The July 15 opinion piece by Mack Paul and Charlotte Mitchell recommended that the state recognize that some beaches must be nourished forever and rejected the concept that moving buildings back as shorelines retreat is a reasonable alternative approach.

However, the flaw in their proposal is that they ignore the effect of the ongoing sea level rise and the fact that nourishment will simply encourage more development, which makes our future response to the sea level rise all the more difficult. And, of course, as sea level continues to rise, artificially altered beaches will disappear at a faster rate.

The commentary also ignored the fact that taxpayers pay for these beaches, which are viewed in the commentary to be simply infrastructure to protect the houses next to the beach. But why should we the public pay, if we weren't the ones who were imprudent enough to build adjacent to the beach? Why should we, in any event, encourage building on the beach face directly in the path of the stormy Atlantic Ocean? Do Paul and Mitchell remember what Hurricanes Hazel, Donna, Fran, Floyd and Isabel, to name a few, and scores of unnamed winter storms were like?

Prof. Leonard J. Pietrafesa

N.C. State University

Prof. Orrin H. Pilkey

Duke University

Durham

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