S.C. lawmakers are looking to loosen, cut or stop more than two dozen environmental programs. Those programs protect the state's natural resources, according to conservationists.

On the chopping block are new plans to keep sewage and fertilizer from polluting groundwater or creeks. Legislators also are pushing ahead with a proposal limiting regulation of hog farms.

And they're discussing whether to divert money from funds set up specifically for environmental protection. One such fund was supposed to pay for cleaning up hazardous waste pollution near South Carolina's largest lake.

Some environmentalists worry the Republican-controlled General Assembly either will erode environmental protections or stop tougher rules. They say the environment is taking an unnecessary hit.

But some legislative leaders say environmental programs are under scrutiny because they're either too expensive or too tough on property owners.

LOSS OF 'CHECKS AND BALANCES'?

In the past, legislative fights over the environment often focused on one or two major issues each session.

This year, at least 30 major programs or money used to protect the environment are under attack, conservation groups say.

Money from 15 environmental funds under review would be used to help balance the state budget this year. In some cases, legislators haven't said whether they later would restore the money.

"It's distressing to me," said Brad Wyche, chairman of the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control board. "A number of studies show that protecting the environment goes hand in hand with economic prosperity."

A poor economy has distracted attention from protecting natural resources, said state Reps. James Smith and Joe Neal, both Richland County Democrats.

Neal said some lawmakers who don't like certain regulations are using the state's budget crisis to get what they want - less scrutiny.

South Carolina's state government also has taken a more conservative turn, some say. Republicans control the House, the Senate and the Governor's Mansion, and the GOP's dominance has overwhelmed the two-party system, S.C. Sierra Club director Dell Isham said.

"I'm not sure in this climate you have the checks and balances you would have had in the past," Isham said.

Environmental lawyer Bob Guild said South Carolina's attitude toward the environment reflects the attitude of the federal government. The Bush Administration has proposed numerous changes to water, air and forestry rules. Environmentalists say those changes will weaken federal protections.

A spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford, supported by many Lowcountry environmentalists in last year's election, said the governor is committed to preserving South Carolina's quality of life. But Sanford hasn't made up his mind about many of the issues being debated, spokesman Will Folks said.

TAKING $10 MILLION FROM CLEANUP FUND

Many of the programs under review haven't been voted on yet by the full House or Senate, and remain under discussion. The House is expected to begin debating its proposed budget for the state this week.

In some cases, the Legislature can't avoid taking action that might have environmental consequences, said several lawmakers, who criticized environmentalists for what they said are extreme views.

With the state's economy still faltering, the Legislature is looking to save money instead of raise taxes, some legislators said.

Natural resource programs aren't being singled out, House Majority Leader Rick Quinn said.

"Basically, we are in a budget situation where no one is going to be a winner and we are having to put a budget together that protects essential services," said Quinn, R-Richland.

That's why House budget writers want to take more than $10 million from a fund to clean up any pollution that might leak from the Safety-Kleen hazardous waste dump near Lake Marion in Sumter County. The money in the fund came from industries and others that paid to use the landfill.

The Safety-Kleen landfill is full of poisonous metals, solvents and other toxins from industrial sites across the Southeast.

Quinn said he supported taking money from the fund. In part, he said, that's because the amount that legislators propose to take wouldn't come close to paying for the landfill's possible cleanup costs, which could top $100 million.

"I understand this is an emotional issue, but we didn't hurt the trust fund for cleanup one bit," he said. "It's almost nonexistent."

If legislators take more than $10 million from the Safety-Kleen fund for other purposes, the state would have about $23 million left in cash for cleanup, according to the Department of Health and Environmental Control.

But some environmentalists fear this year's fund raid might foreshadow future action on the Safety-Kleen funds.

"This ought to concern everybody," Neal said.

Legislators also are looking at other environmental protection accounts, according to the S.C. Wildlife Federation.

All told, legislators are discussing whether to take nearly $16 million from 15 environmental funds. Those accounts include money to pay for cleaning up leaking underground storage tanks and money to maintain the Jocassee Gorges mountain preserve near Pickens, the federation reported this past week.

PROPOSED RULES 'GO TOO FAR'

Besides the debate over money, environmentalists fear the Legislature will kill or weaken several proposed regulations that are intended to better protect the environment. Proposed by the Department of Health and Environmental Control's board, the regulations would protect rivers and wells from septic tank pollution and stormwater runoff.

The proposals alarm homebuilders and others who are affected. They say the regulations are an unreasonable infringement on property rights.

Regulations sometimes are tougher than necessary, said state Rep. Billy Witherspoon, chairman of the House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee. The Horry County Republican said he has heard an earful from businesspeople upset over the new septic tank regulations.

"Nobody wants polluted water, and I don't want to fill all the wetlands," said Witherspoon, a former county extension agent. "But some of the regulations go too far.''

One of the most contentious plans would have increased the distance required between septic tank systems and groundwater from six inches to one foot. Witherspoon's committee blocked the regulations after homebuilders complained. The rules were recommended by DHEC earlier this year.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also urged the change in regulation. Without the tougher rules, these agencies have indicated they would cut $1.7 million in federal money normally pledged for environmental programs in South Carolina.

South Carolina's septic tank regulations are among the Southeast's weakest, past studies have shown.

However, the need for more restrictive septic tank rules was poorly studied, said Michael Dey, governmental affairs director for the Homebuilders Association of S.C. The rules would have rendered some property in the Lowcountry useless for new homes, regulators acknowledge.

"We did not think they were well grounded with scientific support," Dey said, adding, "People have got to live somewhere."

Dey said his organization also opposes a plan to require a 35-foot, vegetated buffer between large new construction sites and creeks, rivers or nearby lakes. The buffer rules were approved by the DHEC board, which said they were needed to protect water quality.

MAKING IT EASIER FOR HUGE HOG FARMS?

Perhaps the issue that most upsets environmentalists is a proposal to prevent counties from regulating hog and poultry farms more strictly than state law. The bill has passed the House Agriculture Committee and is awaiting action by the House.

Environmentalists say counties should have the right to control animal farms as strictly as necessary. Witherspoon said some counties have enacted unduly restrictive rules that make animal farming almost impossible.

Mega hog farms, many with thousands of pigs confined to low-slung barns, are blamed for fouling water quality throughout North Carolina in the 1990s. Some fear the industry wants to move into South Carolina as Tarheel lawmakers clamp down with tougher laws on swine operations. Poultry farms can produce polluted runoff and bad smells.

Nancy Vinson, a water quality specialist with the S.C. Coastal Conservation League, said preventing counties from enacting tough animal farm regulations could be the first step in an eventual push to loosen statewide animal farming rules.