Climate Crisis

Save The Bay Challenges Army Corps Plan to Elevate Homes


A plan by the Army Corps of Engineers to pay for and elevate buildings along 28 miles of Rhode Island’s southern coast is being challenged by one of the state’s largest environmental groups.

Save The Bay says the proposal to raise 341 homes between Westerly and Narragansett to guard against the impacts of climate change is inadequate and flawed.

One of the main concerns is the Army Corps’ use of outdated data to estimate sea-level rise. The Army Corps projects that coastal water will climb 4.4 inches within 50 years because of climate change. Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) projects sea-level rise of 2 feet within the next 32 years and up to 7 feet by 2100.

“Frankly, by underestimating sea level rise, the study also underestimates everything else — the potential harm to coastal homeowners, the number of structures impacted, and the costs of raising and maintaining roads and septic systems and providing other services to these communities,” Jonathan Stone, executive director of Save The Bay, wrote in a letter to the Army Corps.

Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) executive director Grover Fugate also has questioned the sea-level rise data. During an October CRMC meeting, Fugate said a greater number of the 4,000 coastal buildings between Westerly and Narragansett could be at risk from the impacts of climate change.

“We believe there should be more (homes) eligible for that project,” Fugate said.

If the project is approved, it would cost $58 million to elevate structures 12 to 18 feet. The Army Corps is offering to subsidize 65 percent of the cost with federal funds set aside for adaptation work after Hurricane Sandy. Property owners would pay the rest. The state is considering plans to offer low-interest loans to help coastal property owners finance the projects, according to CRMC.

“This project would represent a significant investment of public funds, and it is irresponsible not to utilize the most current data available,” Stone wrote.

Save The Bay also is criticizing the Army Corps for not taking a harder look at relocating waterfront buildings — a practice known as retreat — that are in danger of harm from storm surges and an eroding shoreline.

Save The Bay’s letter noted that the Army Corps set a precedent for retreat in the 1980s, when it acquired 61 homes along flood-prone portions of the Pawtuxet River in Warwick.

“Save The Bay submits that the alternative of retreat must be fully developed and considered,” Stone wrote.

Save The Bay also wants more solutions for protecting the hotels, restaurants and small businesses along the 28 miles of shoreline the report examined.

“Any flood mitigation plan for the study area is not complete without addressing both residential and commercial properties and infrastructure needed to serve them,” according to the letter.

Save The Bay filed its letter just before the public comment period ended Nov. 21. The Army Corps said it will most likely hold public meetings in each community after the plans are approved.

Christopher Hatfield, project manager with the Army Corps, said there might be adjustments to the plan, including a review of the sea-level-rise estimates, during an agency meeting in January or February.

“We’ll have to have our discussion and see how we handle it,” he said.

Hatfield will discuss the project at a public CRMC meeting on Dec. 1 at 6 p.m.


Join the Discussion

View Comments

Recent Comments

  1. Its unbelievable that taxpayers would pay millions to guard houses of wealthy shoreline owners built at the edge of the ocean when the rich themselves are so often bankrolling climate and sea level rise denial. Even if estimates of sea level rise were accurate, the rich would be robbing the rest of us. Truly the golden rule at work, those with the gold rule.

  2. It is time to begin the orderly retreat from the rising seas. going up still leaves us vulnerable to rising seas. It is time to move away from the water and let the beaches, marshes, and forests roam. And I sure as hell do not want to pay for rich folks saving their beach access.

  3. How about "NOT" using tax dollars to bail out foolish people who try to fight nature. Especially the rich. This is a government boondoggle to assure the Army Corps jobs into the future. How about being responsible for your own actions? Oh that’s right in the new America no one’s to blame. These people will sue the government when their houses are destroyed by the next superstorm because it will be the corps fault that they stayed.

  4. So glad someone is speaking out against this ridiculous waste of taxpayer money. They clearly punted on this one, by dodging the key issues. Time to make some tough decisions that are going to make a lot of people very uncomfortable.

  5. “The way we evaluate benefits, we always look at private structures and the damage that’s being incurred. They look at that as a national resource. Everybody has that resource…
    Project Mgr Hatfield, Army Corp of Engineers.

    So let me get this straight, "private structures" are all of sudden a "national resource"?

    Let’s be clear about what is going on here. Taxpayers" are being asked to pay the "full cost" ($59 million) for elevating “private” coastal homes. Said another way, the full costs: 65% by federal taxpayers and 35% by state or town taxpayers. In other words, taxpayers are paying "100% of the construction costs" for elevating “private homes”.

    Great deal for beachside homeowners (and real estate developers), not so much for the taxpayers who are being "conned" into thinking it is in the "public’s interest" to pay 100% of the costs.

    P.S. The Army Corp of Engineers is supposed to be ultimate protector our wetlands too. But has done nothing as the COPAR mining interests "raped" a pristine Westerly wetland without permits. This same "leadership" that OK’d the dumping of raw SILICA sand tailings onto the Misquamicut Beaches. (Now you know why it is so hard to plant a beach umbrella in the "sand" at the town beach.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your support keeps our reporters on the environmental beat.

Reader support is at the core of our nonprofit news model. Together, we can keep the environment in the headlines.


We use cookies to improve your experience and deliver personalized content. View Cookie Settings