As part of the state budget, a law was passed that could require South Carolina to compensate wealthy coastal property owners if they win a legal battle over coastal development.

Two caveats that state budget negotiators agreed to late last week potentially make it harder for state regulators to enforce laws protecting public beaches.

However, the clauses would also result in the public bearing the coastal landowners’ legal costs if the state loses or drops the cases against them. The state could have to pay at least $2 million, if not more, by some calculations.

With almost no discussion, budget negotiators voted to include the reservations in next year’s budget. The full budget still needs approval before it goes to Governor Henry McMaster for consideration.

“This could have a significant negative impact on taxpayers and there are environmental concerns,” said Rep. Leon Stavrinakis, a Democrat from Charleston, who was the only member of the Appropriations Committee to vote against the reservations.

Unlike bills in Parliament, provisas are not usually examined in public hearings and can often be passed quickly and without much public scrutiny. They are often added to the federal budget during debates in the Senate and House of Representatives. They are valid for only one year and must be renewed annually.

In this case, MPs on the Budget Committee voted in favor of the reservations approved by the Senate. Stavrinakis said the reservations were worrying and the issues “deserve full public scrutiny and public debate.”

State Rep. Spencer Wetmore, a Folly Beach Democrat who is not on the budget committee, expressed concern about the cost and the state’s ability to enforce laws restricting development on the beach if the budget measures are enacted.

“I would describe these reservations as inadmissible,” she said, pointing out that they had “a chilling effect on enforcement.”

The budget reservations, pushed by State Senator Stephen Goldfinch (Republican of Georgetown), are a response to recent disputes between state officials and oceanfront property owners whose homes are threatened by rising sea levels.

These areas include erosion hotspots on the Isle of Palms, Debordieu, Garden City and Litchfield Beach. State regulators have initiated enforcement actions against some homeowners who built seawalls in places along the beach where such structures are prohibited due to their impact on the shoreline.

While seawalls protect property, they exacerbate erosion during waves, narrowing the beach to the public. New seawalls have been banned in public beach jurisdictions since 1988.

But critics of the state’s recent enforcement actions say property owners are simply trying to protect their investments and need help. They also questioned whether the state is taking action in areas outside of South Carolina’s jurisdiction.

Efforts to reach Goldfinch were unsuccessful, but he previously said the Department of Health and Environment’s Coastal Division “comes and says, ‘This is our jurisdiction now.'”

One of the clauses requires the state to re-evaluate enforcement proceedings against ocean property owners from the past six years to see whether the owners would violate the regulations if the exclusion areas were re-evaluated in future years. If the new boundaries are less restrictive and the proceedings are dropped, the state must reimburse landowners for “all costs of their defense” in the enforcement proceedings. That could lead state regulators to drop proceedings because of the potential costs, critics say.

State Senator Sandy Senn (R-Charleston) has cited statistics that show that South Carolina has filed about 100 lawsuits over the past six years alleging the construction or repair of seawalls. Such lawsuits can cost property owners at least $20,000. So if property owners win all 100 cases, the state could end up paying $2 million.

The other clause makes it easier for a property owner to challenge the beachfront designation. If an administrative law judge sides with the property owner, “the state may be solely responsible for attorneys’ fees and costs.”

It was not known whether McMaster would support the reservations. No decision has been made, a spokesman said. But the governor has vetoed beach bills in the past that he believed had not been fully vetted.

In 2019, McMaster vetoed a bill that would have allowed a small group of homeowners to repair a sagging seawall that extended far into the beach in the exclusive Debordieu residential area near Georgetown.