the balancing of public and private uses 

 of and access to the waterfront." 



He says that while the division is no 

 longer able to deny a permit for certain 

 development over water, people still have 

 to apply for that permit and they have to 

 meet conditions set out in the law. The 

 law also doesn't exempt them from other 

 types of permits, such as a 401 water 

 quality certification from the Division of 

 Water Quality. 



Nevertheless, the move to individual 

 permitting is a step backward, says Walter 

 Clark, ocean and coastal law specialist for 

 the North Carolina Sea Grant College 

 Program. 



"It's moving away from what we've 

 been trying to do over the years in making 

 things easier for permittees by trying to 

 limit the permits they have to get," he says. 



Developers now can expect to wait 

 an average of 1 10 days for the corps' 

 approval under the split process compared 

 with the previous 60-day period under 

 joint permitting. 



And the door is open for conflicting 

 state and federal permitting decisions, 

 Smith says. A project could be approved 

 at the state level under CAMA but denied 

 by the corps under its Rivers and Harbors 

 Act of 1899, which covers structures in 

 navigable waters. 



The corps' stance may account for 

 the quiet on the waterfront. Besides doing 

 its own review, the federal agency says it 

 plans to continue its policy of prohibiting 

 permanent enclosed non-water-dependent 

 structures over navigable waters, with few 

 exceptions. 



"We haven't had any contact at all 

 from any other municipalities that are 

 proposing to do anything under this bill 

 at the present time," Wright says. "My 

 feeling is that they're kind of waiting to 

 see what's going to happen with the 

 Wilmington situation." 



Wright says he has had discussions 

 with the Wilmington developers but has 

 not yet seen their proposal on his desk. If 

 they are proposing permanent structures 

 on the water, he says his office would like 

 to help them look at how the buildings 

 could be shifted away from the water. 



At issue in the debate is a desire to 

 protect the environment and to ensure that 



the public continues to have free access 

 to the water. After all, Clark says, those 

 waters and the land under them usually 

 are owned by the public and the state. 



So far, the state has allowed private 

 use of public waters only to give landown- 

 ers access to the water, for example, to 

 dock their boats or when the state receives 

 compensation, as from shellfish farmers. 



While the issue of public access may 

 seem esoteric, regulatory agencies say it 

 is not. As more municipalities and 

 entrepreneurs rediscover abandoned 

 waterfronts as a source of revenue, 

 regulators say they want to ensure that 

 simple pleasures like strolling along the 



into it to find out if any of these municipali 

 ties feel they have to have those kind of 

 permanent non-water-dependent struc- 

 tures," he says. "It may be many munici- 

 palities can develop their waterfronts ... 

 simply (by) using platforms or walkways, 

 which we can normally permit." 



That idea may not wash with develop- 

 ers who say that North Carolina has a 

 history of non-water-dependent retail 

 commerce at its ports. For them, restoring 

 the waterfronts to their former grandeur 

 goes hand in hand with catering to custom- 

 ers at the water's edge. 



For his part, Wright, the state law- 

 maker, says he sponsored the bill for the 



Wilmington's lively waterfront could extend southward. 



waterfront or swimming, boating and 

 fishing remain free to everyone. 



"The real crux of the debate is 

 whether it's necessary to allow private, 

 non-water-dependent development over 

 state-owned navigable waters to success- 

 fully revitalize urban waterfronts," Clark 

 says. "Or, can you have quality waterfront 

 development that is exactly that — 

 development that stops at the water's 

 edge?" 



Wright says no one yet knows how 

 the law will shape development in coastal 

 and riverside communities. 



"We won't really know until we get 



greater glory of Wilmington, which at 

 the turn of the century was an "economic 

 mecca" for the state. Before the law 

 passed, he says restrictive state rules 

 prevented the building of restaurants and 

 inns in places where tourists may want 

 waterfront property. 



"You can't have people come visit 

 you if there's nothing to entertain them 

 with," he says. "We're one of the fastest- 

 growing coastal areas in the state. I'm 

 tired of folks coming here and there's 

 nothing for them to do, so they all head 

 south to Myrtle Beach. We lose the 

 revenue. It's about business." □ 



COASTWATCH 19 



