Kiawah Development Partners v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control
411 S.C. 16
| S.C. | 2014Background
- Kiawah Development Partners sought a DHEC permit to build a 2,783‑foot bulkhead plus a 40‑foot articulated concrete block revetment on Captain Sam’s Spit, covering ~111,320 sq ft of state tidelands, to halt riverbank erosion and enable upland residential development.
- DHEC staff granted a permit for only 270 feet (adjacent to a county park) and denied the remainder based on likely interference with natural inlet/beach migration, adverse cumulative effects, and impacts to rare/endangered species and public access.
- Kiawah and the Coastal Conservation League requested contested hearings before the Administrative Law Court (ALC); the ALC granted Kiawah the full permit (with size/installation conditions), finding no significant harms and limiting regulation application.
- DHEC and the League appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court arguing the ALC erred on application of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and regulations (Reg. 30‑11 and 30‑12), particularly regarding public‑benefit, upland impacts, public access, and feasible alternatives.
- The Supreme Court (majority) reversed and remanded: it held the ALC committed legal errors—failing to assess public benefit to the people, improperly narrowing Reg. 30‑11 (upland/cumulative impacts), and misapplying Reg. 30‑12(C) (public‑access and alternatives).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kiawah) | Defendant's Argument (DHEC/League) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether project complies with CZMA §48‑39‑150 (maximum benefit to the people) | Benefit to Kiawah and protected upland justifies permit; no significant public harm | Project primarily benefits private developer; public benefit not shown; natural processes provide public value | ALC erred: public benefit must inure to the public at large; ALC failed to show such benefit → reversal |
| Scope of Reg. 30‑11(C)(1): may DHEC consider upland/cumulative impacts? | ALC: regulation limits inquiry to critical area only | DHEC: regulation and CZMA permit consideration of upland/cumulative effects across the coastal zone | ALC erred in rejecting DHEC’s interpretation; DHEC may consider upland/cumulative impacts; ALC’s alternative upland analysis also flawed → reversal |
| Whether Reg. 30‑12(C) prohibits bulkheads/revetments affecting public access absent exceptions | ALC: adverse effect on public access is insubstantial; exception applies because upland loss and no feasible alternatives | DHEC/League: project will adversely affect public access (unique sandy beach); must show no feasible alternative and consider no‑action | ALC erred: regulation is triggered by any adverse effect (no substantiality threshold); substantial evidence shows significant public use; ALC failed to consider feasible alternatives including no‑action → reversal |
| Burden of proof on feasible alternatives under Reg. 30‑12(C) | Applicant argued DHEC must show feasible alternatives | DHEC/League: applicant must demonstrate no feasible alternative to justify exception | ALC misallocated burden by effectively requiring DHEC to disprove alternatives; applicant bears burden to show no feasible alternative → reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Tenney v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 393 S.C. 100, 712 S.E.2d 395 (S.C. 2011) (articulates public trust doctrine that State holds tidelands in trust for all people of South Carolina)
- Spectre, LLC v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 386 S.C. 357, 688 S.E.2d 844 (S.C. 2010) (addresses CZMP scope and DHEC permitting authority)
- S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 363 S.C. 67, 610 S.E.2d 482 (S.C. 2005) (discusses deference to agency interpretations in CZMA context)
- Hill v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 389 S.C. 1, 698 S.E.2d 612 (S.C. 2010) (standard for substantial‑evidence review of ALC decisions)
- Brown v. Bi‑Lo, Inc., 354 S.C. 436, 581 S.E.2d 836 (S.C. 2003) (plain‑language rule and limits to deference when statutory text is clear)
- Murphy v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 396 S.C. 633, 723 S.E.2d 191 (S.C. 2012) (interprets regulatory terms broadly to include surrounding area/vicinity)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (framework for judicial deference to reasonable agency statutory/regulatory interpretations)