Bill targets environmental lawsuits that block infrastructure projects

Environmental activists say the bill targets one of the most useful tactics to block controversial projects. Not allowing citizens to sue the government over permits for projects that could affect them limits due process, one activist said.

The bill would hit right at home for Rice. His home district in Myrtle Beach is the site of a proposed road project stretching 5.6 miles along the South Carolina coastline that would go through wetlands.

International Drive currently is a dirt road running next to the Lewis Ocean Pay Heritage Preserve, a protected marsh area northwest of Myrtle Beach. In 2013, the state allowed for a paving project that would expand the road to four lanes and fill in almost 25 acres of wetlands with concrete. The state environmental regulator allowed a permit for the project, saying that water quality standards would not be affected by the project.

Environmental groups sued to block the project, and the case is expected to go to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Rice said making the losing side of a lawsuit pay for all costs associated with the case is a way to discourage lawsuits.

“Right now, red tape from federal agencies and frivolous lawsuits brought forth by obstructionists delay infrastructure projects and cost millions in taxpayer money,” he said. “There has to be a test of reasonableness so these badly needed infrastructure projects are completed in a timely manner with the lowest cost possible.”

Back at home, Rice has support among local leaders who want to get the project done more quickly.

Horry County Councilman Johnny Vaught told a local TV station this month that environmental groups have been blocking the project for too long.

“It’s past time we started limiting special interest groups’ power to intervene in the legal and permitting processes without penalty when they are proven wrong,” Vaught said.

At the same time, Rice has ruffled the feathers of environmentalists who see lawsuits as one of the best ways for the government to be held in check by its citizens.

Alan Hancock, spokesman for the Carolina Coastal League, told the Washington Examiner that Rice’s bill would be taking a tool out of the public’s playbook for stopping government from taking improper actions.

“It sounds like a targeted attack against everyday citizens’ ability to appeal government decisions,” he said. “Everyday citizens, say a retired family that’s just moved from the Midwest to Myrtle Beach, that want to question the legality of a permit to build a road, they would be on the hook for whatever the construction company says they should be on the hook for.”

Hancock said the project that has been blocked by his group’s lawsuit would extend suburban sprawl and spark more overdevelopment in wetlands and marshes along the Palmetto State’s coastline. The area is home to bears, a federally protected woodpecker and the Venus flytrap.

Not only would the highway project harm the marshlands, but it also would also cost money the state doesn’t have, Hancock said. The real delays in projects are finding funding and dealing with federal permitting processes, not lawsuits, he said.

“There are already protections in place against frivolous lawsuits, and we don’t think it’s necessary,” he said.

While Rice might have had International Drive in his mind when coming up with the bill, its effects could be felt as far away as a remote bay in Alaska.

The United Tribes of Bristol Bay spoke out against an earlier iteration of Rice’s legislation last year because they are among the groups that have challenged the federal government under Clean Water Act provisions to stop the Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay.

The bill also wants to limit the EPA’s ability to veto Section 404 permits issued by the Corps, which already go through a strict, multi-agency approval process.

The Corps regulates the discharge of dredged material into wetlands from dams, levees, highways, airports and mining projects. All projects that plan to dump dredged material into wetlands must obtain a Section 404 permit before discharge can happen.

The Corps will not give a permit if there’s another practical alternative available that wouldn’t damage the wetlands or if waters in the wetlands would be “significantly degraded,” according to the Corps. Any applicant must take steps to avoid damage to wetlands, streams and other bodies of water, minimize that damage and be ready to provide compensation for any unavoidable damage.

In addition to Corps approval, state regulatory agencies must sign off on any proposed project building in wetlands to allow the project to proceed. After all that, the EPA can still veto a project based on its own review.

Alannah Hurley, executive director of the tribes, said the bill would kill the provision the EPA used to block the Pebble Mine project. The EPA used an environmental assessment as a reason to delay, and potentially kill, the mine because it would dump mining material into the bay’s watershed that would harm one of the world’s largest salmon stocks.

While that assessment proved controversial and was investigated by House Republicans, Hurley said Rice’s legislation to remove the EPA’s “veto power” over the Corps would be devastating to the region.

“It’s frustrating that outside lawmakers who have never set foot in Bristol Bay are dictating the choices for our region’s future. This bill threatens our culture and way of life,” she said. “[Rice’s bill] directly attacks the section of the Clean Water Act that Bristol Bay tribes asked to be applied to protect our salmon and region from the impacts of mines like Pebble.”

However, Rice says the Corps’ process for approving infrastructure projects is more than enough, and more government oversight is not necessary. Removing the EPA’s “veto” would give permit applicants more certainty in the process, he said.

“There is layer after layer after layer of both governmental agency and public review before permits can be approved by the Army Corps,” Rice said.