A judge has ruled against two Isle of Palms property owners who challenged the state’s authority to stop construction of seawalls that worsen erosion of the public beach.
In an unexpectedly strong opinion that supports the state’s 37-year-old beach protection law, Judge Ralph King Anderson III said South Carolina has authority over all areas of the sandy beach, despite arguments by the property owners that it does not.
The preliminary ruling is not the final word on the issue, but it gives an idea of how he interprets the coastal law as his court prepares to hear the property owners’ full legal challenge over seawall construction next week.
Landowners Rom and Renee Reddy, who live on the beach at the lower end of the Isle of Palms, have challenged a $289,000 state fine over construction of a seawall they built along the shore in 2023.
The Reddys contend that it was their right to build the structure, which protected their home from the ocean, because the part of the beach where the wall was constructed is not within state jurisdiction. They also claim the state’s action against them amounts to taking their private property.
But Anderson’s ruling said the state has jurisdiction over that part of the beach, noting that the Department of Environmental Services “had the authority to impose the administrative order against’’ the Reddys. His ruling denied the Reddy’s request to overturn the fine before the full trial was held.
Leslie Lenhardt, a lawyer involved in the case on behalf of environmentalists, cheered Anderson’s April 24 ruling.
“It’s an extremely positive ruling in that Judge Anderson made a legal conclusion that DES has jurisdiction,’’ she said. “That’s a real affirmation – and that’s great news.’’
The Reddy’s trial is scheduled to start Tuesday, May 6 at the Administrative Law Court in Columbia. Lenhardt pointed out that the case still must go to trial and the outcome of the DES enforcement case is not settled.
Rom Reddy, a wealthy owner of small newspapers and outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump, said he doesn’t think he’ll win his case when the trial is concluded in the administrative law court. But Reddy said he’s prepared to appeal any unfavorable decision to the state Supreme Court. He said he is planning a federal lawsuit and expects his legal case will eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Reddys have the support of David Lucas, a coastal property owner who won a similar legal case more than 30 years ago.
“This is not justice but tyranny,’’ Reddy said in a text to The State newspaper. “Ultimately, this is a question of whether a government can confiscate a citizen’s land in the name of environmental protection with no compensation.’’
Reddy expressed his displeasure with the administrative law court system, in which judges rule on disputed environmental cases. He said he deserves a jury trial, not “a trial by a judge who is part of the unelected agency state that accused and convicted me of wrongdoing with no due process.’’
Anderson has a reputation as a judge sympathetic to property rights who often rules against conservation and citizens’ groups seeking to stop state approval of environmental permits. That’s why the strong wording in his decision surprised conservationists and others who are following the case.
Department of Environmental Services officials have said little publicly about the case, but maintain in court documents their actions were legal under South Carolina law.
Reddy is so upset about the state’s dealings with him that he started a political action committee that favors cutting regulations and slashing the government workforce, as the Trump administration is doing at the federal level. He also has spoken against the confirmation of Myra Reece, the DES interim director whose agency fined him $289,000.
According to court documents, the Reddys hired a contractor about two years ago to fill in 1,255 square feet of beach and build a hard erosion control structure, a government term referring to a seawall or bulkhead.
The structure was built after state officials learned of the Reddys’ plans and warned them not to move forward, a state enforcement document shows.
New seawalls on jurisdictional areas of the beach have been illegal since 1988. Reddy told South Carolina regulators he was trying to repair his yard from damage that occurred from a lack of protective dunes near the ocean.
The issue, which has sparked debate in the state Legislature, centers on sections of the seashore that fall outside of building restriction lines established decades ago to keep construction back from the oceanfront.
Enacted through a landmark 1988 law, the lines are intended to make sure new buildings and seawalls are not constructed so close to the ocean that they are hit by waves that worsen erosion of the public beach and damage seaside properties.
Now, parts of the state’s beaches have shifted inland of the building restriction lines, exposing sandy areas of seashore. The Reddys and their supporters say the state doesn’t have authority in the areas outside the restrictive lines. They note that the Legislature has made changes to the law in recent years.
The state’s argument boils down to this: Regardless of the location of the building restriction lines – known as setbacks and baselines – any area that becomes part of the sandy beach falls within state oversight as a result of South Carolina’s 1988 law.
Anderson’s ruling backed that argument. He said beaches include all seaside lands where the ocean regularly washes. Those are sandy areas where most vegetation cannot survive because salt water is toxic to many plants.
Anderson wrote that DES “undeniably has jurisdiction ... even if such lands fall landward of the setback line.’’
Lenhardt said the ruling is encouraging because Reddy’s legal case threatened the state’s long-standing beach protection law. The law allows for state jurisdiction of all sandy beach areas, not just those on the oceanside of building restriction lines, she said.
That’s important because beaches are eroding as sea level rise continues. The emergence of sandy beach areas landward of the building restriction lines demonstrates that shorelines are subject to change and property owners need to be aware of that, she said.
“With all this erosion from climate change and sea level rise, there is more and more often critical area (in state jurisdiction) landward of the setback line,’’ Lenhardt said.
This story was originally published April 29, 2025 at 8:20 AM.
Politics & Government
April 28, 2025 9:52 AM
Beaufort News
April 25, 2025 5:00 AM
See all stories
The State
803-771-8537
Sammy Fretwell has covered the environment beat for The State since 1995. He writes about an array of issues, including wildlife, climate change, energy, state environmental policy, nuclear waste and coastal development. He has won numerous awards, including Journalist of the Year by the S.C. Press Association in 2017. Fretwell is a University of South Carolina graduate who grew up in Anderson County. Reach him at 803 771 8537. Support my work with a digital subscription