766 S.E.2d 707
S.C.2014Background
- Kiawah Development Partners sought DHEC permission to build a 2,783-foot bulkhead and 40-foot-wide articulated concrete block revetment over ~111,320 sq ft of state tidelands on Captain Sam's Spit to stop riverbank erosion and enable residential development.
- DHEC staff approved only a 270-foot segment adjacent to a county park and denied the remainder, citing impacts on inlet/beach migration, cumulative effects, rare/endangered species, and Coastal Zone Management concerns.
- Kiawah challenged DHEC’s denial at the Administrative Law Court (ALC); the ALC granted the full permit with modifications and special conditions; DHEC and Coastal Conservation League appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court majority reversed the ALC, finding multiple legal errors: (1) the ALC failed to require a showing that the project provided a public (not merely private) benefit under the CZMA; (2) the ALC misapplied deference and erred regarding Regulation 30-11’s scope (DHEC may consider upland/coastal-zone impacts); and (3) the ALC misapplied Regulation 30-12(C) on public access and feasible alternatives (including no-action).
- The Court emphasized the public-trust foundation of tidelands, the statutory requirement that critical-area uses provide maximum benefit to the people of South Carolina, and that protecting natural coastal processes can itself serve the public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kiawah) | Defendant's Argument (DHEC/League) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Compliance with Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) — §48‑39‑150 / §48‑39‑30(D) | Permit satisfies statutory factors; erosion control and future residential development serve public and private interests | DHEC: applicant must show public benefit to the people; project harms natural coastal processes and public resources | Reversed ALC: ALC erred by accepting developer-only economic benefit; CZMA requires benefits to the public as a whole and protection of natural processes |
| 2. Scope of Regulation 30‑11(C)(1) — may DHEC consider upland/coastal‑zone impacts? | ALC: regulation limits inquiry to impacts within the critical area only | DHEC: regulation and CZMA allow considering long‑range, cumulative impacts within the coastal zone, including uplands | Reversed ALC: regulation is ambiguous; DHEC’s broader interpretation is reasonable and entitled to deference; DHEC may consider upland/coastal‑zone impacts |
| 3. Regulation 30‑12(C) — public access and feasible alternatives | ALC: adverse effects on public access are insignificant; no feasible alternative to stabilize upland; upland loss justifies structure | DHEC/League: project adversely affects public access; regulation triggers prohibition unless upland is eroding AND no feasible alternative (including no‑action) exists; applicant bears burden | Reversed ALC: ALC misread regulation by adding a substantiality threshold; public access adverse effect exists and ALC failed to properly evaluate feasible alternatives (including no‑action) and misallocated burden |
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) (establishes public‑trust presumption in State ownership of tidal lands)
- 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) (states deference principles to agency interpretations unless compelling reasons exist)
- 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)
- Spectre, LLC v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 386 S.C. 357, 688 S.E.2d 844 (S.C. 2010) (discusses CZMP/CZMA scope and DHEC authority)
- 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 to include surrounding area/vicinity)
- Alltel Commc'ns, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 399 S.C. 313, 731 S.E.2d 869 (S.C. 2012) (court may reverse ALC when decision affected by error of law)
- Brown v. Bi‑Lo, Inc., 354 S.C. 436, 581 S.E.2d 836 (S.C. 2003) (plain‑language rule and discussion of judicial deference to agency interpretations)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (two‑step framework for judicial review of ambiguous statutes and agency interpretations)