815 S.E.2d 446
S.C.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (riparian landowners) sued DHEC challenging the Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use, and Reporting Act (2010) as: an unconstitutional taking, a due‑process violation, and a public‑trust doctrine violation related to the Act’s registration system for agricultural water users.
- The Act creates a permitting regime for large withdrawals and a registration regime for agricultural users (exempt from permits), with registered amounts: presumptively "reasonable," subject to DHEC modification for detrimental effects, and lacking explicit time limits.
- Plaintiffs did not allege any actual past withdrawal had harmed their property or public trust assets; their claims rest on the prospect that registrations create perpetual, unchallengeable rights that could impair riparian and public‑trust interests in the future.
- The circuit court granted DHEC summary judgment, finding plaintiffs lacked standing and the disputes were not ripe; the Supreme Court affirmed.
- The Court held takings and due‑process claims unjusticiable for lack of injury/standing and ripeness, and rejected the plaintiffs’ novel theory that registration effects an immediate public‑trust injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the registration regime effects a taking of riparian rights | Registrations vest perpetual, unchallengeable rights in agricultural users, eliminating plaintiffs’ ability to challenge future unreasonable uses (taking). | Act preserves remedies (injunctions, declaratory relief, damages) and DHEC may modify registrations; no present deprivation occurred. | Held: No justiciable taking—plaintiffs lack standing and claim is not ripe. |
| Whether the registration regime violates due process | Eliminates plaintiffs’ procedural protections by preventing future challenges to registered uses. | Plaintiffs retain notice/remedies; due process requires actual deprivation, which is not alleged. | Held: Due‑process claim not justiciable for lack of present deprivation; no standing. |
| Whether the Act violates the public trust doctrine by dispossessing the State of trust assets | Registrations purportedly transfer perpetual control of water to private users, permanently impairing State’s trustee role and public trust assets. | State can and will act to protect trust assets (common‑law suits, DHEC authority to modify registrations, Drought Response Act, legislative change); no present loss of trust assets. | Held: Public‑trust claim not justiciable—no injury in fact and claim is unripe; public‑importance exception to standing does not rescue ripeness. |
| Whether public‑importance standing applies to allow adjudication now | Plaintiffs: issue is of great public importance and requires guidance; exception should allow standing despite lack of particularized injury. | State/DHEC: exception cannot override ripeness; there is no present injury and State has mechanisms/duties to protect trust assets in future. | Held: Public‑importance exception does not apply to cure lack of ripeness here; claim dismissed for non‑justiciability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. Kiawah Resort Assocs., 318 S.C. 119 (1995) (discusses scope of public trust doctrine over navigable waters)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires an "injury in fact")
- Sea Pines Ass’n for Prot. of Wildlife, Inc. v. S.C. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 345 S.C. 594 (2001) (standing/ripeness require concrete, particularized injury)
- Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426 (1995) (court will not adjudicate non‑justiciable controversies)
- McQueen v. S.C. Coastal Council, 354 S.C. 142 (2003) (State may not permit substantial impairment of public interest in marine life, water quality, or access)
- Thompson v. S.C. Comm’n on Alcohol & Drug Abuse, 267 S.C. 463 (1976) (permitting public officials to bring declaratory action challenging legislation)
- Ex parte State ex rel. Wilson, 391 S.C. 565 (2010) (statutory construction and de novo review on justiciability)
- State v. Pacific Guano Co., 22 S.C. 50 (1884) (early recognition of State title and fiduciary duties in tidal channels/public trust)