Comments for Legal Tides http://blogs.ncseagrant.org/legaltides Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:03:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 Comment on Do Publicly Funded Beach Nourishment Projects Deprive Oceanfront Property Owners of Private Property Rights Without Just Compensation? by Robert Henry http://blogs.ncseagrant.org/legaltides/2009/10/19/do-publicly-funded-beach-nourishment-projects-deprive-oceanfront-property-owners-of-private-property-rights-without-just-compensation/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Robert Henry Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:03:50 +0000 http://blogs.ncseagrant.org/legaltides/?p=32#comment-9 Presuming the MHWL continues to migrate landward as a result of sea level rise and normal erosion processes, what is the consequence of it migrating into property that is described by specific metes and bounds (i.e. does the owner maintain ownership of the land, even though it may become submerged, or does his land transform to a littoral holding)? Presuming the MHWL continues to migrate landward as a result of sea level rise and normal erosion processes, what is the consequence of it migrating into property that is described by specific metes and bounds (i.e. does the owner maintain ownership of the land, even though it may become submerged, or does his land transform to a littoral holding)?

]]> Comment on Sandbags: Temporary or Permanent? The Riggings Case Study by William Dennis http://blogs.ncseagrant.org/legaltides/2009/09/08/sandbags-temporary-or-permanent-the-riggings-case-study/comment-page-1/#comment-3 William Dennis Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:58:27 +0000 http://blogs.ncseagrant.org/legaltides/?p=11#comment-3 The article concerning the Riggings Case Study by Jackson Mabry has some misinformation. About halfway into the article the author states, "Although the rate of erosion subsided after a few years, The Riggings’ shoreline continues to erode more quickly than it did prior to the seawall’s construction." I have been involved in a monitoring program for the NC Dept of Cultural Resources for the purpose of measuring the shoreline change both upcoast and downcoast of the Fort Fisher Revetment since 1995. The measured beach profile data from this program are in direct contrast to the author's statment. The NCDCM shoreline change rate for the Riggings prior to the revetment construction was -6.2 ft/yr (1938-1992). Aside from the first few years following constuction, which also correlated with the serious onslought of hurricanes, the erosion rate has been less than the 6.2 ft/yr. This has been true since Nov 1998, nearly the past 11 years. Further, the present rate of erosion (updated thru April 2009) is only 1.3 ft/yr . I would be interested in seeing the information upon which the author based his statement. William Dennis Coastal Engineer US Army Corps of Engineers 910.251.4780 The article concerning the Riggings Case Study by Jackson Mabry has some misinformation. About halfway into the article the author states, “Although the rate of erosion subsided after a few years, The Riggings’ shoreline continues to erode more quickly than it did prior to the seawall’s construction.” I have been involved in a monitoring program for the NC Dept of Cultural Resources for the purpose of measuring the shoreline change both upcoast and downcoast of the Fort Fisher Revetment since 1995. The measured beach profile data from this program are in direct contrast to the author’s statment. The NCDCM shoreline change rate for the Riggings prior to the revetment construction was -6.2 ft/yr (1938-1992). Aside from the first few years following constuction, which also correlated with the serious onslought of hurricanes, the erosion rate has been less than the 6.2 ft/yr. This has been true since Nov 1998, nearly the past 11 years. Further, the present rate of erosion (updated thru April 2009) is only 1.3 ft/yr .

I would be interested in seeing the information upon which the author based his statement.

William Dennis
Coastal Engineer
US Army Corps of Engineers
910.251.4780

]]>