Shifting sands

As many of you know, the North Carolina Senate has a long history of siding with special interests over the common good. That's exactly what happened when the Real Estate Lobby and Figure Eight Island millionaires teamed up last year to push The Inlet Stabilization Pilot Project bill through the Senate.

This bizarre and controversial bill would take a huge step back from the state’s existing policy prohibiting the construction of hardened structures (seawalls, jetties and groins) to protect private property. It passed the Senate overwhelmingly last year (quickly and without much notice).

The bill currently sits in the House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. No hearing has been scheduled (or even anticipated at this point) but action is expected before they adjourn.

Adoption of this bill will put the North Carolina coast at risk - and the idea that this "pilot project" will uncover some new laws of physics is beyond ludicrous. We already know what jetties and groins do - they destroy public beaches in favor of private interests.

This issue has been debated for years. The House must not join the Senate in passing this destructive legislation.

**************

Much has been written about this ridiculous push by the NC Senate to wreck havoc on our beaches. Virtually every major newspaper in the state has weighed in against the legislation. Here's one of many opinion pieces that take the Senate to task:

Keep North Carolina Coasts Natural

My family has great memories of outings on the North Carolina coast. My ten year old son “soloed” in our sailboat in the bay behind Figure Eight Island and we celebrated with fresh crabs from the bay and a sunset walk on the beach. Joy from these kinds of memories is priceless. We want to be able to keep going back with his children--our grandchildren--to enjoy the coastal islands and marshes.

I have been reassured that the coastal islands and marshes will be there to enjoy in the future thanks to the state’s foresighted Coastal Management Act (CAMA). This 1974 law set up a regulatory program based on the science of the natural processes that shape the coast—winds, waves, tides, and erosion.

Rather than allowing engineered seawalls and groins, the CAMA regulations acknowledge that the wise course is to let the beaches move in response to natural processes. For example, prospective property buyers are warned through the mapping of Inlet Hazard Areas that Mother Nature may decide to change the location of a waterway. Their boundaries are based on a statistical analysis of inlet migration, geology, and man-made features, such as jetties and channelization projects.

As a land use planner who works on coastal management issues, I have a deep respect for the science behind our coastal program rules. The CAMA Handbook for Development in Coastal North Carolina explains how estuarine shorelines act as natural barriers to erosion and flooding, protecting nearby developments. It describes how the forces of wind and water create hazards that threaten buildings. And it lays out science-based rules for ensuring that development there should be designed and located to minimize the risk to life and property, as well as to reduce the cost of relief aid.

The foundation principle of North Carolina’s successful CAMA program is to prevent interference with the natural movement and features of the barrier islands, recognizing that there is only so much sand in any barrier island system. The program carefully delineates situations to be avoided, such as the use of hardened structures – be they jetties or groins—to control erosion or stabilize inlets. Such man-made structures rob Peter to pay Paul, by trapping sand for an upstream beach area while starving and eroding sand for a downstream beach.

Thus I was dismayed to learn of a proposed bill in the General Assembly that would start to unravel the wise strategy of “no beach hardening.” Sailing under the guise of a pilot project to study the use of terminal groins for ocean inlet stabilization, Senate Bill 599 would allow the placement of hardened structures in front of the large homes located in mapped Inlet Hazard Areas. It is an attempt to engineer your way around natural forces by changing a dynamic natural system to a static manmade system. Based on my long experience in helping government agencies design effective coastal management programs, I believe that this would shift the state’s regulatory priority from protecting public beaches to protecting private property.

Despite its assurances that it is only a test, SB 599 is like the camel’s nose under the tent which would open the door to a number of other beach hardening “tests” up and down the coast. On the surface, it sounds innocuous--calling for an environmental impact statement and a financial commitment to remove the structure if it causes a detrimental impact. However, it is the first step toward undermining the foundation principle of no interference with natural beach processes. And there is plenty of evidence from projects in Florida and other coastal states demonstrating the harmful effects of such structures. We don’t need to create another experiment with negative outcomes.

To keep the no interference principle in place, there are clear alternatives to beach hardening. These include beach nourishment and moving structures back from the shoreline. Nourishment requires public funding and relocation requires private funding. But losing the priceless beach due to hardening for the benefit of a few is an unacceptable cost to all future generations of North Carolinians.

As we learn more about the forecasted impacts of climate change and sea level rise, we can appreciate even more fully the wisdom of maintaining natural shoreline environmental systems. These systems provide irreplaceable benefits in the form of storm hazard mitigation, fishery nurseries, and quality of life enjoyment. They are threatened by short-sighted human engineering that attempts to stop their natural adaptation.

If you treasure the North Carolina coast as I do and you want it to be there for your grandchildren, then you should let your state representatives know that you want to keep our beaches and environmental systems functioning naturally. Tell them to stand firm and not enact SB 599, or any of the inevitable future attempts to weaken our effective natural coasts policy.

David R. Godschalk, FAICP (Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners)

Professor Emeritus of City and Regional Planning

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

5/23/08

Please contact your representative and encourage him or her to fight to protect North Carolina's beaches.