After months of uncertainty, an Isle of Palms property owner is being ordered to tear down an illegal seawall he built that is blocking public access along the beach and eroding the seashore in the popular coastal community near Charleston.
A South Carolina administrative law judge’s order, issued Tuesday, gives homeowner Rom Reddy several months to deconstruct the seawall on the lower end of Isle of Palms. The wall could be torn out as early as mid-summer, according to a schedule in the judge’s order.
While Judge Ralph King Anderson III’s order threw out a $289,000 fine the state had issued against Reddy, the judge said the seawall Reddy built falls within South Carolina’s jurisdiction and can be removed.
Anderson had issued a similar order this past October, but later rescinded the order until he gave the case further review. That raised questions about whether Reddy would be allowed to keep the wall. But Tuesday’s decision effectively upholds the October ruling.
Reddy’s case has been closely watched because it challenged a basic prohibition in state law against construction of new seawalls on the beach. If successful, Reddy’s case could have made it easier for other property owners who seek to challenge the more than 30-year ban on new seawalls.
Seawalls are concrete or wooden structures that fend off the ocean’s waves and protect oceanfront buildings, but they can block public beach access, while generally accelerating beach erosion. The Legislature banned new ones on the seashore in 1988 after determining that the state’s beaches were critically eroding.
In a text Tuesday afternoon, Reddy indicated he will appeal Anderson’s ruling. The Pacific Legal Foundation will assist in the case on Reddy’s behalf, he said. His text said Anderson’s ruling “will not hold up.’’ He described the foundation as a national organization that defends constitutional rights. The headline on the foundation’s webpage says “Suing the government since 1973. We defend your rights when threatened by government overreach and abuse.’’
Environmental lawyer Amy Armstrong said she’s not surprised Reddy will challenge Anderson’s ruling. The businessman is a wealthy property owner who has indicated he would do so.
But Anderson’s ruling is ammunition for environmentalists in the next round of legal appeals. And it is good news at a time when the beach management law was under assault, said Armstrong, who heads the S.C. Environmental Law Project, which fought in court to have the seawall removed.
“This is still an illegal wall,’’ Armstrong said. “This guy built something that he should not have built. It is not allowed. They’re illegal. They are prohibited for a reason.’’
Reddy’s seawall has caused a stir at the Isle of Palms because it sticks farther out on the beach than other development in the area. And that is hindering people who want to walk down the beach, critics say.
Reddy is an outspoken property owner and successful businessman who owns several small newspapers on the coast. He represented himself during a trial over the seawall last May .Reddy has started a political action committee and is seeking to have candidates elected who support limited government and spending..
Armstrong said she was disappointed the fine was tossed out. Coastal regulators said Reddy had the wall built after they warned him that it was not legal under state law. He disagrees. The $289,000 fine is larger than most environmental sanctions issued for coastal violations.
Reddy didn’t dispute having the wall built as he tried to protect his house from high water that was encroaching on the property. But he has maintained that the wall is not within state jurisdiction.
It is outside an area restricted by South Carolina from development, Reddy has maintained. The seawall was constructed landward of oceanfront setback lines that limit beach development.
The state Department of Environmental Services, however, said the area is within its oversight. The beach has eroded landward of the setback lines, meaning the area falls within state jurisdiction, say environmentalists and state regulators.
In tossing the fine, Anderson said it was not clear that Reddy did anything to intentionally flout the law, but the judge said the state has a right to protect beaches from development. The judge said the area in dispute is within state jurisdiction. He also noted that the beach changes periodically as a result of storms.
The Department of Environmental Services “has authority since it could not otherwise protect the entirety of the coastal zone if it were unable to exercise regulatory authority over beaches, irrespective of the location of the setback line,’’ the judge’s order said.
Reddy’s case is an example of what many expect to be more battles over coastal development at a time when rising sea levels and more intense storms threaten multimillion dollar investments that provide tax revenue.
Armstrong said she would not be surprised if efforts are made in the Legislature to water down the state’s coastal protection law because of property owner complaints. Some of those efforts have come up in recent years as a result of disputes at Debordieu, an affluent but eroding beach community near Georgetown.
“We are always on high alert that very wealthy property owners will use their money to influence politics to make laws weaker for the environment and the public interest,’’ she said. Armstrong said it’s her sense that most people who don’t own oceanfront property want to protect public beaches instead of helping wealthy private landowners.
“The vast majority of people seem to be exasperated by somebody being able to get away with building a wall’’ on the beach, she said.
843.535.8387
Service Areas
