PROVIDENCE — State coastal regulators are headed to court again, only this time they’re going to be the plaintiffs.

The Coastal Resources Management Council voted unanimously Tuesday to side with a staff recommendation and begin legal proceedings against the Quidnessett Country Club over its repeated noncompliance with the agency’s orders to take down an illegal 550-foot-long stone seawall the club constructed by the 14th hole of its golf course.

Going into the meeting, it looked likely the agency would take further action. During an enforcement hearing against the club on June 10, council members voted to award Quidnessett Country Club a 120-day stay against an order to remove the seawall. At the time, council members wanted to give CRMC staff more time to come to a compromise with the club to remove the seawall.

This summer, the club was required to submit an acceptable restoration plan within 30 days, and despite the council granting an additional 30-day extension on July 22, Quidnessett Country Club failed to meet either deadline, despite turning in seven separate restoration plans.

According to an addendum prepared by CRMC staff, compliance officer Brian Harrington communicated to club attorney Jennifer Cervenka that any restoration plan would have to include the removal of all unauthorized riprap and fill, the nonstructural stabilization of the coastal feature, and an appropriate vegetation plan to act as a buffer.

Every one of the seven restoration plans was rejected by staff as being unacceptable to the above criteria.

Despite compromises from staff, CRMC coastal geologist Emily Hall explained that the agency and the club remain divided as to what toe line, whether seaward or landward, the coast had to be restored to once the wall was removed. Staff preferred what the case refers to as the “blue line,” the line shaping the coast in an emergency permit granted to the club in 2013 to repair its eroded coastline after a major storm event.

“Staff hold that the blue line is the most seaward location that can be permissible for the restoration at hand,” Hall said. “It’s a favorable interpretation to Quidnessett, since one of the other lands is much further inland.”

While the blue line is what Quidnessett Country Club was permitted for back in 2013, that’s not actually what was built. The as-built toe line from 2013 was much further seaward than coastal regulators would have allowed even a decade ago.

Speaking for the club on Tuesday, Cervenka, who chaired the CRMC under then-Gov. Gina Raimondo, said the club had changed the plan since it last appeared before CRMC in June, and proposed a restoration plan that was a compromise between the more landward blue line and the more seaward magenta line for the northern half of the shoreline. The southern half of the wall, Cervenka said, will adhere to the blue line.

“I wanted to point out that we have not been recalcitrant in wanting to implement a restoration plan,” Cervenka said. “We’ve submitted seven plans over the course of the last year to staff and to this agency in an attempt to come up with an acceptable plan, and the last two, in particular, those being again Aug. 5 and Sept. 5, we believe, struck a proper balance between what’s required under the program and the protection of our property.”

Action against the club had been a long time brewing. Coastal regulators were originally tipped off to the club’s seawall back in 2023, and on Aug. 28 of that year the agency issued a cease-and-desist order, as well as three $10,000 notices of administrative fines which were later appealed by the club.

Quidnessett Country Club defended its decision, arguing that erecting the seawall was necessary to save its historic golf course — a prime moneymaker for the organization, and a point of pride — from the forces of coastal erosion coming from Narragansett Bay. While the club didn’t deny the illegal nature of the wall, in multiple hearings before CRMC it emphasized the need to protect the golf course as quickly as possible.

But the coastal waters around Quidnessett Country Club’s North Kingstown are designated as type 1 waters, which come with a blanket prohibition of permanent structures like seawalls, which are known, over the long-term, to exacerbate coastal erosion, not protect against it.

According to a report from agency staff, the average shoreline erosion change rate for that area of Narragansett Bay can range from 1.4 to 1.9 feet annually, less than the state average. Staff estimated the shoreline around the club has eroded 16 feet since 2013.

The case has been closely watched by environmental organizations like Save The Bay, which has staunchly increased its criticism of the politically-appointed council as unable to follow the state’s own environmental regulations and protect state habitats.

“The Council’s months-long series of delays gives the country club an unfair economic advantage over law-abiding coastal landowners and businesses who spend money and time applying for permits to comply with the law,” Save The Bay executive director Topher Hamblett wrote in a letter addressed to council members last year. “The council is opening the door for more violations and sending the message that it is better to ask forgiveness than permission.”

The new lawsuit from CRMC is not the only instance where the agency will be in court because of Quidnessett Country Club. On Sept. 9, the club filed a complaint in Providence Superior Court, asking for the court to allow a rule change to allow structural shoreline protection.