COASTAL OBSERVER

Georgetown County’s proposed wetlands protection ordinance drew praise at a workshop from state officials even as County Council members pressed them to raise concerns. The council is due to take up the ordinance for second reading this week.

The Planning Commission last month voted 5-1 to recommend the council adopt the ordinance that would establish a 35-foot minimum buffer between new development and wetlands larger than half an acre and require county approval to fill wetlands covering more than a quarter of an acre.

The county now requires a 15-foot buffer for saltwater wetlands.

Extending protection to freshwater wetlands is one of the goals in the natural resources element of the county’s comprehensive plan. It is intended to reduce flooding and maintain the quality of drinking water supplies.

The ordinance also follows U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have reduced federal authority over wetlands.

Commending the county’s work on the ordinance, Van Whitehead, deputy legal counsel for the S.C. Department of Natural Resources, cited the “changing legal realm.”

“We’re happy the county is considering this wetlands ordinance,” said Lorianne Riggin, director of the Office of Environmental Programs at DNR.

The department doesn’t have permit authority, but it provides input to agencies that do.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over wetlands, but only those that are considered “waters of the U.S.” The county ordinance would add protection for “isolated wetlands” that don’t have a connection to navigable waters.

The state also considers impacts on isolated wetlands in permit reviews, said Christopher Stout, chief of the Bureau of Coastal Management. The Corps and the state also coordinate with local government, he added.

The county ordinance has drawn objections from people who say that it is unnecessary since the state and federal government already regulate wetlands.

“We want to hear from everybody about their concerns,” Council Chairman Clint Elliott told the speakers at the workshop.

Chuck Oates, vice president of environmental services at the Brigman Co. in Conway, said he worried the county could issue a permit for work that someone claims incorrectly does not involve wetlands.

“My biggest concern is that you have someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing,” Oates said. “And the Corps shows up.”

He said the county should require a determination from the Corps before it issues a permit to fill wetlands. “It would be more protection for the county,” he told the council.

Council Member Raymond Newton, who opposes the ordinance, asked how many acres of wetlands a county ordinance would have saved in the last year.

“I don’t know it would be a huge number,” Holly Richardson, the county planning director, said.

The ordinance doesn’t apply to existing lots. It also doesn’t apply to forestry, agriculture, industrial parks, public utilities and infrastructure.

“How much of a burden does this put on the average person,” Newton asked Oates, who has worked in environmental permitting for 32 years.

There would be fees and time to get the county approval, Oates said.

For a three-lot subdivision, the smallest that would be required to meet the new ordinance, Richardson estimated the cost at $1,500 to $3,000.

Wealthy developers “can bulldoze right through it,” Newton said. “The little man has to pay.”

Council Member Stella Mercado asked if the proposed buffers, which would expand to 50 feet for wetlands adjacent to water bodies and  100 for feet if adjacent to state parks and wildlife refuges, were appropriate.

Riggin said buffers are important to filter pollutants and Stout said they allow wetlands room to expand with rainfall. He also said the county’s proposal is in line with state policy.

Whitehead liked the idea of expanded buffers for parks and refuges.

The workshop was the second held by the council. The first was held with the Planning Commission, which was expected to defer action until the council could hold the workshop with regulators.

The commission decided not to wait and the measure received the first of three readings from the council the day before the workshop. That was by title only and there was no discussion. 

Council Member Ernie Cooper proposed holding “a public workshop.” The commission held a hearing that drew a handful of comments in support. Cooper said the county needed to solicit more input.

“It’s something we need to consider really closely,” he said.

Elliott asked how much the council could change the ordinance before it would need to send it back to the Planning Commission for review.

Jay Watson, the county attorney, said the council would want to do that if the changes were extensive.

“We realize it will impact a lot of people,” Elliott said.