RALEIGH – During the British march through the Carolinas in 1780, Lord Cornwallis spent a short time near my birthplace in Charlotte – and had more than enough. Calling it a “hornets’ nest” of rebels, Cornwallis withdrew.
Today, if you want to find a modern-day hornets’ nest, there’s no need to visit the Queen City. Just find any gathering North Carolinians who either live or own property on the Carolina coast, get their attention, and then utter two words: “terminal groins.”
The angry will swarm, and you’ll get stung. It doesn’t matter whether you say you favor or oppose the groins, which are intended to stabilize beaches next to inlets. Opinion is divided and passionate. Some locals are furious that current state law keeps them from doing what they think is necessary to protect their properties and communities. Other locals are furious about a proposed new law that would allow the groins, which they fear will cost them dearly in the form of higher erosion and higher taxes.
I’m skeptical that terminal groins will prove to be a wise investment. On the other hand, I understand why there is strong support for groins among some coastal landowners and residents, including those in Ocean Isle Beach where my family has owned property since the 1970s.
During past sessions, when the North Carolina General Assembly was controlled by Democrats, efforts to overturn the state’s ban on hardened structures went nowhere. Now, both Republican-led houses have passed legislation to allow them. But there are big differences between the two bills, reflecting big disagreements among GOP lawmakers.
The Senate bill would allow groins on either side of inlets up and down the coast. The House bill is far more limited, allowing only three groins in total – and only two of them could be built with public funds. Furthermore, if localities want to issue debt to finance those two groins, they’ll have to use general-obligation debt approved by a voter referendum.
It seems to me that the best way for state lawmakers to extricate themselves from this issue without getting stung senseless is to adopt the House version. Both sides claim the legal and scientific high ground. Opponents say that groins and similar structures won’t arrest natural currents of sea and sand, but will simply deflect them to other beaches and islands, which will lead inexorably to additional calls for groins, jetties, and expensive beach renourishment projects.
Proponents say that these concerns are overblown – and that even if erosion is relocated rather than prevented, that might still be defensible if the policy keeps inlets navigable and protects key families, properties, and income-generating tourist centers.
One way to think about the issue is that the Senate version of the legislation picks a side, the pro-groin side. By limiting the number and cost of any new groins, however, the House version essentially says, “Let’s test these theories in the real world of the North Carolina coast.”
If skeptics like me are wrong about the effects of terminal groins – if they produce clear benefits without imposing excessive costs on neighboring communities and taxpayers – then lawmakers could always come back later and liberalize the law. But if the skeptics are right, at least the policy change won’t have done too much damage and can be rolled back without ending other projects in midstream.
When I was growing up in rural Mecklenburg County, back when there used to be one, I spent many a summer afternoon running hoses, watering plants, and tramping through gardens. As a consequence I blundered into many a bees’ nest, though my nemesis was the yellowjacket, not the hornet.
Take it from one who knows: Watch where you step. And if you end up disturbing a nest, don’t hang around to see how many stings you can take. Just git.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.