Opinion ID: 1349418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Consistency Review

Text: The ALC found that DHEC consistency review required by § 48-39-80(B)(11) is to be governed, not by the CMP itself, but by separate regulations DHEC would create and promulgate in accordance with the APA. The ALC noted: There is nothing in the [CZMA] or the CMP implying that regulations for the consistency certification process are to be promulgated in the CMP document itself. In fact, in the Legal Authorities section of the CMP, at p.V-1 and 2, entitled Authority Outside Critical Areas, it says All agencies currently exercising regulatory authority in the coastal zone shall administer such authority in accordance with the provisions of this act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. [citation omitted]. This language can only refer to coastal zone consistency certification by the agency of state permits in the coastal counties. The CMP document itself, therefore, contemplated promulgation of regulations governing certification as well as regulations governing critical areas. Spectre also advances this view and cites the case of Captain's Quarters Motor Inn, Inc. v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 306 S.C. 488, 413 S.E.2d 13 (1992), for the proposition that where an agency is authorized to promulgate certain regulations, it may not impose requirements by other means. We find Captain's Quarters inapplicable as it involved a specific statutory directive for DHEC to publish final rules and regulations, unlike the instant case. Id. at 490-491, 413 S.E.2d at 14. In our view, the language of § 48-39-80 supports DHEC's view that the General Assembly meant the CMP policies themselves to be enforceable in the consistency review of state and federal permits. As noted above, § 48-39-80 requires DHEC to develop a comprehensive coastal management program which it will enforce in accordance with this chapter and any rules and regulations promulgated under this chapter. S.C.Code Ann. § 48-39-80. Though § 48-39-80 specifically requires DHEC to [p]rovide a regulatory system which the department shall use in providing for the orderly and beneficial use of the critical areas, it requires only that DHEC [d]evelop a system  for reviewing state and federal permit applications in the coastal zone for CMP consistency. S.C.Code Ann. § 48-39-80(A), (B)(11) (emphasis added). Had the General Assembly intended to require DHEC to promulgate regulations, it could have so specified. Moreover, the stringent requirements for enactment of the CMP, as outlined above, suggest that the General Assembly did not believe it was meant to be an unenforceable document. Spectre also argues that the case of Responsible Economic Development v. South Carolina Dep't of Health and Environmental Control, 371 S.C. 547, 641 S.E.2d 425 (2007), may be interpreted as barring DHEC's consistency review of stormwater permits. We find Responsible Economic Development distinguishable from the instant case as the Court noted specifically that: [r]elevant to this appeal, the regulations of the Pollution Control Act . . . and the regulations of the Stormwater Act. . . do not reference each other and are authorized by different enabling acts. In the absence of statutory authorization to apply the two acts and their corresponding regulations to each other, the regulations of the Pollution Control Act do not apply to the Stormwater Act or its regulations. Id. at 553, 641 S.E.2d at 428. The instant case differs from Responsible Economic Development because § 48-39-80 provides explicit statutory authorization to apply the CMP to state permits. When a state stormwater permit is sought, DHEC is authorized to enforce the CMP. For the above reasons, we disagree with the ALC's determination that the General Assembly intended for the promulgation of separate regulations to govern consistency certification.