THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, April 9, 1996 TAG: 9604090351
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B4 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WILMINGTON LENGTH: Medium: 71 lines
Already facing court challenges, North Carolina's 11-year-old ban on seawalls to protect beachfront property now may be under assault in the federal budget.
The Clinton administration is proposing that federal money be used for seawalls instead of more costly beach renourishment, The Wilmington Morning Star reported Monday.
The state banned seawalls and other hardened structures in 1985, based on evidence that they limited public access to the water and shifted erosion to other areas.
Owners of the Shell Island Resort at Wrightsville Beach's north end have filed a lawsuit against the seawall ban in New Hanover County Superior Court. The lawsuit, filed last month, contends the ban constitutes unlawful taking of private property, which the owners want to protect from erosion by erecting a wall.
In the past, Congress has resisted administration efforts to cut federal money for beach renourishment, a process in which sand is dredged from channels and pumped onto beaches.
The federal government now pays between 60 percent and 65 percent of the cost for a renourishment project.
But an administration official said if Congress wants to continue funding beach projects, more economical solutions should be considered.
``We're moving away from the beach renourishment business,'' said Jim Smyth, in the Army's civil works division.
``If a seawall is more economical, it would more likely get our support than if it is a beach nourishment project.''
State officials are not sure what they would do if the federal government would pay only for a seawall.
``We think the ban on those structures is one of the reasons we still have 300 miles of beaches in North Carolina,'' said Alison Davis, spokesman for the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
Critics of the federal proposal say small communities that can't pay for renourishment could end up with unwanted seawalls.
``It invites chaos,'' said Howard Marlowe, a Washington lobbyist for coastal communities.
``Those communities that can't support shoreline protection will get seawalls, and those that can afford it will get wide beaches. You really can't disconnect one beach from another.''
The administration still doesn't know what beaches would be eligible for federal money under its new budget proposal, Smyth said.
``Not all areas fit into high-tourism areas, and those people are in the types of areas that may need federal assistance,'' he said.
Congressional leaders may be able to help, Marlowe said.
Last year, President Clinton proposed eliminating all federal funding for replenishment projects, but protests from Congress brought the administration's proposal to restore some of that money this year.
Some lawmakers say it's still not enough.
``Modifying the Army Corps' role in flood control, shore protection and small navigation projects would be devastating to communities nationwide,'' 50 U.S. lawmakers, including Rep. Charlie Rose and Rep. Eva Clayton, wrote to President Clinton. MEMO: FEDERAL SHARE
In the past, Congress has resisted administration efforts to cut
federal money for beach renourishment, a process in which sand is
dredged from channels and pumped onto beaches. The federal government
now pays between 60 percent and 65 percent of the cost for a
renourishment project. by CNB