evolve, with the EPA designating certain PFAS compounds as hazardous substances, increasing disposal challenges.
Groundwater Authority remains a hot topic, with the federal government asserting more control over water rights, as seen in Texas v. New Mexico and ongoing disputes in the Colorado River Basin.
Surface Water & Groundwater Connections are under scrutiny, with recent legal cases in California and Washington impacting well regulations and groundwater adjudications.

Read the full Richardson Report here.

WSC Weighs In on Proposed Regulations in Florida and North Carolina

Florida

WSC submitted comments on two proposed Florida regulations that would restrict private residential irrigation wells, impacting many water well contractors. The Outstanding Florida Springs (OFS) Rule would prohibit new water use from such wells if alternative water sources are available, while the Recovery Strategy Rule would ban their construction under similar conditions. Since alternative sources are often unavailable, these rules effectively mandate connection to public water. WSC’s comments emphasized the benefits of decentralized private irrigation wells and cited supportive regulations in other states. WSC will continue working with FGWA to advocate for private well use and keep industry members informed.

North Carolina

Union County, North Carolina, proposed requiring water wells to be built earlier in construction for water testing before issuing occupancy certificates. Contractors raised concerns about delays, lack of power for sampling, and long lab analysis times. Since EPA standards don’t apply to private wells, treatment decisions rest with homeowners. A state opinion suggests the county lacks the authority to mandate treatment. WSC will continue working with the North Carolina Ground Water Association to monitor the situation, advocate for private well owners, and keep members informed.

Read the entire Richardson Report.

Supreme Court Update: 3 Cases to Watch

In our last newsletter, WSC Legal Advisor Jesse Richardson summarized the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. New Mexico. That case directly applies to the groundwater industry. However, three other cases decided by the Court this term also potentially impact the industry. This update summarizes those cases.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

In this case, the Court looked at the issue of how much deference courts should give to agency interpretations of regulations that they administer. For the groundwater industry, the most obvious example of this issue involves the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS). If the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) pass a regulation defining WOTUS, should courts defer to the expertise of the agencies?

For 40 years, courts had applied the Chevron test, set out in a United States Supreme Court decision. That test has two steps. In step 1, courts look at whether Congress addressed the issue in passing the original law. If so, Congress’s intention controls. If not, courts go to step 2. Step 2 asks whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable. Courts may think that the interpretation is not the best, but as long as the interpretation is reasonable, courts must defer to the agency.

However, the United States Supreme Court overturned step 2 of the test in this case. If Congress has not spoken to the issue, courts should now use their independent judgment to determine the best test. The agency interpretation should be given “respect.”

Whether and how much this test will impact interpretations of agency regulations remains to be seen. However, courts now hold much more authority to determine the correct interpretation. The Court made clear, however, that court rulings using Chevron will not be overturned. The new test only applies going forward. Perhaps the new rule will allow a more expedited definition of WOTUS.

Corner Post, Inc. v. The Federal Reserve System

Lawsuits against the United States generally have a six-year statute of limitations. With respect to suits challenging a regulation adopted by a federal agency, the federal government took the position that the six-year time period began to run when the regulation was adopted. According to the government, that interpretation gave certainty that once the regulation was in place for six years, the law was settled and could not be overturned.

The United States Supreme Court disagreed. The Court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations begins to run when the party bringing the lawsuit has been injured. In this case, since Corner Post had begun their business, and begun to be affected by the regulation at issue, less than six years before filing suit, the lawsuit was timely filed. This ruling means that regulations passed by federal agencies may be challenged more than six years after the regulation is passed in certain circumstances.

Connelly v. United States

The final case addressed in this summary relates to family business succession, an important issue in the water well industry. The case involved a family business owned by two brothers, Michael and Thomas. As in many cases, the brothers wanted the business to stay in the family. Consequently, the business agreement included provisions that allowed the surviving brother to buy the shares of the deceased brother. If the surviving brother declined, the corporation was required to buy the shares. The corporation purchased a $3.5 million life insurance policy on each brother’s life to fund a possible purchase. These types of buy-sell agreements are common in family-owned businesses.

Michael died, the corporation received the $3.5 million insurance payment, and Thomas declined to purchase Michael’s shares. Therefore, the corporation was obligated to purchase the shares. An appraiser valued Michael’s shares at $3 million. In calculating the value, the appraiser did not include the $3 million in cash that would be used to purchase Michael’s shares in valuing the corporation, reasoning that the corporation was obligated to purchase the shares.

The Internal Revenue Service disagreed and filed a lawsuit. A unanimous United States Supreme Court found that the $3 million in cash must be included in the value of the corporation, and Michael’s shares. Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, suggested that the brothers should have had a reciprocal buy-sell agreement, with Michael purchasing life insurance on Thomas’ life, and Thomas purchasing life insurance on Michael’s life. With that arrangement in place, the life insurance proceeds would not have increased the value of Michael’s shares. An alternative way to avoid this result would be to utilize a life insurance trust. Because of the incorrect valuation, Michael’s estate owed the IRS an additional $900,000 in estate tax.

This case raises the important issue of who should own life insurance policies and who should be named the beneficiary. In general, if a person owns a life insurance policy on their own life, the payout from that policy is included in that person’s estate at the time of death. Since the law presently exempts the first $13.61 million in estate value from the federal estate tax in 2024, very few people need to be concerned about the issue. However, the federal estate tax exemption amount is set to decrease to about $7 million in 2026 unless Congress takes action. At that level, a $3 million or $5 million life insurance policy could easily push the value of the estate above $7 million. Federal estate tax rates are high, so the liability increases rapidly. Add to that state taxes, and the importance of ensuring that the life insurance policy is owned by the appropriate party becomes clear.

This decision provides an important reminder for individuals and businesses to carefully consider various life insurance options. An attorney and financial planner can provide assistance.