Gov. Mark Sanford's stance against beach renourishment projects came under fire again Thursday as a state agency deputy director vehemently challenged him during a budget hearing in Charleston.

Sanford informed the directors of the state's six natural resource agencies that "the administration has a position against renourishment."

The position isn't new, but Sanford's comments only stimulated a still-smoldering dispute.

In 2004, Sanford vetoed $5 million to replenish Hunting Island's beaches, saying it was like throwing money into the sea. The Legislature overruled the governor and the project should start soon. This year, he vetoed a $5 million project to add sand to the beaches on Edisto Island.

"Our position is that mother nature always wins," he said.

As an I-told-you-so, the governor pointed to news reports that Hunting Island lost 5 feet of sand from Hurricane Ophelia's pounding waves.

This didn't sit well with Charles Harrison, deputy director of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism.

Harrison said that the island is South Carolina's most popular state park, and also one of the few public beaches on the state's lower coast. He said the waves will splash onto the roadway if more sand isn't added to the beach soon.

"I like to have a beach people can access," he said in rebuttal to Sanford.

Harrison then challenged the governor, saying if erosion endangered Sanford's oceanfront home on Sullivan's Island, his response would be different.

"Let's see what happens at Sullivan's Island, and then see what happens" to fix the beach there, he said.

Sanford responded, "You are wrong, this is not a neighborhood view."

The governor said he is worried about the precedent of earmarking money in the state budget each year for building up the beaches.

Myrtle Beach is next on the state's renourishment priority list, and Sanford said he is more inclined to support a project because of the homes and commercial areas along the water.

"If the area is developed, from the dollar standpoint you can make a very rational argument to protect the area," he said. But "when you have a state park, and it's a natural environment, we believe in letting nature takes its course."