Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council

1
Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council

• By Alisha Renfro
• Geology 558

2
South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977

• The plan defined critical areas as anything
  seaward of the landward toe of the primary dune.
  
• This allowed residential and commercial buildings
  to be built at the landward base of this dune.
• As erosion occurred many permits for armoring the
  shoreline were accepted.

3
David H. Lucas

• In 1986 purchased two lots of land on the Isle of
  Palms.
• The properties were not considered critical
  areas by management plan.

4
(No Transcript)
5
Beachfront Management Act of 1988

• Baseline was established at the top of the
  primary dune line.
• For erosional beaches a setback line was set a 40
  times the erosion rate for that area
• This setback line marked the landward
  jurisdiction of the Coastal Council.

6
Lucas files suit against South Carolina Coastal
Council

• The newly established setback line was landward
  of Lucas properties.
• He claimed that the Coastal Councils setback
  rules resulted in a property taking.
• The fifth amendment of the Constitution states
  nor shall land be taken by a government entity
  for public use without just compensation.

7
Court of Common Pleas

• The court ruled that Coastal Councils
  regulations did in fact result in a taking of
  Lucas property.
• The State of South Carolina was ordered to pay
  1.2 million dollars for Lucas property.
• Coastal Council appealed the case to the South
  Carolina Supreme Court.
• After the ruling South Carolina added a special
  permit clause to the Beachfront Management Act.

8
South Carolina Supreme Court

• Coastal Council argued that precedence has been
  set that if the use of a property would cause a
  noxious or harmful result then no compensation
  is owed to the property owner.
• The court ruled in favor of the Coastal Council.
  
• Lucas appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

9
United States Supreme Court

• The case was argued before the court on March 2,
  1992.
• The case was ruled on June 29, 1992.
• The court upheld the Court of Common Pleas
  decision.
• The majority felt that Coastal Council failed to
  make the case that development on these
  properties would have a harmful result.

10

• The court further ruled that the state could not
  set new regulations that would apply to
  previously acquired land.
• South Carolina was ordered to pay the 1. 2
  million dollars for the properties.

11
Aftermath

• special permit clause allows land owners to
  violate setback regulations with the states
  blessing.
• State has done away with the Beachfront
  Management Act and has instead amended the
  Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977.