Posted on March 28, 2022
South Carolina’s beach communities must wrestle often with the multimillion-dollar challenge of replenishing the sand along the ocean’s edge, which naturally washes away in spots and can be subject to dramatic erosion following significant storms. While we recognize the Sisyphean nature of such work, we also realize the short-term economic benefits of maintaining an appealing amount of beach in coastal cities and towns that serve as some of our greatest tourism draws.
So we’re supportive of an effort in the Legislature to set aside a stable pot of money to help beach communities cover future renourishing costs, with a few caveats.
S.106 would channel 25% of all entertainment admissions taxes collected from amusement parks, golf courses, museums, sporting events and nightclubs into a new fund for maintaining beaches and sand dunes; such a set-aside, if approved and signed into law this year, would be expected to generate about $9.4 million during the upcoming fiscal year that starts July 1.
While we have a general concern about diverting future state revenue into specific pots — as opposed to having it generally available for future lawmakers to divvy up in a way that addresses the state’s greatest needs that particular year — we agree with the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Chip Campsen, that the state would benefit from a more systematic and deliberate process to fund beach renourishment. And we do see a relationship between tax collections on entertainment venues and the health of our shoreline, one of the state’s greatest amusements that can be accessed at no charge, just as we see a relationship between real estate sales and the need to conserve land (another of Sen. Campsen’s other pending bills).
The state Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism would oversee an application process that would make the state money available to beach cities and towns that contribute at least as much of their local money toward a renourishment project. Such cost sharing is often vital to making these projects possible.
Since 2016, lawmakers have provided about $46 million toward beach restoration grants, all funded with one-time money, ranging from as little as $130,000 to repair Pawleys Island’s groins to $17.6 million for a major renourishment project at Hunting Island State Park, according to reporter Seanna Adcox. The budget passed last week by the House would add another $7.5 million to replenish sand on Edisto Beach, a joint project between the town and PRT, which owns and runs Edisto Beach State Park.
But as other island communities make plans for work, they surely would benefit from more certainty about the availability of state support, and the state ultimately can use this support to reward renourishment projects it believes make the most sense. The bill wisely allows the state funds to be used not only to pump sand but also to remove beach homes that have been deemed unfit for occupancy or habitation by local government.
Although renourishment can make sense to preserve beaches where extensive development already has taken place, the Legislature needs to ensure that none of this state-funded renourishment is used to allow new development, or significant repairs that wouldn’t otherwise be allowed to beachfront properties. For that matter, we don’t believe that state law should allow any construction or repairs to be made on the basis of renourishment, regardless of who pays for it. But at the least, lawmakers should add regulatory sticks to the financial carrots in Sen. Campsen’s bill.
As seas rise and intense storms batter our shore, we will need to adjust and even resume our policy of retreat in places. Creating a new state funding source would not change that reality, and it shouldn’t in any way diminish our ability to make tough choices when the time eventually comes to make them.
