4 years on, Charleston cruise debate lingers

By BRUCE SMITH
Associated Press
January 2, 2014

CHARLESTON, S.C. — It’s been almost four years since the South Carolina Ports Authority announced plans to build a new $35 million passenger cruise terminal by renovating an old warehouse on the Charleston waterfront.

And it’s going on three years that the issue of building the terminal has been before the courts. With challenges from environmental, neighborhood and preservation groups ongoing in federal, state and administrative law courts, the debate over the city’s year-round cruise industry won’t be ending any time soon.

Opponents of the city’s expanded cruise industry say they are not opposed to cruises, but want stronger regulations governing the industry. They have challenged both state and federal permits to allow the Ports Authority to install new pilings beneath the warehouse to create the new terminal.

They have also gone to the state Supreme Court arguing that the cruises are a public nuisance causing noise, pollution and traffic congestion in the city’s Historic District.

Supporters say cruises will only be a niche market in Charleston — not the major industry witnessed in such places as Venice, Italy, and Key West, Fla. They say the industry is being appropriately handled.

The new year brings court activity on a couple of fronts.

On Jan. 7, a mediator for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond plans to meet with attorneys representing both sides in an appeal in the dispute over a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for the pilings.

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel ruled in September that the Corps did not adequately review the project’s effects on the city’s historic district, telling attorneys for the Corps “You gave this permit a bum’s rush.”

The Ports Authority and Corps are appealing Gergel’s order.

Then on Jan. 27, Chief Administrative Law Judge Ralph K. Anderson III takes up the matter of a challenge to a state permit for those pilings.

The Department of Health and Environmental Control in Dec. 2012 approved the permit. Officials noted that the warehouse area has been an industrial and commercial area for centuries and putting in the five pilings for the terminal alone does not allow bigger ships or more ships.

The neighborhood, conservation and preservation groups appealed. And it will likely be many months until the issue is resolved because any decision by an administrative law judge can then be appealed to state circuit court.

There’s been no ruling on the third outstanding legal action – the case before the state Supreme Court that alleges the cruises are a public nuisance. The justices heard arguments in mid-November and have not yet handed down a decision.

Carnival Cruise Lines based its 2,056-passenger liner Fantasy in Charleston more than three years ago, giving the city a year-round industry. Before that, ships made port calls, but none were based in Charleston.

Charleston Cruises 2014

The Azamara Club Cruises passenger liner Quest makes a port call in Charleston, S.C., in this Dec. 10, 2013, photograph. It’s been almost four years since the South Carolina Ports Authority announced plans to build a new $35 million cruise terminal. But legal challenges from conservation, preservation and neighborhood groups have delayed the project. In January of 2014 attorneys in the case appear before both a mediator for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and before a South Carolina administrative law judge.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/01/02/3014632/4-years-on-charleston-cruise-debate.html#storylink=cpy

Documents show Carnival knew of fire danger before ill-fated cruise, CNN Exclusive

(CNN) — Bettina Rodriguez and her daughter Isabel had planned their cruise for half a year. They would sail on the Carnival Triumph cruise ship and celebrate Isabel’s birthday.

It was the trip of a lifetime. That is, until they awoke to a fire alarm, smoke in their hallway and then days and days of misery. Human waste was actually piling up in bags just outside their door.

“Just on our deck alone, there were the biohazard bags lined up across the floor,” Bettina Rodriguez said. “We’re talking about raw sewage at just the end of our deck alone. It was repulsive.”

It was a nightmare, Rodriguez said. Now the nightmare has been made worse, she said, because of company documents that have just come to light. The cruise line’s own reports, inspections and maintenance records detail a problem that had been developing on the Triumph more than a year before Rodriguez and her daughter were on board.

More than 4,000 passengers and crew members were stranded aboard what’s now known as the “poop cruise” after a fire knocked out the ship’s power. The ship drifted four days before it could be towed into Mobile, Alabama — the whole time without air conditioning, and largely without lights, water, food and working toilets.

CNN has learned that the crew of the Triumph set sail in February with only four of six generators fully operational, knowing that the company had an ongoing generator fire hazard in ships across its fleet, including Triumph.

Houston attorney Frank Spagnoletti represents the Rodriguez family and several dozen other passengers from the ill-fated Carnival Triumph who have filed suit against Carnival Cruise Lines.

“That ship never should have set sail in February,” Spagnoletti said. “It was unseaworthy at the commencement of the voyage. These documents tell you that the company — and I’m saying to you the corporation back in Miami — had knowledge of the fact that this vessel had a propensity for fires; that there were things that could have been, should have been, and weren’t done in order to make sure that fires didn’t take place.”

The first trouble with Triumph was in diesel generator No. 6 — the one that wound up catching fire. Starting more than a year before the infamous cruise, that generator was overdue for maintenance, often not in compliance with the safety laws of the sea, known as SOLAS, according to the ship’s engineer.

Read the document about the generator (PDF)

Over and over again, Carnival’s own maintenance reports stated the same thing: Diesel generator No. 6 was overdue for maintenance. The company says the fire that originated with the generator was not connected to the lack of maintenance. But, during that same time period, Carnival learned about another, even more alarming safety problem in the engine room: fuel lines.

A dangerous pattern of leaks had emerged on other Carnival cruise ships, according to the company’s documents. In fact, Carnival’s Costa Allegra caught fire in the Indian Ocean in February 2012 because fuel leaked onto a hot spot and ignited. That fire left the ship without power for three days in tropical heat of nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

Read Carnival’s advisory notice (PDF)

That would be eerily similar to what started the fire on board the Triumph one year later.

Carnival says it proactively began investigating after the Costa Allegra fire and found a big problem in a different type of fuel line. There had been nine incidents resulting in fuel leaks associated with flexible fuel lines in just two years.

Spate of fires pose problem for cruise industry

On January 2, Carnival issued a compliance order, giving ships two months to address the problem to “ensure a suitable spray shield … is installed” for all diesel engines using the flexible fuel lines.

“After that internal study, the company came out with a new policy to, again, shield all the flanges and the hoses,” said Mark Jackson, Carnival Cruise Lines vice president of technical operations.

But Carnival did not in fact shield the part of the one hose that wound up causing the tragedy on board the Triumph in February.

“That hose was beneath the deck plates, and it was believed the deck plates would provide that shield,” Jackson said. “In this case, it (the fuel leak) found that gap in the hose … in the bilge plates and caused the fire.”

On February 7 — with a diesel generator still in need of overhaul and fuel line shields on some, but not all, of its flexible hoses — Triumph set sail from Galveston Texas. Three days later, off the coast of Mexico, a fire broke out in diesel generator No. 6 when fuel sprayed from a flexible fuel line, even though that fuel line was only six months old.

“We were totally in compliance … with all the rules and regulations,” Jackson said. “We had … our regulating bodies on board the ship less than two weeks prior that had certified the ship to sail. Obviously, you learn things on a situation, on an incident such as the Triumph.”

Those regulating bodies included the U.S. Coast Guard and Lloyd’s insurance.

While Carnival Cruise Lines insists that what happened on the Triumph was just an accident, the company has dedicated $300 million in a fleet-wide safety upgrade, focusing on detecting and preventing any potential fire hazards in its engine rooms.

The company also points out to the passengers suing that the cruise line never promised a safe trip.

Carnival’s court filing says the “ticket contract makes absolutely no guarantee for safe passage, a seaworthy vessel, adequate and wholesome food, and sanitary and safe living conditions.” Since the Triumph fire, Carnival says it has instituted a 110% money-back “Great Vacation Guarantee” on its cruises.

Fraction of cruise ship crimes are made public

Could Carnival have avoided the Triumph cruise nightmare?

Please click on the header below to see the video footage from this Anderson Cooper exclusive!

Could Carnival have avoided the Triumph cruise nightmare?

It was the vacation from hell for thousands of passengers stuck on-board the Carnival Triumph. A fire knocked out the ship’s power, which meant no air conditioning, no lights, little food and water… and no flushing toilets. Conditions were so bad it was nicknamed “The Poop Cruise.” Now CNN has learned that the ship set sail with only four of six generators operating and knew of a generator fire hazard across its fleet of ships. Investigative Correspondent Drew Griffin is Keeping Them Honest.

CHS | After losing its permit, the SPA will surely compromise. Ah, no.

CHS | After losing its permit, the SPA will surely compromise.  Ah, no.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard M. Gergel ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to comply with the “formal assessment and consultative requirements” of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) before awarding the SC Ports Authority (SPA) a permit to transform “a previously permitted transit shed…into a modern state-of-the-art $35-million cruise ship passenger terminal” at Union Pier in Charleston.

The Army Corps, for unknown and probably unknowable reasons, had determined that complying with the NEPA and NHPA assessments was unnecessary because “the proposed activity will result in minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects.”  The project, the Corps said, would qualify as “maintenance,” and stated that the cruise terminal project had “no potential to cause effects on historic properties.”

Judge Gergel ruled otherwise. The Army Corps of Engineers, he said, ignored its responsibilities to do a proper assessment under the controlling NEPA and NHPA acts by saying that it was limiting its review to only five new pilings to support elevators and escalators that would come in contact with navigable waters.  That argument, the Court said, is “plainly inconsistent with the Army Corps’ own regulation…which provides for jurisdiction involving ‘any structure in or over any navigable water in the United States.'”   In his conclusion, the judge went farther, saying that rather than consider “all the activities in its jurisdiction under the Rivers and Harbors Act ‘in its scope of analysis,’ the Army Corps of Engineers, unreasonably and unlawfully, restricted its ‘scope of analysis’ to an insignificant fraction of the project that lay within the agency’s jurisdiction.”

“By omitting more than 99% of the project within its jurisdiction…  “The Court finds that the Army Corps’ limitation of the ‘scope of analysis’ to five concrete pile clusters was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and contrary to law.”

Almost equally disturbing were the SPA’s own statements and data that it presented to the Court.  Quoting from the ruling, “The Ports Authority has acknowledged that a cruise ship terminal can ‘present special challenges’ in ‘managing automobile and pedestrian traffic,’ ‘protecting the environment,’ ‘and preserving Charleston’s unique character’ and ‘there are still lingering questions about how well the cruise ship business will fit into the context of this diverse, world class city.'”  “Record evidence provided by the Ports Authority supports the [opponent’s] claim…that the number of cruise ships and passengers has increased in recent years, and the proposed new and larger passenger terminal would likely significantly increase the number and size of cruise ships visiting Charleston and the volume of cruise passengers in the historic Charleston waterfront.”  By 2012, the number of ships visiting Charleston had increased by 86% over “the 2005-2009 five-year average.”

And the SPA also gave us a glimpse into a far worse future.  With a new terminal, the 1990’s-era, 855’, 2,056-passenger Carnival “Fantasy” will be replaced with ships carrying 3,450 passengers.  And based on the SPA’s data, the Court concluded, “Even if the Ports Authority maintained its voluntary cap of 104 cruise ship visits a year(2), this would represent a 131% increase over the 2005-2009 five year average and a 24% increase from 2012.”   And to service such a volume of passengers, the Court noted, the SPA estimates that on an average embarkation and disembarkation day, “up to twenty tractor trailers, sixteen small trucks, thirty-two busses, ninety taxis, and 1600 passenger vehicles would need access to the very confined” terminal area that “lies immediately adjacent to the Charleston Historic District and the Ansonborough neighborhood.”

So how do you think the SPA reacted to the ruling?   Did it agree to comply, did it suggest a compromise, or did it offer to study another, less invasive location for a terminal?   No.  It appealed.  The appeal came in spite of the SPA’s own website that appears to invalidate any argument that their project could be considered “maintenance”:  “…Charleston is an ideal cruise port.  With an efficiently run operation and plans for a new state-of-the-art cruise terminal, our port is ready to welcome cruise operators and travelers alike.”(3)  Yes, and with the widening of the Panama Canal and a newly prosperous Chinese middle class, are we to believe that those ships of the future will carry only 3,450 travelers?

But if you’re looking for relief from Charleston’s mayor or its complacent, compliant City Council, forget it.  Mayor Joseph Riley recently reiterated his total lack of interest in regulating cruise ship tourism.(4)   So it’s up to the courts.

Oral arguments in another case will be presented this Tuesday, this one at the SC Supreme Court.(5)   Carnival Cruise Lines will argue to dismiss charges that it’s violating zoning ordinances, permitting requirements and creating a nuisance.(6)  True to form, both the SPA and the City of Charleston intervened in this case on behalf of…the defendant, not on behalf of the residents, organizations and associations trying to protect Charleston from the accelerating threat of unregulated cruise ship tourism.

Surely the SC Supreme Court read Judge Richard Gergel’s decision and recognizes the defendant’s fallacious assertion that their massive floating resorts can tie up at will, disgorge thousands of people simultaneously onto the world’s most cherished historic places, and then ignore every rule and regulation these historic places have developed to protect their history, culture and quality of life.  Or must degradation accompany this exploitation?

Jay, 15 Nov 13

—-
1)   U.S. District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, Court Decision.  Preservation Society and Coastal Conservation League vs. US Army Corps of Engineers and SC Ports Authority
<Federal Cruise Permit SJ Order 9-18-13.pdf>

2)  The SPA has steadfastly refused to commit those “voluntary limits” in to legally binding limits.
“This Charleston Harbor Battle is over Cruise Ships” – NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/us/battle-in-genteel-charleston-over-cruise-ships.html?_r=0

3)  South Carolina Ports website – Cruise Charleston page
http://www.port-of-charleston.com/cruises/cruises.asp

4)  Reports of Mayor Joseph Riley’s comments at the membership meeting of the Charlestowne Neighborhood Assn., 29 Oct 13.

5)  South Carolina Supreme Court, Register of Cases for November, 2013.  Look for first case on 19 November.
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/supremeRosters/dspSupRosterMenu.cfm

6)  “Carnival Cruise Lines asks for Dismissal of Suit” – Post and Courier
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20110810/PC05/308109921

 

Written by jwilliams
The Charleston Cruise Control Blog, written by Jay Williams, Jr., published periodically since May, 2011, consists of opinions and discussions about cruise ship tourism. Although Jay is involved with various local organizations, the opinions he expresses are solely his; they do not represent the views of any organization or other individual.  Mr. Williams is an independent blogger/writer. We present these blogs for C4 website visitors as an information source and as an additional way to chronologically follow the debates, commentaries and discussions about cruise tourism in Charleston.

Carnival will sail bigger ships from New Orleans

By JANET McCONNAUGHEY
November 13, 2013 10:13 AM

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Some larger cruise ships will call New Orleans their home as the role of the cruise business continues to increase at the Port of New Orleans.

The Carnival Sunshine, which arrives Sunday, carries 2,984 passengers — 22 more than the Carnival Conquest, which it’s replacing. In April, it will be replaced in turn by the 3,646-passenger Carnival Dream, which Carnival Cruise Lines currently plans to keep in New Orleans.

The port is likely to set its third straight record for cruise ship passengers this year, said Gary LaGrange, president and CEO of the Port of New Orleans. He said the Dream should increase that even more in 2014, when it’s expected to boost Carnival’s passenger total from more than 330,000 a year to more than 400,000 a year.

New Orleans’ overall cruise business rose more than 32 percent last year to 977,703 passengers. The 2011 passenger total of 736,908 broke a record set in 2004, port officials have said, citing a report made for the Cruise Lines International Association.

“This year we have a good shot at passing a million,” LaGrange said.

The CLIA report also said New Orleans was the nation’s sixth-busiest cruise port last year, up from ninth in 2011.

LaGrange said cruises have risen from about 5 percent of the port’s income a dozen years ago to 20 percent of last year’s $50 million-plus revenues.

Carnival cruises year-round from the port. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line sails from October through April, and Norwegian Cruise Line from November through April.

Those lines also are bringing in new ships. The 2,376-passenger Norwegian Jewel replaced the 2,348-passenger Norwegian Star, and Royal Caribbean’s Navigator of the Seas is replacing the newly renovated Serenade of the Seas.

New Orleans’ cruise business has risen nearly nine-fold over the past 10 to 12 years, LaGrange said. “A lot of it has to do with the fact that we’re marketing it as two vacations in one: Come down and you get the Big Easy and get the cruise as well,” he said.

He said the CLIA study found that passengers usually also spend two nights in area hotels, spending $335 a day in New Orleans compared to an industry average of $93 a day.

Newer, faster ships make the Gulf of Mexico’s destinations more accessible, offering more cruise stops than many other ports, LaGrange said. From New Orleans cruises go to Mexico, the Cayman Islands, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Florida, Belize, Honduras, San Francisco, the Canary Islands and Spain.

Jim Berra, senior vice president of marketing and chief marketing officer for Carnival, said the Carnival Sunshine, previously known as the Destiny, underwent a $155 million makeover at a shipyard in Trieste, Italy, adding a water park, a new partial deck, 182 cabins, and more than 20 new “branded spaces” such as restaurants, outer decks, bars and lounges and entertainment.

The Sunshine and Dream will continue the Conquest’s weeklong cruises. The Elation will continue as the line’s ship for 4- and 5-day trips.

November 15 Letter to the Editor

Well said Pat! We couldn’t agree more!

Cruise insights I recently had the good fortune to visit two historic port cities: Athens, Greece, and Istanbul, Turkey. The experience showed me that it is quite possible to dock passenger as well as cargo ships at the same location — away from the historic districts — without detracting from the cruise or the historic district. The historic district in Athens was a 30-minute cab ride from the port in Piraeus, and the historic area in Istanbul was another easy cab ride from the docks. My friends and fellow passengers didn’t think twice about having to travel a short distance from the docks to the historic districts. In fact, we were relieved to find that these valuable and irreplaceable historic cities were protected from the aesthetic and environmental effects that we are not protected from in Charleston. My experience cruising to globally important historic ports only reinforces that we should not park cruise ships in front of our own historic port city. A visit to historic Charleston is worth a short cab or trolley ride from a more remote terminal location.

Pat Sullivan Plantation Court Mount Pleasant

Nov 15 Post and Courier

Cruise terminal opponents want SC permit tossed

as taken from The Post and Courier by Bruce Smith

Now that a judge has tossed out a federal permit for South Carolina’s proposed $35 million cruise terminal, opponents of the project say a state permit should be invalidated as well.

In September, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel invalidated a federal permit for the project that would transform an old waterfront warehouse into a passenger terminal. He ruled the Army Corps of Engineers, in allowing additional pilings to be placed under the warehouse for the terminal, did not adequately consider the project’s effects on Charleston’s historic district.

In a Nov. 1 filing with Ralph King Anderson, the chief judge of the Administrative Law Court, opponents say that with the federal permit invalidated, the state permit must be vacated as well.

Jessie White of the S.C. Environmental Law Project wrote the state permit required a water quality review. That review was encompassed by issuing the federal permit but, now that permit has been tossed out, the state must conduct its own review.

Without such a review, the motion said, “the permit and certification are invalid and must be vacated.”

Anderson has scheduled a Jan. 27 hearing in the case.

But if the state permit and certification are invalid “this honorable court should not expend its valuable resources or the resources of the parties evaluating what is, in essence and in law, a dead letter,” the motion said.

The State Ports Authority has until month’s end to respond to the motion.

The agency will be in court next week when the state Supreme Court hears arguments in a separate lawsuit alleging that cruises in Charleston are a public nuisance. The Ports Authority is also appealing Gergel’s ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Terminal opponents say they are not against cruises, but want limits so the number of passengers doesn’t overwhelm the city. Supporters say the city will only be a niche market and the industry is being appropriately regulated.

The debate has been ongoing for several years. Carnival Cruise Lines permanently based its 2,056-passenger liner Fantasy in Charleston more than three years ago. Before that, cruise liners made port calls, but no ships were based in Charleston.

Congratulations to Our Friends in Italy!

Italy to divert cruise ships from historic Venice

A special commission has approved a plan to divert cruise ships away from Venice’s historic centre

By Reuters

9:09PM GMT 05 Nov 2013

Italy will immediately begin to limit large cruise ship traffic in the Venice lagoon and the biggest vessels – of more than 96,000 gross tonnes – will be banned from November of next year, the government said on Tuesday.

Protests by Venice residents and environmentalists concerned about the damage caused by increasing cruise ship traffic to the fragile city, one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations, have been on the rise in recent years.

Prime Minister Enrico Letta met the transport and culture ministers as well as the governor of the Veneto region and the mayor of Venice, and approved plans to limit or shut down cruise ship traffic in parts of the Venice lagoon and near the city’s famous Saint Mark’s Square.

“Finally the trend towards gigantic ships in the lagoon has been turned around,” the mayor of Venice, Giorgio Orsoni, said in a statement. “We’ve had enough of these mega cruise ships just metres away from San Marco, from now on there will be clear limits on the size of ships that can enter Venice.”

Concern at the risk posed by the enormous vessels has been heightened by the disaster of the Costa Concordia, the 114,500 tonne liner which sank off the Tuscan island of Giglio in 2012, with the loss of 32 lives.

Large cruise ships will be banned from the canal between the mainland and the Giudecca island in the lagoon while a new access channel is developed with the main shipping terminal.

From January 2014, cruise ship traffic in front of the Piazza San Marco in the heart of the city, will be limited, with the number of cruise ships of more than 40,000 tonnes authorized to cross the Giudecca canal cut by 20 percent from 2012 levels.

From November next year, the largest ships of more than 96,000 tonnes will be banned entirely from crossing the Giudecca canal.

Letter from a concerned citizen….

Dear People,

You do well to be concerned about cruise ships in Charleston.  I lived in St. Thomas for 27 years and watched the development and growth of the Cruise Ship Industry down there up to and including the point where the entire island was Cruise Ship dependent.

The Cruise Ship Industry is parasitic–not symbiotic.  They devastated St. Thomas in many areas–the hotel industry, the local restaurants (back on board before dinner and a bag lunch provided for those who debarked) and the local businesses.

On St. Thomas the progression of the relationship with the onshore businesses began with backroom deals with some stores where the ships promised to steer traffic (via deals made with the Taxi Assoc.) to their stores and not others.  Money changing hands off the record.

I sold handmade seed jewelry at a lookout in St. Thomas for 20 years.  The cruise ships promised the Botanical Gardens gift shops to take passengers to them and bypass the local vendors (that’s me–and others) selling at the Drake’s Seat lookout.  But not all the taxi men were complicit–small islands breed personal relationships and the vendors had longstanding relationships with many of the drivers–and others, bless their hearts, just didn’t like to be told what to do and were sympathetic to our plight.

The ships (via the St. Thomas Taxi Assoc.) then sent a man to sit up at Drake’s Seat and take the license numbers of all taxis that stopped there informing them they wouldn’t be allowed to ferry cruise ship passengers unless they cooperated.  Since the cruise ships by then were the mainstay of the economy the threat had clout.

In the end we lost about 60% of our trade–which still speaks well for the brave 40% that couldn’t be bullied.  Anyway it did the local businesses no good in the end.  (I had to go looking for part-time work to supplement my income–others just went under.

Last time I visited St. Thomas I heard from more than one tourist that Carnival Lines was telling them not to buy ANYTHING on shore–that they could beat any onshore price right on the boat….well really!!!

In short, in case you haven’t gotten the message already, the cruise ships are rapacious and seeking as much of a monopoly as possible over the tourist dollars they are ferrying around.  They’re not into sharing and care not a damn about the welfare of the local populations where they dock.

I’m very glad your group is in place to keep an eye on them.  Perhaps my experience may prompt you to include certain up-till-now not considered clauses in your limitations of  how they behave in Charleston.

Thank you for your concern and work

All best wishes,
Eve Herbst

SC Group teams up with groups in Florida and Italy — The Miami Herald

By BRUCE SMITH

Associated Press

CHARLESTON, S.C. — A citizens group from Charleston has formed a coalition with similar groups in Venice, Italy, and Key West, Fla., to work for regulations protecting smaller historic port cities from the congestion and pollution that can accompany cruise calls.

“The only way we can do anything is if we work together and if we shout together,” Carrie Agnew, executive director of Charleston Communities for Cruise Control, said Monday. “By working together and by joining forces and sending out the same messages everywhere we can have that much more credibility, we can have that much more reach.”

The Charleston group will work with a group called No Big Boats in Venice and the Key West Committee for Responsible Tourism. The size and number of cruise ships has been a subject of controversy in both cities in recent years and “Charleston is sort of on a precipice,” Agnew said.

Agnew says her group does not want to ban the cruise industry. “What we are looking for are reasonable regulations for port cities,” she said.

The Charleston group has proposed a Cruise Ship Code of Conduct that includes a ban on ships with a capacity of more than 3,000 from regularly visiting the city, limiting cruise calls in the city to two a week and requiring ships to use onshore power or burn low sulfur fuel while idling at dockside.

Supporters of the Charleston’s cruise industry say the city will only be a niche market and that the cruise trade is being appropriately handled. They say it creates jobs and is an economic boost for the city.

Carnival Cruise Lines permanently based its 2,056-passenger liner Fantasy in Charleston more than three years ago. Before that, cruises made port calls, but no ships were based in the city.

The expanded cruise industry and the South Carolina State Ports Authority’s plans for a $35 million cruise terminal has resulted in lawsuits by environmental, preservation and neighborhood groups in state and federal court and a permit challenge in state administrative law court.

On Nov. 19, the state Supreme Court hears arguments in a lawsuit alleging that cruises in the city are a public nuisance and violate city zoning ordinances.

Meanwhile, the South Carolina State Ports Authority is appealing a federal judge’s decision tossing out a permit to install pilings allowing the terminal to be built. U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel ruled earlier in September there was no adequate review of the effects on the city’s historic district. Another challenge to a state permit for those pilings will be heard in administrative law court early next year.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/04/3730882/sc-group-teams-with-cruise-groups.html#storylink=cpy