SCCC does not have the authority to issue permits that completely block navigation in tidal creeks 

 and canals, whether or not the waterways were artificial. Additionally, the court ruled that the 

 activities proposed by the applicant were not in the public interest. Of course, the permit was 

 overturned and the application withdrawn. 



Several points to note: This process took 14 years to resolve. The applicant spent almost 

 $250,000 of his own money in fees, legal expenses, and other costs during this time. Interestingly, 

 the estimated costs of the proposed activity were only $240,000, somewhat less than the costs 

 actually incurred in attempting to obtain permits. This case represents an unusual situation, but 

 other cases in South Carolina have taken many years and significant sums of money to resolve. 



One last point: the State Supreme Court decision in this case has essentially diffused the re- 

 impoundment issue in South Carolina. However, we have many impoundments that are in need 

 of repair, which is a different situation, and for which no consistent policies exist. 



SUMMARY 



We have presented a brief and somewhat simplified overview of the recent history of the 

 impoundment controversy in South Carolina. The debate was intense and complex; the issues 

 were many and diverse. And the topic warrants more in-depth analysis than that presented in 

 this paper. 



Nevertheless, we can say in summary that impoundments will continue to be the focus of 

 controversy in South Carolina and in other States (e.g., Maryland, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana) as 

 well. What are needed to resolve extant cases and avoid long, drawn-out and expensive regulatory 

 battles in South Carolina and elsewhere are : 



(1) Clear, concise, and integrated policies on impoundment construction and repair activities 

 by State and Federal agencies (on a regional basis, at least); 



(2) A commitment to decision-making consistent with established policies; 



(3) Adequate awareness of the policies by affected or potentially affected parties; 



(4) A commitment to the acquisition of credible, unbiased, and focused research data and 

 information to build the information base; and most importantly, 



(5) OPEN COMMUNICATION among all parties involved. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



We authors would like to thank Dr. J. M. Dean and Dr. M. E. Tompkins (University of South 

 Carolina) and Dr. P.A Sandifer and Dr. R. Van Dolah (S.C Wildlife and Marine Resources 

 Department) for their continuous help, input, and suggestions as the Coastal Wetland Impoundment 

 Project progressed and the results were synthesized. Of course, we must thank all the scientists, 

 graduate students, and technicians who gave their all to make the project a success. Finally, to all 

 the players in the impoundment controversy, we extend our appreciation for sharing with us your 

 insights and thoughts. We thank Monica Mulvey for typing the drafts of this paper. 



Support for the Coastal Wetland Impoundment Project was provided by the National Sea Grant 

 College Program Office, NOAA U.S. Department of Commerce, under Grant Nos. NA8LAA-D- 

 00093, NA83AA-D-00057, NA84AA-D-00058, and NA85AA-D-SG121, the South Carolina Sea 

 Grant Consortium, and the State of South Carolina. 



105 



