Tidelands Ownership 



Finally, the question of ownership of the resource was an issue: who owns the land below the 

 mean high water mark? In South Carolina, the State owns all tidelands below the mean high water 

 mark in trust for its citizens. However, as mentioned, thousands of acres of these lands were 

 granted or sold to private interests by the Crown and the State. Ownership of a sizeable number 

 of these properties is in question today. The standard used to determine ownership has been the 

 "unbroken chain of title" rule; that is, if landowners demonstrated to the South Carolina Attorney 

 General's Office that they have in possession a deed or title to the tidelands traceable back to the 

 original grant of land, including a clearly marked plat or map, then the tidelands in question would 

 belong to the landowners. (The State Supreme Court recently determined that the "unbroken 

 chain" rule was too restrictive, and that private ownership can be proved without necessarily 

 demonstrating an unbroken chain of title.) In addition, ownership per se was not considered by 

 some opponents as germane to the real issues of impounding wetlands. 



SUPPORT OF IMPOUNDMENT ACnVITIES 



On the other hand, proponents of impoundments have pointed to arguments in support of re- 

 impoundment activities on formerly impounded wetlands. 



Private Property Rights 



Impoundment owners (and managers) continue to argue that if they can prove ownership to 

 impounded and formerly impounded lands on their property, any reasonable use of the lands 

 should not require government approval, at any level. In their opinion, deprivation of these rights 

 would constitute a "taking," and require compensation. 



Federal Intervention 



In each of three recent major re-impoundment cases, the State and the U.S. Army Corps of 

 Engineers decided to issue their respective permits after lengthy debate; these permits usually 

 contained a significant number of conditions. In each case, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

 Agency (USEPA) has intervened, under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

 as amended, to seek revocation of the Federal permits (with some success). Several of the 

 property owners involved in these cases remain furious: in one case, an applicant has described 

 these actions as "socialistic" and "communistic." 



Wildlife Benefits 



Of course, proponents argued that many wildlife benefits result from impoundments. 

 Impoundments provide ideal habitat for a wide range of waterbirds, they suggested, and also serve 

 as important habitat for eagles, ospreys, alligators, and other threatened and endangered species. 



Inconsistent State and Federal Policies 



Impoundment owners pointed to the many inconsistencies in State and Federal government 

 policies regarding impoundments (described in more detail below). 



THE NEED FOR INFORMATION 



These arguments surfaced as strong issues in the early 1980's even though little technical 

 information was available to either substantiate or disprove them. The need for an improved 



101 



