President Donald Trump’s efforts to slash the budget of federal agencies could have ominous implications for South Carolina’s state-run environmental protection department and the natural resources it is charged with safeguarding.

State programs that bring clean drinking water to poor communities, protect beaches from erosion-causing development and limit toxic waste pollution are among those that are heavily dependent on federal funds – and without that money, such programs could be in trouble.

More than one-third of the 1,200 jobs at the state Department of Environmental Services are funded entirely or partially by the federal government. That includes 110 jobs paid for completely by federal allocations and 358 more that are partially paid with federal funds, the agency said.

And about $52 million, or more than one-quarter of the environmental department’s overall budget, comes from unrestricted federal funds for day-to-day programs, agency spokeswoman Laura Renwick said in a recent email to The State newspaper.

Renwick said most programs at DES receive some form of federal assistance, but she said the agency has not gotten an indication yet on whether the Trump administration will cut funds the department relies on each year for environmental protection.

Some of the funding comes through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, agencies that are undergoing substantial staff and budget reductions as a result of efforts by Trump and billionaire Elon Musk.

“We continue to be in contact with external partners and national organizations, including the EPA, to stay informed of any changes regarding federal funding that could impact our agency,’’ Renwick’s email said.

Renwick said the agency has “received no communication, to date, on specific details regarding changes to the federally funded programs we implement.’’

Some legislators questioned by The State about the DES reliance on federal funds were not sure how South Carolina would make up any funding gaps if the Trump administration cuts revenue for state environmental programs.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen,’’ said Sen. Thomas Alexander, an Oconee County Republican who chairs a Senate budget subcommittee. “It’s kind of premature. We just have to kind of let some time lapse and see where we are and get some additional information.’’

In a recent interview with S.C. Public Radio, House budget committee chairman Bruce Bannister said he’s asking state agencies to prepare for possible reductions in funding.

DES director Myra Reece said her agency needs more state money for key programs, such as cleaning up hazardous waste, and to process permits, which is particularly important as South Carolina grows. Reece laid out the agency’s needs in a presentation to a Senate budget panel last month.

Would state pick up slack?

State Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter and Mike Rowe, the environmental agency’s former lobbyist, said they doubt the S.C. Legislature would restore funding if the Trump administration scales back on the federal money provided to South Carolina for environmental protection.

The state Legislature has often questioned extensive spending for environmental programs and Rowe said the current conservative political climate makes beefing up the DES budget with state money even more questionable.

“I’m pretty sure it would not be supplemented by the General Assembly to make up for the loss of federal funds,’’ Rowe said. “I can almost guarantee that especially in today’s atmosphere.’’

Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, said the state should let the Trump administration know of vital services that would suffer if federal funding is reduced. But she said it’s not likely the Republican-dominated Legislature or GOP leadership would stand up to Trump on restoration of funding for the environment, if cuts are made.

“We see the state falling in line with the feds,’’ Cobb-Hunter said. “I don’t see a lot of push back.’’

In fact, legislators are considering making their own cuts to state departments, as they seek to piggyback on Trump’s budget reductions in federal agencies and his purge of federal workers. Legislation, backed by Republican House Speaker Murrell Smith, has been introduced this year to launch a state program like Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency.

Rowe, who retired from DES’s predecessor agency, the Department of Health and Environmental Control, said federal money is not only used for employees’ salaries but also for general program purposes.

Typically, U.S. dollars flow into South Carolina when state agencies agree to match the funding. The federal government often provides more than 50 percent, with the state paying a lesser amount.

The Department of Environmental Services isn’t unique. Other state agencies, including the Department of Transportation and the Department of Natural Resources, rely on federal funding. Most receive some amounts to help provide services and carry out state versions of federal laws.

But many DES programs focus on protecting people from the harmful effects of pollution, and providing clean drinking water, as well as safeguarding the coast from development-enhanced beach erosion.

Drinking water fund helps the needy

Without federal money, the environmental services department could find it more difficult to administer a low-interest loan fund that provides money to communities for improvements in aging drinking water systems.

While the fund includes money paid back from water districts and cities that have gotten loans, it also receives money from the federal government. And the 92 jobs needed by DES to administer the program are paid with federal dollars, the environmental services department said.

Those jobs help run a program considered vital to protecting communities from substandard drinking water – which can occur when bacteria and other pollutants seep into water from leaking pipes or poorly sealed wells.

Many small and rural communities have trouble meeting federal safe drinking water standards because of the expense. The state has hundreds of small water systems, many with histories of compliance problems.

South Carolina’s revolving loan fund, commonly referred to as SRF, is jointly administered by DES, which examines the need for an improved water system, and the state Rural Infrastructure Authority, which processes loans.

The SRF issued $121 million in loans in 2023, making that the fourth-highest amount in program history, according to the state Rural Infrastructure Authority. The U.S. EPA, which is facing substantial budget cuts under Trump, has financially supported the SRF program since 1989.

A South Carolina Commerce Department spokeswoman said that, unlike DES, staff used by the Rural Infrastructure Authority for the loan program are funded through loan-closing fees.

The revolving loan fund has had a number of success stories that have helped both small and larger utilities provide clean water.

One of those is Pamplico in Florence County.

A poor town of about 1,000 residents, Pamplico received funds through the SRF to help with construction of an elevated water tank. Without the $860,000 loan for the tank, it would have been harder for the town to improve its drinking water.

The revolving loan program also provided money for a small water district in Spartanburg County that needed more reliable ways to distribute water. The money was used to replace aging water lines to increase pressure and reduce chances of poor water being sent to customers from part of the Startex-Jackson-Wellford-Duncan Water District, according to DES. The Spartanburg County district had taken control of a smaller district that had multiple deficiencies.

The water district “would have had a very difficult time funding and completing the upgrades necessary’’ without the revolving loan fund, according to an email from district director Billy Cothran, who said Startex-Jackson received about $500,000. “Having the SRF allowed (the district) to more quickly make the upgrades and improve the water infrastructure for an area that had previously been declared an ‘imminent health hazard.’

Toxic waste and beach erosion

Efforts to make sure companies comply with hazardous waste laws also could be affected by federal budget cuts.

About 72% of the funding South Carolina uses to enforce the nation’s major federal hazardous waste law – the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – comes from federal sources, according to DES. The program’s budget in South Carolina is about $2.3 million.

All told, 46 jobs in that program receive some federal money for salaries, Renwick said. Federal funding helps DES make sure businesses follow permits they are issued to handle hazardous waste and to enforce the law when companies repeatedly fail to go by the rules.

Enforcing hazardous waste laws has historically been an important function in South Carolina, where for years, the toxic waste industry operated landfills and incinerators.

One of the biggest toxic waste sites in the state, which still needs monitoring by DES, is the Pinewood landfill in Sumter County. Located a few football fields from Lake Marion, the now-closed landfill once buried tons of hazardous waste and must be watched for leaks.

Reece, in her power point presentation to Senate budget writers last month, said DES is seeking $2.5 million in state dollars for hazardous waste cleanup.

The money would be used to initiate investigations at as many as 15 place per year, while responding immediately to newly discovered hazardous waste sites. But that amount is modest compared to what the agency has spent through the years on cleanups. For instance, the agency’s presentation said cleanup at the former Carolina Steel and Wire property in Lexington County cost a state hazardous waste fund $4.2 million.

In addition to drinking water and hazardous waste programs, South Carolina’s coastal management agency also is dependent on federal funds. That’s particularly notable at a time when the division has been challenged over efforts to enforce beachfront development rules.

The DES coastal division gets 54% of its funding from federal sources, which provide money for 41 jobs.

Without money for that work, enforcing coastal laws could be more difficult.

State coastal officials are in charge of making sure property owners do not build seawalls, which are banned on the seashore because they worsen erosion. Coastal agency staff also monitor other development that may encroach too close to the ocean, making buildings more vulnerable to storms and rising seas.

In recent years, members of the DES coastal enforcement staff have been involved in several high profile attempts to protect public beaches from encroaching development, including disputes at Debordieu, Litchfield and the Isle of Palms.

At the southern end of Litchfield, a beach in Georgetown County, the coastal division’s enforcement efforts succeeded in getting wealthy property owners to remove seawalls the agency said were illegally built on the beach in state jurisdiction.

The department’s efforts at Isle of Palms and Debordieu have met with resistance and court challenges.

In the Isle of Palms case, a property owner says the agency has used “Gestapo’’ tactics against him through zealous enforcement efforts. The property owner, Rom Reddy, is accused of building a seawall in an area of state jurisdiction. Reddy says it’s a legal structure.

At Debordieu, an exclusive beach community in Georgetown County, the agency took enforcement action against affluent property owners who had established a wall of giant oceanfront sandbags that the department said were not installed legally and were bad for the beach. The board of the Department of Health and Environmental Control, the forerunner of DES, overruled staff and allowed the sandbags to stay.

©2025 The State. Visit at thestate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.