By Bill Davis, senior editor | It seems like Gov. Nikki Haley is the only person in state government who’s against helping out the state’s farmers recover from last year’s historic flood. Even a state agency head has taken a position in direct opposition to the governor.
Last October’s storms dumped trillions of gallons of water in three days on the state, inundating neighborhoods and farmland. Called a 1,000-year event, its effects are still lingering.
Damages to farmland, beyond what was covered by standard insurance, totaled north of $350 million and came at a tough time in last year’s farming cycle when farmers needed cash to be able to get ready for this year.
Haley has repeatedly declined to seek additional money from the federal government to offset damages to farmers, despite seeking similar help for private homes.
Harry Ott, the former House Minority Leader who is now president of the S.C. Farmers Bureau, is especially dismayed by Haley’s decision, as the federal government made hundreds of millions of dollars available for farm relief. “And most of that ended up going to Texas,” he said.
S.C. Department of Agriculture Commissioner Hugh Weathers issued this statement this week:
“South Carolina farmers are once again disappointed by Gov. Haley’s stance opposing any aid that will help them to weather this once-in-a-life
time catastrophe. Without this much needed assistance, our rural counties will suffer for years due to the demise of the farms that underpin their economies and way of life.
“As an elected officer of the state whose responsibilities include working to advance our state largest industry of agriculture, I am confident that our farmers will make their case to legislators in order to overcome Gov. Haley’s opposition to helping them.”
In response, members of the House and Senate this year came up with separate bills to provide $40 million in relief that they’d like to pass on to farmers to help them buy seeds and plant crops to help one of the state’s biggest industries, agriculture, dodge a “death hit.”
Some have criticized the moves, wondering if this an example of government picking winners and losers, and stepping needlessly into the private sector with the public’s wallet.
Agriculture Department spokesman Stephanie Sox likened the situation to when President Obama bailed out banks and the auto industry in the face of the Great Recession, but noted that it differed because “farmers did not make a single bad business decision to get themselves into this situation.”
House Agriculture Committee Chair David Hiott, usually a small-government Republican from Pickens, supports the “lifeline,” saying the rarity of the disaster and its fallout demands some sort of governmental response.
“This money would just be to get seeds in the ground, not for new tractors or paying off loans,” said Hiott. “Last year, we spent $5 million of state money to promote products grown in South Carolina. How can we turn our back on them now?”
Hiott pointed out there are no insurance polices that cover 1,000-year storms.
Current House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford (D-Columbia) said the “balance point” of when it makes sense for state government to intervene was provided by the “1,000-year event.”
“Nobody wants to see tax money going down a dark hole,” said Rutherford. “But if we don’t do something, a lot of family farms won’t recover, and we have to show [family farmers] respect now and in years to come” for what they provide to the state.
This week, the Senate Finance Committee overwhelmingly approved a bill that would provide $40 million in relief. It could be debated on the floor of the Senate next week, but a handful of opponents will likely raise objections, shelving it for a few weeks on the contested agenda.
Even state Sen. Lee Bright (R-Roebuck), who is usually one of the most vociferous and entrenched anti-spending voices in that chamber, had few quibbles. His biggest concern was whether the $40 million was in recurring dollars, in that it would become an annual ongoing permanent part of the budget.
It wouldn’t be.
Then, Bright said he would like some research done to see if the state could tap the hundreds of million in its Insurance Reserve Fund to offset the expenditure. “I mean, it’s insurance,” he said.
It would be tough to do that, according to one budget wonk, as that fund only insures government agencies and their actions. The state would have to borrow and pay back anything it took from the fund.
Perhaps April will shower relief on farmers, who may need to hold on to deep into the summer when the budget fights are done before getting help from Columbia.
Have a comment? Send to: feedback@statehousereport.com
We Can Do Better, South Carolina!