Scientists: no exceptions to seawall ban needed
Submitted by itismyopinion on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 9:06pm
North Carolina has a law banning the use of “groins” (often known as jetties), man-made devices that reach out into the ocean from the beach. These are often used to prevent erosion of beach sand. However, they are very destructive to beaches “down drift”, that is, further down the beach in the direction of the prevailing current.
Because of the destructive nature of groins the General Assembly prohibited their use (G.S 113A-115.1). However, Ocean Isle Beach and Figure Eight Island homeowners are trying to change the law that would allow exceptions to be made. They claim the exception would be experimental and would establish a “pilot project” to study the use of groins.
A bill (SB 599) has passed the NC Senate to allow exceptions to be made by the Coastal Resources Commission to the anti-groin rule. This would allow, with conditions, groins to be built to protect some beach areas from erosion. The bill will be considered by the House in this year’s “short session”.
A report recently issued by a scientific study group argues against the change. According to the report, there is nothing experimental about groins. The proposed change would require that groins be monitored and removed if damage results from the groin. The report points out that it may take many years for groin impacts to become apparent. By the time they become apparent, removal of the groin will be too late to prevent damage to other areas.
The report, signed by 43 academic and other scientists, can be found at:
http://psds.wcu.edu/WebFiles/PDFs/Coastal_Scientist_Groin_Statement.pdf
John Shaw
Cary
Trackback URL for this post:
http://bluenc.com/trackback/8598
- itismyopinion's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Thanks for the link to the report
Thanks for calling this to BlueNC attention.
When this powerful statement by 43 coastal scientists came out last week, I immediately endorsed their call to dump the bad proposal contained in SB 599.
I was involved last summer in efforts by coastal advocates to stop that bill in the House, after it was passed by the state Senate (with support there from one of the other Democratic candidates for Lieutenant Governor).
As I said then, that bill runs directly counter to all our state's efforts to protect our beaches and barrier islands from more hard structures (seawalls, groins, riprap, etc.) on the oceanfront.
The bill's reference to "pilot projects" is a facade, and not even a new one. While I chaired the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission (1985-1990), similar requests were made and denied time and again. The intent is plainly nothing more than the protection of private oceanfront structures.
Our barrier islands are full of shifting inlets near ill-sited private beach mansions. This misnamed "pilot project" would "study" the well-documented impacts of devices which we rejected in our state years ago--because we know well the damage they do. Its approval would set up a scurry by others to get a "protective" groin of their very own.
This would be a disaster for our coast. We have to block it.
Dan Besse
Democrat for Lieutenant Governor
www.danbesse2008.org
Dan
I want to send an email to my state senator. I want to write a simple letter that would impact him quickly and to the point.
As a former chair what is the best language to write that will grab the GA and make them listen? My stuff below is what I would write, but does it grab the GA by the groin and make them listen and tell those two communities to leave things alone?
I see this groin request as a serious threat to the region for the sake of the rich.
I despise people who build houses on unstable footings or bad locations and then request the state or federal government to make things right.
The only right thing is to let nature work the way it has. If your house gets washed away because you built in a bad place, it is not our problem. However, when you manipulate the land to help you and it is shown that it will hurt someone else, that is a problem.
Those communities that built on a poor foundation needs to direct their problem to the local government and the developer who convinced the local government to allow the community to be built in the first place.
The communities down stream should not have to be fighting for their communities especially if the foundation they are on is solid.
Thanks, Dan
Dan,
Thanks for your comments.
I hope everyone reading this will contact their representative to oppose this bill.
And Dan, I look forward to your leadership, as Lieutenant Governor, on environmental issues.
John Shaw
3 points to make
1) Groins don't work in the long run. They don't add sand to the system. They just temporarily trap some of what's moving along the shoreline in a particular spot. If a shoreline is receding overall, it doesn't stop that process.
2) Whatever sand is trapped there is kept away from downdrift property, meaning it temporarily benefits some property owners at the expense of those downcurrent.
3) The public also loses, as the beach downdrift of the groin erodes more rapidly, as it's starved of the sand which drops out updrift of the groin. This is public beach, damaged for the temporary benefit of the private building owner.
It isn't fair to downcurrent property owners
or to the public to create these negative effects, for the temporary benefit of individuals who have made a bad investment decision--building a large, non-movable structure too near a shifting shoreline.
Dan Besse
Democrat for Lieutenant Governor
www.danbesse2008.org
By doing a google search with maps
you can see both these communities.
Both these communities have built out on spits of land that look like dunes. In other words, the footing for the community is constantly moving.
They knew up front that that beautiful beach setting would be moving constantly. That is what beach front property does. It erodes and fills.
For man to change that process just because people made a bad decision is not right.
The GA senate already screwed up this by approving this pilot program.
The GA house needs to be bombarded with letters and emails stating that this groin exception needs to be studied somewhere else if at all. The scientists have already studied the problem and found that groins are harmful.
A previous GA has determined that groins are not desired in NC. It can also be assumed that conditions like this, where one community wishes to effect the down current community negatively needs to be stopped.
If these groins would not effect the down current communities, I would not care. But for the State to go against a decision just to appease communities that made a bad choice is wrong.
The GA should tell these two communities that another plan must be proposed but groins or anything that effects the natural errosions on dunes and dune regions is not going to be approved.
Any county that actually touches the Ocean or a non-river body of water that touches the Ocean are impacted by this decision. We pay higher for insurance because we are "costal" counties. When people build houses in regions that should not have a house because of factors that these two communities are trying to manipulate, everyones insurance goes up.
If these communities where not there making claims against our insurance pool every time a nor-easter or other erosion event occurs my insurance would not be going up.
I have little sympathy for people who build under jet flight paths or where their land is constantly under attack by nature. Don't make it my or others problem because you made a poor choice.
Any reason why these island beaches couldn't use
the same method the rich folks in Dubai use?
I think that protective
wall is the sea wall these communities are desiring or something similar. Placing a wall to protect one community will have some kind of impact on another community.
Dubai project, pretty picture of the world as seen by Dubai. Wow! They are building out in the open waters.
They could, but they shouldn't.
Regardless of what developers tell you, dredging always has a negative impact on sea life. In some cases it is necessary to facilitate shipping (it can keep ships away from more vulnerable areas), and sometimes it's helpful in mitigating the effects of other man-made problems. But the vast majority of dredging operations disrupt ecosystems, often permanently.
If we used the Dutch company's method here, the area surrounding the seabed removal would be cloudy from silt, probably for several months. Ignoring (for the moment) the fate of the life that's sucked up, many of the remaining benthic lifeforms survive from a balance of nutrients (smaller life forms) and filtered sunlight. Whatever their depth, they adjust to the levels available. The silt from dredging blocks that sunlight, making survival (for many) impossible.
As far as the lifeforms who actually survive the removal and redepositing, most of them won't survive in the new ecosystem for very long. But some will, potentially contaminating their new home and disrupting its cycle.
Here's the thing—mankind is both mobile and adaptable. He doesn't have to live on a constantly changing coastline, and should be smart enough to not even try. Other creatures are not as lucky, and their entire world is often focused in one very small area. To disrupt and or destroy that for our own convenience is a shameful act, and not the behavior of an enlightened species.
I have visited the Palm Project in Dubai
Please remember, there are almost NO enviormental laws governing developers in Dubai, or most places in the Middle East. Those projects are built, more or less, with what you and I may consider slave labor. Additionally, engineering realities there are not nearly in accordance with American realities.
The point I am making is that a develpoment like th "Palms" would never be approved or sanctioned in America, or in any of her territories.
One more thing...The money there is virtually unlimited.
SB 599
Senate Bill 599
With this, I see where the Dan's folks long time ago realized that groins are bad.
That these communities are pressuring the GA and the Coastal Resources Commission to do something that is wrong.
That once this "law" becomes inacted, lip service is going to be enabled. These communities are going to get someone (probably NAVFAC, the same group that did the wonderful study for the OLF around Pocoson Wildlife Refuge) to write an environmental impact statement that will be so full of holes that it will be next to impossible to refute in 3 minutes or less. The program will move forward because the communities jumped through all the wickets, put checks in the boxes, doted some "i"s and crossed some "T"s. The actual impact of groins which is know, will not be introduced as valid, resulting in the need for this pilot program. There, I just wrote the Executive Summary for this impact study.
That while the communities are suppose to pony up money up front to undo all negative effects of these groins while trying to determine if they do what was expected without hurting down current communities, when it comes time to remove the groins, their will not be any money and the groins will have to stay.
Their is not any quantitative way to determine down current if a negative effect is a result of the up current groin or due to natural events anyways. Thus the groins will be allowed to stay as a feel good for the these two communities and the land and communities down current will be harmed. Even if all things are perceived benefits and harm.
Does the Coastal Resources Commission have the expertise and backing (will the GA actually empower this body with the power to harm these two communities?) to require a community to remove the groins when determined that they must be removed?
Does the Coastal Resources Commission have the expertise to review the EIS and determine if what is proposed will not harm another community in the first place? If this commission is like other commissions, it is a bunch of people who are not true experts, but concerned citizens who are trying to do the best they can under the charter provided. (No offense intended at you Dan)
This legislation does not address the time needed to determine if a negative impact is occurring. It is a given that the determination that these groins are not harmful will happen before the time required to see the results occurs. In other words, the scientific study will be terminated before the results are realized. This termination will be performed because these two communities will want their money back that is being held to correct the negative impacts this program might cause.
These groins nor this legislation needs to be enacted. This is just a bureaucratic way for money to get what they desire.
No offense taken, Parm.
I was delighted with the opportunity to move posts in 1993 to serve on the Environmental Management Commission. One of the reasons (in addition to the chance to work on broader clean water and wetlands issues) was my frustration on the CRC at dealing with the same stupid beach-hardening requests over and over again. I was afraid that the next time I had to point out the foolishness of yet another essentially identical seawall or groin proposal, I would lose my temper and shout at somebody.
If I had still been on the CRC later, I would have been GREATLY relieved by the legislation which codified the no-hardening rule into state statute. The LAST thing I would want, if I were a Coastal Resources Commission member today, would be for the General Assembly to throw this rotten hot potato back into my hands.
Dan Besse
Democrat for Lieutenant Governor
www.danbesse2008.org
Email sent to my house rep
If someone can smooth this to better pinpoint the problem, I am all ears! The CRC should not have to deal with this law. This law was put on the books because of what Dan has mentioned. We do not need to readdress this again. Stop the madness.
I think I may be hitting the wrong thing. I think I should be requesting my rep to turn down the SB 599 or the equivalent when it shows up from the senate side vice going after the two communities who are asking for a law to allow this state statute to be watered down.