The most valuable coastal resource is its people

Evidence is mounting that the state’s “sit down, shut up and hold on” public policy approach to managing the North Carolina coastal area is a failed strategy. Sure, our coast is bristling with natural resources; however, it appears state government has recently been shocked by the discovery the North Carolina coastal area also contains something else. People.

Hiding right there in plain sight, for decades the state’s public officials have been busy protecting everything else supposedly threatened and endangered, except for the people. This year, on a hot summer day, the people rose up, drove to Raleigh, and stood on the legislature’s doorstep and staked out their territory. The rest is history. But the great uprising of coastal fishermen and concerned citizens to defeat the proposed inshore shrimp trawling ban was not the only issue concerning the coast going on at that time.

For years the NC Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM), the field soldiers implementing the NC Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), has been vastly expanding its jurisdictional authority further and further inland. The scheme involved asserting CAMA jurisdiction over man-made tidal ditches. Applied on a case-by-case basis, individual unsuspecting property owners were bullied into submission, keeping what was a major policy shift from showing up on the public’s radar.

When this activity was discovered, NCDCM ignored complaints that this practice was outside their jurisdictional authority under the CAMA. The Coastal Resources Commission (CRC), who makes the rules for NCDCM, refused to hear the complaint, and the secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), the sole individual responsible for state environmental policy, through his spokesman, chose to “wait and see” how it would all shake out, instead of using their authority to intervene.

Like the proposed inshore shrimp trawling ban, it was left up to the legislature to cut this practice off at the knees. New CAMA legislation now provides NCDCM, the CRC, and the NCDEQ secretary specific guidance as to where the CAMA jurisdiction ceases to be in effect. This new legislation completely removes man-made ditches dug in uplands, and any wetlands that have developed in those ditches, are now outside NCDCM’s jurisdictional claims.

The people of the Piedmont, where I spend part of my time, will never fully comprehend the thinking of those at the coast, where I have spent most of my life, and vice-versa. Unfortunately for all of us, it’s an ARRANGED MARRIAGE! So how do we bridge the divide and understand each other? Here are a couple of suggestions.

First, and presently, in response to the failed proposed inshore shrimp trawl ban, Dare County Board of Commissioners Chairman Bob Woodard has organized the “North Carolina Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition,” made up of government appointees from each of the 20 coastal counties. There was a first meeting Aug. 5 in Morehead City. The purpose is to combat politically charged threats to commercial fisheries.

This is a great idea and a great start, and my wish is for this group is to expand their scope to defend the coastal area from other unreasonable, and potentially illegal, abuses by government entities under the guise of pursuing some supposed issue requiring “environmental protection.” Government considering any ideal for any reason other than “for the people,” i.e. the people occupying the space in the present time continuum, is a mystical religious ambition outside the realm of “good” government.

Second, the secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality needs to be a state-wide elected official. The current secretary, D. Reid Wilson, has an environmental activist background with little or no capitalistic business experience. He was appointed by the governor but, surprisingly, he was also approved by a Republican state Senate.

My guess is that his background would be one that would prevent him from being elected to a state-wide office, considering the transparency required for that type of campaign. Someone more balanced in their education and experience would hopefully be the more successful candidate. As it is, if we keep appointing environmental advocates, we are going to get more environmentalism.

Thirdly, the individual filling this new elected office must be provided absolute authority over state environmental policy and control over the agencies of DEQ for the sake of consistency. This includes the “commissioned” divisions of DEQ, especially the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). And I single out the WRC for a specific reason.

Even though state law places the WRC in the Department of Environmental Quality, the WRC operates outside the authority of the secretary of DEQ. My understanding is that this independence is primarily rooted in how the WRC is funded. Revenue from vessel registrations and hunting licenses provide the income for the WRC’s budgetary needs. Over the generations this financial independence has been used to separate the WRC from being subject to any oversight by the secretary of DEQ. Recently, a deputy secretary of DEQ confirmed in an email that the DEQ secretary has NO authority over the WRC, even though, at minimum it appears the law provides for at least coordinating through the secretary matters that involve state environmental policy.

This lack of oversight control recently set the stage for the WRC to engage in some environmental activism at the height of the legislature’s consideration of the proposed inshore trawling ban. During this process, the WRC issued an email to all the salt-water “hook and line” recreational fishing licenses holders urging them to call their legislators and express support for the ban. Attempting to pit one interest group against another in a highly charged political and emotional environment was a curious thing for a state agency to do.

From all of this environmental activism and abdication of responsibility, the message is clear. The state believes the coastal “things,” i.e. marsh and fish, are more important than the actual coastal people. In the face of various state agencies over regulating, potentially in violation of the law, and flagrant environmentalist advocacy, at the expense of well-established traditional coastal industries, the coastal area is rightfully peacefully rebelling. State officials may want to consider taking notice and make some required and necessary adjustments to current coastal environmental policies.