NORTH KINGSTOWN, R.I. — Two years after it was first erected, state coastal regulators are stepping up enforcement action against a private club’s illegal seawall.

On Tuesday, June 10, the Coastal Resources Management Council is hauling in the Quidnessett Country Club over its seawall, and considering an “order to restore” for the structure, essentially removing it entirely and returning the impacted coastline to its natural state.

It’s the first serious action by CRMC since coastal regulators rejected a bid from the club in late January to change the water type designation to one that could accommodate the seawall, after it had already been constructed. And despite being in violation of state regulations, the seawall still stands.

“They should be held to the same statutes and regulations that everyone else follows,” Chris Dodge, Narragansett baykeeper for Save The Bay, told ecoRI news.

For organizations like Save The Bay, the controversy over Quidnessett Country Club’s seawall is prime fodder for why CRMC as an agency needs reform, and more resources. The Providence-based nonprofit has been a strong advocate for enforcing agency regulations against the club over the past two years, and was one of the first to report the seawall to the agency.

The club isn’t just in trouble with the state. On May 7, 2024, the Army Corps of Engineers cited Quidnessett Country Club for building the seawall without getting an authorization permit from them.

Quidnessett Country Club (QCC) meanwhile is seeking to delay final enforcement action, and has introduced a motion to assign the case to Mark Krieger, CRMC’s hearing officer. The club is contesting the cease-and-desist orders issued by CRMC, and all contested cases must be sent to the hearing officer, at least according to the club’s motion.

“Under the clear statutory language, QCC is entitled to have the matter assigned to a hearing officer to conduct appropriate fact finding and make proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law,” wrote Jennifer Cervenka and Robin Main, attorneys for the club. “[State law] does not allow for the full Council to hear a contested enforcement matter prior to receiving such proposed written findings and conclusions.”

CRMC staff has recommended to the council that the private club be ordered to remove the unauthorized riprap and fill, submit an “acceptable restoration plan” within 30 days, and execute on the submitted plan within 90 days. Staff has rejected two submitted restoration plans since January, writing in the staff report that they “were determined to be unacceptable due primarily to the proposed location of the ‘toe of the berm.’”

The seawall is an issue because the coastal waters around that portion of North Kingstown are classified as Type 1, conservation waters, meaning no new permanent structures are allowed to be built. Water types are the chief tool through which coastal regulators can plan development and protect fragile coastal resources.

The waters around Quidnessett Country Club see an unusual amount of wave action, and are prone to erosion. Erosion is a natural force and part of how an ocean works; some coastal areas will lose sand and land while others will naturally accrete it over time.

Erosion is why Quidnessett Country Club said it erected the seawall, without going through the normal CRMC process first. Land along the 14th hole of the club’s golf course was almost literally falling into Narragansett Bay.

In hearings last year, the club and its supporters didn’t question the legality of the seawall. For them, it came down to the club doing what it had to do to protect itself, and its golf course.

“It’s important to protect the club,” Evan Kenney, an employee of the club, said at a public hearing last July. “And that any penalty is financially reasonable.”

Last year’s hearings were part of the already-long enforcement process against the club. Cervenka, who chaired CRMC as recently as 2021, petitioned the agency to change the water type by the golf course, essentially legalizing the seawall after the fact.

CRMC’s compliance division had already issued three cease-and-desist orders to the club, which proposed the water type change as one way to resolve the violations. The orders also came with three notices the club would be fined $10,000. The coastal agency’s executive council ultimately rejected the petition.

Seawalls, while good at protecting land from erosion in the short term, can actually be harmful to coastlines over the the long term. Hard structures like seawalls “lock in” the coastline, preventing it from changing or moving over time.

These hardened structures also direct wave action at areas around them, so the shoreline not covered by Quidnessett Country Club’s seawall will actually be more prone to erosion. Any beachfront in front of a seawall also rapidly erodes away over time, and could in the future collapse the seawall anyway.

The ongoing, multiyear saga of Quidnessett Country Club has given fresh fodder to Save The Bay and other advocates of CRMC reform. For advocates, the club’s case is relatively simple: the wall needs to be taken down to enforce current state regulations, otherwise others may follow suit in ignoring the agency’s regulations.

Dodge said the fix for cases like Quidnessett Country Club is actually quite simple. As written, CRMC’s regulations provide plenty of teeth to enforce coastal regulations; what the agency needs is the money, resources, and staff to put the laws into effect.

“The easiest way for taxpayers to get the most bang for their buck is for CRMC to have the resources it needs to follow through on these enforcement cases,” Dodge said.

Right now, CRMC only has two enforcement officers in its compliance division, who have to cover some 420 miles of coastline. It’s a Herculean task for just two people.

The agency also lacks an in-house attorney, who at other state agencies provide a legal lens through which departments can enforce their own internal regulations and permits.

It’s a big reason why advocates such as Save The Bay ask the General Assembly every year to give CRMC more money, and also abolish its politically appointed council. It’s the 10-member council that entertained Quidnessett Country Club’s petition for a water type change in the first place, something advocates have argued should have never been done.

Council members aren’t required to have any background or expertise in coastal policy or planning, and have great latitude to ignore staff, or even the agency’s own internal procedures when making decisions. It’s not uncommon for the agency, because of the council’s questionable actions, to get taken to court and have previous council decisions overturned.

CRMC is scheduled to meet Tuesday at 6 p.m. to discuss Quidnessett Country Club’s motion and consider enforcement action.