Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

2896 112. SUPREME COURT REPORTER 505 U.S. 1020 .JJ9ooB to mitigate the hann to the public interest [5, 6] The trial court found Lucas's two that petitioner's use of hil!..lJQ:llland might beachfront lots to have been rendered value- occasion. 304 S.C., at 384, 404 S.E.2d, at 899. By neglecting to dispute the findings less by resp~ndent's enforcement of the too' th Act 10 th' to tal . .. b 9 U d L enumera m e or 0 el"Wlse coa~ -zone construction R?' n er u- challenge the legislature's purposes, cas~.theory of .thcalle cas.e'blwhich"retastetd upotsn ..,hp22petitioner "concede[dl that the beach/ our no econonu y Vla e use semen, dune area of South Carolina's shores is an that findi~g en~itled him t~ compens~tion. extremely valuable public resource; that the Lucas believed It unnecessary to take Issue erection of new construction, inter alia, con- with either the purposes behind the Beach- tributes to the erosion and destruction of this front Management Act, or the means chosen public resource; and that discouraging new by the. South Carolina Legislature to effectu- construction in close proximity to the beach! ate those purposes: The South Carolina Su- dune area is necessary to prevent a great preme Court, however, thought otherwise. public hann." 1d., at 382-383,404 S.E.2d, at In its view, the Beachfront Management Act 898. In the court's view, these concessions was no ordinary .enactment, but involved an brought petitioner's challenge within a long exercise of South Carolina's "police powers" line of this Court's cases sustaining against 9. This finding was the premise of the petition for certiorari, and since it was not challenged in the brief in opposition 'We decline to entertain the argument in respondent's brief on the merits, see Brief for Respondent 45-50, .that the finding was erroneous. Instead, we decide the question pre- sented under the same factual assumptions as did the Supreme Court of South Carolina. See Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816, 105 5.Ct. 2427, 2432, 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985); 10. The legislature's express findings include the following: 'The General Assembly finds that: "(1) The beach/dune system along the coast of South Carolina is extremely important to the people of this State and serves the following functions: "(a) protects life and property by serving as a storm barrier which dissipates wave energy and contributes to shoreline stability in an economical and effective manner; "(b) provides the basis for a tourism indus- try that -generates approximately two-thirds of South Carolina's annual tourism industry reve- . nue which constitutes a significant portion of the state's economy. The tourists who come to the South Carolina coast to enjoy the ocean and dry sand beach contribute significantly to state and local tax revenues; "(c) provides habitat for numerous species of plants and animals, several of which are threatened or endangered. Waters adjacent to the beach/dune system also provide habitat for many other marine species; "(d) provides a natural health environment fov the citizens of South Carolina to spend leisure time which serves their physical and mental well-being. "(2) Beach/dune system vegetation is unique and extremely important to the vitality and pres- ervation of the system. "(3) Many miles of South Carolina's beaches have been identified as critically eroding. "(4) ... [D]evelopment uilwisely has been sit~ ed too dose to the {beach/dune] system. This type of development has jeopardized the stability of the beach/dune system, accelerated erosion, and endangered adjacent property. It is in both the public and private interests to protect the system from this unwise development. "(5) The use of armoring in the form of hard erosion control devices such as seawalls, bulk- heads, and rip-rap to protect erosion-threatened structures adjacent to the beach has not proven effective. These armoring devices have given a faIse sense of security to beachfront property . owners. In reality, these hard structures, in many instances, have increased the vulnerability of beachfront property to damage from wind and waves while contributing to the deterioration and loss of the dry sand beach which is so important to the tourism industry. "(6) Erosion is a natural process which be- comes a significant problem for man only when structures are erected in dose proximity to the beach/dune system. It is in both the public and private interests to afford the beach/dune system space to accrete and erode in its natural cycle. This space can be provided only by discouraging new construction in close proximity to the beach/ dune system and encouraging those who have erected structures too close to the system to retreat from it. "(8) It is in the state's best interest to protect and to promote increased public access to South Carolina's beaches for out-of-state tourists and South Carolina residents alike." S.C. Code Ann. ~ 48-39-250 (Supp.l99l).