Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

idelant By DEB STIRLING The "Tidelands Bill," at present under consideration il the House of Representatives, could have a profound effec on the fishing industry while encroaching upon publi beach facilities. It could mean that the shrimping co-ops would tc destroyed; that the price of crabs, oysters, and shrirr could skyrocket; that the further development of publ beach facilities would be precl.uded. The estuary systems, which provides support for these food and sport fishing, could be non-existent in a few years. The bill, S. 977, would allow the marshlands to come under private control and promote rapid life systems, without regard for vital life systems. Introduced by Senators Rembert Dennis, James Waddell, Claymon Grimes, and James Harrelson, the bill purports to accomplish the following: 1.) derive a zoning system for the area; 2.) define proper usage of it; 3.) clarigy ownership of the rice fields; 4.) set up a permit system as an additional control for useage; and 5.) create an interagency council that will administer the provisions of the bill. The heart of S. 977, which in its original version was not quite as offensive, now probably lies in the rice field rider attached to the "zoning division." This section of the bill would essentially, deed to private interests lands which the state owns. The rationale for this action, called "clarification" by those who sponsor this effort, is that historically these lands were used for commercial cultivation of rice. More important than history to private interests, however, is the shrewd recognition of the tidelands' increased value for development, hunting leases, and the ever-increasing possibility of oil and mineral royalties. There does exist, however, adequate precedent t< demonstrate that the state owns and holds in public trus the majority of the contested areas. The "Cape Romaine' decision, handed down by the S. C. Supreme Court in 1921 reaffirmed state ownership of the areas in question. Those who would disagree with this decision, whil4 arguing it was radical and a departure from precedent ignore the wealth of precedent found in both English an< colonial common law. The "State versus Pacific Guan< Company" in 1884 establishes foundation for the Capi Romaine decision. Is Bill could ki Despite this, many would be developers have been paying taxes on the tracts they seek; considering these negligible sums an excellent investment should legislation be persuaded to deed them the land. According to some reports over $150,000 has been spent to promote the passage of the bill. Hugh Lane, a foremost proponent of S. 977, has a paid lobbyist working in the legislature. What is more amazing, though, was the money spent for wining, dining and boarding the entire House and Senate Judiciary Committees (and wives) at the Mills Hyatt House in Charleston plus providing them with a chartered jet flight over the rice fields. These are the same banking and development interests that would raise the spector of a threat to "private ownership" and "property rights." As a matter of fact, no one is really aware of how many acres of property is even involved in the controversy. This will have a major effect upon the beach vacations, seafood dinners and sport fishing -- pleasures close to the heart of so many South Carolinians. The regu!ations of the bill would relinquish the development of any further public Bill would relinquish development of .. public recreational facilities ii outh Caroli . . . . . p...r ty*,r,p, j,ytisiw r.L ~ Ur onc :K recreational facilities in these areas -- such as Hunting Island State Park -- and in essence close the beaches to private speculation and private development. Further extensive and thoughtless development in the tidelands would eventually put an end to much of South 44 Carolina's fish productivity. Our fisheries depend upon the high biologic productivity of the coastal bays, sloughs, inlets, sounds, salt marshes and lagoons. Indeed, estuaries are the primary fish nursery. Dredging, canals, and levees, not to mention marsh that has been filled in to provide-high-priced lots, are simply not compatible with oysters,'clams, crab, flounders, and shrimp. Among other weak sections of the bill is the provision creating yet another bureaucratic agency, and placing the adrninistration of the bill's provisions under the