CHAPEL HILL - My family has great memories of outings on the North Carolina coast. My 10-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. 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.

l l l

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 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 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.

l l l

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 shortsighted human engineering that attempts to stop their natural adaptation.

Those who treasure the North Carolina coast as I do, and want it to be there for their grandchildren, should oppose SB 599, or any of the inevitable future attempts to weaken our effective natural coasts policy.

(David R. Godschalk is professor emeritus of city and regional planning at UNC-Chapel Hill.)

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.