NC 20 has accomplished the following through participation and numerous meetings with government officials, the hosting of public forums, grassroots lobbying efforts and the dissemination of information to the public through our twenty county contacts network. NC 20’s diverse board is involved in numerous other organizations and works diligently to provide information and NC 20’s perspective on various issues.

• STATE STORMWATER RULES:  An unincorporated group of local officials representing county/city governments, along with business associations, from the 20 coastal counties (CAMA) found themselves fighting excessive storm water regulation first proposed by the EMC in 2009. It was led by county managers Paul Spruill, Bobby Outten and others. The regulation as proposed would have required large investments in stormwater retention.  There was very little scientific evidence that the rules as proposed would have a beneficial impact in many cases. Some counties had oyster bed closure rates (due to fecal coliform) of less than 1% while a few  had closure rates of >50%.  The “one size fits all” approach by the State was explained by one State official thusly: “This isn’t about science... it’s about political science.” In the end, the compromise reached was better than the original proposals, but two things became obvious to the NC 20 participants:
   
  • Facts do not matter in regulatory issues as much as power.
  • The 20 coastal counties were fighting with different lobbying groups, different strategies, and uncoordinated efforts. 

Thus, NC 20 was formed. Ironically, as this is being written several years later, the State has admitted that their solution not only didn’t work, but that it actually made things worse.

Footnote:

In June of 2012, DENR, reporting to the CRC, admitted that stormwater ponds do not often work here.  Fecal coliform rates were essentially higher than the background counts, meaning the ponds were creating, not reducing, bacteria. They recommended that we use pervious surface materials to replace stormwater ponds.  While this is a victory of sorts since our original objection to the ponds was that they would breed, not diminish fecal coliform, pervious concrete is about 10 times more expensive. And, once again, there is no compelling science to suggest that this will work either. An alternative was presented at the NC 20 meeting in Morehead City by Dr. Barrett Kays using on site infiltration.  It offers great promise in that it saves land that would otherwise be useless and offers zero discharge.

• HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE: The rising cost of Homeowners Insurance was the next fight. Homeowner and dwelling insurance rates for wind were and still are unreasonably high on the coast.  Based on the 2008 HO Rate Filing, the claims paid in the 18 coastal NCIUA counties average about $0.06 per every premium dollar paid while the claims paid in the rest of the State average about $0.21 for every premium dollar paid which means, essentially, that the coast is subsidizing the rest of the State.  In 2009, there were substantial increases proposed in the cost of homeowners insurance in rates, deductibles and surcharges. The Beach Plan (NCIUA) was targeted for drastic reform. NC 20 was incorporated by this time and these proposals met with far more coordinated resistance than was the case in the stormwater battle.  HB 1305 was subsequently passed with major revisions that lessened the economic injury, and millions of dollars were saved by such changes as reducing the Beach Plan wind deductibles from 2 – 5% in any storm to 1% in named storms only. NC 20 was responsible for eliminating an additional 10% proposed surcharge on Beach Plan wind and homeowners policies, a savings of about $12 million a year to policyholders.  Although a substantial number of NC 20 members participated in this effort, all would agree that the Board members Bobby Outten, Dare County Manager, and NC 20 President, Willo Kelly, deserves the lion’s share of the credit due to their coordination of county efforts, exhaustive research and persistent questioning of insurance industry lobbyists and the staff of the Insurance Commissioner’s office. 

• BUFFER RULES: The next economic attack on the coast was a ruling that appeared on the DWQ web site stating that Variances issued under the Tar Pam and Neuse Buffer Rules were no longer to be considered transferable. NC 20 scheduled a meeting at the Convention Center in New Bern on September 1, 2010, to inform the public of that this ruling could effectively condemn property in the event a new owner could not qualify under whatever future rules were issued. The State had unilaterally and in violation of the law issued this ruling.A few days prior to NC 20’s called public meeting on this ruling,  DWQ posted a revised public notice on their web site which stated that a Variance ran with the land, could be transferred with ownership, and that Variances, once issued, would not expire. The previous posting of August 3, 2010, stating otherwise was deleted from their web site. At the September NC 20 meeting, four officials from the State came and apologized. Board member Missy Baskerville sounded the alarm, led the charge, and deserves the credit for this unprecedented reversal on the part of the State.

• SEA-LEVEL RISE and SETBACK RULES:  Accelerated Sea-Level Rise (SLR) was the next issue that presented itself (and still does) as a threat to NC 20 Counties. It began with a draft policy from the CRC that included a planning “mandate” requiring 39” SLR be included in all land use plans. Here it is:

(a) ................"Consistent with this report (Science Panel - NC Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report -March 2010), the Commission adopts a planning benchmark of one meter (39 inches) of relative sea level rise above present by 2100, for the twenty coastal counties. The benchmark will be used for land use planning, and to assist in designing development and conversation projects.

(f) Private development should be designed to and constructed to avoid sea level rise impacts with the structure's design life. Water dependent structures should be designed to accommodate projected sea level rise within their design life. The Commission may require additional development standards for new and replacement structures built within areas subject to sea level rise impacts.

(g) In order to minimize the magnification of hazards, disruption and losses associated with water levels, public infrastructure should be designed and constructed to avoid sea level rise impacts within the infrastructure's design life to maximum extent practicable, except in instances where the infrastructure is built to serve an adaptation purpose, or if the structure is water dependent and designed to accommodate projected sea level rise within its design life. "

The immediate problem was the unmentioned (and unknown) cost of such a mandate. How many square miles would be lost to the tax rolls and private property owners by being labeled “flood zone?” (2000 square miles, as it actually turned out).  How much would it cost to raise structures and infrastructure to accommodate such an outcome? And, what about roads that would be built for a flood/SLR event 88 years from now? They would become, in effect, de facto dams. All that “preparation” would not come cheaply. The economic substitution effect of spending more on everything now meant actually ending up with less of everything later, including much needed roads and private investment. If there were valid science behind the proposal, there would have been no argument. But, sadly, there was virtually no science at all supporting such an event, only “computer models” driven by assumptions about global warming, ice melting, and sea levels rising. Long term tide gauges showed no acceleration whatsoever and, in several of the studies, a deceleration. That meant the slow, linear rate of rise (about 8” - 10” per century) was diminishing, not getting worse.  NC 20 provided data that showed that there was abundant data from very reputable scientists that disagreed with accelerated SLR. The “mandate” language was removed by the CRC. NC 20 continued to challenge the Science Panel of the CRC on many of its assertions and conclusions, but the Science Panel and the CRC both continued to insist that 39” is a rational number. In June of 2012, the North Carolina State Legislature sided with NC 20 and passed H819, a bill written by Reps. Pat McElraft and Bill Cook. The bill essentially provides for a more scientific study and the elimination of any rules, regulations, or polices mandating a 39” planning benchmark until a more, open scientific investigation determines the likelihood and direction of SL changes. The battle for was ferocious at times, especially on the House side. Ultimately, the Senate passed the bill 50 -1 and the house by 65 – 45 plurality. A number of NC 20 Board members were intimately involved with SLR, but Larry Baldwin, David Burton, John Droz and Bud Stilley played prominent roles.  Also included in that bill was another provision that NC 20 worked diligently on – the grandfathering of existing oceanfront structures from setback rules passed by the CRC in August 2009. 

• FLOOD MAPPING: Flood mapping arose as our next challenge. Although NC 20 was able to get the 39” mandate of the CRC removed, the CRC refused to delete or repudiate the report. The genie was out of the bottle and the first indication was that the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, headed by Secretary Reuben Young, adopted the CRC’s estimate and began drawing flood maps. NC 20, with help from Rep. George Cleveland and the NC 20 legislative delegation, was subsequently able to convince the Department to use historic data which showed no acceleration (the infamous hockey stick), and to monitor SLR and adjust accordingly.  The historic rate of SLR using the best available data is 8” by the year 2100 and NC 20 has agreed with the State Department of Crime Control and Public Safety to revisit the data every five years and adjust if necessary. Drs. Robert Dean, Professor Emeritus, and James Houston, Director Emeritus, (U. Florida and Corps of Engineers respectively) have a comprehensive, worldwide study documented on our website that shows a slight negative acceleration, meaning even the slight linear increase in SLR is beginning to level off.