Fripp owners don't need new law to make their case

If Fripp Island property owners have a case to make against new setback lines on the barrier island, they have a venue to do it -- the existing appeals process and the state's court system.

Lawmakers do potential harm to the state's beach retreat policy, a two-decades old policy based on sound science and historical data -- by passing unconstitutional special legislation for a single set of property owners.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Tom Davis of Beaufort, has passed the Senate and is expected to be taken up by the full House this week. A similar measure was introduced in the House, with Reps. Shannon Erickson and Bill Herbkersman listed as sponsors.

As is typical for special legislation, the bill does not name Fripp Island but limits its application to a private island with an Atlantic shoreline of 20,210 feet that is entirely "revetted," a definition that applies to Fripp.

As amended by the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, it would permanently set the baseline at the top of the island's revetments and the setback line 20 feet from there. It also exempts Fripp from the section of law that lays out the state's 40-year retreat policy and how the baseline and setback lines are established and from a prohibition against building new erosion control devices seaward of the setback line except to protect public highways.

The law already exempts Fripp Island, through a similar definition, from the prohibition against new erosion control devices seaward of the setback line and stops it from getting beach renourishment funding. The rest of the law applies to the island.

State officials review the baseline and setback lines every eight to 10 years. Fripp property owners are challenging the latest lines in court. The baseline for construction limits still follows the revetment, but the setback line where building is restricted now varies a great deal from the minimum 20 feet in many places along the island's shoreline, passing through and behind homes and other structures.

The state Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management rightly points out the precedent such legislation could create and the damage it could do it the state's ability to control development along its coastline.

"The (Department of Health and Environmental Control) has several cases pending in Circuit Court where the validity of the (law) has been challenged," the agency states in a report on the bill. "If passed, this bill is likely to be used against the department to undermine the legitimacy of policies that apply to the rest of the coastal zone."

The agency also writes that the state's Beachfront Management Act concludes that such erosion control devices offer a false sense of security to beachfront property owners and can make properties more vulnerable to damage from wind and waves, while contributing to the loss of dry sand beach.

OCRM says the revetments haven't been tested by a major storm and that historical data show the shoreline changed significantly before the rock revetments were put in place.

Fripp Island property owners argue that no one else is in the same situation they are. But it is a situation of their own making. Property owners have ringed the island with manmade rock walls to hold back the ocean. Such hard structures were banned in 1988 because they can exacerbate erosion, especially in nearby unprotected areas. In 1993, about 10 lot owners were granted an exemption to build revetments to close the remaining gap.

The property owners say nothing warrants the dramatic change in setback line locations and say they have data showing the island's beaches have grown in the past 10 years.

They can make their arguments in court. The normal appellate process is where this issue should be settled.