06-27-06: Shellfish Signs

Shellfish signs:
Expensive legal challenges and waters unfit for man or shellfish are at stake if coastal development continues unchecked

You are what you eat, as the saying goes. And at least in a manner of speaking, that applies to shellfish, which continually filter the water in which they live. For North Carolinians, that amounts to a cautionary tale.

It turns out that because of pollution associated with development, more and more of the oysters and clams of coastal Eastern North Carolina are unfit for human consumption. That's gauged by the closure of increasingly large areas to shellfish harvesting on the orders of state environmental inspectors. Back in 1984, approximately 48,000 acres of state waters were declared off-limits to clamming and oystering. That figure rose to 56,700 this year. On days when an inch and a half or more of rain falls, another 40,000 to 45,000 acres can be closed temporarily.

The jump in closures parallels the tremendous increase in development along the coast and lining sounds, rivers and creeks that empty into the Atlantic. In another installment of The News & Observer's series The New Waterfront, Wade Rawlins reported Sunday on the dense development that local governments are allowing in coastal communities.

Attempts to control the growth can't seem to keep up with the surge of building. Roofs, roads and parking lots collect and rush a nasty stew of chemical and biological pollutants, including human and animal wastes, into the ecologically fragile waterways. Still, nine coastal counties have no zoning regulations or have rules for only portions of their jurisdiction. And this is at a time when more than 34,000 houses and condos are planned or under construction in 20 coastal-area counties.

State rules meant to protect waters are regularly outflanked by savvy developers. When their maneuvering fails, real estate interests have successfully turned to the legislature to trump thoughtful provisions enacted by agencies such as the Environmental Management Commission and Coastal Resources Commission.

All of that is worrisome, and North Carolina leaders need to be concerned about the significant impact on the fishing industry. If shellfish waters are degraded, then the health of other marine species also has to be at risk. Commercial fishing provides 4,000 jobs in the state, most of them in a region that scarcely can afford job losses. Then there's the fact that fishing is an ingrained part of Eastern North Carolina's culture, a culture that should be cultivated and celebrated, not flushed out of existence by neglect.

Those who see the degradation up close -- local administrators, and state rule-makers and enforcement personnel -- need to work harder to get this serious message across to legislators and the public. They can cite examples such as once-pristine Deer Creek in Carteret County, now closed to shellfishing because of high fecal coliform levels. The state need only look northward, to the Chesapeake Bay, to see how easy it is to harm a large tidal body through pollution, and how difficult and costly it is to bring those waters back to health.

Part of the message here is that North Carolina could face a spate of lawsuits under the federal Clean Water Act if overbuilding goes on unchecked. The Coastal Area Management Act, which did a good job of protecting the coast until loopholes began to be exploited, needs to be tightened by the General Assembly.

Lawmakers also should defer to environmental experts when the building industry comes pleading for rules changes. Well-written guidelines for development along the coast, fairly enforced but with the health of waterways and the marine life they hold foremost in mind, are in North Carolina's best interest.