CAMA: Key to "orderly growth" 



(Continued fromp. J,) 



proposed AECs overlap existing regulatory pro- 

 grams, they [other programs] were adopted and 

 were administered on a piecemeal basis. This 

 [CAMA] is the first real effort to tie them together 

 under one understandable umbrella. 



Some people feel that the powers of the Coastal 

 Resources Commission are too broad. What is your 

 response to that criticism? 



It may well be that some of the powers of the 

 CRC are too broad. We are working with members 

 of the General Assembly on amendments to CAMA 

 that would limit the authority of the CRC where 

 it isn't essential to the CAMA program and where 

 it seems to scare the daylights out of people on the 

 basis of what we might do rather than what we 

 have done or are doing. 



Do yon think CAMA is necessary from an eco- 

 logical standpoint? 



From an ecological standpoint, it is not going 

 to accomplish as much as the conservation enthu- 

 siast would hope. It is a method of getting local 

 government and the state, with our commission 

 serving as a bridge, working together on these 

 problems. But as far as saving something that 

 would otherwise be destroyed, there are few in- 

 stances where CAMA will accomplish that. 



Do you think CAMA should apply to the tohole 

 state? 



To begin with, it can't — not as far as coastal 

 resources are concerned — because coastal resources 

 are unique to the coast. However, there are parts of 

 CAMA that can apply statewide — specifically the 

 planning. It would be fine. I'm all for it. I would 

 like to see all counties and all cities that choose to 

 develop their own plans for the first time. 



Another criticism of CAMA relates to the ques- 

 tion of local versus state control. Do you feel there 

 is a conflict here? 



First, land use plans have been developed and 

 will be implemented locally. There are no pro- 

 visions for state control over the enforcement of 

 land use plans. Second, the incentives are given to 

 the local governments under the AEC program to 

 handle all the permit-letting and enforcement in 

 the minor developments which generally are those 

 under 20 acres and buildings under 60,000 square 

 feet and those not covered by another state regula- 

 tory program. This means that local governments 

 will issue most all permits. 



There are currently four law suits pending 

 against the CRC. What does this kind of citizen 

 concern say to you about CAMA? 



Somehow we have failed to get across to a large 

 segment of the populace what this act is all about 

 because most of the contentions that I've seen by 

 the people who are filing suit are based on com- 

 pletely erroneous information. And I don't know 

 that any of these that I have seen are wide-based 

 citizens groups. 



Some people believe that CAMA discriminates 

 against the coastal area. What is your response? 



My reaction to that is that if it is discrimination 

 to have both the state and federal governments 

 actively concerned with your local problems, to 

 the extent that they are willing to put up vast 

 amounts of money, so that you can address those 

 problems yourself locally and come up with your 

 own plans on what to do about them : then boy, give 

 me more discrimination. 



What effect do you think CAMA will have on 

 coastal development? 



It is a key mechanism in providing for orderly, 

 planned growth rather than the completely un- 

 controlled growth we have had in the past. It will 

 make it easier for developers because they will 

 know what they can and can't do. And it will mean 

 that everyone will be in a position to understand 

 the costs of growth before it happens instead of 

 learning about the public and private costs when 

 they get the bill after it happens. 



What kind of opposition do you expect to hear 

 at the upcoming AEC hearings? 



I'm sure that we're going to get a continuation 

 of the same things that I have heard hundreds of 

 times from the public, from local officials, from the 

 members of the General Assembly who somehow 

 feel that if an area is designated an AEC it means 

 there can be no use of it and that they will be de- 

 prived of the right to use it, which is not true. The 

 AEC program will simply make sure that what- 

 ever use is proposed is compatible with the capacity 

 of the land and water resources to sustain that 

 activity. 



Some people contend that the proposed AEC 

 regulations under CAMA involve the legal issue 

 of "taking" of property. What is your response to 

 that? 



First, "taking" generally refers to the complete 

 loss of use of property by the owner. Almost all of 

 the AECs that we are now proposing are already 

 covered by some other regulatory program. And if 

 they aren't "taking" under the other programs, 

 they sure aren't under ours. ... We are proposing 

 standards in uses of marshes, for example, that are 

 now prohibited under dredge and fill regulations. 



Now the structures on the foredunes, which is 

 where the buildings fall overboard when you get 

 a storm . . . this one might have to go to court to 

 determine if it's "taking." We do feel and the AEC 

 standards will so state that where you are in an 

 excessively erosive area that all of the best data 

 indicates will be gone in the next heavy storm, 

 there shouldn't be any permanent construction. 

 However, our proposals would allow structures on 

 dunes if no other practical use can be made of an 

 ocean front lot. And routes of appeal are built into 

 the AEC proposals to make sure careful considera- 

 tion will be given to permit requests. 



"It goes further than is necessary" 



(Continued from p. h) 



that is something that is very definitely opposed to 

 by people in other parts of the state. 



Do you think that CAMA adequately protects 

 the public rights and en vironment of the coast? 



I think that it goes further than is necessary to 

 protect the essential coastal features that are vital 

 to the continuation of marine life, to human exist- 

 ence and to the ecological considerations of our 

 people. Instead of being what it started out to be — 

 a bill that protects those vital areas such as sand 

 dunes, marshlands, shorelines — it ended up being 

 a bill that goes much further. It [provides for] 

 much further inland control. And, too, it lacks a 

 feature I think it should have. That is a definite 

 proviso that in every instance whatever is neces- 

 sary in the way of permits to do certain things so 

 as to carry out the function of the bill, these permits 

 should be handled by the individual counties rather 

 than by a commission or board or state agency 

 that's housed someplace other than in each indi- 

 vidual county. 



... I'm contending that the people in a given 

 area — the people of Carteret County, for instance — 

 want to deal with the Carteret County Board of 

 Commissioners. They should be able to go to those 

 commissioners, who have with some guidance 

 established rules and regulations and [can] issue 

 permits right out of their county courthouse. 



Is there any particular group that you feel will 

 be most affected by CAMA? 



I think those who are living on the streams, the 

 rivers, the sounds and the ocean, those who have 

 land bordering these areas are the most directly 

 affected. 



There are currently four lawsuits pending 

 against the CRC. What d'oes this kind of citizens- 

 concern say to you about CAMA? 



It says to me that there is considerable concern 



on their part that they are losing property rights 

 which makes the law unconstitutional. 



You mentioned "unnecessary aspects of the bill " 

 What do you think they are? 



The bill needs to be simplified and it can be 

 simplified. If we are going to continue with a 

 statute such as this on the books, it ought to be 

 modified so as to make provisions that are going to 

 be maintained. We should make those provisions 

 applicable to the entire state, not saddle all the 

 burden on 20 counties and let all the rest of the 

 state, so to speak, go free. At the same time the 

 controls ought to be brought back to local govern- 

 ment as the number one source. Certainly if local 

 government abdicates its responsibilities in handl- 

 ing whatever controls are let, then it should be 

 provided. . . that some higher authority should 

 enforce those provisions. 



Would you like to see CAMA repealed? 

 Only if that's the only way — if we cannot get 

 the other counties to agree so that we can get suf- 

 ficient votes from the legislature to make this a 

 statewide item. It ought to be a statewide item. 



How do you think CAMA will affect develop- 

 ment on the coast? 



I think it's going to make it very difficult for 

 developers to move ahead. It puts a considerable 

 amount of red tape in their way. 



What response have you received from your 

 constituents on CAMA? 



I have had nothing but a continuous communica- 

 tion: "Please do something about CAMA." And 

 they continue to say that they want relief either in 

 the way of a repeal or they want it altered to the 



point that they can live with it These are people 



from all walks of life who live in these coastal areas. 

 They all have one common denominator. They're 

 all landowners. 



University of North Carolina 

 Sea Grant College Program 

 1235 Burlington Laboratories 

 North Carolina State University 

 Raleigh, N.C. 27607 



