In his veto letter to the legislature, the governor cited several reasons -- including the environmental dangers of nourishment and a state law that calls for naturalism -- why he thinks "renourishment on Hunting Island is not the kind of investment that our state should be making."
The money for Hunting Island was one of 105 vetoes the House quickly overturned Wednesday. And according to state Sen. Scott Richardson, R-Hilton Head Island, the Senate also may start overriding the vetoes today.
"The governor went wholesale after everyone," Richardson said of the vetoes. "The sentiment right now is that we're going to override a good number of those."
Rep. Catherine Ceips, R-Beaufort, worked quickly Wednesday to overturn the veto and said she would "appeal to (senators) to save the beach."
With $3.2 million in state money earmarked for the project, the additional $5 million would help slow the beach's erosion rate from 15 feet a year to six feet a year, according to park officials. The project would add sand to the beach and build groins to protect from future erosion.
In his veto letter, Sanford partly explained his decision by saying a major hurricane would "completely wipe out a nourishment project such as this."
But, protecting a beach from storm damage is one of the main goals of nourishment, said Chris Brooks, deputy commissioner for the state's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.
"The best protection from a storm would be a healthy, wide beach," Brooks said.
Richardson also questioned some of Sanford's reasoning.
"Since when is the governor the guru of when hurricanes are going to land?" he said.
In rejecting the Hunting Island project, the governor also cited a state law that calls for allowing natural erosion in areas where structures are not endangered.
Brooks said the law cited by Sanford does not apply to Hunting Island.
"We're not talking about a nature preserve," he said. "We're talking about a state park."
The governor's concerns over the environmental implications of building groins to protect the beach are also unfounded, Brooks said.
Groins are sand-trapping structures built perpendicular to the beach that are intended to ward off erosion. But there is debate over whether groins merely shift erosion down the coast without protecting the target beach.
"That's just not going to happen with a well-engineered project," Brooks said.
Brooks said in order for the park to continue being successful, there needs to be a stable solution to its beach erosion.
"One thing is clear, the longer we wait the more expensive the solution will be," Brooks said.
Marion Edmonds, spokesman for the state Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, said the department will follow the governor's lead on the issue.
With few of the state's parks generating a profit, the $600,000 Hunting Island collects from retail sales, camping, cabins and admission fees goes to other state parks that are maintained at a loss.
"(Sanford) didn't question the dollars and cents of Hunting Island," Edmonds said. "But the broader philosophical question of renourishment."
Will Folks, the governor's spokesman, said the state "should pursue federal funding instead of state dollars that are stretched increasingly thin."
Park officials who have worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for federal money have said money from Washington seems unlikely.
Bill Eiser, an oceanographer for the state, said the state gave an average of $2.5 million every year during the 1990s to help pay for nourishment projects on Myrtle and Folly beaches and Sullivan's and Pawleys islands. But recent state budget problems have curtailed any new nourishment money. Hilton Head Island received more than $6 million from the state toward a $9 million beach nourishment in 1990. But the island's next $15 million nourishment project to begin in 2005 will be paid for using only money collected from a local 2 percent tax on overnight lodging.
"We do that because of the uncertainty in ever finding state funds again," said Town Administrator Steve Riley.