For his kayak tour of Sparkleberry Swamp, the governor's office established Exit 102 in North Santee as the rallying point for those wanting to participate in this portion of the governor's Family Fitness Challenge.

But as the kayakers and canoers pulled off Interstate 95, they were met by more than fitness enthusiasts. Rep. James Clyburn along with approximately 50 protesters with signs urging the governor to "Build a bridge to economic development," "Build a bridge to a better life for South Carolinians," "Bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots."

"When my staff informed me that people were coming out to greet the governor, I decided to join them," Clyburn said. "All of these people live along this lake and I do, too.

Although Sanford did not stop at the rally point, he was aware of the protesters. "Differences of opinion makes the world go 'round," he said. "The reason that some people humbly hold different perspectives on this matter is this, the Highway Department study shows that a bridge in that area will make only a three-minute difference from Orangeburg to Sumter. The (Highway) 601 Bridge is only six minutes away from the site of the new one and is on the state's critical needs list. Why not repair that one? Jim (Clyburn) has told me it's about economic development. But I feel that we need to be good stewards of what we already have."

Almost as though anticipating the governor's remarks, Clyburn said, "The governor keeps bringing up the three minutes that the new bridge will save between Orangeburg and Sumter. My goal is not saving time between the two cities. My goal is economic development for the residents of that area. There are people in both Lone Star and Rimini communities that don't have decent drinking water. Those who have indoor plumbing are still getting their water from wells. With the bridge, much of that will change. It will give people access to those communities and there are lots of environmental attractions that would be a draw for the communities."

Quoting three environmental studies, the Representative made it clear that the planned bridge will not affect the pristine beauty of Sparkleberry Swamp.

"The bridge will not be built at Sparkleberry Landing," Clyburn said. "The bridge will be built at Pack's Landing and will use the channel that is already in place for a railroad trestle that is there now. So, there won't be any silting or anything like that. The Sparkleberry Swamp won't be anymore affected by the bridge as it is by the railroad that is there now."

Clyburn, addressing the crowd of protesters, said the first environmental impact study was done in 1969 for the bridge at Pack's Landing. "At least a year before I ever ran for office. It found that the only way to expand opportunity for the people in those areas is for a bridge to connect S.C. Highway 120 and S.C.Highway 33."

Bolstering the congressman's position, Tim Fowler, a Lone Star resident, offered some history of the proposed bridge.

"Getting this bridge is making good on a promise," Fowler said. "The people in that area were promised this bridge 50 years ago. I don't know what people think about the fact that there are homes there without decent drinking water. That area is terrible. We need the governor to come and visit the area to see for himself. I believe the humanity in him would change his position on this."

Leroy Hampton, another Lone Star protester, believes the bridge will improve the economy of the area for several reasons.

"The bridge will not only give people who want to visit the area easier access, but I have relatives who are retiring in northern cities who want to come back and reclaim their land and build new homes. They need to have easier access to their property and the bridge will provide that. If that bridge had been built when it was promised, 40 or 50 years ago, I believe that our community would look like Santee does today; a viable business community."

In one last address to the crowd of protesters, Clyburn told them that before he got behind the bridge project, he demanded that another environmental study be done. "It had the same findings as the previous ones. There will be no threat to the wetlands, no harm to the environment or wildlife. Otherwise, I wouldn't have gotten on board with this thing."

You must be logged in to comment.