ELR Citation: ELR 21249
No(s). s. 89-1840, 90-2367 (4th Cir. Jul 3, 1991)

The court holds that the South Carolina Beachfront Management Act does not violate the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. In separate actions consolidated on appeal, the owners of developed and undeveloped beachfront property challenged provisions of the Act prohibiting the reconstruction of destroyed structures and the construction of new structures seaward of a baseline formed by the crest of an ideal primary oceanfront sand dune. The district court rejected the claims of the plaintiffs owning developed property but enjoined the enforcement of the Act against the plaintiffs owning undeveloped property. On appeal, the court first holds that the Act did not work a taking of the developed property. The court holds that the state's stated purpose to protect, preserve, restore, and enhance the beach/dune system constitutes a legitimate state interest and exercise of the state's police power. South Carolina's beach/dune system is a valuable resource that not only protects life and property from the dangers of the ocean, but also provides a source of recreation and tourism-related revenue. The court further holds that the means chosen by the legislature bears a substantial relation to its goal of protecting this valuable resource. Turning to the economic impact of the Act, the court finds the Act permits the owners of developed property to continue to use their property in the same manner as they had prior to its enactment. Rejecting the plaintiffs' due process claim, the court holds that the Act is substantially related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting its beaches. Finally, the court vacates the district court's injunction as moot, because the enjoined statute was superseded in 1990 by a significantly amended statutory scheme.

A dissenting judge would hold that the Act effected a compensable taking of the plaintiffs' property, because a person could have purchased one of the affected properties with the reasonable expectation that his investment would not be affected by a drastic change in long-term land use policies.

[Decisions of the district court are published at 20 ELR 20393, 20397, and 20919.]

Counsel for Appellants
John V. Esposito
Esposito & Esposito
409 Stratton St., P.O. Box 1680, Logan WV 25601
(304) 752-7300

Counsel for Appellees
Nancy B. Tecklenburg, C.C. Harness III
South Carolina Coastal Council
4130 Faber Pl., Ste. 300, Charleston SC 29405
(803) 744-5838

Widener, J. (before Russell and Hall, JJ.)