PROVIDENCE — Three years after a country club illegally erected a seawall, state regulators are finally taking legal action.

The Coastal Resources Management Council, in a series of filings by agency attorneys, has officially filed a counterclaim against Quidnessett Country Club in Rhode Island Superior Court. CRMC attorneys are denying the claims the club has made in its own lawsuit against the state, and asking the judge to order the club to remove the seawall it built near the 14th hole of its private golf course.

The filings mark the first time CRMC has taken legal action against the North Kingstown club after nearly three years of back-and-forth with the owners over an appropriate restoration plan for the shoreline.

“We’ve pledged two counts, one for declaratory relief, and the second for injunctive relief,” Mark Hartmann, one of the CRMC legal counsels, said. “We’re requesting the court command Quindessett to remove the illegal seawall from the property.”

Hartmann said the CRMC would file a motion for a preliminary injunction and work to set a court date before a judge.

The legal filings come almost four months after the council voted to authorize its legal firm, Anthony DeSisto LLC, to take enforcement action against the club after talks between agency staff and the club continue to fail to find common ground in a restoration plan.

Quidnessett Country Club spent much of last year working with CRMC staff to provide an acceptable restoration plan, removing the wall and restoring the shoreline to its natural state, but each plan was ultimately rejected by state regulators.

For critics, the delay in legal action is just another chapter in the multi-year seawall saga. CRMC’s council delayed enforcement action for months while it considered a petition to change the water type designation of the coastline near the club.

Seawalls and other shoreline hardening structures are generally prohibited in the water type designation carried by the coastline near Quidnessett. While they are generally seen as structures that will prevent erosion, which is true in the short-term, seawalls redirect wave action to areas of the shoreline adjacent to such structures.

Ultimately, the seawall won’t be able to prevent erosion on the land directly in front of it. CRMC’s policy is to generally prefer nature-based shoreline strengthening measures that use biodegradable materials, as coastal erosion is a force humans are unable to counteract entirely.

The council ultimately voted to reject the petition in January 2025, and agency staff continued to work to find a compromise with the club over a restoration plan.

CRMC’s 10-member appointed council voted Sept. 23 to take the country club to court over the seawall, but attorneys submitted no filings to Superior Court or any other judicial body until Jan. 13. The agency hasn’t commented on the reason for the delay in legal action, but public pressure on CRMC had been mounting in recent weeks and months. Save The Bay, a longtime critic of the council and voice for reforming the agency, submitted a letter last month pushing for the agency to sue.

CRMC’s own council members aren’t immune to pressure. Council member Kevin Flynn said the Quidnessett issue was in the public’s mind, and the agency’s inaction made it look like it wasn’t being responsible.

“I get asked about it all the time,” Flynn said. “I don’t think I’ve been asked about a matter before the council by people who know I’m on the council, but I get asked this question all the time.”