Hair Salon near Isle of Palms, SC

Beachfront homeowners on Wild Dunes say this weekend's erosion is the worst they've seen in decades.

Sit, listen, and wait.

That’s all beachfront homeowners in the Wild Dunes community of the Isle of Palms say they could do this past weekend as a nor’easter whipped up surf that pounded their homes.

“You’re helpless,” says Jimmy Bernstein as water washes over mountains of sandbags that are supposed to protect his home.

“It’s mental anguish,” he says.

So much sand has washed away from beneath Bernstein’s raised, beachfront home, the concrete inside his garage may crumble, again.

“I’m in danger of the slab falling into the ocean,” he says. “It would be the fourth time.”

Bernstein says this weekend’s high tide of more than eight feet, coupled with last week’s king tide, has created chaos on the island. There’s no escaping the sound of large waves crashing beneath his back deck and around the sides of his home.

“It just pounds against the house, constantly,” he says.

Bernstein’s neighbor, John Kirkland, meets with utility workers outside. He says his family has owned his beachfront property for more than 30 years. This is the worst erosion he’s seen in decades, so bad his power lines are exposed. He’s having to shut down power to his entire home.

“Hurricanes are almost better than this because hurricanes come and go,” Kirkland says.

“This has been days of relentless high tide, high tide, high tide.”

And the high tides are far from over. Two more king tides are expected in November and December.

SULLIVAN’S ISLAND — King tides and a rainy nor’easter just delivered a one-two punch to beaches along South Carolina’s coast.

Folly Beach, Isle of Palms and Sullivan’s Island all saw some of their sand sucked out into the stormy sea this past weekend. As sea levels in the region rise, erosion events like this one could become more common and severe.

An escarpment over 6 feet tall at Sullivan’s Island’s Thomson Park highlighted the most extreme erosion the island suffered from the 8-foot king tides and the weekend nor’easter.

The beach at the southern end of Sullivan’s Island, where the maritime forest has cropped up on accreted sand, remained wide and flat after the rains. A handful of beach walkers trekked up and down the shore, still wet from the weekend deluge. Aside from some water that had pooled at the town’s public access paths, it was business as usual on that part of the island.

Heading north, toward Breach Inlet, is where evidence of the king tides and heavy rains became apparent. The gradual slope that normally connects the dunes to the dry sandy beach sharply dropped off; the high tides created a substantial shelf, about 6 feet tall.

This section of the beach is where around 20,000 dump-trucks-worth of freshly dredged sand were placed, courtesy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The supplemental sand was a beneficial use project. Isle of Palms and Sullivan’s Island both benefitted from the dredge spoil.

The town spent $646,000 last year moving a portion of that sand higher onto the beach and build up the dunes at Breach Inlet and behind Marshall Boulevard.

After the king tides and the rainy weekend, about half of that sand is gone, Sullivan’s Island Administrator Joe Henderson said.

“The dunes served their purpose,” he said.

The Isle of Palms didn’t fare as well.

Both the southern end of the island, near Breach Inlet, and the northern tip that encompasses the Wild Dunes neighborhoods and resort, were inundated by the high tides. The Ocean Club Villas, currently surrounded by scaffolding and blue netting, were hit hard by the king tides — waves reached the condominium’s foundation.

Some of the homes on the island, still recovering from damage caused by Hurricane Erin, had piles of tan sandbags stacked behind them. City leaders spent $550,000 in August to deploy hundreds of these bags to Breach Inlet, and portions of Wild Dunes, including the Ocean Club Villas and homes on Beachwood East, a highly-eroded section of the island.

A handful of Ocean Boulevard properties were guarded by the sandbags, piled several feet high to block the waves from the property. Still, a tall shelf of sand dune could be seen behind the row of houses, along with exposed roots from the grass planted to stabilize the dunes.

Folly Beach in a warming world

Across South Carolina, island communities spend millions of dollars each year to renourish their beaches. Folly Beach last October wrapped up a $22 million renourishment project, Hilton Head Island is mid-way through a massive $47.5 million renourishment and Isle of Palms in May finished moving 120,000 cubic yards of sand to protect Wild Dunes Resort as part of a $750,000 project to harvest sand from a developing shoal.

The state Department of Environmental Services estimates that South Carolina’s coastal communities spent more than $400 million in federal, state and local funds on beach renourishment from 1979 to 2023. But as the climate changes and tides rise, beach towns likely will have to pay heftier sums to keep their shores sandy and the multi-million-dollar oceanfront homes protected.

So why keep paying for sand if it’s just going to wash away?

“ Because the public infrastructure and homes are not getting washed away,” said Nicole Elko, the president of the Folly Beach-based Elko Coastal Consulting. Elko works with Folly and other coastal communities on sand renourishment and erosion issues.

South Carolina’s sea islands naturally erode and accrete mass. Sand is generally carried southward from one island to the next, and additional sediment is built up from river mouths. Folly Beach is the exception to that rule.

Folly has to undergo regular renourishment that is (typically, but not always) paid for by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps built jetties just outside Charleston Harbor in the 19th century that disrupt the flow of sand to the island.

“Before this renourishment program began in the ’80s and ’90s, Folly didn't just lose houses, they lost entire roads,” Elko said. “ Our memories are short, but our policies are good, and we do this for a very important reason: to protect this treasure that we all love and enjoy — the beach. And in turn, the beach protects us.”

The last renourishment project on Folly Beach concluded in October 2024 to the tune of $22 million — all of which was covered by the Army Corps. While work is ongoing to determine how much sand was lost, Elko said this past weekend marked the largest erosion event since that project wrapped.

Even if the sand inevitably gets pulled away, the accounting still works out. One 2021 report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found that every dollar spent on renourishment resulted in $1,200 in economic development generated by beach tourists, and $130 for federal, state and local tax coffers.

ISLE OF PALMS, S.C. (WCBD) — This morning’s king tide reached one of its highest levels of the year along Isle of Palms, sending waves up to the dunes and underneath several oceanfront homes.

Strong onshore winds added to the impact, driving water across beach access paths and leaving behind debris scattered across the sand. By early afternoon, the water had receded, but the signs of erosion were visible in exposed roots, damaged stairways, and shifted dunes.

Homeowners say they have seen a clear difference in how far the water travels during seasonal king tides compared to years past.

“I have been here almost nine years, and I do think I’ve seen an increased amount of higher tides, especially when it comes to these king tides,” said Isle of Palms resident Barry Smith. “It just seems like there’s more and more water coming in.”

Another homeowner, David Copeland, said he watched as parts of the beach gave way during the morning’s high tide.

“I see all the erosion washing underneath the houses,” Copeland said. “Our stairways got ripped out to sea today. I was standing there watching as that happened, as they were washing out into the ocean.”

Town leaders say the city regularly monitors erosion and beach conditions following higher tides and storms. Isle of Palms completed its most recent beach renourishment project in 2023, but residents say continued funding and long-term planning will be key to protecting homes and public access areas along the shoreline.

Smith said the changes are happening fast.

“In the last six months, it’s drastically different,” he said. “At low tide there’s probably twenty-five to thirty yards of beach. Now, at high tide, there’s no beach at all. All you have is the sand dunes as the buffer.”

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WCBD News 2.

A wealthy Isle of Palms man accused of having a seawall built illegally on the beach at his home must tear out the wall, a judge ruled Thursday in an order that supports the state’s right to protect beaches from encroaching development.

Judge Ralph K. Anderson III said removal of Rom Reddy’s seawall “is warranted’’ under the state’s beach protection law.

The ruling was seen as a victory for advocates of preserving state beaches for the public, but it was not a resounding affirmation of the S.C. Department of Environmental Services’ efforts to fine people who break the law.

In his ruling, Anderson tossed out a whopping $289,000 fine against the Isle of Palms property owner, saying it was not warranted. The judge said Reddy made a good faith effort to protect his land, even though building a seawall on the beach hurts the public’s use and enjoyment of the shore.

At issue is whether the outspoken Reddy followed state law when contractors built a seawall in front of his house following bad weather and pounding surf that threatened his home. Reddy’s beach house is at the lower end of the Isle of Palms across an inlet from Sullivans Island in Charleston County.

While Reddy says he has a right to protect his property and did the work outside of state jurisdiction, coastal regulators say the seawall is in state jurisdiction and violates the state coastal management law that banned new seawalls in 1988. Reddy represented himself in a trial before Anderson five months ago.

The Reddy case, filled with accusations of government overreach, has simmered for several years, and its outcome could help guide South Carolina on how tightly it enforces the state’s decades-old beachfront management law. The law banned new seawalls on the beach more than 30 years ago because the structures can worsen beach erosion and block public access to the shore.

Anderson’s ruling drew praise from both the S.C. Department of Environmental Services and the S.C. Environmental Law Project, a non-profit legal service that supported state action against Reddy. Environment department officials were not made available for an interview but the agency issued a statement late Thursday afternoon.

“Judge Anderson’s October 23 ruling supports SC DES’s position that the Coastal Tidelands and Wetlands Act, as enacted by the General Assembly, prioritizes the protection of South Carolina’s coast for the benefit of all,’’’ according to the statement from SC DES spokeswoman Laura Renwick. “The ruling upholds the agency’s determination that this particular seawall must be removed.’’

Seawalls are a concern in South Carolina and other places because, while they protect valuable oceanfront homes and hotels, they worsen erosion when pounded by waves. That narrows the public beach, giving people less dry sand to walk and play on. Walls also can jut out so far that they block access for people walking down the seashore.

Amy Armstrong and Leslie Lenhardt, law project attorneys involved in the case, said they were disappointed the fine had been tossed out, but the key was upholding the right of the state to require Reddy to tear out the seawall. The ruling helps protect state beaches from further attempts to build erosion-worsening seawalls, Armstrong said.

They noted that Anderson’s order said the Reddy seawall had “accelerated erosion’’ of the beach at Isle of Palms. The ruling did not give a timeline for tearing out the wall, but said a plan must be developed to do so. The order is notable because South Carolina courts don’t often tell property owners to tear down illegal structures they’ve built. Reddy has said he may appeal the decision to a higher court.

Reddy declined to be interviewed. He sent a text to The State expressing satisfaction that the $289,000 fine was tossed out, but said the ruling did not go far enough. Reddy’s text said Anderson “vacated an unjust penalty against me and raised legitimate, long-overdue questions about the ability of state bureaucrats to impose their will on private property owners.

“There is still much work to be done, however, as the judge’s ruling is unfortunately not a full and complete vindication of private property rights — meaning those who do not have the means to defend themselves against the bureaucratic state remain in danger of its oppressive action,’’ Reddy’s text said, noting that “if citizens don’t stand up, if we don’t push back against this weaponized government, that is how tyranny takes root.’’

Anderson agreed that while Reddy was wrong to construct the seawall, he did not do so with “willful’ intent because the state had sent mixed messages on whether the construction was legal. State regulators dispute that.

Specifically, the case centered on whether seawalls can be constructed beyond state building restriction lines on the beach. The lines were set up in the late 1980s and have been used in an attempt to prevent building too far on to the shore. But in recent years, beaches have eroded landward of the building restriction lines — known as setbacks — and turned vegetated land that had not been regulated into sandy beach. In Reddy’s case, state officials argued the area where he built the seawall had become sandy beach subject to state jurisdiction.

Rising sea levels and more intense storms have exposed multiple places along the state’s coastline that regulators say are now jurisdictional, but were not in the past.

Anderson wrote that “the department has permitting authority since it could not otherwise protect the entirety of the coastal zone if it were unable to exercise regulatory authority over the beaches, irrespective of the location of the setback line.’’

The judge said Reddy must “submit a corrective action plan for the removal of the hard erosion control structure.’’

Reddy, who bought his house at Isle of Palms just over a decade ago, is an affluent businessman who owns several small newspapers in the Charleston area. He says he has a litany of experience in other fields. He has said he is an engineer and the one-time owner of an artificial turf company that sold the synthetic grass for 270 stadiums nationally one year.

An ardent supporter of President Donald Trump, Reddy has started a political action committee to help candidates who want to cut state regulations and reduce the size of government.

His disdain for the government has been evident throughout the heated seawall dispute. He’s accused regulators of targeting him and trying to limit his freedoms. At one point, he said the state was using Gestapo-like tactics, a reference to the sadistic Nazi military force of World War II. Anderson had refused to toss the case out, resulting in the trial.

This story has been updated with comments from Reddy, state regulators and environmentalists

ISLE OF PALMS — The controversial seawall built by a wealthy homeowner must be torn down, a judge ruled Oct. 23.

The order came down from S.C. Administrative Law Court Chief Justice Ralph K. Anderson III. Anderson mandated that Rom and Renee Reddy remove the hard erosion control structure built behind their home near Isle of Palm’s Breach Inlet.

Anderson wrote in his order that the wall has “accelerated erosion of the adjacent beach and, in doing so, adversely affected the public.”

At the same time, the judge threw out the $289,000 civil penalties levied against the homeowners. Anderson ruled that the Reddys’ construction of the wall were done in a '“good faith effort” to protect their home from further erosion, and believed that the state Department of Environmental Services’ permitting authority did not apply to where the wall was located.

The Reddys’ home is situated on the south end of the island, an area that has experienced significant erosion in recent years. Rom Reddy contended that he built the wall to protect his multi-million dollar property from these impacts— and felt he was well within his rights to do so.

The state disagreed, issuing several stop-work orders in late 2023 and early 2024 to the homeowners as they repaired the structure from storm-related damage. The wall was in the beach’s critical area, state agents said, a protected portion of the coast that requires permitting for any construction to occur. Reddy had not obtained these permits from DES before beginning work on the wall, believing that the where the wall was built fell outside the agency’s permitting scope.

The state, joined later by the Coastal Conservation League, took the couple to court over the structure. Rom Reddy represented himself in the matter in May, going head-to-head with the state agency.

In a written statement, Reddy said the court vacated “an unjust penalty” and raised legitimate questions about state overreach.

“These are critical victories for the citizens of this state — and a clear sign that the days of environmental bureaucrats exercising unchecked power over the people are at an end,” he said.

Reddy will have 30 days to appeal the ruling.

“There is still much work to be done, however, as the judge's ruling is unfortunately not a full and complete vindication of private property rights,” Reddy said.

A DES spokesperson said the agency appreciated Anderson’s “meticulous review” of the case.

“Judge Anderson’s October 23 ruling supports SCDES’s position that the Coastal Tidelands and Wetlands Act, as enacted by the General Assembly, prioritizes the protection of South Carolina’s coast for the benefit of all. The ruling upholds the agency’s determination that this particular seawall must be removed,” the agency spokesperson said in a written statement.