State puts beach development under scrutiny

South Carolina's environmental agency is looking to tighten a 22-year-old oceanfront development law that has failed to stop the march of new condo buildings and houses toward the sea - despite a 1988 mandate to limit building on the beach.

A special panel, to be appointed by the Department of Health and Environmental Control board, will come up with specific changes for the legislature to consider in 2012.

The DHEC board approved forming the panel Thursday at the request of department staff members. The panel would use data from an extensive two-year state study that said South Carolina's effort to limit new seaside development hasn't worked as intended.

Any recommendations to toughen the law could affect thousands of seaside property owners and put DHEC on a collision course with development interests.

Developers tried to weaken the law during the most recent legislative session and are expected to launch another effort next year.

But DHEC officials said Thursday the state needs to re-examine the 1988 law that established a gradual "retreat" of new development from the beachfront.

Since Hurricane Hugo leveled much of coastal South Carolina in 1989, virtually every seaside structure has been built back and, in some cases, new development has extended farther onto the beach.

"We haven't seen large scale retreat since the passage of the act," DHEC coastal division staff member Braxton Davis said Thursday.

When buildings are constructed too close to the beach, they become more vulnerable to hurricane damage that can cost taxpayers a bundle.

Federal flood insurance doesn't always cover the cost of damage from major hurricanes, which prompts a public bailout. Buildings on the beach also speed up shoreline erosion when the structures are pounded by waves. That gives people less room to walk on the public seashore.

It's a thorny issue for coastal states like South Carolina that rely heavily on seaside tourism. They want to protect beaches but must consider property rights of seaside hotel owners.

Of the nearly 190 miles of coast in South Carolina, more than half is developed beachfront, agency officials said.

The state has nearly 4,000 habitable buildings along the beach.

DHEC has been criticized heavily in recent years for allowing new development on flood-prone stretches of seashore.

South Carolina's 1988 state law calls for new development to move back from the beach over time, but DHEC officials say other sections of the statute conflict with that.

A key question is whether DHEC should allow development closer to the beach when taxpayer-funded renourishment projects artificially widen the seashore with dredged sand. The agency says it often loosens seaside development restrictions after renourishment projects, even though the law calls for a retreat of new development.

Under its interpretation, DHEC has allowed for construction of high-rise condos and magnificent seaside homes in areas that restricted intense oceanfront development before renourishment projects.

At issue are a series of imaginary development lines that are supposed to keep new buildings behind them. Erosion rates determine how restrictive the lines should be, but artificially building up the beach factors into that calculation. DHEC's interpretation to move the lines seaward after renourishment has freed hundreds of coastal lots from seaside development restrictions.

Just in the past two years, DHEC has moved the lines seaward on about 13 percent of the state's developed shoreline. Frustrated that the state could not stop the encroachment of new seaside development, some communities, such as Hilton Head Island, have adopted their own ordinances to halt the move seaward.

Since 1985, taxpayers have spent $225 million on renourishment projects in South Carolina, but Davis said there are questions about whether costly renourishment projects will continue.

Critics say existing state law was strong enough for DHEC to hold back development and was clearly the intent of the legislature when it passed the law in 1988. But the agency's decision to form a beach panel signals a growing realization that something needs to change, critics said Thursday.

Patrick Moore, a lobbyist with the S.C. Coastal Conservation League, said it's unfortunate that the recommendations won't go to the legislature before 2012 because there will be attempts to loosen state seaside development rules in 2011. Still, he applauded the agency's decision to form the panel.

"Sea levels are rising," he said. "If you do not engage in some policy of retreat, you end up putting private losses on the public shoulders. You end up with state and federal taxpayers subsidizing private development too close to the ocean."

Myrtle Beach Rep. Alan Clemmons, who represents the heart of the Grand Strand's oceanfront hotel district, was leery of toughening some parts of the existing beachfront management act.

Moving new development back from the beach through a policy of retreat could hurt the Myrtle Beach tourism economy and unduly hamstring private landowners along the seashore, Clemmons said.

"We've got to be in the position of respecting private property rights. I have a problem with the state stepping in and undoing those private property rights, which is what we're talking about when we talk about a policy of retreat."