tidal rice field systems dominated the rice culture industry (Heyward 1937). Creating rice fields was 

 not easy; clearing bottomland hardwood forests, constructing dikes, installing water control devices, 

 and leveling the beds required a great amount of labor and time. Slaves did much of the work. 



The plantations of South Carolina led the Nation in the production of rice by the mid-1800's 

 (Rogers 1970). As the value of rice increased, so did the value of the lands. The Lord Proprietors 

 (the Crown) granted tidelands to many individuals, often on request, for rice culture. These land 

 transfers are referred to today as "King's Grants." However, because of disagreements over 

 payments and changes in policies, many conflicts erupted. Changes in the land policies of the 

 Royal Government in the early 1700's led to "a rush to grab potential rice lands at the periphery 

 of settlement" (Weir 1983). This expansion occurred so quickly that "those who wanted additional 

 rice land in South Carolina by the mid-eighteenth century almost had to buy, inherit, or marry it" 

 (Weir 1983). By the mid-1800's, most rice lands were in private hands. 



The rice culture industry remained strong up until the 1850's; the Civil War did much to bring 

 about its demise. The loss of cheap slave labor, several crop failures, and a series of catastrophic 

 natural events contributed to its decline, and by 1920 the industry was essentially dead. 



However, the impoundments themselves were not ignored. Increasing interest in impoundments 

 for their wildlife and waterfowl values came primarily from rich "Yankees" who acquired these 

 plantation lands and converted them for their "gentlemanly sports," primarily duck hunting. By 

 1931, very few plantations were still in the hands of native South Carolinians (Rogers 1970). 



South Carolina impoundments are valued today for hunting, public management (for both 

 conservation and game management), and to a lesser extent aquaculture. Corporate owners of 

 impoundments are primarily involved in two activities-timber production (in old impoundment 

 fields) and aesthetically pleasing development (Tompkins 1986). Of the 70,400 acres of existing 

 impoundments, approximately 31% are publicly owned and managed-25% by the State of South 

 Carolina and 6% by the U.S. Government. The remaining 69% are in the hands of private 

 landowners, where it is estimated that 75% of this acreage is managed to attract waterfowl (T. 

 Strange, S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department; pers. comm.). 



THE IMPOUNDMENT ISSUES 



Interest in impoundment systems has increased over the last 20 years in South Carolina, primarily 

 for waterfowl hunting and conservation. Additionally, a number of impoundment owners have 

 become interested in including aquaculture as a management goal. This surge in interest resulted 

 in some 20 permit applications for the re-impoundment for waterfowl of over 3,000 acres of 

 formerly impounded areas between 1967 and 1981. In each of these cases, the application was 

 either denied or withdrawn. Even so, more than one dozen applications for reimpoundment and/or 

 repair activities have been submitted to the State for consideration since 1981. 



These recent applications created a serious controversy in South Carolina, focusing on the 

 relative benefits and detriments of impounded wetlands versus open tidal wetlands. The debate 

 generated a number of arguments for and against re-impoundment and repair activities. 



OPPOSITION TO IMPOUNDMENT ACTIVITIES 



Many points have been raised against these proposals by natural resource agencies, public 

 interest groups, and the informed public. We identified the following issues by reviewing the 



99 



