11-27-2007: Figure Eight's precedent

CORRECTION

An editorial yesterday about a proposed anti-erosion barrier on Figure Eight Island said that property owners would help pay for the project. Actually, the plan is for them to pay the whole cost.

******

North Carolinians having a strong sense of fairness, how could they give a well-to-do beach community a pass on environmental rules and not do the same for a less-affluent area if conditions were similar? It would be difficult, which is a good -- if sad -- reason for the state to resist a move by Figure Eight Island to build an underwater wall to stop beach erosion at the island's north end.

For 22 years, North Carolina has banned hardened, anti-erosion structures along the beach, for the practical reason that they usually just wind up moving erosion elsewhere. That could happen also at Figure Eight, where property owners want to build a sand-trapping groin.

Some of the state's richest residents own homes on Figure Eight, which is private except for the tidal beach (it takes a boat for outsiders to get there). Property owners say they will help pay for the groin. They've hired noted lobbyists to push their cause in the General Assembly, which must approve any variance to the structure ban, and they've donated generously to legislators.

Not surprisingly, the Senate passed a law allowing a test wall along the coast, and Figure Eight is the apparent choice. The House will feel the pressure next year to concur. It should refuse, or else count on other communities to come seeking a similar "test" accommodation.

No one wants to see property washed into the sea, regardless of value. But there is a larger interest in protecting as much of the public's beaches as possible. Hardened beach structures work against that. The better long-term approach is for towns to require homes to be built far enough away from the waves that hardened structures no longer are a powerful temptation.