According to a recent article form the Wilmington Star, the town of Wrightsville is working on a ban to keep boats from discharging human waste into the ocean. When I read the article, I felt gross all over, and a little sick from all the times I've jumped into the ocean. I know the water is massively diluted, but still—EWWWWWW.

Here's my favorite part of the article:

"Town officials want to prohibit boaters from dumping waste from their onboard toilets into public waters around the town.  They suspect it's one of the reasons for deteriorating water quality in Banks Channel."

Uh, ya think? I'd venture to guess that dumping human waste (treated or untreated) into a waterway is going to cause deteriorating water quality. And if you're headed out that way for a Labor Day vacation, be cautious:

"Water quality problems in Banks Channel are nothing new. Swimming advisories are a regular occurrence there. Banks Channel has had six swimming advisories posted in the past year because of high bacteria levels, according to the N.C. Recreational Water Quality Program.

That high bacteria count is an indicator for organisms that can cause gastrointestinal and skin problems."

I think I'll stick to the shore for now.

Why do I have this weird feeling I've been here before...

It's no surprise that President Bush's proclamation "Our nation must produce more oil, and we must start now" has sparked a heated debate between and among party leaders across the state of North Carolina and the country itself.

While offshore drilling has been a long-debated issue, the recent surge in gas prices has, shall I say, fueled the federal government to reconsider the ban on offshore drilling.

Here's the rub, though. Offshore drilling would have many cumbersome side effects, with limited positive outcomes. Firstly, you have the oil companies making more and more money, instead of investing money in renewable and sustainable energy sources. You also have severe environmental impacts on an already vulnerable coast, and although some offshore-drilling supporters envision using profit-sharing from the drilling to renourish beaches, what about all of the other environmental impacts at risk? From the Charlotte Observer:

"Fueled by $4-a-gallon gas, the growing clamor for new energy sources still faces opponents who envision oil spills, blighted ocean views and shorelines industrialized by pipelines and refineries."

I was also surprised to hear this little tidbit from Grist:

"...oil companies already have millions of acres allocated to them upon which they have not gotten around to exploring let alone drilling. When asked the delicate question, as some have been recently, why they have not explored these millions of acres to which the federal government has granted them rights, oil companies typically respond that the public should understand that oil exploration takes time."

Let's face it folks: offshore drilling would do nothing to help us in the next 7 to 10 years. We'll still be sitting here at square one--in dire straights, using the crutch of the mere potential success of offshore drilling to subsidize our energy-hungry lifestyles, which, if it came to fruition, would only provide us with borrowed time anyway.

This weekend I was literally able to touch my work, and as I stood looking at our beautiful Outer Banks it touched me deep in my soul. I found myself in Manteo this past weekend for the fifth stop of the Take Action Tour on Climate Change. I've been traveling around the state for the past several months talking to lots of concerned North Carolinians in Winston-Salem, Wilmington, Charlotte, Asheville, and this coming weekend in Raleigh.

But this trip was different. As I drove East towards Manteo I thought about how this area of the state could one day be ground zero for the impacts of climate change. North Carolina has a lot of low-lying areas that could easily be impacted by the slightest rise in sea level or a major storm surge that brings water inland.

The first day I did get go stick my toes in the ocean for a bit and I was thrilled to see that the Coquina Beach bathhouse was being powered by the wind! The plaque in front of the windmill talked about how in the past wind was the only source of power in that area. It reads: "Harnesssing the power of wind is not new to this area. In the 18th century, coastal communities did not have running water or electricity, so they used the only source readily available to them to grind grain and to pump water: wind."

As I stood looking at the windmill from the beach, I was overcome with emotion as I thought how that tiny windmill generating about 6,000 kilowatt-hours is helping to save the very beach it overlooks.

After our presentation on Saturday the group of us went to eat at Sen. Basnight's restaurant, which was close by. We were all delighted when he came by our table to say hello and stay to chat with us for a bit. We were able to talk with him about the work we all are doing and we got to hear about all the eco-friendly things he is employing at his restaurant. Everything from recycling, to composting, to several large cisterns capturing water, to the beautiful osprey nest, to a portion of the parking area that's pervious to giving leftover veggie oil to the local biofuel folks. I was also pleased to hear that the food is all local and fresh with Sen. Basnight himself picking up veggies from the farm on his way back from Raleigh.

My last day I decided that since I was so close I would venture down to the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. I felt compelled to do this because of a comment one of our speakers Bill Holman had said the day before about how the moving of the lighthouse was proof that we can and will adapt to a changing environment. As I set out south along through the Outer Banks it struck me how narrow some of these islands are.

In places there really isn't much more than a big sand dune with grass and beautiful flowers. Once I arrived at the lighthouse, I climbed to the top to get a good look a things. I chatted with the rangers who showed me where the lighthouse use to stand. They said that the distance we were from its original position is the same distance the ocean used to be from it when it was first built. They then told me that the island is actually growing towards the southwest.

Inside the museum there was an exhibit dedicated to how the shoreline has changed. I stood there, again overwhelmed with emotion and frustration because it seems so many people don't understand this...and there it is on the museum exhibit...these islands shift and change. Yet there are people wanting to fight it and build concrete barriers to protect their homes. Legislation before the NC General Assembly would allow them to protect their own interests while causing more erosion further down the islands. (You can take action to stop this by clicking here.)

The display read: "The coast of the Outer Banks moves. The shore erodes, but builds up elsewhere. The foundation of the first lighthouse is now underwater; armor rock has been placed to protect the current one. Man tries to slow the movement, but finally is forced to adapt."

Very powerful words right there in the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse museum.

While I did enjoy sticking my toes in the ocean I did have some profound moments of connection with the places I visited. What will happen to this beautiful place if we don't reduce our global warming pollution?

The top story in USA Today’s Money section discusses reconstruction of barrier-island homes in Louisiana.

The article’s second paragraph captures the gist:

[N]early two years after Katrina wiped out 350 homes and dislodged 1.5 miles of land, new and bigger homes are rising. A 9-foot-high sand dune was built with about $3.4 million in federal funds to prevent flooding. But it's already been breached by the Gulf of Mexico's waters.

Taxpayers subsidize unwise rebuilding in several ways – in North Carolina just as in Louisiana:

• Disaster funds are used to rebuild community infrastructure – roads and sewer lines – following a storm, encouraging people to rebuild where houses, roads, and sewer lines will all be destroyed again.
• Many properties are grandfathered into the federal flood insurance program with low premiums.  In part because of this, the federal flood insurance program can’t pay for itself, and needs regular infusions of tax dollars to keep it going.
• The federal government spends a great deal each year to pump sand onto beaches to help provide a buffer against storms for the first few rows of beach houses.

The USA Today article quotes a local official from North Carolina who supports the various subsidies: "Beaches are the No. 1 tourist destination in the U.S., and if you don't do something to maintain this economic resource, that will hurt people all over the U.S."

Let’s think about that.  As long as we don’t allow landowners to build sea walls, the beach will exist, with or without the subsidies – some owners simply won’t be able to rebuild on the public’s dime.  (If we allow seawalls, rising oceans will eat the beach and then eventually destroy the seawalls, too, or create a concrete-encrusted coast).  If we eliminate most of the subsidies, tourists will still visit the beach; they’ll just stay in buildings set a little farther back from the shore – buildings paid for by their owners and renters, rather than by all of us.  For some particularly risky sections of beach where the market won’t pay to rebuild, that may even result in the beach looking more natural and less cluttered. 

How nice.  Unless, of course, you think the main reason to go to the beach is to stare at all the giant houses.

As an Organizer for the NC Conservation Network I travel all over my home state fighting to protect our health and our environment. I meet and talk with lots of different people in my travels. Often I hear from folks that they have a hard time seeing the link between their daily life (and health) and the importance of protecting our environment. 

Making Connections, which aired this week on UNC-TV, does an excellent job of showing the links between our everyday life, our land, farms, forests, natural habitats, water usage, air quality, and tourism.

Our friends at Environmental Defense worked with the Director of NC Zoo, Dr. David Jones, to create this wonderful program.  Dr. Jones says “It is time to ask tough questions about polluted air, dirty water, and development…See why now is the time for making connections." He travels across our state exploring how our health and wealth are in danger.

Click here to watch this program online.

They have also created an informative website with lesson plans and activity guides for teachers as well as ways for folks like you to get involved.

Dr. Jones asks "What will our legacy be?" 

I have hope that our state will be a leader in the recycling industry, renewable energy field, eco-tourism and organic farming. I see these replacing the vanishing small town textile mills and farms with industry that creates jobs, saves our small towns and preserves our beautiful environment.

What about you? What do you think our legacy will be?

I was at a bar the other night and overheard a teacher saying that she hoped Hurricane Ernesto came through Raleigh and dumped enough rain so that she wouldn't have to go to school on Friday. A likely thought to cross folks' minds as the school year gets off to a start.

However, this comment immediately drew me back to the years of Hurricane Fran ('96) and Hurriance Floyd ('99). I was a student during both of these hurricanes and remember being out for a week because of the repurcussions these storms had. And, as I recall, it's nothing to be hopeful for.

Maybe you remember the pictures from Hurricane Floyd's aftermath of floating hogs. Maybe you'll remember the green runoff caused from among other things toxics running off from parking lots. Or the flooded highway 40. Or the communities who are still desperately trying to put their lives back together. Or the floating graves. These are images that will be forever engraved in North Carolinian's minds.

So as the hurricane season intensifies, please be careful what you wish for.

One of the big stories in the news today is BP's corroded pipeline in Alaska.  Most articles have focused on the economic impact, linking the shutdown to higher gas prices. 

But Anglico at BlueNC brings up another good point:

A BP oil field in Alaska has been shut down because of unexpectedly severe corrosion in a pipeline. Sort of makes you wonder about the wisdom of having oil and gas lines strung out underwater along the North Carolina coast. Why our state's Congressional Republicans are happy to take these kinds of risks on the Atlantic continental shelf is beyond me. We Americans might be addicted to oil, but our elected officials of the right wing persuasion are more likely addicted to oil profits.

What do you think?  Is it worth drilling off the coast to get more oil?  Does the idea of lessening our dependence on foreign oil outweigh the potential environmental impacts?   

We've been talking a lot about trash lately -- landfills, in particular.  But it seems trash is also one of the leading threats to the ocean, according to a new report.

The United Nations Environment Programme issued a report last month that provides a general overview of the threats to deep sea ecosystems.  The report is fairly general in nature, but includes several pages of “fast facts” (pulled from various sources) about oceans, including the following:

• In the Central Pacific, there are up to 6 pounds of marine litter to every pound of plankton. Over 46,000 pieces of plastic litter are floating on every square mile of ocean today.
• Plastic waste kills up to 1 million sea birds, 100,000 sea mammals and countless fish each year.
• Ballast water (from ships) often contains species that as ‘aliens’ colonize new environments to the detriment of native species and local economies.  Today 95% of the Black Sea’s biomass is made up by the Atlantic comb jellyfish, accidentally introduced by ballast water. 
• In the last 50 years, levels of human generated noise have increased dramatically in our oceans, doubling every decade for five decades running in some coastal areas.
  

A pristine coast and oil rigs?

An article in today's News & Observer points out that folks are divided on the issue of drilling off of the NC coast.

Where once there was nearly universal opposition to platforms in the ocean, some speak of them in a new way -- as a possibility, an inevitability, even a financial benefit to a region long fearful of the damage drilling could do to tourism and ecology.

Some individuals are still completely opposed to it:

Still, some local environmentalists and governments are as opposed as ever. The region's tourism director testified against the House bill in Washington last month. And every local government in the Outer Banks passed a resolution in the past six months against offshore drilling.

Others are more open to the idea:

"You have to participate to make sure you do get some money for it," said Mike Kelly, who owns three restaurants on the Outer Banks and sits on the region's Chamber of Commerce board. "They're going to do it anyway."

What do you think? Should NC allow offshore drilling (scroll down to graphic) if Congress passes a measure making it legal? Or is it still not worth it?

Are there limits when it comes to developing our coasts? Should there be?

This editorial cartoon from the News and Observer depicts that we may be heading down a path of over-development. What do you think?

I have to admit, I've never heard that phrase before, but it makes sense.  North Carolina has a beautiful (outer) coastline that we all value and want to protect, and we should treat our inner coastline the same way.

The News and Observer is running a summer series on this issue, and the first part has just been posted online.  Check out the interactive map of coastal development.

The NC Coastal Federation also recently released their State of the Coast report, which this year focuses on overdevelopment in the coastal region.

If you are from the coast, have you seen signs of overdevelopment in your town?  If you are like me and just visit, what have you seen?

The Navy held a hearing in Morehead City last night about their plans to build an anti-submarine sonar training range off the NC coast.  According to a Raleigh News & Observer article, 150 people attended the hearing and none spoke in favor of the proposal.

Michelle Nowlin, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, sends the following first hand account of the hearing:

There were more than 100 people there, mostly fishermen, but few -- only about 20 -- spoke at the hearing. The Navy had information booths set up, two of which were dedicated to acoustics and their impact on marine mammals. The Navy's primary assertions were: (1) whales hear at ranges below the frequency of the sonar and so wouldn't hear the sonar and thus wouldn't be affected by it; the Navy discounted suggestions that the animals would nonetheless "feel" the sound vibrations; (2) sea turtles can't hear at all and thus will not be affected; they will avoid Sargassum rafts as much as possible; (3) fish also can't hear at the frequency of the sonar... you get the picture.

I talked with the Navy's Natural Resource Manager at length about the pollution from the vessels -- the lead ballast they intend to leave on the ocean floor and the parachutes that will drop the sonabuoys. On both counts, the Navy asserts it would be cost prohibitive to recover these materials, especially when considering the marginal environmental benefit. One of fisherman noted that if these were NC jurisdictional waters, they would not be able to dump trash; the Navy shrugged and said, "well, it's outside NC's jurisdiction and we're in international waters." They were unswayed by the argument that the absence of a law prohibiting them from dumping trash doesn't mean that they SHOULD dump the trash. The Navy disregards concerns about entanglement or drowning of sea turtles in the parachutes. On the lead ballast, their perspective is that (1) the ballast will cover a minuscule portion of the ocean floor, and (2) given the volume of water, there will be no environmental/health impacts from leaching lead. There's evidently a study underway measuring the leaching potential of lead munitions in different undersea environments -- such as sand, silt and hardbottom and calm/turbulent waters -- but they don't plan to wait for the results of the study before moving forward. They said they would consider WQ monitoring, but think it would be cost-prohibitive.

Lots of fishermen raised the lack of information about fin fish as a real concern and provided anecdotal evidence of sensitivity to sound.

One fisherman noted that the sonar would fry the fish-finders and depth-finders that many charter boats use and cited that as a serious economic concern, since these folks live at the economic margins.

According to the N&O article, Nowlin spoke at the hearing, commenting that:

the environmental study grossly underestimated the presence of whales off North Carolina's coast, particularly the right whale. She said the Navy should extend the comment period, which ends Dec. 28, to take into account a report from the Marine Mammal Commission, an independent federal agency, on the effect of sound on sea life.

Visit our previous blog on this topic: Navy vs. NC Wildlife: Round II

As Hurricane Ophelia sat off the coast of North Carolina, it ate away 60 feet of beach, causing eight houses on Topsail Island to be condemned.  The News and Observer covered the plight of some of the owners this week:

On their first and last weekend at their new North Carolina beach house, the Madonna girls picked out pink and green paint for their room, slept in bunk beds and learned how to catch skittering crabs in the moonlight.

After they returned home to Syracuse, N.Y., Hurricane Ophelia washed away 60 feet of beach. And when Giuliana, 11, and Marisa, 7, learned that the duplex was suddenly teetering on stilts as the ocean surged beneath it, they cried.

Their parents wanted to weep, too.

A month after achieving their dream of a vacation house -- buying a fixer-upper home on the ocean -- the Madonna family faced a real estate purgatory. Their house, and seven others that line the ocean at Topsail Island's north end, was condemned in October by the town of North Topsail Beach.

This was a devastating blow that left many folks asking some tough questions:

Bob Semmler, of Beaufort, S.C., would let the ocean claim the property he bought in 1989, but he still owes money on his mortgage.

Sixteen years ago, Semmler was a Marine stationed at nearby Camp Lejeune, and the house had 200 yards of sand between it and the ocean. He thought the home was a good investment.

"Nobody told me it was a stupid thing to do," Semmler said. "If it was so crummy, someone should have said something."

Someone should have said something.  HB 1512, Coastal Hazards Disclosure, which was introduced in this year's legislative session, would have made sure that prospective buyers at the coast are notified about potential hazards.  The bill did not move this session, but should be a hot topic in the 2006 session.

What do you think?  Do you think the notification will have any negative impact on coastal real estate sales?  Is that a good thing?