Remarks by CRC Chairman Gene Tomlinson
to the Environmental Review Commission, Feb. 17, 2000

To co-chairs and members of the commission, I want to say good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss an initiative that I hope will make a difference in the quality of our coastal waters.

I am here today on behalf of the Coastal Resources Commission and the North Carolina Estuarine Shoreline Protection Stakeholders.

Protecting coastal water quality is in the best interest of all North Carolinians, regardless of where we live in the state. Any citizen who has ever splashed in the surf at Ocean Isle Beach, water skied on the Neuse River or fished in Pamlico Sound recognizes the necessity of maintaining healthy waters along our coast.

The Coastal Resources Commission realized that the state was losing ground in its efforts to protect our coastal waters, particularly in our estuarine areas. Last year, the commission appointed a group of citizens to address this issue.

This group had a somewhat controversial origin. In early 1999, the CRC was considering a proposal that would have taken bold steps toward protecting coastal water quality. The problem with the proposal was that we came up with a real good solution before we properly defined the problem we were trying to find a solution for.

And many governments and citizens in the coastal counties didn’t like it. They thought we needed to involve them more in the development and decision-making process. So we did.

In March of last year, the CRC voted to set aside our earlier proposals and pursue a stakeholder process. Concurrently, we moved forward with a more modest water quality measure of our own – a 30-foot buffer on coastal shorelines, which Donna Moffitt has told you about.

In appointing the team, we strived to have members who were representative of the segments who had opposed our earlier proposal. After we appointed the group, the CRC stayed out of the way. An independent facilitator guided them from then on.

This 28-person team had a diverse membership. There were bankers, farmers, fishermen, real estate agents, government workers and environmentalists. I also was a member of the group. The group had three co-chairs: Joan Altman, mayor of Oak Island, who represented local government; Dick Bierly, president of Carteret Crossroads, who represented environmentalists; and George Wood from Dare County, who represented coastal citizens.

The stakeholders met over a period of nearly four months to examine coastal water quality and to try to think of ways to make it better. During that time, we held 18 meetings and invested more than 3,000 person-hours into our work. The members were not compensated for their time. They volunteered – and in some cases, they were volunteered – out of concern for the coastal environment.

In examining coastal water quality and ways to improve it, we asked ourselves several questions:

• What is the state of coastal water quality in North Carolina?
• What harms it?
• What is the state doing to improve coastal water quality?
• Where do we want our water quality to be?
• What are the ideal water quality conditions?
• How do we get there?

The stakeholders decided to test the validity of our recommendations by applying the following elements of public policy: economics, funding, science, regulatory controls, infrastructure and grandfathering.

The group identified dozens of issues relevant to the coast’s three geographic regions: North, Central and South. The membership then split up into three workgroups based on those regions. Within these workgroups, the stakeholders focused on a particular pollutant of concern and the river basins relevant to their region.

They met independently of the main group to make progress on the issues. To help them, the workgroups engaged the expertise of scientists and public policy researchers, as well as the input of local residents. The workgroups reported back to the entire stakeholder team every three weeks, noting critical issues, policy alternatives and problems they faced. This kept the entire stakeholder team informed of developments and emerging issues.

The stakeholders finished their work in July. I believe each of you has received a copy of the final report. All of the recommendations contained in that report were adopted by at least 75 percent of the group’s members. Many of the recommendations had 100 percent approval.

In the end, 27 of the group’s 28 members signed the final report. The lone abstention was from a member who disagreed with certain details of the report, but not with its overall content. The stakeholder group presented its report to the Coastal Resources Commission in late July. The commission accepted the report and agreed to push forward with the team’s recommendations.

In answering questions about the state of coastal water quality and how to improve it, the stakeholder group developed a set of broad-based recommendations. The citizens realized that the duty of protecting coastal water quality requires a partnership. Success will require action not just by the CRC and Division of Coastal Management, but also by other state commissions and agencies, local governments, and the General Assembly.

The group’s recommendations fell into five categories: institutional coordination, basinwide management, pollutant sources of concern, research, and pollution prevention through education.

The stakeholders believed that the key to improving coastal water quality lay in a basinwide management approach. Improving water quality on the coast would be difficult without addressing pollution upstream.

Specific recommendations included enhancing basinwide planning, extending land-use planning, restoring impaired waters, strengthening enforcement of point-source pollution regulations, and improving communication between the agencies that handle water quality.

The stakeholders recognized that many state and federal programs affect water quality in some way. Better communication and coordination between these programs is necessary to maximize the effectiveness of current water quality protection efforts.

The group requested that the General Assembly consider possible legislation aimed at strengthening water quality. For example, the group recommended that the legislature amend statutes to allow agriculture exemptions from the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and the Coastal Area Management Act only if a farm has a current conservation plan approved by the Soil and Water Conservation District.

The stakeholders also asked the legislature to provide funding for full implementation of existing regulatory programs that are designed to maintain and improve water quality, and have been deemed effective by the Environmental Review Commission.

It isn’t just up to the state to improve water quality. The stakeholders recommended that local governments identify sensitive areas they want to preserve. They also should establish stormwater management strategies to address pollutants of concern.

The Institute of Government can help local governments by developing water quality education programs for local elected officials and staff.

Some of the action is under way. The CRC has submitted a petition for rulemaking to the Environmental Management Commission asking it to:

·         Establish water quality goals for river basins that drain to coastal waters;

·         Assist local governments in establishing local water quality planning and implementation committees;

·         And to develop rules to equitably apply stormwater management strategies, including protection of riparian buffers, to each of the coastal river basins.

The EMC has accepted the petition and referred it to its Water Quality Committee to begin the rulemaking process.

The Coastal Resources Commission and Division of Coastal Management are eager to work with members of the Environmental Review Commission and the General Assembly as a whole to move forward with the stakeholder recommendations.

I realize that the result of this citizen effort is ambitious. But it is demonstrative of their commitment to improving coastal water quality. The underlying message in these recommendations is that improving coastal water quality is everyone’s responsibility. It isn’t up to the Coastal Resources Commission alone, or the Division of Water Quality alone, or even the General Assembly alone. Just as it required a team effort to develop the recommendations, it will require partnership to implement them.

Regardless of how many recommendations are implemented, the stakeholders already feel that they have been somewhat successful because of the working relationships they formed during their process. They feel confident that this process will lead to resolving coastal issues more easily in the years ahead.

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today. I’ll be glad to answer any questions.