State Denies Santee Swamp Bridge Permit

Columbia -- The state Department of Health and Environmental Control has denied a water quality permit requested by the state Department of Transportation for a proposed bridge across the Upper Santee Swamp 30 miles southeast of Columbia. Unless the state DOT appeals the decision to the DHEC board within 15 days, the permit denial is final. Mirroring complaints made by the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing three of the state’s leading conservation groups in a federal lawsuit against the bridge, DHEC’s Division of Water Quality concluded that DOT had failed to provide adequate information to assess the environmental impacts or establish the claimed benefits of the project, as required by law.

In a letter to the DOT sent last week, DHEC’s Division of Water Quality urged the DOT to withdraw the permit application raising a host of concerns. In the letter DHEC concluded that DOT had failed to demonstrate that the bridge is the least environmentally damaging option to improve economic conditions in the area; had not conducted a thorough review of the environmental impacts of the project; had not developed a plan to mitigate unavoidable environmental impacts; and had failed to properly evaluate potential impacts on water quality and public health. DOT refused to withdraw the permit application.

The $150 million bridge and causeway would bisect the Upper Santee Swamp of Lake Marion, a revered expanse just downriver of the Congaree National Park surrounded by several other important wildlife areas.

“The denial of the permit by DHEC staff confirms our longstanding position that SCDOT conducted a shoddy environmental study to justify a project that has no legitimate transportation purpose. We can, and should, do better to protect both the taxpayers and this unique environmental jewel,” said David Farren of the Southern Environmental Law Center.

Representing the Coastal Conservation League, the SC Wildlife Federation and Audubon South Carolina, SELC in September filed suit in Federal District Court to challenge the flawed Environmental Impact Statement prepared in 2003, a prerequisite to permitting. The lawsuit raises many of the same issues cited by DHEC in evaluating DOT’s certification request. “In short, the DHEC action confirms that the concerns raised in our lawsuit are legitimate. DOT’s effort to ramrod through permits for this project have been dealt a strong blow—we hope this will be a wake up call,” said Blan Holman, lead attorney in the lawsuit for SELC.

The South Carolina DOT has recently come under fire for misallocation of funds and environmental violations at a time when the agency is at a loss for funds to pay for identified construction and maintenance priorities. The agency’s twenty-year plan shows $57 billion in priorities, but only $11 billion in hand to pay for them.

Following the resignation of the DOT executive director, the legislature is considering proposals to revamp SCDOT, including prioritizing projects based on true transportation needs, requiring consideration of alternatives to meet those needs that would be less costly and damaging and ensuring adequate funds are available to repair the State’s deteriorating roads and bridges. Meanwhile, Congress is planning to reexamine the explosion of pork barrel earmarks, such as appropriated for this bridge project, which waste taxpayer dollars and distort the transportation planning process.

Proponents of the bridge claimed it is needed to spur economic development and improve traffic flow. However, the Division of Water Quality said the DOT had not established that the local roads are overburdened or that the bridge would improve economic conditions. The state DOT’s studies showed the project would shave a mere three to 10 minutes off the hour-long drive between Orangeburg and Sumter. Furthermore, Federal Highway Administration studies show that building roads alone is not an effective economic development strategy for rural areas.

When taking public comment on wetlands and water quality permits needed for the project, the Army Corps of Engineers received an extraordinary 300 letters, many from local citizens, most of whom were opposed to the bridge. In addition, every federal and state natural resource agency that reviewed the proposal objected because of serious environmental impacts or insufficient detail in the application.