## Facts

- Captain Sam’s Spit, at the western end of Kiawah Island, is a dynamic sand spit bordering the Kiawah River and Atlantic Ocean and includes regulated coastal “critical areas” used for public recreation and wildlife habitat.
- Kiawah Development Partners, II (KDP) sought to develop upland portions of the spit and applied for a coastal permit to install a bulkhead and revetment along the river shoreline.
- The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) denied most of the requested structure but approved a 270-foot segment intended to protect public access infrastructure at Beachwalker Park.
- KDP challenged DHEC’s denial of the remainder of the project; the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (the League) challenged DHEC’s approval of the 270-foot segment.
- After a contested case hearing, the Administrative Law Court (ALC) authorized installation of a substantially larger project: a bulkhead and revetment extending 2,783 feet along the shoreline.
- DHEC and the League appealed the ALC’s order to the Supreme Court of South Carolina, arguing the ALC committed legal errors in applying the public trust doctrine and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).

## Issues

1. Whether the ALC properly applied the public trust doctrine when authorizing extensive shoreline armoring in tidelands and coastal critical areas.
2. Whether the ALC correctly interpreted and applied the CZMA and implementing regulations governing erosion-control structures in critical areas.
3. Whether the ALC’s approval of a 2,783-foot structure was legally supportable under the governing permitting criteria, including required consideration of public and environmental impacts.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the ALC’s order authorizing the 2,783-foot bulkhead and revetment.
- The Court held the ALC committed errors of law in its application of the public trust doctrine and provisions of the CZMA.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings requiring reconsideration under the correct legal framework.

## Legal Principles

- State tidelands are held in trust for the public; government decision-makers must protect public interests in these resources when reviewing proposed uses and structures.
- Coastal permitting in critical areas must be evaluated under the CZMA and applicable regulations as binding standards, not as discretionary considerations subordinate to private development goals.
- Administrative adjudicators reviewing coastal permitting disputes must apply the public trust doctrine and CZMA criteria to the scope and location of proposed erosion-control measures; approvals inconsistent with those standards constitute reversible legal error.
- Where a permitting decision rests on an incorrect legal framework, the proper remedy is reversal and remand for application of the correct standards rather than appellate fact-finding.

## Conclusion

The court required that large-scale shoreline armoring in regulated coastal areas be assessed primarily through the public trust doctrine and the CZMA’s permitting criteria, reversing the ALC’s broad authorization and remanding for a legally correct analysis of the proposed structures and their effects on public and coastal resources.


Kiawah Dev. Partners, II v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Env't Control, 411 S.C. 16, 766 S.E.2d 707 (S.C. 2014)