The Edisto Beach Property Owners Association
Working together to keep Edisto Beach the low-key family beach we love.


Important
Upcoming dates

updated
11-17-2017

EBPOA
Newsletters

updated
4-28-2017

Town of Edisto
Beach

Links to All
Things Edisto


Edisto Island
National Scenic
Byway


Edisto Island
Preservation
Alliance


2017  annual meeting composite picture

Our thanks to everyone who attended the 2017 EBPOA Annual Meeting!"It's always good to see old friends and to meet the many new ones".

"We had a great turn out and the speaker, Dr. Tim Kana of Coastal Science Engineering,
made a superb presentation. "

To see the slides from Dr Kana's presentation
CLICK HERE


Note: some older items are left
on site for reference... newest
information is always first.

Your Legislative Contacts

From time to time we ask you to contact your legislators on issues of concern. The State of SC has worked to make it easier to identify the people who represent you and to find out how to contact them.
These links, which you may want to save to your "favorites" will allow you to stay in touch with your legislators.

First, this link will help you find your legislators by simply entering your address... it also includes your Congressional delegation http://www.scstatehouse.gov/legislatorssearch.php

For many of us old timers who remember the SC Legislative Manuel, it still exists and you can view
it on line at http://www.scstatehouse.gov/man14/manual14.php It has a wealth of information.

The SC Legislative Website itself can be pretty helpful with many of these functions available from the home page. You might want to start here and simply wander around a bit:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/index.php

If you want to contact your legislator use "contact legislator" form on the right hand side in the middle. If you care to create a password you can find and track legislation on line.

*****

"NEWS"

*******

From: Caitlin Berni
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 5:29 PM
To: edistobeachpoa@gmail.com
Subject: CSFI Legislative Update - November 15, 2017

Dear Stakeholders - 

Yesterday afternoon, the House voted 237-189 to pass the House flood insurance package.  This was a compromise package with several concessions secured in favor of policyholders. However, there is much work to be done on the Senate side, both to address concerns remaining in the House package and to make proactive improvements for policyholders to the NFIP. It is important to keep in mind that given Chairman Hensarling’s fundamental opposition to the NFIP, an important goal was to address the the worst provisions of the House bill and get a long-term reauthorization moving, which now prompts the Senate to act. 

It is unclear at this time whether the Senate will consider the House package. But, importantly, the ball is now in the Senate’s court. The Senate has indicated a much more favorable tone towards the Coalition’s positions, although none of the Senate bills have been considered by the Senate Banking Committee yet. We expect to use our efforts in the Senate to advocate for a final package that is more favorable towards the Coaliton’s positions and policyholders. Both the Cassidy-Gillibrand bill (Flood Insurance Affordability and Sustainability Act) and the Kennedy-Menendez bill (SAFE NFIP Act) are strong pieces of legislation that provide a more stable NFIP for the policyholder.  Either of those bills would serve as a strong vehicle for reauthorization and we urge the Senate Banking Committee to consider them soon. 

A short term extension before the December 8 expiration will likely be needed simply because there is not much time left on the legislative calendar. 

I will keep you all posted as additional clarity is gained on the Senate process. 

As always, please let me know any questions.

Thank you -

Caitlin

 

*****

Below are notes from the SC Beach Advocates Annual Meeting (EBPOA is a member).  Note that they say this is a TENTATIVE adoption date will be release on November 13, 2017.   Oct. 12, 2018 is Edisto Beach's date.  For all beaches go to www.scdhec.gov/HomeAndEnvironment/Water/CoastalManagement and click on *NEW* Proposed Beachfront Jurisdictional Lines.  The table is on the right. 

https://www.scbeaches.org/dhec-jurisdictional-line-revisions.html 

*******

DHEC Update:

From: OCRM-Comments [mailto:OCRM-Comments@dhec.sc.gov]
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 3:18 PM
To: OCRM-Comments <OCRM-Comments@dhec.sc.gov>
Subject: PUBLIC NOTICE - Extension of Public Comment Period for Proposed Beachfront Jurisdictional Lines

 

PUBLIC NOTICE 

PROPOSED BEACHFRONT JURISDICTIONAL LINES

EXTENSION OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

UNTIL APRIL 6, 2018

  

Based on comments received from landowners, community leaders, the conservation community, and others during the 30-day public comment period, the Department of Health and Environmental Control (Department) is extending the public comment period for the Proposed Beachfront Jurisdictional Lines (the "current proposal"), until April 6, 2018.  As a result of this extension, the Department will begin to adopt final revised beachfront jurisdictional lines in May 2018 with all final revised lines published by December 31, 2018. A tentative adoption schedule for each beach will be available on the DHEC website on November 13, 2017.

The Department is extending the comment period to allow interested persons time to meet with Department staff, understand the Department’s methodology in setting the jurisdictional lines and bring any additional information to the Department’s attention for consideration. Comments may be submitted online or in writing. Please visit www.scdhec.gov/beachfrontlines for more information.

In 2016, S.C. Code Laws §48-39-280 was amended to prohibit the baseline from moving seaward from its position on December 31, 2017. The Department’s decision to adopt revised lines after December 31 affects landowners who own property where the baseline was proposed to move seaward of the existing baseline under the Department’s current proposal. To view the proposed lines for your property, please visit https://gis.dhec.sc.gov/shoreline/

If you are a landowner who owns property where the baseline was proposed to move seaward of the existing baseline, under the Department's current proposal, or if you are a landowner who contends other information may prove the baseline on your property should move seaward of the existing baseline, please contact the Department with the information requested below prior to December 4, 2017 to receive information and guidance on board review under S.C. Code Laws §44-1-60. Note that the Department will attempt to proactively reach out to these property owners. S.C. Code Laws §44-1-60(J) states "[a]ny statutory deadlines applicable to permitting and licensing programs administered by the department must be extended to all (sic) for this final review process." It is the Department's position that the December 31 date would be extended for landowners who file a timely request for review under S.C. Code Laws §44-1-60.

To receive information and guidance on board review, please provide the following information via electronic mail [ocrm-comments@dhec.sc.gov] or phone (843-953-0200) prior to December 4, 2017:

  • Property Address
  • Name of Owner(s)
  • Mailing Address of Owner(s)
  • Contact Name
  • Contact Telephone Number
  • Contact Email Address

 

 DHEC appeal updated info

*******

CSE on OCRM Jurisdictional Comments

to read click here

*******

DHEC Board Meeting

http://www.scdhec.gov/agency/docs/agenda.pdf

Ok. So you will notice the jurisdictional lines are not on the agenda, but it is my understanding there is a public comment period at the beginning of the meeting that someone has been earmarked to bring up the jurisdictional line issue.  It is my understanding the item is on the December agenda, but that would be too late if you plan to appeal.  Sorry for the confusion. I’m trying to keep this straight and passing info along as I receive it.

******* 

If you have not commented to DHEC on their extraordinarily short notice to our property owners on the proposed massive baseline and setback line realignments due to be finalized on 12-8-17, then please consider submitting your comments.  If you have already commented, then please consider commenting again.  Also, if you can attend the DHEC Board of Directors meeting in Columbia on Nov. 9, 2017 at 10 AM 2600 Bull St. Room 3420, please do!

Finally, we need to let your politicians know how you feel about what clearly is grossly unfair to our property owners.

We suggest commenting to the following officials:

The Honorable Henry McMaster
 State House
1100 Gervais Street 
 Columbia, SC  29201 

Senator Chip Campsen
305 Gressette Bldg. 
Columbia, SC 29201

Representative Robert Brown 
330 D Blatt Bldg
Columbia, SC  29201                             

The Honorable Mark Sanford
     530 Johnnie Dodds Blvd., Suite 201
Mt. Pleasant, SC  29464

*******

Letter from Gov. McMaster

Please see the attached letter. 

*******

From Iris Hill:

After speaking with DHEC today, they recommend that if you are thinking of appealing the jurisdictional lines, wait until after the lines are adopted December 8.  You will have 15 days to appeal. The recommendation to hold appeals until after adoption December 8 is based on the assumption that appeals may not be accepted until after adoption, and they are still considering public input and may adjust the lines based on information being provided.  If they do adjust the lines,  you may be appealing an adjusted line and have just paid for an appeal that is unnecessary.   

Review the adopted line and if you still decide to appeal, the process and forms will be posted.  Gather your information now and be prepared, but hold off on an appeal until adopted.  According to DHEC, an appeal places the line adoption in abeyance until a decision is finalized based on the appeal.  This may be critical for those permitting construction.   

http://www.scdhec.gov/Agency/BoardofDirectors/GuidetoBoardReview/ 

*******

Continue doing what you are doing and don't let up the pressure!!  I attended the meeting and there were more speakers than name in the article.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/hundreds-of-s-c-coastal-property-owners-call-for-delay/article_4fe191b6-b9a7-11e7-9928-a3a27029990d.html

*****

Attached is a copy of the letter Mark Sanford has sent to DHEC.

click here

*******

Notes from meeting with DHEC:

Feel free to pass this on.  

We met with Barbara Neale, Landon Knapp and Jessica Boynton in the DHEC-OCRM offices in Charleston on Thursday at 2 p.m.   Barbara has many years with OCRM and is very knowledgeable in the law and its application.  Landon is new, less than a year.  Jessica has been with OCRM for 5 years and was the lead technical person on the project. Edisto Beach homeowner David Cannon and his wife were in attendance as well.  These are our thoughts after the meeting

General thoughts about the methodology

  • OCRM did their surveys just before and after Hurricane Matthew.  Noteworthy...THEY DID NOT FIND 'QUALIFYING' DUNES FOR MUCH OF EDISTO IN THE STANDARD ZONE EVEN BEFORE MATTHEW.  Their conclusions are ostensibly the results of several surveys of the dunes over time.
  • Absent finding a 500 ft. dune at least 3 ft. high, They look at vegetation lines and mathematical erosion calculations to reset baselines.  These appear to have been done after Matthew.
  • We could not ascertain if their mathematical erosion calculations took into account proper application of erosion control implemented at Edisto Beach (groins, groin lengthening, re-nourishment, other)
  • Traffic patterns from Beach accesses can inhibit the formation of 'qualifying' dunes if they produce a leveling of the primary dune for more than a couple feet or so.
  • They claim there are no regs or rules or bylaws preventing surveys after a natural disaster, or that restrict or direct when they do the survey other than every 7-10 years.  The rule establishing the new never-move-seaward baseline was enacted in 2016 (as law resulting from Blue Ribbon Committee of the State legislature recommendations) and spurred the OCRM to do the surveys asap in order to meet that deadline.  Timing appears to be unfortunate.
  • They have a well used copy of the rules and regs and can refer to individual sections with ease.  They are experienced in the process.  
  • They did use new equipment for this review.  No calibration was done to determine if they would get the same results with the equipment used in 2009.  Additionally, new personnel were used to take and evaluate the data.  Specifically, the width of the breaches in dunes at beach accesses are entirely judgemental.  Their general rule of thumb is no wider than a foot path but it's at their discretion.  The breaches at the beach access might contribute to their not finding any qualifying dunes.
  • When asked if they were concerned by the drastic change in base lines and did any review of the lines for reasonableness to determine accuracy, they really didn't have an answer other than beach and shorelines change.
  • They listened with interest when we discussed our experience watching the work, in the vacant lot at 1004 Palmetto, the Post Hurricane process of the National Guard/Contractors and their sand screening and sand replacement process and how any vegetation not destroyed by the hurricane was scraped or covered by sand and driven over by large vehicles.  
  • They seemed amenable to looking at changes to the baseline if commentators can demonstrate that established vegetation lines over time were seaward of their observations.  (See Comment Period below)
  • Folly Beach is exempt because of the adverse impacts of the Charleston harbor operation and is under a separate review procedure.
  • The August 17 publish date referenced in the Town of Edisto resolution was not the result of an official communication from OCRM, but the expression of opinion by a former staff member.

Comment Period

  • Comments can be made by any party, not just beach homeowners. You can comment as many times as you want.  They are looking for additional information and will accept input from business, towns, and individuals impacted.  While never verbalized, it became apparent through conversation, that while the proposed lines are not arbitrary, they had limited information and the hurricane did impact their review. 
  • For the unstabilized inlet zone, try to establish that there are stabilization measures in place.  Much better to be a stabilized zone.  David led this conversation and they seemed amenable to the argument.
  • For the standard zone, they are looking to locate the appropriate height and length dune or vegetation that would naturally occur around a dune, sea oats, etc.  They could not locate an appropriate dune so moved on to vegetation and for the northern areas found little or no vegetation seaward of houses.
  • Changes in property elevation are not considered. 
  • Ms. Neale's suggestion for how to get a favorable reconsideration of base and setback lines was to demonstrate that there was natural vegetation further seaward than the proposed baseline, and to focus on pictures of vegetation development post 2009.  
  • For our property at 1002 Palmetto, we have photos of vegetation on our lot seaward of our gazebo approximately at and seaward of the existing baseline.  Ms Neale suggested a pdf document with the proof photos with an explanation of when taken along with landmarks that would allow them to pinpoint the vegetation be attached in the comments section on their website.  It doesn't matter if the photos are of people with the dune or vegetation in the background but helpful if there are landmarks to pinpoint location.  We plan to include a larger photo of the house, the beach access sign, and our neighbor's homes (beach side) as an aid in locating the individual pics.  For their purposes, the sooner they get that information the better.  They assured us that they will not apply a cookie cutter approach if one homeowner proves vegetation but rather a gradual line for that area.
  • If there is a drone video of the beach prior to Hurricane Matthew, that would probably be very helpful.
  • The town's report 'Pre Matthew Beach Profile, Appendix A', which David Cannon had for his property, could be helpful for all properties.
  • In the comments directed at OCRM, they are primarily looking for evidence that would change their assessment of the beachfront, not on economic consequences or hardships of the change.  But they seem genuinely interested in feedback in the evidence vein. 
  • Ms Neale stressed it is much easier for them to make baseline revisions during the comment period as opposed to the appeals period.  Apparently there have been a number of instances where baselines and setbacks have changed as a result of comments.

Appeals Period

  • There is some legal question about the length of the appeal period.  It won't be less than 15 days but could be longer.  This might work in our favor and extend past the Dec 31st never-move-seaward deadline.
  • They are working on how appeals will be handled.

Permitting and Activities allowed if Seaward of the Baseline

  • Ms. Neale assures us that OCRM permits (five year with extensions) haven't been denied in the past (they have issued 50) and future ones won't be denied.  Permit fees are $1,000 and will take up to six months because of the additional public comment period .  We explained that there is a very real issue with an unknown timely permitting process and it's detrimental effect on a homeowner's ability to sell their property at no decrease in value.  And that this is in effect a "Taking of Property."  They assured us that the permits will be given so not an issue.  We do not agree.  
  • Need a permit for walkways, gazebos etc.  No permit for basic landscaping or anything normally related to a habitable property, etc.  No restriction on septics past the baseline.
  • We also raised the concern that they were locking existing prefirm and grandfathered structures in place as the permitting process and the footprint limits will discourage their replacement.  There is some question as to the footprint limits, OCRM assured us that that is not their rule but must be the town's rule. 
  • The Town of Edisto rules on restricting development seaward of the baseline are part of their application of the Beachfront Management Act, a State law.  OCRM stated that footprint restrictions, etc. are not embedded in the State Act but are the result of local application.  It seems there is more there than meets the eye. 

Overall Suggestions for Beachfront Homeowners.

  • Comment on the proposed baseline on their website, back your arguments with photographs and other evidence of vegetation seaward.
  • Having someone with detailed knowledge of the emergency processes used to restore the beach after Hurricane Matthew write an explanation of the inadvertant damage to existing dunes and vegetation while screening and replacing sand might be helpful.
  • Write, email or call the governor, senator, representative and state legislatures.  In our opinion, more emotional pleas about economic impacts and hardships would be better directed to the politicians who might be able to make an exception for Edisto  Provide them with a detailed picture on how many people and businesses are affected and how the county and town's tax base will be negatively impacted by this change. Suggest they repeal the Dec 31, 2017 never-move-seaward rule.
  • OCRM seemed genuinely concerned when we suggested that many out-of-town property owners had probably never even gotten notice.  Because we use Gmail, we found our notification in an email from a realtor in our promotions folder.  That information distressed the OCRM staff. They feel they did everything according to law but did not, for example, co-ordinate with the Colleton County property office, which would have accurate records of ownership.
  • For the foreseeable future, document the dune and vegetation on the seaward side of property annually or even more frequently.  While they say they do annual reviews, the 7-10 year review is the time they actually walk the beach.  Be prepared with documentation to show the dunes and vegetations for all other years.
  • The town should consider beach access walkovers for areas where the beach accesses impact the 500 foot dune rule.  In our area, there is an access every 300 feet.  Access 10 is wide enough to drive a car through and considered a break in the dune.  If the dune is trampled no wider than a footpath, then OCRM does not consider it a break.  It's their judgment call on break or no break.  Keeping those breaks narrow with walkovers, or maybe, plantings and signs instructing people to stay off the vegetation with roping might suffice.  We suggest a combination of both, along with signage

We know this is frustrating, we are upset too.  This seems so incredibly unfair to Edisto, especially to those who call it home and are just trying to make a living.

From our meeting on 10/19/17 with Barbara Neale, the OCRM staff are strictly following the law.  The OCRM Line Report details what they can and cannot use to determine the base and setback lines.  And, as dumb as it seems, the law as it applies to the unstabilized zone allows them to ignore manmade groins, etc.  They can't change what the law says to do, but we understand from talking to David Cannon they very well might change the zone to a stabilized zone.  

Their job is to apply the law as written and that application is really rotten for Edisto mostly because of the hurricane and the recovery efforts.

We have to change the policy to get them to account for improved manmade shoreline preservation measures --  and that's the politicians. Call them all, including the Blue Ribbon Panel, and tell them how unfair this is.

Does the town or Colleton county have a lobbyist?  If they do, we should get them working on our behalf.  

How about the town or county attorney?  If a lawsuit is the answer, probably don't want to wait for the process to play out too long.  Areas of concern seem to be:

  • ·  Different personnel (from 2009) making judgements about qualifying beach dunes and location of vegetation.
  • ·  New equipment not tested for consistency or similar readings to the 2009 equipment.
  • ·  Unfairness of the Dec 31, 2017 never-move-seaward rule (that's clearly on the lawmakers)
  • ·  Insufficient notification of all stakeholders, given the number of out-of-state stakeholders.
  • ·  The short notification-comment-appeal time frame given out-of-state stakeholders.
  • ·  Hurricane Matthew and its recovery efforts.

And that's just off the top of my head.  Scott's too.  We are not attorneys, an attorney will know what we should do.

Under these rules, the burden really is on the stakeholders now.

  • ·  Get information out to homeowners. I understand the town mailed letters Friday. 
  • ·  If anyone has pictures of the beachfront dunes and grasses no matter what section, have them identify them and submit them in comments to the OCRM.  
  • ·  As a rental company, you guys can send an email blast to all your renters, title it "Save Edisto Beach!"  Briefly and simply explain what's happening and ask for their help.  They should contact the legislature and comment on the OCRM site. Getting more people to comment and or call, outside of Edisto, would add more pressure.
  • ·  I am still compiling information for our comment to OCRM.  Our property is located at 1002 Palmetto and the proposed baseline is in our driveway with the setback in the street.  Our existing baseline is seaward of our Gazebo.  As of today our comment will include:  Family vacation photos with dunes and vegetation in the background for 2009-2017, Google Earth Satellite historical imagery that shows beach vegetation in front of our property for the period 2009-2017, Page 57 of Appendix A from the Edisto Beach Monitoring Report Profile -- it shows that we've had a dune in front of our property consistently for over 20 years (We have a copy so does David Cannon and the town.), a narrative about Hurricane Matthew destruction, the recovery efforts that occurred in the lot next door, and the number of trucks and equipment running up and down the beach in front of our property, and another narrative that states, prior to Hurricane Matthew, we had two dunes (one from before the 2006 nourishment seaward of the gazebo and a second more seaward dune at the sand fence line) and 45-60 feet of sea oats and other vegetation seaward of the existing baseline.

We plan to attend the meeting in Beaufort and possibly in Charleston before heading to Baltimore.  If we can help, feel free to contact me.

 

We are all in this together.

 

*******

Beach owners blindsided by new South Carolina don't-build line | News | postandcourier.com

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/beach-owners-blindsided-by-new-south-carolina-don-t-build/article_3b3fcc86-b449-11e7-9251-87dbe6871251.html

*******

Attached is a copy of what we have sent to the members of the House Legislative Oversight Committee asking for their help with DHEC not considering our recent beach renourishment and groin upgrades in their analysis. 

Please consider incorporating these concerns in your comments to DHEC. 

Thank you for your support.
Bob

 

*******

Comments on Proposed Changes to Baselines and Setbacks

1.  In a brief video and presentation of Oct. 10, 2017 two representatives, Barbara Neale and William Salters, attempted to explain the proposed changes to the baselines & setback lines.  Basically the explanation is the latest DHEC analysis requires DHEC to grossly change these lines from their current locations to locations significantly landward  to protect the coast.

These changes will have a very serious impact on a large number of real estate properties on Edisto Beach.  For example, beachfront properties from the 100 block to the 1200 block will cause vacant  lots in that region to be rendered worthless because these properties are being moved totally seaward of the baseline.  What course of action do these property owners have?

The response was the property owners have to simply file a Special Permit application.  This is a "fall back" position which may work but is no substitute for the property being within the permitted zone.

2.   With the significant improvements in beach conditions from the recent renourishment on Edisto Beach, were these improvements taken into consideration in your analysis?  If not why not?  The Town of Edisto Beach worked very hard over the last several years to assembly the necessary funding from Town, County, State and Federal sources for the beach renourishment.  Shouldn't expending these funds on a beach renourishment which results In a repaired and restored beach be considered in your analysis?

3.   The Line Report:  Proposed Baseline and Setback Line, Edisto Beach, Oct. 6, 2017 under Process for Establishing the Baseline Position, the following statement is made:  "Inlet zone classifications are further refined as either unstable or stabilized by jetties, groins or seawalls."

Groins are mentioned in several other places for the inference that groins will stabilize both standard zones and inlet zones.  Why is the extensive groin field which was improved in the recently completed renourishment not considered adequate for stabilizing all standard and inlet zones?  Would this not improve the analysis for Edisto Beach?

4.   The changes proposed to the baseline and setback line is nothing short of gross and excessive.  Why hasn't this level of changes occurred in the past?  Is your analysis approach the same as what has been utilized in the past?  If different why does DHEC feel this analysis approach in 2017 is superior to your past analysis approach?

These proposed changes in the baselines and setback lines will have a very negative effect on property values, property tax revenue, real estate sales and all the supporting businesses who depend on a healthy land development, home improvement and maintenance market.  This will have a chilling effect across the entire business community.  Bottom line, these types of bassline/setback line changes must be very carefully considered because of the impact on the entire community.  We urge DHEC to use all prudent relief available to ease the impact of these changes including the results of the most recent beach renourishment.

5.   One final comment.  The timeline proposed by DHEC is very aggressive with the time for the property owners to react.  Considering the seriousness of these changes, we urge you to allow more time to properly react to the changes including the 12-31-17 date which would prohibit any changes to the new baselines and setback lines from ever moving back to the current baselines.  We look forward to your full consideration of the above comments.  Our property owners are counting on you for a fair and balanced approach to meeting your 10 year assessment goals

Robert Sandifer
502 Jungle Road
Edisto Beach, SC  29438

Additional Information for your use

 To Submit a Comment or to Object  Click Here   

Jessica Boynkin, Coastal Services Project Manager, Shoreline Management Specialist

boyntojb@dhec.sc.gov  843-953-2033 

Barbara Neale, Sr. Program Specialist

nealeb@dhec.sc.gov   843-953-0243 

William Salters, CFM, Coastal Services Project Manager, Planning

salterwg@dhec.sc.gov   843-953-0258 

 

******

Cost of Special Permits

Special Permits issued by SCDHEC-OCRM: the application fee for special permits is $1000.  For the special permits we have issued in the past the time frames typically range from around 90 days to up to 6 months.  However, there may have been some that have taken longer based on informational needs on these permit request that took longer to address.

Barbara Neale, DHEC OCRM

*******

Subject: DHEC OCRM'S PROPOSED BEACHFRONT JURISDICTIONAL LINES

Below are links tothe new proposed lines.Comments and
objections must be sent to DHEC OCRM by November 6, 2017.

https://gis.dhec.sc.gov/shoreline/

http://www.scdhec.gov/HomeAndEnvironment/Docs/BLINEREPORTS2017/Edisto_Beach_Line_Report_2017.pdf

*****

Actions on Flood Insurance

Subject: CSFI Legislative Update - June 22

Yesterday, the House Financial Services Committee completed the rest of the flood insurance markup, passing the remaining five bills out of committee. 

HR 2875, the NFIP Administrative Reform Act by Rep. Nydia Velazquez, passed 58-0. This bills allows for additional ICC Coverage and improves the claims process.  

HR 1558, the Repeatedly Flooded Communities Act by Rep. Royce, passed on a voice vote with no objection. The language in the bill pertaining to sanctions was amended. It now allows (as opposed to requires) the Administrator to sanction and removes the suspension of communities from the NFIP as a sanction.  It essentially mirrors FEMA’s current sanctioning authority. 

HR 1422, the Flood Insurance Market Parity and Modernization  Act passed on a vote of 58-0. 

HR 2565, which uses replacement costs in determining premium values, passed on a vote of 34-25.

HR 2246, the Taxpayer Exposure Mitigation Act of 2017, passed on a vote of 36-24. 

Please continue to reach out to your members of Congress to express concerns, particularly around HR 2874 by Congressman Duffy (passed last week) which includes several of the most harmful provisions, including:

  • Removing grandfathering 1/1/21;
  • Prohibiting offering coverage on new construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas and properties with claims that exceed twice the replacement value on 1/1/21;
  • Increasing surcharges; and,
  • Increasing the annual floor of increases from 5% to 8%.

*******

More on Flood Insurance 6-6-2017

House Update

Today, the House Financial Services Committee passed two of the seven bills in the package of legislation to reauthorize the NFIP, HR 2868 by Rep. Zeldin and HR 2874 by Rep. Duffy. 

 

HR 2868, the NFIP Policyholder Protection Act (summary can be found here) passed on a vote of 53-0. 

 

HR 2874, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, passed on a vote of 30-26.  Unfortunately, amendments to preserve grandfathering and the current rate structure as well as to strike the provision prohibiting coverage from being offered to new construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area and properties over $1M were not adopted.  Ranking Member Waters also offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that would have mirrored the language currently being proposed by Sens. Kennedy, Menendez, Rubio, Warren, and others, (referenced below) but that was not adopted either. 

 

The Committee will come back into markup to complete consideration of the remaining bills next Wednesday, June 21, beginning at 10 am ET.

 

Senate Update

Today, a bipartisan group of Senators including Sens. Kennedy, Menendez, Rubio, Warren, Cochran, Van Hollen, and Booker introduced the SAFE-NFIP Act.  The bill includes several positive provisions, including preserving affordability through grandfathering and premium caps, and improving mapping and mitigation efforts. A full summary can be found here.  Also, as was mentioned  last week, Sens. Cassidy and Gillibrand introduced their NFIP reform legislation.  A full summary can be found here

 

Clearly there are a lot of moving pieces between the House and the Senate, with potentially another bill being introduced by the Chairman and Ranking Member of Senate Banking.  

 *******

Flood Insurance Update
Click Here to View PDF

Information from the Town of Edisto Beach -
Short Term Rentals

http://www.townofedistobeach.com/a-short-guide-to-short-term-rentals

*****

Lost Pet Standard Operating Procedure

The Town of Edisto Beach cannot accept lost animals, due to liability issues.  The rental companies will be given temporary collars to give to renters to write a phone number (local, vacation or cell number) and the pet’s name should the pet get lost.

If found in the town, the person finding the pet can either call the owner or Animal Control at 843-893-2651.  Ask for Director Reggie McNeil.

If found on the island, the person finding the pet can call either the owner or Animal Lovers of Edisto (ALOE) Canine Rescue at 843-869-3869.

All Town personnel will be given this information.  Should anyone call Town Hall, employees will be directed to provide caller with numbers to call.*******

MEDUCARE

The Town of Edisto Beach and MEDUCARE have partnered for the benefit of you, our town property owners.  Property owners transported from Colleton or Charleston Counties by MEDUCARE, or any AirMedCare Network Provider, who are insured at the time of transport, will only be billed the Medicare Allowable Rate.  You will not be billed for the balance which could be upwards of $10,000.  For property owners who are insured, MEDUCARE will only bill your insurance company and not bill you for the balance.  Those who are uninsured will be billed the Medicare allowable rate.  MEDUCARE has been sending out information about upgrades.  There is no requirement to upgrade unless you decide you need to.

****

The Edisto …. Our Threatened River?

The Edisto River is one of South Carolina’s most popular rivers for paddling, fishing, and outdoor fun.  It’s also the state’s most heavily used river for irrigation, and excessive agricultural water withdrawals are threatening wildlife, recreation, and the water supplies of other uses.

While the state’s permitting process requires industrial and municipal water users to meet requirements to safeguard river health and clean water, large agribusinesses do not.  Legislation is desperately needed to end this unfair exemption so that the Edisto, and all of the state’s rivers, can continue to provide sustainable water supplies for all, while supporting river health and recreation.

The longest free flowing blackwater river in the US, the Edisto winds from spring-fed headwaters in the Sandhills of central SC, through the heart of floodplain forests in the Coastal Plain, to the rich estuary of the Ashepoo/Combahee/Edisto (ACE) Basin.  It is an intimate river along most of its length – a place where paddlers enjoy solitude and close-up views of diverse plants and wildlife.  No dams block the Edisto’s flow; migratory fish are free to run its entire 250 mile length, from ocean to headwaters. 

In the heart of the ACE Basin, freshwater arteries sustain one of the most acclaimed natural areas found on the East Coast, where more than 130,000 acres of land have been protected through public/private partnerships.  While the river’s character changes along its path, there is one constant – the tannin-stained Edisto waters – the lifeblood of this unique region.

This year’s listing of the Edisto River follows South Fork of the Edisto’s appearance in the 2014 America’s Most Endangered Rivers report.  Excessive agricultural water withdrawals continue to be a major threat to the Edisto and other rivers across the state.  While municipal and industrial water users are required to get withdrawal permits, SC’s surface water law does not require permits for agricultural water users – this means that the state cannot regulate water use during drought periods to protect the river, water quality, small farmers, and downstream users.

When the South Carolina Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use, and Reporting Act was passed in 2010, the agricultural exemption from state permitting was a victory for industrial-scale – not traditional – farms in SC.  At the time, lawmakers were led to believe that the relaxed measures would help traditional SC farmers.  No one envisioned the agricultural exemption from permitting would be exploited by industrial-scale, out-of-state agribusinesses that would use enough water to supply a medium-sized city.  However, that’s what is happening, increasing uncertainty for downstream water users, and putting the Edisto and other rivers at increased risk.

This year, a bipartisan group of cosponsors introduced H.3564 in the SC Legislature – a bill that would have ended the exemption of large agricultural water withdrawals from permitting.   The bill would have protected SC farmers by allowing existing agricultural registrations to remain in effect, and it would have required new industrial-scale agricultural water users to receive withdrawal permits like all other users.

We urge you to tell our legislators to amend the state’s surface water law to make it fair for all water users and to protect the health and integrity of the state’s rivers for future generations including our Edisto.

Thank you for your support!
Bob

               

*****

irrigation rules

******
Procedures for voting by absentee ballot:

Qualified voters may vote absentee in person or by mail.

In Person - Visit your county voter registration office , complete an application, and cast your ballot. You may vote absentee in person up until 5:00 p.m. on the day before the election. Rules for photo ID required to vote at the polling place apply.

By Mail - Follow these steps to vote absentee by mail. Photo ID is not required to vote absentee by mail.

Step 1: Get an absentee application in one of two ways:

Step 2: You've now printed your application online or received your application in the mail. You must now complete and sign the application and return it to your county voter registration office. You should return the application as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on the 4th day prior to the election (the 4th day is Friday for all Tuesday elections). You may return the application by mail, email, fax, or personal delivery.

Step 3: You will be mailed an absentee ballot.

Step 4: Vote the ballot following ballot instructions and return it to your county voter registration office by 7:00 p.m. on the day of the election. You may return the ballot personally or by mail. You may also have another person return the ballot for you, but you must first complete an authorization to return absentee ballot form, available from your county voter registration office.

Deadline to request absentee ballot – June 21st

Early voting at the Walterboro office only to start around June 10th…call number below to make sure of date.

CONTACT INFORMATION

115-A Benson Street
P.O. Box 97
Walterboro, SC 29488
Phone: (843) 549-2842
Fax:(843) 549-2812
Email: ecampbell@colletoncounty.org

HOURS OF OPERATION

Office Hours: Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM

7AM-7PM Election Days

http://www.colletoncounty.org/Data/Sites/1/media/images/VoterRegDocs/voterregapp.pdf

Thank you for your support,

Bob

*****


For your future use:

                                                                                                                                                                                                              
Councilmen Addresses and phone numbers.
 

Patti Smyer psmyer@townofedistobeach.com
Jerome Kizer jkizer@townofedistobeach.com
Crawford Moore cmoore@townofedistobeach.com
MayorJane Darby jdarby@townofedistobeach.com 843-869-4306
Susan Hornsby shornsby@townofedistobeach.com

All councilmen can receive mail at c/o Town Hall, 2414 Murray St, Edisto Beach, SC 29438

If you want to be kept informed on developments on Edisto Beach, join the Edisto Beach Property Owners Association by filling out the form below and sending the annual dues of $30.00 to the return address above.  Membership entitles you to two tickets to the Annual Meeting complete with BBQ dinner and cocktails.

Name__________________________________________Spouse Name____________________

Mailing Address________________________________________________________________

Edisto Beach Property Address_____________________________________________________

Email address___________________________________________________________________

Home Phone___________________________

*******

 

The Town of Edisto Beach
web site is available at

TownofEdistoBeach.com

*****

the newly repainted EINSB welcome sign
Our thanks to Mike & Nancy Salas who repainted our Scenic Byway sign.
Click here to visit the Edisto Island National Scenic Byway

EINSB Website

*****

Visit Edisto's jewel, Botany Bay Wildlife Management Area
To learn about Botany Bay WMA Click here
To learn about the driving tour click here
To read the article in South Carolina Wildlife Magazine click here

*****

SC Tax Credit Available

SC allows a tax credit against income tax for primary residences.  If your insurance premiums exceed 5% of your income you can claim the excess as a credit against SC income tax up to a maximum of $1,250.
To get the form click here and select form TC 44. 

New Officers:

President -
Bob Sandifer

Vice Pres. -
John Morgan

Secretary -
David Cannon

Treasurer -
Sjannah Sanders

To Contact Us:
EBPOA
P.O. Box 147
Edisto Island, SC 29438
or e mail
Bob Sandifer President

Board Members:

Mickey Blancett
Mary Kay Dirr
Beth Johnston
Sjannah Sanders
Mickey Van Metre
Patti Smyer

Charles Boozer
Patsy Cannon
Archie Johnston
Greg Smith
Bill Smyer
George Kostell
Bob Renner

About the Edisto Beach Property Owners Association

EBPOA is a proud founding member of the Edisto Island Preservation Alliance

c 2008 EBPOA
Site design by:

Skidmore Creative Services web design

 
 
about the Edisto Beach Property Owners Association