SC Supreme Court wisely rules that Gadsden Creek can be filled | Publishers

Wednesday’s decision by the SC Supreme Court to uphold a state permit to address the drainage issue at Charleston’s WestEdge development should clear the way for that development to proceed and remedy a flooding situation that poses a risk for the health of nearby residents and others who venture nearby.

The city of Charleston, as we’ve noted, made a tragic environmental mistake more than half a century ago when it turned the creek and its surrounding marsh into a municipal landfill along the Ashley River, a landfill created long before permit standards modern buildings and one that left a small finger of tidal flow running across it toward the Gadsden Green public housing complex. The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling also recognized this error, saying, “We are deeply disturbed and dismayed by the loss of Gadsden Creek in its natural form during the 1950s and 1960s.”

But deep regrets and ennui won’t make things better, and the question now for the city and the Medical University of South Carolina, which co-founded the nonprofit WestEdge Foundation overseeing the area’s redevelopment, is what should happen next.

And the long-term plan to fill in what’s left of the wetland and cap the leaking landfill will not only enable the next phase of redevelopment, but also, and more importantly, provide the drainage solution needed to stem the tidal flooding that often closes Hagood Avenue, and almost always closes at least two of its four lanes. It would also stop contaminated seepage from the old landfill and reduce pollution washing into the city’s West Side neighborhood.

The Supreme Court ruling upheld the reasoning of Administrative Law Judge Ralph Anderson III. He had also written that in a perfect world, Gadsden Creek would be restored, “but this is a very unique situation, and the creek is polluted by a landfill that needs to be dealt with.” We initially hoped that Gadsden Creek could somehow be saved and restored: that a middle way would emerge to avoid filling the creek that would still improve the area’s drainage system, to make the creek more of an amenity than a hazard.

Others who wanted to avoid filling the creek have gathered legal resources but no feasible alternative. That’s largely because there’s no alternative that doesn’t involve a massive outlay of public funds and a dramatic rethinking of development plans, creating additional spending the city can’t afford as it already struggles to find outside money. for more feasible and profitable projects than protecting the city from rising seas and the strongest storms.

The project now needs a final permit from the Army Corps of Engineers that we hope will not be as contested and will ultimately add buildable acreage to the WestEdge property and generate revenue for the WestEdge Foundation and additional tax revenue to help to finance 15 million dollars. to a $20 million infrastructure project that would address saltwater intrusion, nuisance flooding, stormwater flooding and landfill pollution.

What happened at Gadsden Creek is not unique in the sense that many other parts of Charleston were built on creeks or tidal marshes. But what happened to Gadsden is unique in that it was filled with a toxic stew of waste.

Tthis is one reason why the Supreme Court said that the logic in this opinion could not be cited as precedent; the ruling itself summed it up: “After carefully reviewing the evidence, we find that the problems of stormwater runoff, a polluted urban stream, and tidal flooding have combined to create an extremely rare circumstance in which it is in the public interest to approve the permit to fill Gadsden Creek. The facts of this case are unprecedented, and our decision will not be used or construed as precedent for any other context or situation that permits it.”

Opponents of filling the creek have fought for a just cause to try to protect this public resource, but the Supreme Court rightly concluded that the even more just cause is to fill the creek and protect those nearby.

Click here for more opinion content from The Post and Courier.