Lou’s Views
News & Views / May Edition
Calendar of Events
Conway Riverfest Celebration
June 27th
Conway SC
Held along the Waccamaw River in downtown Conway the festival celebrates Independence Day since 1980 with music and events for the entire family.
For more information »click here
N.C. 4th of July Festival
July 4th
Southport
The patriotic spirit of America is alive and well in the City of Southport. For over 200 years this small maritime community has celebrated our nation’s independence in a big way. Incorporated as the N.C. 4th of July Festival in 1972 the festival committee strives to keep the focus of the festival on honoring our nation’s birthday with a little fun thrownin.
For more information » click here
Battleship Blast 4th of July Celebration
July 4th
Wilmington
.
.
Annual 4th of July Celebration at Riverfront Park in downtown Wilmington since 1981. Featured entertainment will perform from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM, followed by fireworks at 9:05 PM launched from a barge in the Cape Fear River adjacent to the USS North Carolina Battleship. The only place you need to be this holiday is downtown Wilmington for the best view of fireworks.
For more information » click here
Brunswick County invites residents to participate in lifesaving certification training in 2026
Brunswick County’s Risk Management and Parks and Recreation departments are partnering to offer First Aid/CPR/AED Certification Training in 2026.
This training program is designed to provide residents with the knowledge and skills needed to recognize and respond appropriately to cardiac, breathing and first aid emergencies.
The training is open to any Brunswick County residents 12-years-old and up. Participants under 18-years-old must be accompanied by an adult guardian for the entire training session. Upon successful completion of the course, participants will receive an American Trauma Event Management (ATEM) First Aid/CPR/AED certification card, which is valid for two years.
There are only 12 seats available per training session and the registration fee is $10 per person. Participants must register and pay online here,
https://bcparks.recdesk.com/Community/Program, before the training date.
Each class will consist of an morning Session from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., a 30-minute lunch break (participants must bring their own lunch and beverages) and an afternoon session from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Attendees must attend and complete both sessions to receive certification.
2026 First Aid/CPR/ AED Certification Training Sessions
Saturday, June 20, 2026 / Supply Area
For questions or more information about the training program, email Brunswick County Risk Management.
Discover a wide range of things to do in the Brunswick Islands for an experience that goes beyond the beach.
For more information » click here.
Calendar of Events Island
Concerts on the Coast Series
The Town’s summer concert series calendar has been released! Live performances featuring local musical groups will be held at the Bridgeview Park picnic pavilion across from Town Hall. It will be on Sunday evenings at 6:30pm from May 24th to September 6th. The concerts are FREE of charge.
Summer Concert Schedule
The park will be blocked from vehicular access beginning Saturday evening. The splash pad will be closed on Sundays and the multipurpose court will close at 3:00 p.m. each Sunday. No seating will be provided so everyone should bring their own chair for the event.
Meet the Holden Beach Police Dept. and the Tri-Beach Fire Dept. before the concert.
Tide Dyed Program
The Tide Dye program will be held on Tuesdays between 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. at Bridgeview Park picnic pavilion. Participants must be in line by 2:00 p.m. to participate because the process takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. Fee is $7 per shirt for youth sizes through Adult XL and $10 per shirt for 2XL. Payment via cash or check only. .
Beginning June 9th and continuing through August 11th
Turtle Talk
Two programs both are held every Wednesday during the summer at the Holden Beach Chapel. Children’s Turtle Time is at 4:00 p.m. with crafts, stories and activities for children ages 3 – 6. All children must be accompanied by an adult. Turtle Talk is an educational program at 7:00 p.m. for everyone else.
Beginning June 24th and continuing through August 12th
Parks & Recreation / Programs & Events
For more information » click here
Reminders
Pets on the Beach Strand
§90.20 RESPONSIBILITIES OF OWNERS
Effective May 20th through September 10th
-
-
- Pets are not allowed on the beach strand during the hours of 9am through 5pm
- Dog’s need to be on a leash
- Owner’s need to clean up after their animals
Bird Nesting Area
NC Wildlife Commission has posted signs that say – Bird Nesting Area
The signs are posted on the west end beach strand around 1335 OBW.
People and dogs are supposed to stay out of the area from April through November
. 1) It’s a Plover nesting area
. 2) Allows migrating birds a place to land and rest without being disturbed
A Second Helping
.
Program to collect food Saturday mornings (8:00am to 10:30am) during the summer at the Beach Mart on the Causeway.
. 1) Twenty-second year of the program
. 2) Food collections have now exceeded 317,000 pounds
. 3) Collections will begin on Memorial Day weekend
. 4) Food is distributed to the needy in Brunswick County
For more information » click here
.
Hunger exists everywhere in this country; join them in the fight to help end hunger in Brunswick County. Cash donations are gratefully accepted. One hundred percent (100%) of these cash donations are used to buy more food. You can be assured that the money will be very well spent.
Mail Donations to:
A Second Helping
% Sharon United Methodist Church
2030 Holden Beach Road
Supply, NC 28462
News from Town of Holden Beach
The town sends out emails of events, news, agendas, notifications, and emergency information. If you would like to be added to their mailing list, please go to their web site to complete your subscription to the Holden Beach E-Newsletter.
For more information » click here
Paid Parking
Paid parking in Holden Beach
Paid parking will be enforced from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily with free parking before and after that time. All parking will use license plates for verification.
Rates
Parking rates for a single vehicle in all designated areas will be:
$5 per hour for up to four hours
$20 per day for any duration greater than four hours
$80 per week for seven consecutive days
Handicap Parking
A vehicle displaying a handicap license plate and/or hang tag parked in a designated handicap space is free. Any other parking space will require a parking permit via the app.
Annual Passes
Annual permits for the calendar year allow vehicles (this includes low-speed vehicles and trailers) access to designated parking.
$175 for a single vehicle
Passes can be purchased via the app, website or by telephone.
Where to Park
Per ordinance, there is no parking on the streets or rights-of-way except in designated parking spaces identified by Pay-to-Park signs. Click here to view an interactive map. The table with authorized parking can be viewed below.
Citations will be issued for:
-
-
- Parking without an active paid permit in a designated parking area
- Parking within 40 feet of a street intersection
- Parking in a crosswalk, sidewalk, or pedestrian access ways
- Parking blocking a driveway or mailbox
- Parking facing opposing traffic
- Parking in a no parking zone, or within right-of-way
- Parking on any portion of the roadway or travel lane
- Parking a non-LSV vehicle in an authorized LSV location
How Do I Pay to Park
The Town uses the SurfCAST by Otto Connect Mobile Solution. This is a mobile app downloadable for Apple and Android devices. Download the app today. Users will setup their account, enter their license plate details and pay for parking directly on the app. Alternatively, users can scan the QR Code located on the parking signs to access a secure website.
The Otto Connect customer service team will be available to help via phone and email.
Solid Waste Pickup Schedule
GFL Environmental change in service, the Saturday before Memorial Day till the end of September, trash pickup will be twice a week.
Please note:
Trash carts must be at the street by 6:00 a.m. on the pickup day
BAG the trash before putting it in the cart
Carts will be rolled back to the front of the house
GFL Refuse Collection Policy
GFL has recently notified all Brunswick County residents that they will no longer accept extra bags of refuse outside of the collection cart. This is not a new policy but is stricter enforcement of an existing policy. While in the past GFL drivers would at times make exceptions and take additional bags of refuse, the tremendous growth in housing within Brunswick County makes this practice cost prohibitive and causes drivers to fall behind schedule.
Solid Waste Pickup Schedule
starting the Saturday before Memorial Day (May 23rd) twice a week
Recycling
starting after Memorial Day (June 2nd) weekly pick-up
Curbside Recycling – 2026
GFL Environmental is now offering curbside recycling for Town properties that desire to participate in the service. The service cost per cart is $122.93 annually paid in advance to the Town of Holden Beach. The service consists of a ninety-six (96) gallon cart that is emptied every other week during the months of October – May and weekly during the months of June – September.
Curbside Recycling Application » click here
Curbside Recycling Calendar » click here
Trash Can Requirements – Rental Properties
GFL Environmental – trash can requirements
Ordinance 07-13, Section 50.08
Rental properties have specific number of trashcans based on number of bedrooms.
* One extra trash can per every 2 bedrooms
..
§ 50.08 RENTAL HOMES.
(A) Rental homes, as defined in Chapter 157, that are rented as part of the summer rental season, are subject to high numbers of guests, resulting in abnormally large volumes of trash. This type of occupancy use presents a significantly higher impact than homes not used for summer rentals. In interest of public health and sanitation and environmental concerns, all rental home shall have a minimum of one trash can per two bedrooms. Homes with an odd number of bedrooms shall round up (for examples one to two bedrooms – one trash can; three to four bedrooms – two trash cans; five – six bedrooms – three trash cans, and the like).
Upon Further Review
Fire Fee Increase
Brunswick County formally requests fire fee cap increase
The Brunswick County Board of Commissioners on May 4 voted to ratify a resolution requesting the North Carolina General Assembly amend local fire fee legislation to increase fire fee caps by 50% total over the next two fiscal years. Fire fees are imposed by the county on real property owners to fund the furnishing of fire protection services, per state law. Fire fees for improved properties are calculated based on a building’s heated square footage; fire fees for vacant land are calculated based on property acreage. Fire fees are not based on tax value. The cap increase, originally requested by local fire departments through the Brunswick County Fire Chiefs’ Association, would allow fire departments to increase maximum collectable fire fee amounts by a total of 50% by fiscal year 2027-2028, with a maximum 25% cap increase in FY 2026-2027 beginning July 1. The requested cap increase, if approved, will not require local fire departments to increase fire fee rates, but rather will allow them to do so if demand requires it. For example, Calabash Fire Department in a social media statement last week said it does not plan to raise fire fees in FY 2026-27. Primary fire service in Brunswick County jurisdiction is typically provided by nonprofit volunteer fire departments — most of which now are primarily staffed by paid firefighters — with nearby municipal fire departments, and other nonprofit departments, providing secondary response. Municipal departments also often cover areas in county jurisdiction within their respective fire districts that also include areas within municipal jurisdiction. Many local nonprofit departments, which operate entirely on fire fees and grants, fundraising and donations, are facing challenges stemming from exploding call volume, declining volunteer firefighter numbers, increasing costs for fire apparatus and other equipment and the need for new or updated facilities due to ongoing growth. Some municipal departments, funded partly by fire fees supplemented by property taxes collected by their respective municipalities, are facing similar struggles related to growth and increased costs. The current fire fee schedule was last adjusted in 2017, and the resolution notes in-county growth and fire service demand has necessitated another adjustment. The existing fee schedule, the resolution states, has “become further outdated” and is “insufficient to keep up with inflation as well as the growing population and needs of Brunswick County.” The resolution asserts that the requested cap increase will “enhance the ability of Brunswick County to meet the fire protection needs of its citizens.” During the May 4 meeting, Calabash Fire Department Chief and Fire Chiefs’ Association Vice President Keith McGee requested commissioners support for the resolution.
Read more » click here
Previously reported – February 2026
County proposes new fire service contract focused on performance, accountability
While Brunswick County continues working out how it will fund local fire service in the future, county commissioners on Jan. 20 were presented with an updated fire services agreement draft aimed at establishing performance standards and improving financial reporting standards for local nonprofit fire departments. The board did not vote on adopting the updated agreement on Jan. 20, instead providing county administration with feedback on the proposed changes. The primary changes outlined in the updated service contracts related to establishing performance standards for local fire departments and increasing financial accountability for departments that plan to accept additional funding the county plans to provide in the upcoming fiscal year, county staff explained. For over a year, Brunswick County has been investigating how to sufficiently fund in-county fire service following concerns about the existing fire fee funding model adequacy. Fire fees are imposed by the county on real property owners to fund the furnishing of fire protection services, per state law. Fire fees for improved properties are calculated based on a building’s heated square footage; fire fees for vacant land are calculated based on property acreage. Fire fees are not based on tax value. Many local nonprofit departments are facing challenges stemming from declining volunteer numbers necessitating most departments to hire paid staff, increasing costs and delivery time for fire apparatus and equipment, increased call volume and the need for new or updated facilities due to growth. These departments operate entirely on fire fees, grants, fundraising and private donations. Municipal departments are facing similar struggles related to growth and increased costs. These departments are funded partly by fire fees supplemented by ad valorem (property) taxes collected by each department’s municipality. As a potential solution, the county has been exploring moving away from its fire fee funding model to a fire tax funding model. With a fire tax model, counties can charge a 10-cent fire tax per $100 property value in each fire district or between 11- and 15-cents per $100 value with a voter-approved referendum. If the county moves to a fire tax system, citizens would no longer pay fire fees. Though this change is not planned for fiscal year 2026-2027, which begins July 1, county officials are working to prepare for a possible change in FY 2027-2028. In lieu of the funding model switch in FY 26-27, County Manager Steve Stone in November recommended the county revise its fire service funding contracts with local nonprofit departments to clarify its service expectations and require more financial accountability aimed at improving service across the county. The county is also considering providing between $10 million and $12 million in one-time supplemental funding to local departments to help meet service demands while a permanent solution is worked out. Stone said the $10-$12 million estimate is based on funding needed for minimum staffing levels at each department. The final subsidy funding figure will be calculated as part of the FY 26-27 budget process, he added. “It could be more. It could be less.” The county manager also explained fire departments would need to sign the finalized new services agreement “to be eligible to receive supplemental funding.” Brunswick County Spokesperson Meagan Kascsak said the current agreements between local fire departments and the county do not expire for another two fiscal years, and departments can continue operating under those agreements if they so choose. “However, if a department chooses this route, they will not be able to request subsidized funding for particular projects or purchases that their current fire fee allotment may not be able to cover,” Kascsak said. The new agreement contains a proposed stipulation requiring any equipment fire departments purchase with county-subsidized funds to be titled to Brunswick County and leased to respective fire departments, Kascsak confirmed. “Any existing equipment a fire department owns that was purchased in the past from their general fund/fire fees allocation, grant funding, donations, etc. will continue to belong to that fire department and will not be titled to the county,” she added. County staff has met with the Brunswick County Fire Chief’s Association to discuss the updated agreement and its provisions, Stone said. County officials following the Jan. 20 meeting were also set to meet with the municipal fire departments, he added, though these departments’ contracts differ and will apply to areas outside municipal fire departments’ corporate limits. The county manager during the Jan. 20 meeting explained the major changes in the proposed new agreement. “What we have here essentially are for the really the first time in the past 26 or 27 years or more, whereby we have some specific department performance standards which are based on national standards from the National Fire Protection Association for rural areas,” Stone said. “We also are moving towards more financial accountability with this agreement, but we would not really require additional financial work on the part of the departments. The additional auditing, we would propose that the county actually engage an auditor to do that work.” The proposed agreement also adds requirements related to response times, staffing, operational capabilities, required data collection and reporting that data to the county Fire Oversight Committee. Concerning response times, the proposed agreement requires fire departments to “make reasonable efforts to deliver the first-arriving unit and the minimum Effective Response Force (ERF) to emergency incidents within” 14 minutes or less from dispatch to arrival on-scene for structural fire suppression, and eight minutes or less from dispatch to arrival on-scene for single unit response. Departments would be expected to achieve these response times in “at least 80% of all emergency incidents occurring within the contract service area, measured annually.” If a department’s performance falls below the outlined 80% threshold, it would be required to: conduct a root-cause analysis with the county fire administrator and submit a written corrective action plan within 60 days identifying the deficiency and outlining corrective measures. Regarding response staffing, the proposed agreement would require a total of six “qualified firefighters” on the scene for fire suppression incidents requiring an initial attack capability within the required response times. Four of the six qualified firefighters would be required to be from the primary responding department. The proposed agreement defines “qualified firefighters” as “individuals of the department who meet the training and certification standards recognized by the department and applicable state and federal regulations for their assigned role.” Additionally, each department would be required to maintain records of dispatch times, turnout times, travel times, personnel counts upon arrival on scene, incident types and locations and any factors resulting in delayed or impaired response. Departments would also need to submit quarterly performance reports to the Brunswick County Fire Oversight Committee. Information contained in those reports include the percentage of incidents in which the departments met the 14-minute performance objective, staffing compliance data, analysis of deficiencies and contributing factors and performance improvement recommendations. The county would provide the software to each department for aforementioned data and records collection, Stone told the board. Brunswick County Fire Chiefs Association Vice President Keith McGee, who is also the Calabash Fire Department Chief, said the proposed agreement “represents several fundamental shifts in how fire service governance, performance expectations, and accountability are structured in Brunswick County,” noting the chief’s association is “not at this time expressing agreement with the contract as currently written.” McGee asked the county to continue conservation and collaboration with local fire departments and allow departments more time to review the agreement before bringing it to a vote. “We believe that this approach will help ensure a final agreement that is clear, workable, and supported by both the county and the fire departments that are responsible for delivering emergency services to our citizens,” he said. County administration is expected to bring an updated draft, incorporating board feedback and additional feedback from local fire departments to the board of commissioners during its Monday, Feb. 16 meeting at 6 p.m.
Read more » click here
Fuquay-Varina Interbasin Transfer
Previously reported – December 2025
Resolution 25-11 » click here
ISSUE/ACTION REQUESTED:
Discussion and Possible Approval of Resolution 25-11, Resolution Opposing the Fuquay-Varina Interbasin Transfer and Request for Additional Comment
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
Representatives from the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority (LCFWASA) distributed a draft resolution opposing the Fuquay-Varina Interbasin Transfer (IBT) and requesting additional comment. The resolution outlines concerns regarding the Town of Fuquay-Varina ‘s proposal to transfer water from the Cape Fear River Basin to the Neuse River Basin and it requests additional time and opportunities for the impacted Cape Fear Basin communities to review and provide input on the proposed transfer.
Given the potential regional impacts to water availability and future growth, LCFWASA is asking local governing bodies to consider adopting a similar resolution to support this effort.
TOWN MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of resolution opposing the Fuquay-Varina lnterbasin Transfer (IBT) and request for additional comment.
Interbasin Transfer
The Town of Fuquay-Varina has partnered with the City of Sanford to purchase up to 6 million gallons per day (mgd) of finished water from the City to meet the Town’s water supply needs over a 30-year planning period. Finished water will be transferred from the Cape Fear River basin (Lee County) to the Neuse River basin (Wake County). An interbasin transfer is defined as the regulated movement of surface water from one river basin to another. Law does not prohibit transfers but requires that effects of the transfer on the source and receiving basins be quantified prior to the transfer.
The proposed water balance and interbasin transfer (IBT) meet the statutory definition of a transfer per General Statutes 143-215.22G and 215.22L, therefore the Town of Fuquay-Varina must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, conduct Public Hearings, and submit a petition to the Environmental Management Commission for the IBT Certificate. The process is anticipated to take three to five years.
Update –
It’s plain and simple, we oppose the water transfer as requested since it will be taking away water from us. Given the potential regional impacts to water availability and future growth, Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority (LCFWASA) is asking local governing bodies to consider adopting a similar resolution to support opposing the Fuquay-Varina lnterbasin Transfer (IBT) and request for additional comment.
A decision was made – Approved unanimously
Fight over Cape Fear River water sparks widespread downstream anger
A fast-growing suburb near Raleigh wants to take water from the Cape Fear and then dump it into the Neuse River basin. Downstream users are saying not so fast.
For most of its nearly 190-mile journey through Central and Southeastern North Carolina, the murky Cape Fear River flows slowly and peacefully through a relatively flat landscape as it makes its way from the Piedmont to the coast. But over the past few weeks the river’s waters have been anything but tranquil as local government officials, environmentalists, concerned citizens and regulators tussle over plans by one Triangle community to take water from the river basin to meet the needs of a booming population. While withdrawing water from a river basin isn’t uncommon in North Carolina, it’s what Fuquay-Varina wants to do with the water after its been through the town’s utility systems and used by homes and businesses that’s generating concerns.
What’s the issue?
Fuquay-Varina in Wake County is proposing to partner with Sanford in nearby Lee County to draw up to 6 million gallons per day − enough to fill nine Olympic-sized swimming pools − from the Cape Fear River over the next 30 years to meet its growing population. According to the N.C. Office of State Budget and Management, Fuquay-Varina’s population in 2020 was 34,000, and the town added another estimated 12,000 people by the end of 2024. That figure could reach 100,000 by 2050. But while the water will be drawn from the Cape Fear River near Sanford, it will dumped as wastewater into the Neuse River basin in Wake County. “An interbasin transfer is defined as the regulated movement of surface water from one river basin to another,” according to a post on Fuquay-Varina’s website. “Law does not prohibit transfers but requires that effects of the transfer on the source and receiving basins be quantified prior to the transfer.” Right now Fuquay-Varina gets its water from Raleigh and Harnett and Johnston counties. “Long-term water supply solution from current water purveyors is not feasible,” the town stated in a PowerPoint presentation. According to the project’s draft environmental impact statement (EIS), it would be about $200 million cheaper to take the water from the Cape Fear and release it into the Neuse than to send it back into the Cape Fear River basin.
Water supply, environmental concerns
But downstream communities that rely on the Cape Fear for their drinking water needs, including Fayetteville, Wilmington and much of Brunswick County, have raised a host of concerns about the proposal. At a series of meetings earlier this month in Fayetteville and around the Triangle, dozens of people spoke out passionately and many angrily against the proposed water transfer. Opponents’ arguments included concerns over lower water flows in the Cape Fear, especially during periods of extended drought − something that’s expected to occur more frequently thanks to climate change, which could impact downstream utilities from meeting the water needs of their own growing populations. Several speakers also expressed worries that reduced flows could harm potential economic opportunities, especially if a steady flow of water can’t be guaranteed. Roger Shew, an environmental scientist with the University of North Carolina Wilmington, said lower water flows − something that’s happened four times in the Lower Cape Fear since 2000 and prompted water conservation measures twice − also can have significant environmental impacts. That includes potentially harming migratory fish species, some endangered like the pair of sturgeon species found in the river, which require sustained water levels to successfully breed. Reduced water flows also increase the chance for harmful algal blooms and could increase contamination levels in raw water drawn from the Cape Fear, not to mention the ongoing concerns over “forever chemicals” like GenX found in the waterway. Nearly two dozen local governments, utility authorities, environmental groups, and business organizations have passed resolutions opposing the proposed interbasin transfer.
What happens now?
Shew said North Carolina isn’t a stranger to interbasin transfers, and many of the state’s fast-growing metros and counties have implemented them in one form or another. But he said concerns over the long-term impacts of taking water from one basin and dumping back into another one prompted the N.C. General Assembly this year to adopt a moratorium on new water transfers until March 2027. The ban, however, only covers interbasin transfers of 15 million gallons per day or greater. Fuquay-Varina’s proposal is only for a daily transfer of 6.17 million gallons. But Shew said with so little data on the long-term effects of these water movements, they should be carefully scrutinized no matter what their proposed size. “Hopefully the (N.C. Environmental Management Commission) and (N.C. Department of Environmental Quality) will scrutinize these types of transfers to ensure that no negative impacts occur with this proposal or others,” he said. “And the only way to guarantee that is to keep the water in the basin.” At the least, Shew and others have said the state should hold a public hearing on the proposal in the Lower Cape Fear region where Wilmington-area officials and residents can have their say without having to drive two hours inland to air their concerns. “The draft EIS acknowledges that pollution, reduced flows, increased wastewater discharge, stormwater runoff, and flooding currently threaten the Cape Fear River, and these threats may be exacerbated with the (interbasin transfer),” states a Dec. 5 letter the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing a slew of environmental groups opposed to the proposal, sent to state regulators. “In sum, we request that DEQ and the EMC schedule a public hearing on the draft EIS for the Fuquay Varina IBT certificate in or around Wilmington to give communities downstream of the transfer point a full opportunity to participate in the public process on this important issue.” As of publication time no additional public hearings had been scheduled. But the state has extended the window to accept written comments until April 1. They can be mailed to Maya Holcomb, Division of Water Resources, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, N.C., 27604, or by email to maya.holcomb@deq.nc.gov.
Read more » click here
Previously reported – March 2026
ISSUE/ACTION REQUESTED:
Discussion and Possible Action to Grant Permission to the Mayor of Manager to Sign a Letter in Opposition of the Town of Fuquay-Varina’s Interbasin Transfer Request
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
The Board approved Resolution 25-11, Opposing the Fuquay-Varina Interbasin Transfer (IBT) and Request For Additional Comment in December. Our resolution, in additional to multiple others were hand-delivered by the Cape Fear Council of Governments (COG) to the Environmental Management Commission. A group of working professionals has been assembled to develop a follow-up response in the form of a letter that will discuss specific points related to water quality, water quantity impacts of the proposed IBT, several flaws with the environmental study and flaws in the decision-making process for IBTs. Allen Serkin from the COG is requesting that local governments grant permission to the mayor or manager to sign the letter on behalf of the Board once it is completed.
TOWN MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Grant permission to the mayor and/or manager to sign the letter in order to meet the submittal deadline of April 1st.
Public comments regarding river basin transfer plan pour in
It’s been nearly a month since a video first aired of Wilmington’s mayor invoking residents to voice their opposition to one town’s plans to pull millions of gallons of water daily from the Cape Fear River. “Today this vital resource is under threat from growing water-hungry communities upstream,” Mayor Bill Saffo says in the clip as he stands along the city’s downtown Riverwalk. Fuquay-Varina, a town about 30 miles south of Raleigh, wants to move more than 6 million gallons of water each day from the Cape Fear River to the Neuse River, he explains in the video made in collaboration with the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. “That’s 6 million gallons gone, each day, forever. It is important that you make your voice heard now for your family and for future generations. Add your voice to those of your neighbors and friends who already are telling the state to say no to Fuquay-Varina’s permanent taking of our water,” Saffo concludes. Only a couple of more weeks are left until the public comment period on Fuquay-Varina’s request for an interbasin transfer, or IBT, certificate closes. Maya Holcomb, a Division of Water Resources representative, told members of the state Environmental Management Commission’s Water Allocation Committee last week that she anticipated receiving comments all the way through to the April 1 deadline. In her presentation to the committee Thursday, Holcomb provided an update on the numbers of correspondence she’d received in the days since she initially crafted her report, when the email count was at 283. “But I just keep getting so many emails, which — we’re hearing from the public, that’s great — but I have received an additional 42 emails since this PowerPoint was created last week,” Holcomb said. Holcomb said she had also received 41 resolutions from cities, towns, counties, homebuilders, substations and public utilities. She did not say how many of those resolutions oppose the IBT but instead highlighted what she described as the “newest” issues of concern: loss of water for agricultural purposes, nutrient concentration in the Neuse River Basin, such as those that cause algal blooms, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, hypoxia, drought vulnerability and chemical export of industrial pollutants from the Cape Fear River. Those concerns mirror some of arguments made by dozens of people who spoke out against the transfer during a series of state-hosted public hearings in December. Fuquay-Varina projects that the water supply, from which it currently buys from Raleigh and Harnett and Johnston counties, will fall short of demand by 2030. Under the proposed preferred alternative identified in a draft environmental impact statement for the transfer, Fuquay-Varina would source its entire water supply from a water treatment plant in Sanford, which is in the Cape Fear River Basin. Once water pulled from the Cape Fear River is used by residents and businesses in that town, the treated wastewater would then be discharged into the Neuse River Basin. This would permanently subtract 6.17 million gallons each day from the river flow that currently serves about 900,000 residents of counties, cities, towns and communities from Fayetteville to Wilmington. “Put in perspective, 6.17 (million gallons per day) of raw water from the river is enough to provide treated drinking water to more than 27,000 homes,” according to Cape Fear Public Utility Authority’s website. In the weeks and months leading up to CFPUA’s campaign against Fuquay-Varina’s plan, several local governments and utilities adopted resolutions and sent letters of opposition to the state. New Hanover County, Wilmington and Brunswick County and more than a dozen Brunswick County municipalities have officially gone on record opposing Fuquay-Varina’s request. Holcomb explained last week that, after April 1, state environmental officials will respond to comments on the draft environmental impact statement and then formulate a hearing officers’ report, which will be finalized sometime between July and September. After that, the Environmental Management Commission will determine whether the EIS is technically adequate. Following that determination, the Department of Environmental Quality will issue its record of decision. Another round of public hearings will be held before the EMC makes its final determination. If approved, the transfer would occur after 2031, according to the draft impact statement. Comments may be submitted to Maya Holcomb, Division of Water Resources, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC, 27604, or by email to maya.holcomb@deq.nc.gov.
Read more » click here
Update –
The Board authorized the Mayor and Town Manager to sign a letter expressing opposition to the Town of Fuquay-Varina’s Interbasin Transfer Request.
A decision was made – Approved unanimously
Wilmington officials, residents fight plan to take water from Cape Fear
Wilmington and other communities oppose a Raleigh suburb’s plan to take 6 million gallons a day from the Cape Fear and return it to the Neuse River.
In the short video, Wilmington Mayor Bill Saffo doesn’t hold any punches. “Our region’s drinking water is under threat,” he says while standing on the city’s downtown Riverwalk with the Cape Fear River in the background. “Say no to the permanent taking of our water.” What prompted the city, in conjunction with the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, to make the video in mid-February 2026 is a proposal by a fast-growing Raleigh suburb to draw water from the Cape Fear River to meet its growing drinking water demands. In the video, Saffo asks Port City residents to “add your voice to those of your neighbors and friends who already told the state to say no to Fuquay-Varina’s permanent taking of our water.”
A need for additional water
While withdrawing water from a river basin isn’t uncommon in North Carolina, it’s what Fuquay-Varina wants to do with the water after its been through the town’s utility systems and used by homes and businesses that’s generating concerns. Fuquay-Varina in Wake County is proposing to partner with Sanford in nearby Lee County to draw up to 6 million gallons per day − enough to fill nine Olympic-sized swimming pools − from the Cape Fear River over the next 30 years to meet its growing population. But while the water will be drawn from the Cape Fear River near Sanford, it will dumped as wastewater into the Neuse River basin in Wake County. “An interbasin transfer is defined as the regulated movement of surface water from one river basin to another,” according to a post on Fuquay-Varina’s website. “Law does not prohibit transfers but requires that effects of the transfer on the source and receiving basins be quantified prior to the transfer.” Right now Fuquay-Varina gets its water from Raleigh and Harnett and Johnston counties. “Long-term water supply solution from current water purveyors is not feasible,” the town stated in a PowerPoint presentation. According to the N.C. Office of State Budget and Management, Fuquay-Varina’s population in 2020 was 34,000, and the town added another estimated 12,000 people by the end of 2024. That figure could reach 100,000 by 2050. But Wilmington-area officials say they have to worry about meeting the water-hungry needs of their own fast-growing populations, too. The population of New Hanover, Brunswick and Pender counties was estimated to be 482,000 in 2024. That number is expected to be more than 743,000 by 2050. According to the project’s draft environmental impact statement (EIS) submitted by Fuquay-Varina, it would be about $200 million cheaper to take the water from the Cape Fear and release it into the Neuse than to send it back into the Cape Fear River basin. But Saffo and others argue that this issue is about more than just the cost of a utility project. “That’s 6 million gallons gone each day forever,” Saffo says in the video.
‘A growing issue for us’
Downstream communities that rely on the Cape Fear for their drinking water needs, including Fayetteville, Wilmington and much of Brunswick County, have raised a host of concerns about the proposal. They include diminished water flows that could exasperate drought conditions − a growing concern as climate change warms the planet, increased chances of algal blooms, reduced economic opportunities if governments can guarantee a steady flow of water, harm to endangered migratory fish species, and what increased low-flow levels could mean for the presence of “forever chemicals” like GenX in the river basin. More than two dozen local governments, utility authorities, environmental groups, and business organizations have passed resolutions opposing the proposed interbasin transfer. “If we are to have sustainable long-term growth in North Carolina, our communities must exist within the carrying capacity of their natural systems and return any drawn water to the originating watershed,” the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing several environmental groups, said it comments submitted to the state. “And our communities must bear their fair share of costs associated with growth and development.” State Rep. Deb Butler, D-Wilmington, said everyone she’s talked to locally is united in the belief that Fuquay-Varina’s plan would be bad for the region and bad for the future health of the river. They also fear that the town’s proposed water grab could be the first of several facing the Cape Fear River basin as local governments in central North Carolina look for ways to meet the needs of their burgeoning populations. “It’s going to become a growing issue for us because we’re at the proverbial end of the line,” Butler said, referring to the Wilmington area sitting near the end of the river’s trek from the Piedmont to the Atlantic. “We need to draw those lines in the sand now because yes, we do want to be good neighbors, but you’ve got to put it back from where you got it.” Lingering concerns over the long-term impacts of taking water from one basin and dumping back into another one prompted the N.C. General Assembly in 2025 to adopt a moratorium on new water transfers. But that ban expires in March 2027. Fuquay-Varina is proposing to start taking water from the Cape Fear sometime after 2031.
More public hearings planned
The window for public comments of the interbasin transfer closed April 1, 2026. State officials will now respond to the comments they received and prepare a report, likely to be finished by late summer. The N.C. Environmental Management Commission will then review Fuquay-Varina’s draft environmental impact statement, with the state making a final decision sometime after that. An additional slate of public hearings is required before any final decision is made.
Read more » click here
Powerful NC senators oppose proposed Cape Fear River water diversion
A Raleigh suburb wants to take water from the Cape Fear River and return it to the Neuse River basin. Wilmington politicians say not so fast.
Two powerful Wilmington-area legislators have added their voices to the chorus of opposition over a proposal by a Raleigh suburb to remove water from the Cape Fear River basin. State Sens. Michael Lee, R-New Hanover, and Bill Rabon, R-Brunswick, arguably among the most influential politicians in Raleigh, joined other colleagues that represent the river basin in “firm opposition” to the proposal by Fuquay-Varina to draw millions of gallons of water a day from the Cape Fear and then release it into the adjacent Neuse River basin. “This proposed transfer, if approved as submitted, would inflict lasting harm on the water supply, water quality, ecological health, and economic prospects of the people we represent,” states the March 31, 2026, letter submitted to the N.C. Environmental Management Commission. Fuquay-Varina in Wake County is proposing to partner with Sanford in nearby Lee County to draw up to 6 million gallons per day − enough to provide drinking water to more than 27,000 homes, according to the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority − from the Cape Fear River over the next 30 years to meet its growing population. While that’s not a major concern for downstream communities that also rely on the Cape Fear for their drinking water needs, it’s what Fuquay-Varina wants to do with the water after its been used by its residents and businesses that has raised numerous red flags. The town, which could see its population double to more than 100,000 by 2050, wants to release the water after its been treated into the Neuse River basin, not return it to the Cape Fear. According to the project’s draft environmental impact statement (EIS) submitted by Fuquay-Varina, it would be about $200 million cheaper to take the water from the Cape Fear and release it into the Neuse than to send it back into the Cape Fear River basin.
Economic, environmental concerns
But officials, environmental groups, and increasingly residents in Southeastern North Carolina that see the Cape Fear River as a vital environmental and economic resource have called this unacceptable. Along with worries about their own future drinking water needs, concerns that have been raised include diminished water flows that could exasperate drought conditions − a growing concern as climate change warms the planet; increased chances of algal blooms; reduced economic opportunities if governments can guarantee a steady flow of water; harm to endangered migratory fish species; and what increased low-flow levels could mean for the presence of “forever chemicals” like GenX in the river basin. Among the communities and groups that rely on the Cape Fear for their drinking water, serving more than 500,000 customers, are Wilmington, Fayetteville, Brunswick County, Pender County, and Fort Bragg. Numerous agricultural users and other industries also use the river water for a variety of purposes, ranging from irrigation to cooling to an input in their manufacturing processes. Officials also are pouring cold water on Fuquay-Varina’s argument that returning the water back to the Cape Fear could place an undue financial burden on its customers. They state that placing financial needs as the primary driver of approving an inter-basin river transfer could set a dangerous precedent − especially as pressure for the state’s finite water resources will only keep growing in future decades as North Carolina’s population continues to increase. “The recognized best practice for municipalities that draw water from a shared resource like the Cape Fear is to return that water to the same basin after treatment,” states the politicians’ letter to the environmental commission. “This principle should not be abandoned to accommodate the budgetary preferences of a single applicant.”
Review underway
Along with Lee and Rabon, also signing the letter were state Sens. Brent Jackson, R-Bladen, Val Applewhite, D-Cumberland, Tom McInnis, R-Cumberland, and Danny Britt Jr., R-Hoke. The window for public comments on the proposed inter-basin transfer closed April 1, 2026. State officials will now respond to the comments they received and prepare a report, likely to be finished by late summer. The state environmental commission will then review Fuquay-Varina’s draft environmental impact statement, with the state making a final decision sometime after that. An additional slate of public hearings is required before any final decision is made.
Read more » click here
Corrections & Amplifications
Carolina Bays Parkway project S.C. 31
Carolina Bays Parkway could be rerouted after public pushback
Years of waiting for a new highway connecting North and South Carolina has resulted in going back to the drawing board in hopes to please the public. After Brunswick County residents shared how the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension project could negatively impact their lives and businesses, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has decided to take a different route. The NCDOT, South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration are working to extend S.C. 31, known as Carolina Bays Parkway, from S.C. 9 in Horry County, South Carolina, to U.S. 17 in Brunswick County. If funded and constructed, the proposed project will result in a new multi-lane full access freeway connecting the Carolinas. Though the project is not fully funded, negative feedback from residents pushed the NCDOT to reroute.
Alternative maps presented, residents opposed
In October 2025, NCDOT and SCDOT held joint public hearings regarding the project. Seven different design alternatives were presented, including the preferred alternative. All seven of NCDOT’s alternative maps for the highway route can be viewed on NCDOT’s website. Alternative map 4, which crosses through Hickman’s Crossroads and the Longwood area, was the preferred route in Brunswick County that would eventually dump onto U.S. 17. Phase one included constructing the highway from the state line to Ash Little River Road, according to a previous presentation made by David Roy with the North Carolina Turnpike Authority. Phase two had two scenarios, either continuing the route from Ash Little River Road to N.C. 904 or stretching the route to the U.S. 17 Shallotte Bypass/N.C. 130 area. After reviewing public feedback and considering funding challenges, the NCDOT will not be moving forward with Alternative 4, according to a recent NCDOT news release.
A new alternative in the making
Project Manager Brian Harding said the NCDOT is now crafting new options for the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension project. The new design, or designs, are being shaped by public and stakeholder feedback “to minimize potential impacts,” Harding said. Though the NCDOT is developing a new alternative design, existing alternative maps — not including alternative 4 — remain on the table for consideration, Harding explained.
NCDOT plans to present this year
Additional information regarding the new design will be presented to the public at a later date, the news release states. The goal is to have the new design ready to share with the public this year, Harding said. “The main thing driving the schedule is the funding that South Carolina has and trying to get them to the point that they can obligate the funding to the project and the timeline they have to start spending that money,” Harding said. Boom or doom: How a new highway could transform rural Brunswick County
Funding remains minimal
Currently, the NCDOT only has funding for planning the North Carolina side, Harding explained, not right-of-way nor construction funding. Staff is moving forward with what they can to get through the planning document and get a final product that is “more preferred by the public,” Harding said. As of now, there is no construction timeline for the North Carolina side of the project, A response to all comments received is available on the project webpage along with the most updated information regarding the project.
Read more » click here
Previously reported – April 2026
Public sways officials to ax parkway plan’s preferred NC route
The North Carolina Department of Transportation announced Wednesday that its officials are considering new design options for the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension project in Brunswick County after feedback from the public. NCDOT, in collaboration with the South Carolina Department of Transportation, is planning to extend S.C. Highway 31, aka the Carolina Bays Parkway, from S.C. Highway 9 in Horry County across the state line to U.S. Highway 17 in Brunswick County. Proposed is a multilane highway that would use portions of the existing road in addition to building roadway in new areas. The total anticipated cost for the project is $797 million. North Carolina’s share of the cost is estimated at $610.9 million. South Carolina anticipates construction commencing in 2029. North Carolina’s start date was listed as “TBD” on the project website. In October 2025, the state highway departments jointly held two public hearings about the project. Seven different design alternatives were presented, including the departments’ preferred alternative known as Alternative 4. NCDOT said Wednesday that, after reviewing public feedback and considering funding challenges, it’s not going to proceed with the North Carolina portion of Alternative 4, which builds on new location, tying in near the intersection of U.S. 17 and N.C. Highway 904. Alternative 4 would also upgrade part of U.S. 17 to a fully controlled freeway from N.C. 904 to N.C. Highway 130 in Shallotte. The two state agencies and the Federal Highway Administration continue to collaborate and explore other alternatives and modified routes to minimize impacts and meet the purpose and need of the project, according to NCDOT’s announcement. “NCDOT deeply values the input from this community and our stakeholders. We want to provide the region with the best possible roadway designs. We’ve listened to the feedback, and we’re working hard to prepare a new alternative,” said Division 3 Engineer Trevor Carroll in a statement. Alternative 4 was preferred because of factors such as requiring the lowest number of residential displacements, estimated at 39, and the lowest number of identified noise effects. The impacts to wetlands and streams were also deemed moderate relative to other alternatives, despite a large amount of designated High-Quality Waters impacted. A new alternative must include connectivity through the transportation network, increased mobility for the region and reduced travel time through the project corridor, officials noted in the announcement. Additional information regarding the new design is to be presented to the public at a later date. NCDOT said it is “committed to transparency, innovative solutions and exploring community feedback regarding this project.” Its response to all comments received is available on the project webpage along with the most updated information regarding the project. You can also follow NCDOT on social media for additional updates.
Read more » click here
Previously reported – February 2025
Study analyzes tolling proposed Carolina Bays Parkway Extension
Findings from a state tolling analysis indicate the proposed Carolina Bays Parkway Extension into Brunswick County wouldn’t generate enough traffic and revenue to significantly reduce the cost of the estimated $800 million project. The North Carolina Turnpike Authority analyzed the feasibility of tolling the highway project that would connect North and South Carolina, potentially providing a quicker route between Wilmington and Myrtle Beach. “This project will help alleviate congestion,” said David Roy, who oversaw the study. “But the volumes on the new location, from a tolling perspective, just weren’t gonna be sufficient.” The study found that tolls could generate several million dollars annually by 2045. However, Roy said that revenue would only cover regular road maintenance. “Analysis shows the project would be unlikely to generate sufficient revenues to reduce the cost of construction to the State as a result of tolling under any of the scenarios analyzed,” the study says. “NCDOT and NCTA are not advocating for a particular path forward.” The analysis examined three scenarios for the parkway extension. The first phase would connect the Carolinas to Ash Little River Road, north of Route 17. There are two options for the second phase: a shorter connection eventually linking to Route 17 near Grissettown or a longer option extending to Shallotte. The longer option would generate the most revenue if tolled, the study found. “In any of those three scenarios…none of them showed significant revenue,” Roy said. The proposed project has drawn opposition from Brunswick County residents. Several hundred people attended a public hearing in Sunset Beach in October, with many expressing concerns about traffic, cost and environmental impacts. Adding a toll would likely generate further frustration, but Roy said tolls aren’t always the answer for funding. “It’s not the right solution for every project, and it really does require significant volume before, I think, it starts to make sense,” he said. Transportation leaders on both sides of the state line must now determine how to fund the project. Alternative funding options, beyond a toll, include a sales tax, bond or state appropriation. North Carolina, where most of the construction would take place, would be responsible for about $610 million of the $797 million cost. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2028, with completion timelines varying based on which scenario moves forward. In the study, the first phase was assumed to open in 2035, with the second phase in 2040. Roy said the project has also been submitted as a toll project in the latest NCDOT Prioritization round, where it’ll receive a score that could impact future funding decisions.
Read more » click here
Toll study sheds new light on major Brunswick road project
A new study reveals what tolling a new highway connecting North and South Carolina would actually look like for Brunswick County. After years of waiting, the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension project is slowly picking up speed and costs. The North Carolina Turnpike Authority has presented a tolling analysis for the project as one local transportation organization continues its search for funding opportunities to move the road off paper, and onto dirt. The North Carolina and South Carolina departments of transportation and Federal Highway Administration are working together to extend S.C. 31, known as Carolina Bays Parkway, from S.C. 9 in Horry County, South Carolina, to U.S. 17 in Brunswick County. If funded and constructed, the proposed project will result in a new multi-lane full access freeway connecting the Carolinas. Alternative map 4, which crosses through Hickmans Crossroads and the Longwood area, as the preferred route in Brunswick County that will eventually dump onto U.S. 17. All seven of NCDOT’s alternative maps for preferred routes can be viewed on NCDOT’s website. In June 2025, the Grand Strand Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee, comprised of Brunswick County leaders, passed a resolution requesting NCDOT conduct a feasibility study to consider tolling the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension project. The resolution also recognized other funding sources will need to be explored. Here’s a look at what the toll study includes and potential revenue that could come if the new highway is built and tolled.
Analysis data and current traffic counts
The StarNews obtained the Carolina Bays Parkway tolling analysis presentation, made by David Roy with the North Carolina Turnpike Authority. The study analyzed three scenarios based off alternative map 4 and 4A and included a “sketch level” traffic and revenue forecast for the project from Stantec. Phase one, projected to open in 2035, is constructing the highway from the state line to Ash Little River Road. Phase two included two scenarios, either could open in 2040. One phase two scenario continues the route from Ash Little River Road to N.C. 904, the other scenario stretching the route to the U.S. 17 Shallotte Bypass/N.C. 130 area. Like other state turnpike authority projects, as stated in the presentation, the project was modeled using an electronic toll collection/bill by mail tolling structure. The analysis used data collected 2023-2025 traffic counts from the NCDOT, NCTA and SCDOT. In 2024, S.C. 31 south of S.C. 9 East in South Carolina had an annual average daily traffic count of 37,000 and U.S. 17 near the state line had an approximate 19,000 annual average daily traffic count, per the presentation. The annual average daily traffic count west of N.C. 904 on U.S. 17 in 2025 was just under 32,000 in 2025.
Estimated revenue from tolling Carolina Bays Parkway extension
If phase one were to open in 2035, the study calculated the road having 630,000 transactions the first year and 1.1 million transactions by 2040. That would bring a net revenue of $500,000 to $860,000 each year for the first five years. Continuing the route from Ash Little River Road to N.C. 904 could climb the number of yearly transactions to 4.3 million in 2040 and 6.8 million in 2045. If built, this could generate $3.9-6.2 million in annual net revenue, according to the presentation. The highest revenue-generating route, from the study, would be building the highway from the state line to Ash Little River Road to the U.S. 17 Shallotte Bypass/N.C. 130 area. The study calculated this route could produce a total of $1170 million in revenue from 2035-2085. If completely built to this route, the lifecycle operations and maintenance are anticipated to cost around $660 million, with an additional $410 million in major road maintenance.
The NCDOT website, updated Nov. 21, has the total projected cost at $797 million, over $200 million more than the previous cost estimate. North Carolina’s portion is expected to cost $610.9 million, and the anticipated start date is 2028, per the website. A completion date has not been determined. The NCDOT portion of the project is only funded for preliminary engineering, NCDOT representatives previously told the StarNews, but not for right-of-way, utilities or construction. Despite the project anticipated to bring millions of dollars over the years, the analysis shows tolling the road could only support operations and maintenance costs, not create enough revenue to support construction funding through a “toll revenue supported debt.” A toll revenue bond is an example of a toll revenue supported debt. “Analysis shows the project would be unlikely to generate sufficient revenues to reduce the cost of construction to the state as a result of tolling under any of the scenarios analyzed,” the presentation states. The presentation notes the NCDOT and NCTA will continue supporting the organization but are not advocating for a specific path forward. The highway extension project has also been submitted as a toll project in the NCDOT Prioritization 8.0 process.
Read more » click here
Previously reported – June 2025
To fast-track highway extension into Brunswick, leaders push for toll study
A toll could be the only way to fund a new highway connecting North and South Carolina. After years of waiting, one local transportation organization is pressing the gas on a new highway in Brunswick County as the clock continues to tick by without funding.
Here’s what to know.
A new highway?
The N.C. Department of Transportation and the S.C. Department of Transportation are working together to extend S.C. 31, known as Carolina Bays Parkway, from S.C. 9 in Horry County, South Carolina, to U.S. 17 in Brunswick County. The Carolina Bays Parkway Extension project began in 2006 with a feasibility study with conceptual alternative routes and has evolved into seven potential routes being studied. Interactive maps of the alternatives can be viewed on NCDOT’s website.
Funding troubles for North Carolina
The NCDOT’s website, last updated in October 2024, has the total project cost estimated at $552 million with North Carolina’s portion costing $367 million. However, the Federal Infrastructure Projects Permitting Dashboard lists the estimated project cost at $797 million.
Read more » click here
Previously reported – September 2025
OCEAN RIDGE MASTER ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY IMPACT COMMITTEE
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is implementing several initiatives to relocate the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension to Brunswick County. Following extensive planning and anticipation, a recent environmental assessment has identified a suitable location for the significant highway project and initiated a public comment period. The NCDOT and the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) are collaborating to extend South Carolina Highway 31 (SC 31), commonly referred to as the Carolina Bays Parkway, from South Carolina Highway 9 (SC 9) in Horry County to U.S. Route 17 (US 17) in Brunswick County. Should the project secure funding and proceed with construction, it will result in a newly constructed multi-lane full-access freeway that will connect the Carolinas. The route will be constructed in phases, potentially enhancing evacuation routes as Brunswick County experiences population growth. The Carolina Bays Parkway Extension project commenced in 2006 with a feasibility study that evaluated conceptual alternative routes. The construction of the road would have a significant impact on areas situated on either side of U.S. 17 in southern Brunswick County. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) had prepared seven alternative maps for preferred routes in Brunswick County, which ultimately converge onto U.S. 17. However, five alternatives have been eliminated, and the options have been reduced to Routes 4 and 4a. Attached are the maps for each route. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) website, updated on August 22, indicates that the $797 million project is currently in development with an anticipated commencement date of 2028. North Carolina’s portion of the project is projected to incur a cost of $610.9 million. South Carolina has secured the necessary funding and intends to initiate the process to connect Carolina Bays 31 from Route 9 to the state line at Hickman Road. Currently, North Carolina has secured funding for only the planning document, but not for the right-of-way or construction phases. Public hearings for the North Carolina side of the extension have been postponed on several occasions as the NCDOT awaited the availability of the draft environmental impact statement. However, the draft environmental impact statement is now available, and public hearings have been scheduled. The proposed project will involve two pre-hearing open houses and corridor public hearings. During these events, information will be presented, and NCDOT representatives will be available to address inquiries. The first public hearing will be from 5-8 p.m. on Sept. 29 at the Sea Trail Convention Center in Sunset Beach. The second hearing will be 5-8 p.m. on Sept. 30 at the North Strand Recreation Center in Longs, South Carolina. Alternative map 4 is identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement as the preferred alternative. Alternative map 4 crosses through Hickmans Crossroads and the Longwood area and continuing out to connect to Route 17 at the intersection of Route 904 and Route 17. Following the public hearing, the merger team will meet to select the preferred/ least environmentally damaging practicable alternative corridor, also called LEDPA, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act/ Section 404 Merger Process. This includes consideration of public comments and the local sponsors’ preferred alternative, potential impacts to noise, low income and disadvantaged populations, cultural resources and the environment are considered when selecting the least environmentally damaging and practicable alternative route. According to the merger process, the preferred/LEDPA corridor is the best solution to the problem satisfying the transportation need and considering environmental and community resources.
Landing spot identified for new highway connecting Brunswick County to SC
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is taking several steps toward moving the Carolina Bays Parkway Extension into Brunswick County. After years of planning and hoping, a recent environment statement has identified a landing spot for the major highway project and kickstarted a public comment period. The NCDOT and the South Carolina Department of Transportation are working together to extend S.C. 31, known as Carolina Bays Parkway, from S.C. 9 in Horry County, South Carolina, to U.S. 17 in Brunswick County. If funded and constructed, the proposed project will result in a new multi-lane full access freeway connecting the Carolinas. The route will be built in phases and could enhance evacuation routes as Brunswick County continues to grow in population.
Carolina Bays Parkway Extension project history
The Carolina Bays Parkway Extension project began in 2006 with a feasibility study with conceptual alternative routes. The road, if constructed, could impact places on each side of U.S. 17 in southern Brunswick County. NCDOT has seven alternative maps for preferred routes in Brunswick County that will eventually dump onto U.S. 17. However, five alternatives cross on the northern side of U.S. 17 around Hickman Crossroads along Hickman Road in Calabash. Interactive maps of the alternatives can be viewed on NCDOT’s website. “The primary purpose of the project is to improve transportation in the area by enhancing mobility and connectivity for traffic moving in and through the project area,” per NCDOT website.
New movement on the nearly $800 million project
The NCDOT website, updated Aug. 22, states the $797 million project is in development with an anticipated start date of 2028. The project is also part of NCDOT and SCDOT’s state transportation improvement program. North Carolina’s portion is expected to cost $610.9 million, per the website. “In North Carolina, this project is currently funded for the planning document, but not for right-of-way or construction,” Jenkins said.
Read more » click here
OIB Terminal Groin
Ocean Isle Beach completed construction of a terminal groin on its east end in April 2022 to help protect the beach immediately behind it. However, this structure has contributed to significant erosion at the east end near Shallotte Inlet by interrupting natural longshore drift, prompting ongoing efforts such as sandbag use to prevent ocean encroachment on properties in that area.
2024 OIB SHORELINE AND INLET ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
On Holden Beach, the recent volume change rates (May 2024 to November 2024) along the oceanfront shoreline indicated erosion at 12 of the 21 monitoring stations. Similarly, the MHW shoreline change rates indicated a shoreline retreat at 15 of the 21 monitoring stations. The long-term post-construction linear shoreline changes along the Holden Beach oceanfront shoreline indicated landward retreat. However, volumetric changes indicated slight accretion (0.2 cy/ft./yr.) within this area over the long-term period. The shoreline threshold analysis results along the Holden Beach oceanfront shoreline show that the post-construction shoreline change threshold was exceeded at only one monitoring station. This is the first time a threshold has been exceeded at Holden Beach since this annual analysis started in 2022. In addition, the analysis of May 2024 aerial imagery-derived wet/dry line revealed an 885 ft. section of Holden Beach’s inlet shoreline that exceeded the inlet shoreline threshold by a maximum distance of 100 feet. The inlet shoreline threshold on Holden Beach was also exceeded in Year-2. This marks two straight years where this threshold was exceeded. The inlet shoreline recession is believed to likely be attributed to a combination of morphological changes within Shallotte Inlet including the position and orientation of the main channel through Shallotte Inlet and the formation of a flood channel on the inlet shoulder of Holden Beach. Regardless, as stated in the Plan, because the shoreline changes in this area exceeded the threshold over the entire 2-year confirmation period, an assessment of the proper responsive measures will be made through coordination with State and Federal regulatory officials.
Sand is vanishing on east side of Ocean Isles $11M erosion fix
Read more » click here
Town of Ocean Isle Beach provides update on East End erosion
Read more » click here
Erosion at Brunswick beach under review after major road washout
Read more » click here
Ocean Isle seeks to modify permit, nourish beach at east inlet
Read more » click here
Panel takes new look at beach erosion-control structures
Something potentially and significantly consequential is underway now in North Carolina that could alter management of the state’s increasingly battered Atlantic coastline. The state Coastal Resources Commission’s Science Panel is in the process of finalizing an analysis of beach erosion-control structures, a report that is expected to be submitted to the commission in June. Although the 10-member advisory panel’s study is meant to inform policymakers of their options, some fear – or hope – that it’s the first step toward repealing the state’s longstanding ban on hardened shoreline structures. “Alarms are sounding in nearly all of our oceanfront counties,” state Division of Coastal Management Director Tancred Miller said at the commission’s meeting in November at Atlantic Beach, referring to threats from accelerating beach erosion. “Nourishment costs continue to rise and the lifespan of many of these projects is painfully short. Infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable, and some communities are very concerned.” Since September 2025, the Hatteras Island village of Buxton, home of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse and the massive corner of wild beach known as Cape Point, has seen 19 unoccupied oceanfront homes collapse into the surf. In addition to a beach nourishment project, Dare County this summer is planning to restore the only salvageable groin of a 57-year-old groin field in an attempt to prolong the project’s lifespan. In response to calls from Dare and Hyde counties, among others, to allow more options to address erosion, the division last winter asked the Coastal Resources Commission to review the structures. “We must approach these challenges with open minds, innovation, and balanced pragmatism,” Miller urged. “We must take a critical view of our past and current practices, embrace what continues to succeed, and replace practices that are no longer working.” But even the draft outline that the Science Panel submitted at the commission’s February meeting, titled “Report on The Effects of Hard Structures on Sandy, Open-ocean Coastlines,” revealed the complexity involved in redirecting, blocking, deflecting, buffering, or absorbing the power of an open ocean energized by high winds, with forceful longshore and cross-shore currents feeding beaches with sand here, starving them of sand there. “We’ve broken this into two categories according to how these erosion-management measures function; essentially all erosion-management approaches fall into two categories,” CRC Science Panel Chair Laura Moore told the commission. “One is structures or approaches that trap sand, and the second is structures that that really harden the shoreline.” While the report will provide details about protective barriers and techniques, she said, it is less about offering remedies than providing information about effects of each option. It will also include comparisons to beach-restoration methods such as nourishment and living shorelines. Erosion has been a fact of life along North Carolina’s 320-mile-long ocean shoreline for centuries, but before coastal development and tourism went into overdrive, the Coastal Resources Commission, the 13-member body that sets coastal policy in the state, took steps to preserve beaches. In 1985, after studying the down-shore erosive effects of seawalls, bulkheads, groins, jetties and sandbags, the commission established a policy banning permanent hardened structures on the ocean coast. Sandbags were permitted as temporary structures. Upheld in court in 2000, the ban was codified as law three years later by the North Carolina General Assembly. Then in 2011, a law was passed that permitted a limited number of terminal groins — sand-trapping barriers built near inlets or at the end of an island. Much of the ban, however, remains the law of the land. Environmentalists and countless coastal scientists have credited the limits on hard structures for preserving the state’s coastal wildlife and beautiful natural beaches, which attract millions of tourists every year. But critics blame the ban for limiting the ability to protect shorelines, as well as private and public property and infrastructure. No magic, one-size-fits-all formula exists to address erosion, Moore said, and many factors will need to be weighed. “There are approaches and strategies that can either shift the erosion problem to another adjacent location, or in some cases, we can slow the problem down,” said Moore, who is professor of coastal geomorphology at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. “We can create more time to make perhaps bigger adjustments that are likely to be needed going forward.” With seas rising and Atlantic storms intensifying over recent decades as a result of climate change, erosion on the state’s barrier island beaches has been happening faster and more dramatically, especially along the high-energy Outer Banks coastline, where erosion rates at some locations – as severe as an annual average of 14 feet – are among the highest on the East Coast. Dozens of oceanfront houses on eroded beaches, pounded and undermined by surging surf, have fallen into the sea. At the same time, more Outer Banks inlets and waterways are filling with sand, clogging channels that until the recent past had always been navigable. But the entire coast has been experiencing its own degree of changing and increasingly destructive conditions, and the pressure has been building to find ways to prevent or mitigate damages at different locations, each with different conditions. “I would say most of the North Carolina coastline is either barrier or behaves like barrier,” Moore told Coastal Review. “Certainly, subsidence in the north is a factor that’s going to make the relative rate of sea level rise a little higher. But there’s also the shape and the orientation of the shoreline and the wave approach angles and the wave energy and how those drive longshore sediment transport gradients, and how much sand is coming into a stretch of coast versus how much is leaving. Also, a really big factor is how frequently in the past the coast has been nourished.” The final report is to be centered on sand-trapping and shoreline-hardening structures, Moore said. But it will also look at other widely used erosion management tactics, ranging from avoidance with setbacks or relocation, sand trapping with fences or beach plants, and building the beach with sand nourishment and dunes. The two-category design of the document is focused on function of the structures, she said, “because there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of coastal erosion management approaches out there, and they all essentially fall into two buckets.” What the panel of volunteer scientists cannot do, she added, is analyze each approach. “What we are trying to do is provide a better, clearer explanation of how structures function and what their effects are,” Moore said. Moore emphasized that the science panel’s task is to provide an assessment of structures on the coastline. But she understands the urgency people feel for finding a “solution” rather than a range of options. “And although we’re not providing recommendations, I do want to highlight that we will be discussing tradeoffs, and I think that’s really important, because whether an approach has benefits or negative effects depends on the perspective and goals of the beholder,” she said. “We certainly know that there are efforts afoot to repeal the ban. And again, it’s not our job to say whether that should or should not happen. It’s our job to lay out in a clear way what the tradeoffs are, given how these different approaches to mitigating erosion function.”
Read more » click here
Study of past erosion-control lessons key to ongoing review
As the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission’s Science Panel studies the effects of permanent beach erosion control structures such as seawalls and jetties, a critical aspect of the analysis will be looking at the lessons learned. The commission banned hardened structures on the ocean shoreline in 1985 because of the down-shore erosive effects on the beach. Still, there are numerous examples of such structures in place along different parts of the coast, with varied degrees of effectiveness. Erosion is not only more severe and longstanding on the Outer Banks, which are more exposed to the power of the open ocean and coastal storms than other parts of the North Carolina coast, it is the most dramatic and unforgiving, especially on Hatteras and Ocracoke islands. But coastal erosion is a statewide issue. To that point, federal beach nourishment projects in North Carolina began in 1965 at Wrightsville Beach and at Carolina Beach, and nourishment at both locations has been done in recent years. When development and tourism took off on the Outer Banks in the 1980s, it didn’t take long before beach cottages began lining ocean shorelines. Still, the forces of erosion had no mercy, and Kitty Hawk began losing beachfront properties. After the commission issued a variance to the hardened structures ban in 2003, permitting sheet-piling along N.C. Highway 12 in the beach community, then-Sen. Marc Basnight strongarmed the state’s ban into legislation. Then in 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law that permitted four “test” terminal groins and has since expanded the permissible number of groins to seven. To date, four communities submitted permit applications: Figure Eight Island, Ocean Isle Beach, Bald Head Island and Holden Beach. Holden Beach has since withdrawn its application. Long before the ban, numerous attempts were made to shore up the beach oceanward of the 1870 Cape Hatteras Lighthouse in Buxton. By 1930, the nation’s tallest brick lighthouse was a mere 98 feet from the ocean. According to National Park Service records, interlocking steel sheet-pile groins were installed in the 1930s on the beach near the lighthouse and reinforced a few years later. Over the years, dunes were built, grasses were planted, the beach was nourished, revetment and sandbag walls were installed. In 1969, the U.S. Navy installed three reinforced concrete groins to protect its base, which was adjacent to the lighthouse at the time. But the erosion continued. More sandbags were put in place; more beach nourishment was done. The Navy left in the 1980s. While the National Park Service officially gave up its beach nourishment and dune stabilization efforts in 1973, it continued trying in ensuing years to protect the lighthouse from the sea with rip-rap, artificial seagrass, sandbags and a scour-mat apron. Finally, after much study and public debate, with the ocean lapping at its foundation, in 1999 the lighthouse was relocated about a half mile from the beach. Fast-forward a quarter-century and, since September 2025, 19 unoccupied beach houses near that same beach in Buxton have collapsed into the ocean. Escalating beach erosion along the state’s entire coast, but especially in Buxton, has put difficult discussions about lifting the hardened shorelines ban back on the table. The few existing permanent erosion-control structures built over the years on North Carolina beaches have yielded mixed results.
Oregon Inlet
One of the most successful examples of a terminal groin doing what it was intended to do, and with relatively minimal harm, is the 3,125-foot terminal groin and 625-foot revetment built in 1991 to protect the N.C. Highway 12 tie-in at the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, which has since been replaced and renamed the Marc Basnight Bridge. The $13.4 million groin is substantial — ranging from 110 to 170 feet wide at its base and 25 feet wide at its landward end, and 39 feet wide at its seaward end — and was built to withstand waves as high as 15 feet, according to an analysis done by the state Division of Coastal Management, “North Carolina’s Terminal Groins at Oregon Inlet and Fort Macon, Descriptions and Discussions.” Located on the south side of Oregon Inlet at the north edge of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge land, the groin placement encouraged sand buildup, or accretion, landward, resulting in a wide expansion of 50 acres of sandy property on the inlet side of the historic state-owned Oregon Inlet Life-Saving Station. The building is vacant but has been weatherized to preserve it for future use. The groin site and surrounding beach have been regularly monitored by state and federal coastal scientists. Studies have shown that the structure has likely increased shoaling of a spit on the Bodie island side and deepening of the channel. Yet, the groin has cause little if any destructive downstream erosion while adequately protecting the highway and bridge infrastructure. But the report warned that within the next 20 years or so, the continued southward migration of the Bodie Island spit could push the inlet’s main navigational channel up against the terminal groin structure itself. “If this were to occur, the result would be severe scour and an increase in the maintenance necessary to preserve the threatened integrity of the structure itself,” according to the document.
Beaufort Inlet/Fort Macon
Since Fort Macon was constructed in 1834, about 25 erosion-control structures adjacent to Beaufort Inlet have been built, including groins, breakwaters, timber cribbing, sand-fencing and seawalls, as well as multiple beach nourishment projects, according to the terminal groin report. The first phase of the terminal groin project began in 1961 and included a 530-foot seawall, a 250-foot revetment and 720-foot long, 6-foot-high terminal groin. Phase II, beginning in 1965, extended the groin 410 feet oceanward, and another groin was built west of the revetment to address extensive sound side erosion, while 93,000 cubic yards of sand was placed on the ocean beach. The third phase, started in 1970, extended the terminal groin another 400 feet, to a total of 1,530 feet long. A 480-foot-long stone groin was built to stabilize the beach fill, and another 100,000 cubic yards of sand was placed on the ocean beach. Total costs for the three-phase project was $1.35 million. Effects of the project include increased wave energy along the Fort Macon State Park and Bogue Banks area and continued increases in wave energy were predicted. A sediment deficit has created erosion on the inlet’s western shoreline. Meanwhile, the sand spit at Fort Macon has migrated into the western bank of the navigation channel, indicating that the terminal groin has become inefficient at trapping sediment. “Without constant beach nourishment, the terminal groin would no longer perform as observed historically and potentially fail altogether,” the report concluded.
Buxton
Dare County is planning a nourishment project in Buxton, as well as restoration of one of the Navy’s three abandoned reinforced sheet-pile groins that had been installed in 1969. According to the recent application to repair the southernmost groin, which is 50% or more intact, that groin had been lengthened in 1982 on the landward side by 300 feet, and armor stone was added two years later. New sheet piles and additional scour protection were added to the structures in 1994. The other two groins in the original groin field are too damaged to qualify under the Coastal Resources Commission’s “50% rule” that permits repairs. Dare County Manager Bobby Outten has said publicly that the county is under no illusions that the project planned for this summer will solve the erosion issue for good. But the hope is that it will serve as a Band-Aid long enough to find a more permanent solution to erosion that is now so severe it is threatening the livelihoods of community residents and the island’s tourism economy, as well as N.C Highway 12. Retired East Carolina University professor and veteran coastal geologist Dr. Stanley Riggs, who has studied the Outer Banks since the 1970s, agreed that the fact that the lighthouse had to be relocated to save it illustrates why Buxton’s erosion is not going to be easy to tame for long, with or without groins. When the first coastal survey from Virginia to Ocracoke was done in 1852, the original 1802 Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, which was destroyed, had been 1,000 feet from the shoreline, Riggs recently told Coastal Review. All told, the shoreline has receded 3,000 feet, or about two-thirds of a mile, at the cape, he said. “And it’s been constant,” Riggs said. “It oscillates a little bit, but the main direction has been constant.” As Riggs explained, offshore just north of the motel area in Buxton, there is an underwater rock structure that is set at an oblique angle relative to the barrier island. Similar “old capes” are also off Avon and Rodanthe, he said. The rocks are under as much as 50 feet of water, and they dictate how the waves refract there. “And so, if you fly over it, and you get the right angle down there, what you see is a series of cusps, and one side of that cusp will be stable, the other side will be highly erosional,” he said. Groins will only make the eroding side erode faster. And when there are permanent or semipermanent structures along the beach, the shore face — the part that is under water — starts to erode and gets steeper and steeper, he said. And the steeper it gets, the more severe the over wash and the more difficult it is to hold the sand in place. That’s a big reason why beach nourishment is having to be done more frequently. Not only does the Outer Banks stick out farther into the Atlantic, but there is also a narrower continental shelf, which allows the bigger waves to come ashore from the open ocean without the wider “speed bump” needed to dissipate the power. There’s no negotiating with the ocean, Riggs said. Considering the combination of coastal dynamics at play in Buxton, efforts to control erosion will continue to fail. “It’s that land-sea-air interface that is really the highest energy place that we’ve got on our planet,” Riggs said. “And there’s some things you can do there. There’s some things you shouldn’t do there, you can’t do there, and it’s a matter of understanding how that system works.”
Ocracoke Island
A persistent erosion hot spot on the north end of the island along N.C. Highway 12, the only road between the Hatteras Ferry Docks and Ocracoke Village, has been patched on and off for decades by increasing numbers of ever larger numbers and size of sandbags. But even the type of large, new, trapezoidal bags permitted at Ocracoke, Pea Island and Mirlo Beach have not held up as expected, according to a presentation provided by Paul Williams of the North Carolina Department of Transportation at the February Coastal Resources Commission meeting. Williams presented details at the meeting of NCDOT’s revised request to increase the base of the sandbags from 20 to 30 feet and the height from 6 feet to 10 feet, to better protect them from being undermined by waves. The newer bags have open ends at the top, which proved to be a problem at Pea Island, Williams told the commission. The Pea Island Refuge at the Visitor Center, he added, faces similar risks now to that seen at Mirlo Beach in Rodanthe in the years before the hotspot was bypassed with completion of the Rodanthe “Jug-Handle” Bridge. “The performance has not been what we anticipated,” he said, describing how they were flooded at the top, which caused the sandbags to deflate. “This product, there may be some modifications that can be made to make them more resilient.” Some of the new bags were also installed along with traditional sandbags at Ocracoke, and they’re still covered, Williams said, but roughly 1 mile of sandbags along N.C. 12 are at risk of being undermined during the next big storm. “So it’s basically to give us more latitude on different products, to try to protect the roadway out there better than traditional sandbags have,” Willams told Coastal Review after the meeting. “We’ve used them for decades out there, and especially Mirlo, they really got tossed around during storms. We were looking to find a more resilient product, and we’re working on evaluating other options out there.” The new sandbags with an opening at the top are quicker to fill, he said. They’ve worked at other areas, but conditions elsewhere are not as fierce. “When you’re on the Outer Banks, you’re under constant pressure during some of these storm events, because we’ll have a storm set up on the coast and grind for days at a time,” Williams said. “And every tide cycle is just steadily pulling sand out of the bags, and we need to have some way to stop that.” Even though many of the traditional sandbags without the troublesome opening are still in place at Ocracoke, Williams said that about half of them, or about 1,000, have been exposed and need to be replaced. Another issue on the island is the limited amount of sand available to cover. Sandbags, which are considered temporary erosion-control structures that are permitted parallel to shore to protect imminently threatened roads or structures, have rules about color and size, but those rules have been notoriously abused with regard to the “temporary” part, with extensions often adding up to decades at a site, making them “hardened structures” in everything but name. Before Nags Head in 2011 started nourishing its eroded beaches in South Nags Head, for instance, even battered and torn sandbags weren’t removed for years, and property owners often successfully sued the state to keep longstanding stacked rows of protective bags in place in front of their oceanfront homes on the eroded beach. As sea levels continue to rise, storms intensify and erosion accelerates, even sandbags as fallbacks in the absence of other impermissible erosion-control structures are becoming less effective, as evidenced by photographs of huge piles of sandbags lined up against undermined houses at North Topsail Beach.
Ocean Isle Beach
Responding to the state legislature’s repeal of the ban on hardened erosion-control structures on the coast, Ocean Isle Beach in 2011 began the planning process to pursue permits to install a terminal groin at Shallotte Inlet to stem erosion that for decades had chewed away at the island’s east end. Five years later, state and federal approval was in hand to build a 750-foot-long terminal groin, but environmental groups in 2017 filed a lawsuit to stop the project. A ruling in March 2021 in the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the project alternatives were properly considered. By April 2022, the $11 million terminal groin was completed. Today, a diminished beach remains in front of multi-million-dollar homes that were built after the groin was in place. Rows of sandbags block the surf from reaching some of the oceanfront homes, and several lots remain vacant because there is no longer enough property left to meet setback requirements. In November, the Coastal Resources Commission allowed the owners of eroding vacant oceanfront lots to use larger sandbags to protect their properties.
Interest in future terminal groins
The Village of Bald Head Island, the first community to build a terminal groin after the “test groin” law passed, was issued a permit in October 2014 to build the erosion-control structure, which was completed in 2015. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality monitoring of the project after its completion did not turn up significant issues requiring corrective measures, according to its January 2024 report. “While ongoing post-construction monitoring performed by the permittee has not identified any significant issues that would require corrective or mitigative measures, the Village performed a maintenance beach nourishment event, received nourishment from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ regularly scheduled Wilmington Harbor maintenance project, and is currently seeking permit authorization for a second Village-sponsored maintenance nourishment event,” according to the document. Six other communities have expressed “varying degrees” of interest in building a terminal groin project, including North Topsail Beach and Figure Eight Island, as noted in the report.
Read more » click here
Odds & Ends
The beaches are the economic engine of our tourism-based economy.
Beach Access Trash Receptacles
Previously reported – April 2026
Staff will be moving receptacles to the roadside of the beach accesses. This will be easier to maintain even in the middle of the day when beach access is difficult. Despite objections from Commissioner Myers the majority of the Board decided to allow them to try this.
I strongly oppose this decision. I walk the beach strand four days a week and routinely pick up trash. Even though trash cans are out there, I typically pick up one to two bags per day this time of year, and more than three bags daily during peak tourist season. Based on this firsthand experience, I can say with confidence that reducing or removing trash cans will make an existing problem significantly worse. When trash cans are full, people leave their garbage next to them. When cans are removed, due to storm events, people continue to leave trash where the cans used to be. This behavior is consistent and predictable, and it is unlikely to change. Expecting the public to walk off the strand and up to street-level disposal points is unrealistic—they simply don’t or won’t do it. If anything, we should be making disposal easier, not more difficult. The practical solution is clear: more trash cans and more frequent pickups, especially during peak seasons. This service is currently funded through the BPART account, so cost should not be a barrier to maintaining or improving it. There are also logistical inconsistencies that need to be addressed. For example, some trash cans on the strand are located in front of oceanfront homes where there is no public beach access. What is the plan for locations like this? As it stands, this approach gives the impression that operational convenience is being prioritized over maintaining a clean and safe public environment. Additionally, the suggestion that mid-day pickups are too difficult does not reflect operational reality. Trash collection should occur early each morning on a daily basis to prevent overflow issues. With proper enforcement of ordinance (§94.06), including maintaining the required ten-foot corridor adjacent to the dunes, there should be adequate access for collection vehicles—even if a mid-day schedule is required. In short, reducing or removing trash cans will result in more trash on our beach.
Editor’s note –
If you would like to share your perspective on this matter, I encourage you to reach out to the Town Manager and the Board of Commissioners. Your input is valuable and can help inform their decisions.
Contact information:
alan@alanholdenrealty.com;tmmyers56@gmail.com;Dyer@hbtownhall.com;
pate@hbtownhall.com;smith@hbtownhall.com;bryan.chadwick@hbtownhall.com
Concert Stage
Holden Beach concert stage construction underway
Holden Beach Residents and visitors will be able to enjoy a new concert stage and dance floor this summer if all goes to plan. Construction is underway on Block Q, the town-owned lot near the bridge, and the contractor is expected to finish work by June 30 at the latest. The town is also currently working with an engineering firm to create a comprehensive master plan for Block Q and the surrounding area.
Concert stage, dance floor
The Holden Beach Board of Commissioners, during an April 10 special meeting, unanimously approved a contract with A. W. Babson Construction, a local builder, for construction of the stage. The project will cost the town $349,154, per the contract. “This contractor has a very good work history with the town,” Assistant Town Manager Christy Ferguson said. “They’re currently working on Halstead [Park], they’ve done several of our walkways … I feel that they will meet the timeline that they laid out.” Until that construction is completed, the town’s scheduled concerts will be held at Bridgeview Park. The concert season will kick off on May 24 with a performance from Special Occasion Band. All concerts are free and will continue throughout the summer. Holden Beach has been without a concert stage since 2024 when the previous board voted to tear down the old pavilion due to safety concerns. Concert-goers will also be able to use the newly opened restroom building on Block Q. That project, completed by a different builder, took much longer to complete than was expected. The original contract had a completion date in July 2025, The Brunswick Beacon reported. The bathroom project had been delayed because a subcontractor performed work incorrectly, necessitating the contractor, Caleb Chavis, to redo a portion of the project. To mitigate delays in the stage’s construction, town staff will meet with A. W. Babson every other week, Town Manager Bryan Chadwick said. Both the pavilion and concrete dance floor will be 40-foot by 40-foot, with the front of the pavilion facing the Intracoastal Waterway. The stage will be raised two feet off the ground and the pavilion roof will feature a cupola, Inspections Director Tim Evans said in January. Four parking spaces included behind the pavilion along Brunswick Avenue East will be designated for the entertainers. The portion of Carolina Avenue between South Shore Drive and Quinton Street will be removed, Evans said.
Comprehensive master plan
During its April 21 meeting, the board of commissioners unanimously approved a draft contract with McGill Associates for the completion of a master plan for the area surrounding Block Q and Jordan Boulevard. The draft contract does not yet include a total cost for the project, but the board will consider a formal contract with a price tag during its next meeting, Chadwick said. The town had previously issued a request for qualifications (RFQ) for services to complete a master plan, and the board selected McGill for the project in February. As there have been several sharp turns in the town’s vision for this project, Chadwick brought the draft contract in front of the board April 21 to make sure that the commissioners agreed to the scope before moving toward a formal contract, he said. The draft contract states that McGill will create a comprehensive design plan for the Jordan Boulevard, Block Q, and bridge area. The scope of services includes a kick-off meeting, site assessment and public engagement. Among other plans, it recommends a community workshop, two work sessions and a final, public presentation of the plan to the board.
Read more » click here
New concert venue to open soon in this Brunswick beach town
After knocking down a former concert venue, a Brunswick beach town expects to have its new facility completed in time for summer. The town of Holden Beach is preparing for completion of its new stage and dance floor as town officials still mull over what to do with the rest of Block Q. The town purchased the 1.79-acre lot between Shore Drive and Brunswick Avenue, commonly known as Block Q, for $2 million in early 2022. Town officials have gone back and forth on plans for Block Q since, countering a variety of property uses, including recreational activity space, parking, boat parking, and leaving it open. Well over four years later, the town is taken a few steps forward with plans to transform the space and create more than just a parking lot.
Performance and dance space
The former pavilion was built in 2010 underneath the Holden Beach Bridge and served as a homebase for summer concerts, festivals and town events. After a slew of public safety concerns and discussions about whether the pavilion was worth saving, the town ultimately voted to both close and demolish the pavilion in 2024. Work has begun on the town’s new open-air pavilion and dance floor. Town commissioners decided to build the stage on Block Q, facing the Intracoastal Waterway, instead of rebuilding it on the former pavilion site. The project is located at the intersection of Brunswick Avenue East, Quinton Street, and Jordan Boulevard in Block Q. The town expects the new concert venue to be up and running by June 30, a month into the roughly 16-week long summer concert series. The facilities are expected to be used during festivals as well.
ADA bathrooms
Despite several delays, the Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant restroom facility and associated parking at Block Q is completed. The project is part of a grant through the North Carolina Public Beach and Coastal Waterfront Access Program, a program to help local governments fund projects that improve pedestrian access to beaches and waterways.
Next steps
Commissioners in April unanimously approved a draft engineering services contract between the town and McGill & Associates for the Block Q/Jordan Boulevard Master Plan, which includes the old pavilion area. McGill & Associates also constructed a parks and recreational master plan for the town in 2021. A formal contract and estimated price tag is to be presented to the town in May. Prior board discussions and ideas for the property on Jordon Boulevard revolved around bathrooms, pickleball courts, concerts and boat parking. Now, McGill & Associates are to look at what the town needs are today, and how the site can be used to best address those needs. In McGill & Associates’ statement for qualification, it stated the process will take about eight months for engineers to present a final comprehensive, conceptual design plan. During those eight months, engineers will analyze the site and engage with both the town and public.
Read more » click here
Previously reported – April 2026
Project Overview the Town of Holden Beach is seeking sealed bids from qualified general contractors for the complete construction of the Holden Beach Pavilion in accordance with the provided plans and specifications. The project is located at the intersection of Brunswick Avenue East, Quinton Street, and Jordan Boulevard in Block Q, Holden Beach, NC (part of Carolina Avenue Park). It involves a 40′ x 40’open-air pavilion structure stage and 40′ x 40′ Dance Floor designed for coastal conditions, with associated site improvements including stormwater management.
The low bid was from A.W. Babson at a cost of $349,150, which does not include the bid bond which is required. The BOC’s decided to move forward including the cost of the bid bond awarding the contract to A.W Babson.
A decision was made – Approved unanimously
This and That
Property Tax Cap
North Carolina is advancing a proposed constitutional amendment (House Bill 1089) that would require the General Assembly to limit how much local governments can increase property tax collections. If passed by the legislature, voters will decide whether to implement these levy limits on the November 3, 2026 ballot.
Current Tax Caps
Under current state law, North Carolina caps the maximum property tax rate that local governments can levy at $1.50 per $100 of assessed property value, though no county currently reaches this symbolic limit.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment (2026)
-
- What it does: Instead of capping the tax rate, the proposed “levy limits” would cap the total revenue (levy) a municipality or county can collect, protecting homeowners from surging tax bills caused by skyrocketing property valuations.
- The unknown variables: The exact limit (e.g., whether it will be tied to inflation, population growth, or a set percentage) and any specific exceptions are not defined in the amendment itself. Those details will be determined by follow-up legislation if the amendment is enacted.
NC lawmakers advance proposed property tax cap, affordable housing exemption
The state House of Representatives’ Finance Committee on Tuesday voted to advance a proposed state constitutional amendment restricting how much city and county governments could raise property taxes each year.
State lawmakers on Tuesday advanced a proposal to limit property tax increases — putting the idea one step closer to a ballot referendum in November. The state House of Representatives’ Finance Committee on Tuesday gave a favorable report to a proposed state constitutional amendment restricting how much city and county governments could raise property taxes each year. The bill goes next to the House Rules Committee. Amendments to the state Constitution must be approved by North Carolina voters. If the idea is approved by a supermajority of legislators, North Carolinians would be asked to decide the issue through a ballot vote, likely in November. Legislative leaders said Tuesday they plan to adopt the proposal. “Both chambers want to deliver additional tax relief to the citizens of North Carolina,” Senate leader Phil Berger said when announcing that he and House Speaker Destin Hall had reached agreements on key details of a state budget. The legislation, House Bill 1089, doesn’t outline a limit for property tax increases. It calls on state lawmakers to come up with specific restrictions at a later date — if the referendum is approved by voters. The bill enjoyed bipartisan support among committee members, with Republicans and Democrats disagreeing over why the amendment is needed. Republicans accused city and county governments of raising taxes to pay for frivolous projects. “We don’t have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem,” said Rep. Keith Kidwell, R-Beaufort. Democrats said many municipalities are raising taxes to fill budget holes created by a lapse in state funding, specifically for education. Legislative leaders failed to adopt a comprehensive state budget for the current fiscal year. “When you squeeze the balloon up top, that balloon is gonna pop out somewhere else,” said Rep. Eric Ager, D-Buncombe. The proposed constitutional amendment is part of a broader push by legislators in the Republican-controlled General Assembly to address affordability issues ahead of the midterm elections. Republicans in the state Senate last week approved a bill that would temporarily block county governments from applying appraisals conducted during this calendar year to property tax bills. Reappraisals often lead to higher property tax bills. Republican Senate leader Phil Berger has referred to that proposal as a “moratorium” that could bring temporary relief to taxpayers in a number of counties scheduled to reappraise properties this year — including Guilford and Harnett. Berger has framed the idea as simply buying time for the legislature to come up with more sweeping reforms. The proposed constitutional amendment could serve as that more sweeping idea, although it’s unclear if the Senate will go along if the idea passes the House. Tax reduction has been a stated goal of Republican lawmakers for decades, but the proposed reappraisal moratorium and constitutional amendment are not guaranteed to pass. Neither Berger nor House Speaker Destin Hall has committed to supporting the other chamber’s idea for addressing rising property taxes. Democrats have expressed skepticism over both plans. Senate Minority Leader Sydney Batch, D-Wake, chided Senate Republicans last week for failing to take up an amendment to Berger’s bill that would have lowered the state’s income threshold to qualify for property tax exceptions. Rep. Lindsey Prather, D-Buncombe, said Monday — during a press conference calling for higher taxes on millionaires — that the property tax changes being proposed by GOP lawmakers seemed aimed more at gathering political credit than solving a problem. “We can be the quote-unquote ‘good guys’ down here in Raleigh and say we’re going to lower your property taxes,” Prather said. “But all that means is that the local governments are going to have to be the ‘bad guys’ to raise revenue in other ways.”
Closing a loophole
The House Finance committee on Tuesday also advanced a proposal that could help municipal governments recoup more property tax revenue. The committee gave a favorable report to House Bill 1042, which would tighten rules for nonprofit organizations that receive property tax exemptions. The bill goes next to the House Rules Committee. The state currently allows certain organizations to avoid paying property taxes if they use their property entirely for charitable purposes and are not run for profit. However, some developers have identified a loophole in the law that allows them to build housing with a minimal number of affordable units. State Rep. Erin Pare, R-Wake, said the loophole enabled developers to keep nearly $750 million worth of property out of Wake County’s tax base in 2025. The proposed change seeks to winnow down the list of who qualifies, especially nonprofits that provide affordable housing for low- or moderate-income people. “The intent of this work is to preserve the affordable housing exemption … and to sure there is a public benefit to providing this exemption,” Pare told the committee.
Read more » click here
Turtle Watch Program –
Turtle Watch Program – 2026
.
.
The first nest of the 2025 season was on May 21st
Average annual number of nests is 45
Current nest count – (3) as of 05/23/26
Members of the patrol started riding the beach every morning on May 1 and will do so through October looking for signs of turtle nests.
For more information » click here.
.Turtle Talks
The Holden Beach Turtle Watch Program conducts weekly educational programs on selected Wednesday evenings in June, July and August. Please check our Events Calendar for details on dates, times and locations. Seating is limited.
Children’s Turtle Time
Special programs for younger turtle enthusiasts are held at 4 p.m. on Wednesday afternoons in June, July and August on select dates.
Both programs are free of charge and will be held at the Holden Beach Chapel.
How you can protect sea turtles at NC beaches during nesting season
People aren’t the only folks flocking to North Carolina’s beaches as the weather warms up. In the coming weeks, beachgoers could find themselves sharing the sand with mamma sea turtles and shorebirds looking for a spot to start a new family. Already, skimmers, oystercatchers and other birds are vying for space on the sandy spits at the tips of barrier islands like Wrightsville Beach, and North Carolina has already seen one false crawl by a sea turtle even though sea turtle nesting season doesn’t generally start until May 1, according to the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. But sharing the beach can be a challenge, with the deck largely stacked against coastal wildlife as the lure of sand and the ocean keeps attracting more and more people to the N.C. coast − never mind the other challenges the animals face in the wild off the beach. Still, officials say following a few simple rules can give the critters a flipper and wing up during their beach visit. “Seeing a sea turtle on the beach is a wonderful, rare experience,” said Terry Meyer, deputy and conservation director at the Karen Beasley Rescue and Rehabilitation Center in Surf City. “But just keep a respectful distance while enjoying it.”
One in 1,000
Sea turtle nesting season in North Carolina occurs from May through September. Female sea turtles emerge from the ocean at night, and using their flippers, dig an 18-inch-deep hole that will serve as the nest where she will deposit 80 to 120 eggs. After laying the eggs, she covers the nest and returns to sea. After about a 60-day incubation period, the hatchlings emerge and make their way to the ocean. Only about one in 1,000 hatchlings will live to reproduce. In 2025 North Carolina recorded 1,088 nests, with the first one recorded on Topsail Island on May 8, 2025. The first nest to emerge was a Kemp’s Ridley nest on Ocean Isle Beach on July 10, 2025. The vast majority of North Carolina nests were laid by loggerheads. Green sea turtle nest numbers are slowly increasing in the state, with Tar Heel beaches seeing 58 last year. There also were 10 Kemp’s Ridley nests.
Range of threats
Both in the water and on land, sea turtles face a range of threats. In the ocean, dangers range from entanglement in fishing gear to boat strikes to ingesting plastics and other trash. But that’s if the hatchlings even make it off the beach to have a life at sea. “Our No. 1 greatest threat by far is artificial lighting,” Meyer said. She said it’s the biggest concern because the lights can not only disorientate the nesting female as she comes ashore, but also hatchlings as they move toward the brightest light they see when they come out of their nest. In a perfect world, that’s the moon or the stars as they make their way toward the ocean. And it isn’t just exterior lighting that is a problem. Meyer said a recent study found 57% of the light pollution along the Topsail Island beachfront was from interior lights − a major concern since many oceanfront homes don’t have shades or curtains on their ocean-facing windows. Factor in a rotating mix of residents as vacationers cycle on and off the island almost weekly and it’s a constant battle for the turtle volunteers and others to get the message about lighting out there. “We just can’t stay ahead of the light situation,” Meyer said, noting volunteers hand out door hangers warning about the danger of keeping lights on at night and promote the use of turtle-friendly ambient light bulbs for exterior uses instead of traditional bulbs. “It’s definitely a challenge.” Predators like foxes and raccoons along with overanxious tourists eager to see and get selfies with a giant marine reptile that predates the dinosaurs are other challenges nesting sea turtles and their hatchlings can face. Climate change also is a growing concern. On the beach, the warming weather is increasing sand temperatures, which helps determine the sex of hatchlings as the buried eggs incubate. If the beach is warmer than 89 degrees, most of the hatchlings will be female; if it’s cooler more will be male. For a long time, researchers have believed that the cooler beaches in the Carolinas produced males to mate with the female-heavy hatchlings produced by the warmer beaches in Florida and along the Gulf Coast. But what will happen if all the country’s beaches get so warm that the vast majority of hatchlings are female? A warming climate, which scientists are predicting for North Carolina in the coming years, also could impact when sea turtles nest, prompting turtles to lumber ashore earlier than the traditional May start date.
‘Fill in those holes’
The Topsail Turtle Project, run by the sea turtle hospital, monitors the beaches in Topsail Beach, Surf City and North Topsail Beach. With volunteer groups in other beach towns along with federal and state agencies, officials monitor all 330 miles of ocean-facing sandy beaches in N.C. for sea turtle nests, stranded animals and even signs of false crawls. “We want them all counted, all documented,” Meyer said. “We want to know how many turtles we have.” If an injured or stressed sea turtle is found, it often ends up at the sea turtle hospital. As of April 21, the turtle hospital was treating 45 patients − most cold-stun victims from this winter that were slowly being nursed back to health. Kathy Zagzebski, the hospital’s executive director, said during the busy fall and winter season the facility sometimes deals with more than 100 turtles at a time, many cold-stunned animals brought down from New England for treatment. Recovery times can often take several months per turtle. As the weather warms up, the hospital sees fewer turtles being brought in suffering from hypothermia or other temperature-related issues. But the animals that are brought in are often those that have been accidently hooked by a fishermen or hit by a boat. “We usually see fewer turtles, but those that we do see probably require more treatment,” Kathy said. Like Meyer, Zagzebski said just taking a few steps and being considerate can help people and sea turtles better share the state’s coastal environment. “And fill in those holes,” she said, noting that holes dug on the beach can deter mother sea turtles from nesting and prevent hatchlings from reaching the ocean after they emerge from the nest.
Read more » click here
The N.C. Sea Turtle Project works with 20 different volunteer groups. Contact information for each is available at nc-wild.org/seaturtles/contacts, or call the statewide sea turtle hotline at 252-241-7367.
Fauna & Flora –
NC State Native Plant Resources » click here
NC Native Plants for Pollinators » click here
NC Sea Grant Coastal Landscapes » click here
New Hanover County Arboretum Native Plant Garden » click here
Audubon Native Plant Database » click here
North Carolina Extension Gardener Plant Toolbox » click here
Fauna & Flora » click here
Holden Beach recommended plant list – deer resistant & salt tolerant
Factoid That May Interest Only Me
A Powerful El Niño Is Forming. If History Is a Guide, It Could Hit Hard.
The biggest episodes of the past have altered the course of human events, according to researchers. An emerging one is drawing historic comparisons.
Well before it was understood, the El Niño phenomenon was leaving its marks on humanity. El Niño is the name given to powerful shifts in Pacific Ocean winds and water temperatures that can drastically transform global weather patterns. Over the centuries these natural patterns have sparked epic droughts and heat waves and have intensified epidemics. Some academics even claim to see the fingerprints of El Niño on political and economic crises in ancient Egypt, or on the downfall of the Moche civilization in present-day Peru, more than 1,000 years ago. And in 1877 and 1878, a famine fueled by El Niño killed millions of people across the tropics, hardening inequities that, as one research paper put it, “would later be characterized as the ‘first world’ and ‘third world.’” Right now, the world is entering a new El Niño phase. Researchers are warning it could be one of the strongest on record and are invoking this history as an admonition that natural forces, when they reach their highest magnitude, can lead to profound volatility and hardship. In general, El Niño makes for wetter conditions in some parts of the Americas while suppressing the Atlantic hurricane season. The phenomenon raises the risk of dryness in South and Southeast Asia, Australia, and southern Africa. Of course, the current El Niño is in the early stages of formation and might not live up to the hype. But if the forecasts prove accurate, it would be a whopper and its consequences would play out across a world that has grown far more resilient but also has new vulnerabilities. Compared with those early times, countries today track El Niño events with oceanic gauges and early warning systems. Agriculture is far more sophisticated, and many countries vulnerable to food shocks hold strategic grain reserves. Nobody is predicting large-scale famine. But experts say an El Niño would add pressure to an already precarious global system. Fertilizer shortages caused by the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz are straining farmers. Rising energy prices resulting from war in Ukraine and Iran are eating into countries’ budgets. And a longstanding safety net has been weakened by cuts in foreign aid to poorer countries by the United States and other nations. There’s possibility for “a perfect storm of factors,” said Laurie Laybourn, who leads the Strategic Climate Risks Initiative, a think tank based in Britain. “You could see an increase in poverty, malnutrition, conflict, indebtedness, and all of the domino effects that come from that.” If history offers any lesson, it’s that strong El Niño events, like the one that started in 1877, play upon existing weaknesses. That El Niño led to punishingly dry conditions that spanned the world, including Brazil, southern Africa and China. Few places were hit harder than southern India. Contemporaneous accounts describe stick-thin people trying to survive on roots and even selling off children they couldn’t afford to care for. But for all the power of nature, man-made factors very likely raised the death toll, which ultimately rose to tens of millions of people. At the time, India was under British colonial rule, and the historian Mike Davis, in his 2001 book “Late Victorian Holocausts,” portrays Britain as prioritizing its imperial interests by maintaining huge grain exports from India even as Indians starved. “Londoners were in effect eating India’s bread,” Mr. Davis wrote. Of course, there was another factor complicating the response. People at the time had no idea why the monsoon rains had failed. Scientists in the 19th century theorized a link with weakened sunspot activity. But a far better picture emerged in the 1960s, when Jacob Bjerknes, a meteorologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, pieced together the global consequences of the feedback between the ocean and atmosphere in the Pacific. Centuries earlier, Peruvians had noticed that sometimes tropical fish would unexpectedly show up on their shores around Christmas, a phenomenon eventually named “El Niño,” or “the Christ child” in Spanish. Dr. Bjerknes made the connection: The Pacific warming that the Peruvians had spotted was, in fact, altering weather patterns around the world. “That was the big bang” realization, said Michael McPhaden, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “He opened up a new universe of study.” By the 1980s, scientists were on a vessel in the middle of the Pacific, anchoring buoys that enabled improved monitoring of ocean temperature. Separately, researchers sought out clues for El Niño’s place in human history, studying tree ring samples, coral reefs and sailors’ logbooks, and creating a crude timeline of its spikes. The records weren’t sharp enough to measure past events with certainty. But they have led to speculation about the role of El Niño events across history, including that an El Niño in the late 1700s might have played a role in the crop failures that contributed to uprisings in the French Revolution. For the 1877 El Niño, the one that hit India so hard, the documentation is better but still involves guesswork. “Working with nineteenth-century sea surface temperature data is a bit like assembling a puzzle with many missing pieces,” Boyin Huang, a NOAA oceanographer who has studied the scale of the event, wrote in an email. El Niño events are measured by looking at temperature levels in a vast rectangular zone in the central Pacific. In a moderate El Niño, temperatures might climb, say, 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, above a longer-term average. But in the biggest El Niños of the past 50 years — the ones that started in 1982, 1997, and 2015 — temperatures have soared 2 degrees Celsius or more beyond the norm. Each of those events levied a global economic toll. This year, many forecasts say the temperature could increase by an unprecedented 3 degrees Celsius. Even the 1877 El Niño, by the best estimates, didn’t have that magnitude. “A number of the models now show a real chance for a record-setting El Niño event,” said Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist at Berkeley Earth. “It is still too early to know for sure.” El Niño events typically peak in strength late in a calendar year and then cause warmer global temperatures on land in the months that follow. As a result, many scientists predict that 2027 will be the warmest year on record. In India, which tends to be drier during El Niño periods, the government has already held preparatory meetings. Vimal Mishra, a professor at the Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, said his country did not face risks on the same scale as it did more than a century ago. “If one year the monsoon fails, we won’t see famine,” he said. He cited India’s public distribution system, which guarantees access to basic staples at subsidized prices. But Dr. Mishra said India, like other countries, still faced risk. If there is very little rainfall, people will draw down on savings. They’ll spend less. They’ll close down businesses. During droughts, school dropout rates rise. “It has a direct impact on the growth rate of India’s economy,” he said. Dr. Mishra has studied India’s major famines and he draws a direct line between the one from the 1870s and the preparations India is now taking. “It gives us an idea of how to be better prepared,” he said. “It shows you, this is the worst that could happen.”
Read more » click here
Beach Strand
Most rip current deaths are preventable. Yet people keep drowning.
Beach-safety experts are frustrated by the mounting fatalities despite awareness campaigns and improved forecasts
Rip-current deaths in the United States are running ahead of last year’s pace – at least 29 since the beginning of the year – with peak beach season yet to come. Experts are warning the public to be aware of this largely hidden hazard ahead of Memorial Day weekend, traditionally one of the busiest beach weekends of the year. The risk of dangerous rip currents is expected to be particularly high this weekend along portions of the Southeast coast where a storm could produce heavy rain, gusty winds and rough seas. Experts say most rip-current fatalities can be prevented. Still, the number of annual rip-current deaths has steadily climbed since the National Weather Service began tracking them in 2010, reaching a record of 130 in 2021, then dipping to 85 last year. Rip currents were the third-leading cause of weather-related deaths from 2012 to 2021, behind only heat and flooding, according to the Weather Service, and in a typical year they kill more people than lightning, hurricanes or tornadoes. Rip currents are strong, narrow streams of water that flow away from the shoreline and can suddenly sweep swimmers out to sea. They can form on almost any beach with breaking waves, especially near low spots or breaks in sandbars, and near jetties or piers. Predicting where and when a rip current will form is difficult because of the many weather and ocean factors involved. The Weather Service cautions that “rip currents often form on calm, sunny days.” The Weather Service lists 26 rip-current deaths this year through April 27, not including three deaths believed to be caused by rip currents on April 28 in Destin, Fla., May 6 in Ocean City, Md., and May 12 at Cannon Beach, Ore. At this point last year, there were 19 total such deaths. Beach-safety experts are expressing frustration as fatalities trend higher again this year despite annual awareness campaigns, such as the United States Lifesaving Association’s National Beach Safety Week held every year during the week before Memorial Day, and recent improvements to rip current forecasts. “It is frustrating when we produce videos and graphics and educational information and release it at the beginning of each beach season, and it still misses so many people,” Scott Stripling, a senior meteorologist at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, said in an email. “The problem seems to be one of communication and/or lack of attention by the general public.”
Rip-current forecasts and warning signs
The Weather Service issues daily rip-current forecasts for beaches on the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf Coast, Southern California, Great Lakes, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The forecasts categorize the rip-current risk as low, moderate or high, and are informed by a rip-current model recently developed by NOAA that has made it possible to differentiate the risk between adjacent beaches. Previously the same forecast could span 100 miles or more. However, the model doesn’t enable reliable forecasts of the exact location and time of rip currents. These are influenced by a number of factors including wave characteristics, water levels, winds and the shape of a beach. Advances in artificial intelligence could help with rip-current detection – NOAA is partnering with the Southeast Coastal Ocean Observing Regional Association on a project using AI to detect rip currents in webcam imagery – but such efforts are still in their infancy. In some cases, there are visible clues to the existence of a rip current, such as a break in the waves, foamy water or objects being carried offshore, or darker water that is due to a break in a sandbar. Often, though, rip currents are difficult to see, or are best seen from a high point such as a dune line or the top of a beach access. Rip currents are particularly hard to spot in South Florida, where, the Weather Service says, they “consistently rank at or near the top of the list of deadliest weather-related hazards,” because there is not much sediment to darken or muddy the current at the shoreline. In Brevard County alone, home to nearly 72 miles of sandy beaches, there have been eight apparent rip-current drownings since November, all at beaches without lifeguards. “We have clear-water rips, so these offshore-flowing currents are very hard to detect,” Stephen Leatherman, a professor in the department of earth and environment at Florida International University, said in an email. “The best thing is to have lifeguards and for people to swim close to lifeguards. But lifeguards are very expensive, and Florida has 825 miles of good quality sandy beaches which are swimmable for most of the year.”
Warnings and tips for surviving a rip current
Rip currents flow at speeds up to 5 miles per hour. That may not sound fast, but it’s faster than many Olympic swimmers. If you are caught in a rip current, experts say not to swim directly back to shore against the current, which can quickly exhaust and drown you. Instead, swim parallel to the shore until you are out of the current, which is typically no wider than about 50 to 100 feet. You might also escape by floating or treading water, allowing the current to take you out just past the breaking waves where many rip currents tend to dissipate, and then circulate you back toward the shore. However, some rip currents can extend hundreds of yards offshore. If you see someone caught in a rip current, experts urge you not to risk your own life to attempt a swimming rescue unless you have been trained to do so and have a flotation device to assist you and the person in distress. Instead, you should get help from a lifeguard or call 911 if no lifeguard is present. You should also throw the victim something that floats, such as a lifejacket, body board, cooler or a ball, and yell instructions on how to escape. Experts agree that the best way to survive a rip current is to avoid it in the first place. That means checking the rip-current forecast before you enter the water, heeding warnings for rip currents or rough surf, and only swimming close to a lifeguard. The United States Lifesaving Association estimates the chance of someone’s drowning at a beach with a lifeguard at 1 in 18 million. “Lifeguards are trained to spot rip currents and other beach hazards and intervene as and when needed,” Chris Houser, a professor at the University of Windsor School of Environment and a longtime beach-safety researcher, said in an email. “While there is some evidence that individual beach users can be trained to spot rips, most beach users are not aware of what to look for.” U.S. lifeguards make an estimated 80,000 or more rip-current rescues each year, which suggests that education and warning messages are not reaching or are not resonating with as many people as experts would like. “If the lifeguards are flying precautionary flags, and there are signs on the lifeguard stand identifying the potential for rips in that area, and the National Weather Service and media have advertised that there is at least a moderate risk for rip currents to be present at your local beach, what else can we do?” the Weather Service’s Stripling said.
Read more » click here
Jellyfish Guide
Staying safe at the beach: Rip currents, jellyfish, sharks, and other hazards
A trip to the beach can turn deadly (or painful) due to natural hazards but being aware of risks and mitigating hazards is a good way to prevent problems.
Picture this: warm weather, blue skies, and your toes in the sand – it sounds like a perfect lazy summer day at the beach. Maybe you decide to cool down in the ocean and find yourself bobbing around when suddenly you realize you are a little too far out. As panic sinks in and you start to swim towards dry land you realize your efforts are in vain and your whole body is getting tired, all the while you are drifting further into the Atlantic – you have gotten stuck in a rip current. It’s not the only potential danger in the ocean, though. There are also sharks. And, of course, there are some things on shore that ruin your day at the beach, too, including stepping on jellyfish and, of course, good old-fashionedsunburn.
Rip currents
According to the U.S. Lifesaving Association (USLA), 80 percent of all ocean rescues are related to rip currents and annually more than 100 fatalities across the country are due to rip currents. While it is obvious that swimming at a beach with lifeguards is one of the safer options, there are plenty of area beaches that lack lifeguards or maybe ocean rescue season has not started just yet. So, what is the best course of action for surviving a rip current? According to the National Weather Service, there are several things swimmers should keep in mind when dealing with these often-unseen dangers.
-
- Relax. Rip currents don’t pull you under.
- A rip current is a natural treadmill that travels an average speed of 1-2 feet per second but has been measured as fast as 8 feet per second – faster than an Olympic swimmer. Trying to swim against a rip current will only use up your energy; energy you need to survive and escape the rip current.
- Do NOT try to swim directly into to shore. Swim along the shoreline until you escape the current’s pull. When free from the pull of the current, swim at an angle away from the current toward shore.
- If you feel you can’t reach shore, relax, face the shore, and call or wave for help. Remember: If in doubt, don’t go out!
- If at all possible, only swim at beaches with lifeguards.
- If you choose to swim on beaches without a lifeguard, never swim alone. Take a friend and have that person take a cell phone so he or she can call 911 for help.
Sharks
Sharks are a fear on most every swimmer’s mind, regardless of the actual dangers posed by the large predatory fish. “NOAA states that while shark attacks are rare, they are most likely to occur near shore, typically inshore of a sandbar or between sandbars where sharks can be trapped by low tide, and near steep drop-offs where sharks’ prey gather. While the risks are small, it’s important to be aware of how to avoid an attack,” according to previous reporting.
Suggestions from NOAA for reducing the risk of a shark attack include:
-
- Don’t swim too far from shore.
- Stay in groups – sharks are more likely to attack a solitary individual.
- Avoid being in the water during darkness or twilight when sharks are most active.
- Don’t go in the water if bleeding from a wound – sharks have a very acute sense ofsmell.
- Leave the shiny jewelry at home – the reflected light resembles fish scales.
- Avoid brightly-colored swimwear – sharks see contrast particularly well.
Sunburns
Most everyone has experienced a sunburn at one point in their life and while not often thought as a major concern for many, overexposure to UV light can cause serious long-term problems including skin cancer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends using at least S.P.F. 15 sunscreen at least 15 minutes prior to sun exposure. Wearing a hat, long sleeves, and other protective clothing is also recommended to keep skin protected.
Jellyfish
Jellyfish and Portuguese Man of War have been spotted along the beaches of New Hanover County and surrounding area beaches already this season and the little floating creatures can pack a punch. Often times beachgoers will spot them washed up on shore and other times they can be spotted in the water, but it is best to avoid them when you can. “While all jellyfish sting, not all contain poison that hurts humans. Be careful of jellies that wash up on shore, as some can still sting if tentacles are wet. NOAA recommends that if you are stung by a jellyfish to first seek a lifeguard to give first aid. If no lifeguards are present, wash the wound with vinegar or rubbing alcohol,” NOAA suggests. And what about that … other method of treating stings? Turns out, it’s a myth. In fact, urine can actually aggravate the stinging cells of jellyfish, making things worse. These cells, which detach and stick into the skin of prey, can continue to inject venom. Urine, as well as fresh water, can cause an imbalance to the salt solution surrounding the stinging cells, causing them to continue to fire. According to Scientific American, if you don’t have vinegar or rubbing alcohol, rinsing with salt water may be your best bet.
Read more » click here
Beachcombing Guide
Storm Events
Hurricane Vehicle Decals
Property owners were provided with four (4) decals that were included in this month’s water bill. It is important that you place your decals in your vehicle or in a safe place. A $10 fee will be assessed to anyone who needs to obtain either additional or replacement decals. Decals will not be issued in the 24-hour period before an anticipated order of evacuation.
The decals are your passes to get back onto the island to check your property in the event that an emergency would necessitate restricting access to the island. Decals must be displayed in the driver side lower left-hand corner of the windshield, where they are not obstructed by any other items. Officials must be able to clearly read the decal from outside the vehicle.
Property owners without a valid decal will not be allowed on the island during restricted access. No other method of identification is accepted in an emergency situation. Click here to visit the Town website to find out more information regarding decals and emergency situations.
EVACUATION, CURFEW & DECALS
NC General Statute 166A-19.22
Power of municipalities and counties to enact ordinances to deal with states of emergency.
Synopsis – The governing body may impose by declaration or enacted ordinance, prohibitions, and restrictions during a state of emergency. This includes the prohibition and restriction of movements of people in public places, including imposing a curfew; directing or compelling the voluntary or mandatory evacuation of all or part of the population, controlling ingress and egress of an emergency area, and providing for the closure of streets, roads, highways, bridges, public vehicular areas. All prohibitions and restrictions imposed by declaration or ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication of the declaration unless the declaration sets a later time. The prohibitions and restrictions shall expire when they are terminated by the official or entity that imposed them, or when the state of emergency terminates.
Violation – Any person who violates any provisions of an ordinance or a declaration enacted or declared pursuant to this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
Hot Button Issues
Subjects that are important to people and about which they have strong opinions
Climate
For more information » click here.
There’s something happening here
What it is ain’t exactly clear
The Balance That Keeps Climate Stable Is Out of Whack, U.N. Report Finds
The continued burning of fossil fuels is locking heat in Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and land — instead of allowing it to reflect back into space, a new report finds.
The Earth is out of balance. That’s the message from a United Nations report released late Sunday that looked at how much energy from the sun is absorbed by the Earth or reflected back into space. Researchers found the gap between the two is the biggest since measurements began in 1960, meaning more of the sun’s heat energy is now staying on Earth. And that energy imbalance is heating up the oceans, atmosphere, and frozen regions of the world, according to the World Meteorological Organization’s State of the Global Climate report. Ashkay Deoras, a research scientist at Britain’s National Center for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading, likened the planet to a heated room with the windows closed. “If you open the window, naturally, you will allow the hot air to escape,” said Dr. Deoras, who was not associated with the report. “But now what is happening is that, because of all these greenhouse gases, they are just trapping more and more heat. The planet is just not getting a chance to cool down.” In previous reports, the U.N.-based meteorological organization documented changes in each element of the Earth’s system, such as surface temperatures, ocean heat, melting glaciers and sea level rise. This year, the authors, who include climate scientists and meteorologists, examined shifts on a wider scale. “The energy imbalance gives you the full picture,” Karina Von Schuckmann, an author of the report and senior adviser at Mercator Ocean International, a French scientific oceanographic organization, said at a news briefing. Under a stable climate, about the same amount of energy comes in from the sun as is reflected back. Now, however, emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide — have surged to their highest level in at least 800,000 years and have upset this equilibrium, the researchers found. The past 11 years have been the hottest since record-keeping began. Last year was either the second- or third-hottest on record, depending on which record is used, with global average temperatures 1.43 degrees Celsius (2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than preindustrial levels. The year 2024 was the hottest year, at 1.55 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial average. The world’s oceans continue to warm as they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The extent of sea ice in the Arctic region is at or near a record low, while Antarctic sea ice extent was the third lowest on record, according to the report. Describing the energy imbalance allows scientists to assess the rate of global warming because it encompasses all the components of the climate system. “Sometimes independent graphs are not explaining the full narrative,” said Ko Barrett, deputy secretary-general of the W.M.O. and a former U.S. climate official during the Biden administration. The surplus energy that the Earth retains gets moved around from ocean to atmosphere to land. The increase in heat within the climate system raises the likelihood and intensity of extreme weather events such as powerful storms, heat waves, droughts and extreme rainfall. About 91 percent of the Earth’s surplus heat energy is stored in the oceans; 5 percent is stored in land, 3 percent in ice sheets, and 1 percent is stored in the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface — where it affects the temperatures that humans feel, the report said. The amount of heat stored in the oceans reached a record high in 2025. The rate of ocean warming more than doubled from the period between 1960 and 2005 to the period between 2005 and 2025, the report stated. One worrying result is that scientists are detecting more heat deeper in the ocean, rather than just at the surface, according to Dr. Von Schuckmann. Below 2,000 meters, oceans store and hold heat longer than at the surface layer, which releases it to the atmosphere. That means that the effects of climate change will continue for a long time, she said. “The more we have heat kept away from communication with the atmosphere,” Dr. Von Schuckmann said, “the more we are moving to time scales of committed climate change of 400 to 1,000 years.”
Read more » click here
Flood Insurance Program
For more information » click here
National Flood Insurance Program: Reauthorization
Congress must periodically renew the NFIP’s statutory authority to operate. On February 3, 2026, the president signed legislation passed by Congress that extends the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP’s) authorization to September 30, 2026.
Congress must now reauthorize the NFIP
by no later than 11:59 pm on September 30, 2026.
GenX
For more information » click here
Homeowners Insurance
For more information » click here
Hurricane Season
For more information » click here
Hurricane season runs from June 1 through November 30
Brunswick County – Hurricanes
Overview
Hurricanes are tropical cyclones that rotate counterclockwise with wind speeds in excess of 74 mph. Most hurricanes form over warm seas near the equator. They are created when the sun heats the ocean surface, causing heated water vapor to rise, condense, and form clouds. These clouds begin to spiral as the earth rotates. More air is pulled underneath and a large vortex is formed.
On average, six Atlantic hurricanes develop each year. When a hurricane moves toward coastal areas it often causes severe damage. Strong winds create storm surges, floods, rip tides, and can even spawn tornadoes. As the hurricane moves forward, its right front quadrant is typically where the most devastation occurs.
Hurricane season begins June 1 and continues through November 30. Be sure to practice hurricane preparedness and learn about hurricane safety and survival.
To assist in being prepared before, during, and after a storm, review the following links for helpful information.
Hurricane Preparedness Tips
We would like to encourage you to start preparing for emergencies and stay #ReadyBrunswick by reviewing the following tips.
STAY INFORMED
KNOW THE TERMS
KNOW YOUR EVACUATION ZONE
MAKE A PLAN
KNOW WHO TO CALL
GATHER IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS
CHECK YOUR INSURANCE
PREPARE YOUR HOME
LEARN / PRACTICE SAFETY SKILLS
SUBSCRIBE TO EMERGENCY ALERTS
SIGN UP FOR THE ACCESS AND FUNCTIONAL NEEDS REGISTRY
ACCESS LOCAL RESOURCES
Quick Links
NOAA predicts below-normal 2026 Atlantic hurricane season
Early preparation essential to staying safe all season
Forecasters with NOAA’s National Weather Service are predicting a below-normal hurricane season for the Atlantic basin this year. NOAA’s outlook for the 2026 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs June 1 to November 30, predicts a 35% chance of a near-normal season, a 10% chance of an above-normal season, and a 55% chance of a below-normal season. The agency is forecasting a total of 8-14 named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher). Of those, 3-6 are forecast to become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including 1-3 major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5 with winds of 111 mph or higher). NOAA has a 70% confidence in these ranges. An average season has 14 named storms with seven hurricanes, including three major hurricanes.
“With the most advanced forecast modeling and hurricane tracking technologies, NOAA and the National Weather Service are prepared to deliver real-time storm forecasts and warnings,” said Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. “Our experts are integrating cutting-edge tools to ensure communities in the path of storms receive the earliest, most accurate information possible.” “NOAA’s rapid integration of advanced technology, including AI-based weather models, drones, and next-generation satellite data will deliver actionable science to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of the American people,” said NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs, Ph.D. “These new capabilities, combined with the unmatched expertise of our National Weather Service forecasters, will produce the most accurate forecasts possible to protect communities in harm’s way.”
Key factors driving NOAA’s forecast
The Atlantic season is expected to be below-normal due to competing factors. El Niño is expected to develop and intensify during the hurricane season, while ocean temperatures in the Atlantic are expected to be slightly warmer than normal and trade winds are likely weaker than average. El Niño conditions tend to support less tropical storms and hurricanes, while warmer ocean temperatures and low winds support a more active year.
“Although El Niño’s impact in the Atlantic Basin can often suppress hurricane development, there is still uncertainty in how each season will unfold,” said NOAA’s National Weather Service Director Ken Graham. “That is why it’s essential to review your hurricane preparedness plan now. It only takes one storm to make for a very bad season.” NOAA’s outlook is for overall seasonal activity based on large-scale weather and climate patterns. It does not indicate where or when any storms may affect land as that is determined by short-term and variable weather patterns is not a landfall forecast. “Preparing now for hurricane season — and not waiting for a storm to threaten — is essential for staying ahead of any storm. Visit weather.gov/safety and Ready.gov for important preparedness information,” added Graham.
New and enhanced communication products this season
-
- NOAA’s National Hurricane Center (NHC) will implement an improved version of the tropical cyclone forecast cone graphic that will now include tropical storm and hurricane watches and warnings for inland areas for the continental United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
- NHC will begin testing an experimental version of the tropical cyclone track forecast cone that will capture a greater range of possibilities for the track of the storm by incorporating uncertainties for both direction of movement and timing.
- NHC will provide new products and services for the Hawaiian Islands to include storm surge watches and warnings, and a peak storm surge graphic. These will be publicly available for the main Hawaiian Islands on gov.
Advancements to hurricane analysis and forecasts
Innovative technologies for this year
NOAA also issued seasonal hurricane outlooks for the eastern Pacific and central Pacific hurricane basins, with both anticipated to have active seasons. The 2026 Atlantic seasonal outlook will be updated in early August, ahead of the historical peak of the season, which typically extends from mid-September through October.
Read more » click here
Don’t get complacent with tropical outlook; ‘it only takes one’
The below-normal activity predicted for the 2026 Atlantic hurricane season doesn’t give North Carolinians a pass on preparation this year. “For the Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA is predicting a below-normal season for 2026, with roughly a 55% chance of being below normal, a 35% chance of near normal, and a 10% chance of above normal,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Administrator Dr. Neil Jacobs said during a media conference Thursday morning from NOAA’s Aircraft Operations Center at Lakeland Linder International Airport in Lakeland, Florida. “This equates to eight to 14 named storms with winds at or above 39 miles an hour. Of these, three to six hurricanes with winds at or above 74 miles an hour, and one to three major hurricanes, that’s your Category 3 to 5 with winds at or above 111 miles an hour,” he added. Jacobs is referring to the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale, which categorizes maximum sustained wind speeds for tropical storms. Categories 1 and 2 are windspeeds between 74 and 110 mph, categories 3 to 5 are major hurricanes with speeds from 111 to 157 or higher, according to NOAA. Hurricane season begins Monday, June 1, and ends Nov. 30. “Even though we’re expecting a below-average season in the Atlantic, it’s very important to understand that it only takes one,” Jacobs said, adding there have been Category 5s that made landfall in the past during below-average seasons. During the news conference Thursday morning, Jacobs said that “what’s driving this forecast is largely an El Niño event. There’s a 98% chance of El Niño conditions occurring later this season, and an 80% chance that this El Niño will be moderate to strong.” NOAA National Weather Service Director Ken Graham, who spoke after Jacobs, reiterated that “it just takes one,” and urged the public during the press conference not to “let words like ‘below average’” change the way you prepare. “Now’s the time to start thinking about your hurricane preparedness,” Graham said. “Early preparedness is absolutely everything. Period. End of story. The actions that you take today really get you ready for the hurricane season.” Especially a season like this, “there’ll never be a Hurricane Just-a. We’ll never make that a name. There’s no such thing as just a Cat 1, just a tropical storm, just a Cat 2. That is absolutely not the case,” Graham said. “It doesn’t matter what it is, you got to look at the size, the forward motion, little wiggles matter on the impacts. Even the smallest storm, if it’s slow enough and big enough, it’s going to create catastrophic flooding and storm surge.” Graham said that the public needs to pay attention to every single one of the storm “systems, and the actual impacts, not the category, not the name, but the actual impacts associated with that storm, and that includes the tornadoes, heavy rain, damaging winds, even the high surf and rip currents, as well, including storm surge.” Erik Heden, warning coordination meteorologist in the National Weather Service’s Newport office, said in an interview with Coastal Review that just because the forecast calls for a below-normal season, residents shouldn’t let their guard down. “Just because the outlook says it’s going to be a low year doesn’t mean we won’t be impacted,” he said, adding “It just takes one storm. The graphic says a 55% chance below-normal year, but if we get one storm, it really doesn’t matter what the prediction was, it could be a big deal for us.” Heden also warned in the interview against making decisions based on the category of the storm. “Categories are only wind,” he said. Wind is to be respected, but the other storm impacts are more likely to be more frequent in terms of issues in our area. “Water is what kills people. About 85% of people that die in hurricanes, it’s water related — nothing to do with the wind. but it’s, it’s things like rip currents, storm surge, and flooding. Those are the three things that would get us if we get a storm.” Two years ago, the Southeast faced a potential tropical cyclone that didn’t have a name. No. 8 resulted in almost 20 inches of rain in the Wilmington area, and last year Tropical Storm Chantal produced six to 10 inches of rain in Raleigh. Steven Pfaff, meteorologist-in-charge for the National Weather Service’s Wilmington office, in an email to media partners Thursday morning, also expressed concern that the forecast for below-normal activity can cause messaging challenges because people may misinterpret what it means for any potential local impacts. “All it takes is one storm to define a hurricane season regardless of the outlook,” his emphasis, “Given southeast NC’s and northeast SC’s hurricane history our communities must prepare the same way every year,” Pfaff continued. “Now is the time to prepare for hurricane season and remain vigilant this summer and fall.” Jacobs said during the press conference that for official forecast guidance, go to hurricanes.gov. “June 1 is almost here. Be ready, have a plan, listen to your state and local emergency managers. Preparation is essential. You can learn more at ready.gov,” Jacobs added. Heden told Coastal Review that the best way to stay informed in eastern North Carolina is to remember “if it’s the weather you love, it’s weather.gov,” where there’s up-to-date information, as well as on the office’s website, Facebook or X.
Read more » click here
Inlet Hazard Areas
For more information » click here
Commission to consider updating inlet hazard areas
The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission is to meet next week to consider proposed language amendments for inlet hazard areas. The meeting for the commission, which establishes policies for the N.C. Coastal Management Program and adopts rules for both the Coastal Area Management Act and the N.C. Dredge and Fill Act, will begin with a field trip to Ocean Isle Beach’s terminal groin at 3 p.m. on April 15. The full commission meeting is scheduled for 9 a.m. on April 16 at 111 Causeway Drive, Ocean Isle Beach. An in-person public comment period is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. that day. The public may sign up to speak upon arrival at the meeting. Members of the public may attend in-person or join the meeting Thursday through the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s YouTube channel. The commission establishes areas of environmental concern, which are authorized under CAMA, and are the bases of the permitting program for regulating coastal development. There are three types of ocean hazard AECs: ocean erodible, inlet hazard, and unvegetated beach. The ocean erodible area is “the area where there exists a substantial possibility of excessive erosion and significant shoreline fluctuation,” and the inlet hazard area is defined as “locations that ‘are especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding and other adverse effects of sand, wind, and water because of their proximity to dynamic ocean inlets,” according to the division, which carries out the rules and regulations for the commission. During the meeting, the commission will consider ocean erodible area and inlet hazard area erosion rates and setback factors. The division has since 1979 used the same long-term erosion data to determine construction setbacks in inlet and ocean hazard areas, and to establish the landward boundaries of ocean erodible areas of environmental concern. The commission’s setback rules are used to site oceanfront development based on the size of the structure according to the graduated setback provisions. In areas where there is a high rate of erosion, buildings must be located farther from the shoreline than in areas where there is less erosion. The size of the structure determines how far back a house must be located away from the shoreline. Because of limited data and resources, erosion rate setback factors within inlet hazard areas have traditionally been based on the rates of adjacent ocean erodible areas. “Given the rapid changes that can occur at inlets, this method has often resulted in setback factors that underestimate the true erosion dynamics of these areas,” division documents state. During the commission’s August 2025 meeting, Dr. Laura Moore, the chairperson of the commission’s Science Panel on Coastal Hazards, presented the panel’s recommendations on updated boundaries for inlet hazard areas and ocean erodible areas, and their corresponding erosion rate setback factors. A subcommittee was appointed at the time to evaluate the possible changes and presented its recommendation during the February meeting. Updating ocean hazard area boundaries for inlet hazard areas and ocean erodible areas, along with the associated erosion rate setback factors, requires rule amendments to reference the updated report and maps, documents continue. Because inlet hazard area boundaries have remained static and adjacent ocean erodible area erosion rates were applied within the inlet hazard areas, the primary amendment has been to the rule “to simply reference the updated oceanfront erosion rate report. However, this update includes revised IHA boundaries and inlet-specific erosion rates within IHAs, necessitating additional rule amendments to reference the applicable reports, maps, and use standards,” documents explain. Division staff noted that the 2025 study is consistent with previous update studies, in that inlet hazard area boundaries at undeveloped inlets were not analyzed. The commission at this month’s meeting is to consider approving rule amendments that reflect the subcommittee’s findings and recommendations and supported by the Coastal Resources Advisory Council, updated inlet hazard boundaries, and updated ocean erodible areas and inlet hazard areas erosion rate setbacks, to include ocean erodible areas landward boundaries. Division staff are to recommend removing the inlet hazard area designations from Little River Inlet, New River and Brown’s Inlets at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Bogue Inlet at Hammocks Beach State Park, Barden Inlet, Ocracoke Inlet and Hatteras Inlet. “It is important to note that while inlet hazards are present at these sites, these areas are not being developed,” staff said. In addition, division staff are to present updates on septic systems within the ocean hazard areas of environmental concern, consider draft rule amendments for human-made ditches requested by a petition for rulemaking, and a permit for temporary weather monitoring structures on the beach in the ocean hazard area of environmental concern. The full meeting agenda and briefing materials are on the commission’s website.
Read more » click here
Commission moves forward with inlet hazard area updates
North Carolina’s Coastal Resources Commission is moving through the steps to update rules for building along high-hazard coastlines that are particularly vulnerable to erosion and flooding. When the commission met April 16 in Ocean Isle Beach’s town hall, members voted unanimously to advance the rulemaking process to draft language amendments for ocean erodible areas and inlet hazard areas. Proposed changes include using the most recent data for erosion rates and maps for the two zones, which are classified as areas of environmental concern. If approved, this will be the first time new inlet hazard boundaries have been updated since they were initiated in the late 1970s. The commission has been discussing revisions for decades, but the complicated process and public blowback have pushed talks of updates year to year. Both inlet hazard and ocean erodible areas fall under the ocean hazard areas category of areas of environmental concern, which are the foundation for the Coastal Area Management Act permitting program. CAMA was enacted in 1974, along with the commission to adopt rules for legislation that protects the state’s coastal resources. The Division of Coastal Management, under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, acts as staff to the commission. Inlet hazard areas, or IHAs, encompass land along the narrow body of water that allows for tidal exchange between the ocean and inland waters. These swaths of shoreline are susceptible to inlet migration, rapid and severe erosion, and flooding. Land within the boundaries is subject to the commission’s development rules. Ken Richardson, the division’s shoreline management specialist, told Coastal Review that in addition to the proposed updates to inlet hazard area boundaries, one of the primary changes under consideration is that erosion rate setbacks within inlet hazard areas will be based on inlet-specific erosion rates detailed in a 2025 report rather than the adjacent ocean erodible area, or oceanfront, rates, which is currently the case. Because of limited data and resources, erosion rate setback factors within inlet hazard areas have been based on the rates of adjacent ocean erodible areas, essentially treating the inlet shoreline as an extension of the oceanfront. “Given the rapid changes that can occur at inlets, this method has often resulted in setback factors that underestimate the true erosion dynamics of these areas,” according to the division. Erosion rates are used to determine how far back new construction must be from the shoreline. Richardson said that, “Additionally, the rules would effectively ‘hold the line’ of existing development by preventing seaward expansion of new development in inlet areas that have experienced natural accretion.” He referenced the “Inlet Hazard Area Boundaries, 2025 Update: Science Panel Recommendations to the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission,” presented in August 2025 to the commission that explains “any accretion at most inlets is temporary and likely to reverse over time; maintaining this line helps reduce future exposure to erosion hazards.” The commission’s Science Panel on Coastal Hazards was directed in 2016 to update IHA boundaries. Rules were in the process of being updated in 2019, but the COVID-19 pandemic paused draft rules from moving forward. The “Science Panel recommended updating IHAs on a five-year cycle alongside oceanfront erosion rates, by the time work resumed after the pandemic, the next oceanfront study (2025) was already approaching. As a result, some stakeholders asked the CRC to proceed with a coordinated update,” leading to the directive in 2023 to provide another five-year review, Richardson told Coastal Review. Richardson explained during the meeting last week that the science panel analyzed for the 2025 update the state’s developed inlets, which are Bogue, New River, New Topsail, Rich, Mason, Masonboro, Carolina Beach, Lockwood Folly, Shallotte and Tubbs. Panel Chair Dr. Laura Moore, professor of coastal geomorphology at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, presented the findings in the inlet hazard area boundaries report during the August 2025 meeting. Last February, the Coastal Resources Advisory Council and a subcommittee reviewed the report and suggested deviating from the panel’s recommendation to measure setbacks from the hybrid-vegetation line because of concerns that existing structures would be nonconforming, and therefore harder to replace if something happened to the structure. They decided to base the language on existing rules and continue to measure setbacks within inlet hazard areas from the actual vegetation line or pre-project line but not extend farther oceanward than the footprint of an existing structure, or, in the case with vacant lots, the landward-most adjacent neighboring structure, according to the division. Richardson told the commission that another recommendation included amending the language for ocean erodible areas language citing the 2019 report to the “North Carolina 2025 Oceanfront Setback Factors & Long-Term Average Annual Erosion Rate Update Study: Methods Report.” Richardson noted that there are no boundary maps for ocean erodible areas because boundaries are measured from the vegetation line, which are dynamic and could change overnight, so the landward boundary is determined in the field. Staff also proposes eliminating the distinction of residential or nonresidential for the type of structure, because “It doesn’t matter to erosion what the structure is being used for,” Richardson said. Now, the proposed rule changes will go through the fiscal analysis. This step in the rulemaking process determines the financial impact of the proposed amendments. After the analysis is presented and voted on, the commission will decide to move on to the public comment period, then to final approval before sending it to the Rules Review Commission.
Septic tank update
Cameron Luck, a policy analyst for the division, briefed the commission on the work to develop rules for septic system siting, repair and replacement within ocean hazard areas. He began by sharing what took place during a meeting March 30 in Buxton coordinated by the North Carolina Coastal Federation, with representatives from the North Carolina Home Builders Association, North Carolina Septic Tank Association, Outer Bank Association of Realtors, National Park Service, and from county health departments. Attendees were brought up to speed on some of the issues surrounding failed septic tanks on the oceanfront, heard from Cape Hatteras National Seashore representatives about their policies and ongoing struggles and efforts to address both the threatened oceanfront structures and the failed septic tank systems and systems out on the beach Department of Health and Human Services provided a quick synopsis of their process, focusing on the role within and alongside local health departments, with a discussion on how the department permits and cites septic tanks and how and failure enforcement. Luck said that he and other division staff presented the most recently proposed rule language for discussion. “We spent a good amount of time talking through the proposed language and some areas that could be improved,” Luck said. Main points in the discussion focused on defining what type of repair would qualify for a permit. “In other words,” Luck explained, would property owners be required to secure a permit if a filter or a section of pipe needs to be replaced, or does the rule need to be more focused on extreme failures. Discussion also focused on whether the proposed rule changes should be applied coastwide or be more targeted to specific situations or locations. “Perhaps, key takeaway from that meeting was a clear consensus among those attendees that some form of action is needed to limit the repair of failed septic systems on the ocean beach and to prevent them from remaining on the beach once they failed,” he said, adding that staff is working on those rule language updates.
Read more » click here
CRC approves draft inlet development rule changes
The Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) has approved draft rules that would update how the state regulates development near coastal inlets in Brunswick County. The commission voted unanimously April 15 to move forward with the proposed changes, which include updates inlet hazard area (IHA) maps, new erosion rate data and revised setback requirements. The vote does not finalize the rules but begins the formal rulemaking process that will include fiscal analysis, public hearings, additional review and an adoption vote before any changes would take effect, Department of Coastal Management Shoreline Management Specialist Ken Richardson said. The CRC has been working on these proposed rule amendments since August and has focused most on the IHA boundaries. IHAs define the most dynamic and erosion-prone parts of barrier islands near inlets, where development is subject to stricter regulations — mainly setback factors. The current IHA maps date back to 1979 and were originally intended to be updated more regularly, Richardson said. The new rules are based on data presented by the CRC’s science panel, which published a report last summer proposing new inlet hazard area boundaries for each inlet in Brunswick County. In Ocean Isle Beach (OIB), the number of structures within the IHA would jump from 41 to 230. In Holden Beach, the number would increase from 63 to 186. Sunset Beach, however, would see a decrease from 206 to just 17, Richardson said. The proposed changes would divide some inlet areas into multiple sections with varying setback factors. Setback factors are based on erosion rates, and they determine how far structures must be built or rebuilt from the vegetation line. The vegetation line is the line between the dry sand on the beach and the dune vegetation.
Here’s how the current setback factors would change:
-
- Setback factors in Sunset Beach’s IHA at Tubbs Inlet would not change. They are two.
- The OIB IHA at Tubbs Inlet would be split into two sections with setback factors of 10 and two.
- The OIB IHA at Shallotte Inlet would be split into eight sections with setback factors ranging from 2 to 17.5.
- Setback factors in the Holden Beach IHA at Shallotte Inlet would largely remain at two except for two small sections on the northern bend that would increase to nine and 16.
- The Holden Beach IHA at Lockwood Folly Inlet setback factors would decrease. Two sections would have setback factors of two and five.
Alongside the boundary updates, the CRC is also proposing to adopt a study that recalculates long-term erosion rates for Brunswick County shorelines. Those rates are used to define ocean-erodible areas (OEA), where additional development restrictions apply. The updated erosion data would not change setback factors in any OEAs on Brunswick County’s beaches, according to the study. However, the proposed changes would significantly change how many properties fall within IHAs in Brunswick County, and some inlets would see high increases in setback factors. The east end of OIB would see the most drastic change in numbers. The CRC took a field trip to this area on April 14, where OIB’s terminal groin sits. The terminal groin, completed in 2022, is a jetty structure made of large rocks that juts out into the ocean on OIB’s east end. “The inlet where we were at yesterday,” Richardson said, “that’s going to be one of the places where you’re going to see the most significant impact in terms of how erosion rates are applied.” During the 2025 hurricane season, the east end of OIB partially washed away. Erosion threatened homes in The Pointe OIB subdivision and collapsed a portion of its culdesac, Grand View Drive. This area would see sharp required setback increases under the new rules. During the field trip, the group stood at the base of the terminal groin as it heard from representatives of the engineering firm the town of OIB hired to design the terminal groin. Some CRC commissioners questioned what was causing such extreme erosion just east of the terminal groin, and whether it was the terminal groin itself. Coastal Protection Engineering’s Senior Marine Biologist Brad Rosov said he believes that it is impossible to pinpoint one factor as the cause of erosion on any barrier island. Just west of the terminal groin, sand from a 2022 beach renourishment project remains in front of homes that used to have ocean water underneath them at high tide, he noted. Mayor Debbie Smith explained that sandbags still remain beneath the budding dunes in front of those homes behind the terminal groin. Those sandbags used to be the only wall of protection. Now, the terminal groin appears to be protecting those homes, while The Pointe OIB stands behind a wall of sandbags waiting for renourishment. Jimmy Bell, a representative of The Pointe OIB community, spoke during the public comment period at the beginning of the April 15 meeting. He inquired about the financial implications that the updated setback requirements would have on existing homes and undeveloped lots in the proposed IHAs. The proposed rules include provisions allowing existing structures that become nonconforming to be rebuilt under certain conditions. Property owners would be allowed to replace damaged or destroyed structures as long as the new building does not exceed the original footprint or square footage, meets the required setback and is placed as far landward on the lot as feasible, Richardson said. For undeveloped lots within IHAs, new construction would be limited to a line no farther seaward than the landward most adjacent neighboring structure and must be as landward as feasible. Richardson said the intent of the “grandfathering” rules is to prevent incremental encroachment toward the ocean in areas that may temporarily gain sand but be expected to erode again. Questions remain about how the proposed changes could affect specific areas and property owners. The next step in the approval process is the fiscal analysis, which will likely come back before the CRC for approval in August. After that is approved, the CRC would hold a public hearing in Brunswick County, Richardson said.
Read more » click here
.
Lockwood Folly Inlet
For more information » click here.
Seismic Testing / Offshore Drilling
For more information » click here.
Offshore Wind Farms
For more information » click here
Things I Think I Think
Eating out is one of the great little joys of life.
Restaurant Review:
The Dinner Club visits a new restaurant once a month. Ratings reflect the reviewer’s reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration.
///// April 2026
Name: Genki Sushi
Cuisine: Japanese
Location: 4724 New Centre Dr Ste 5, Wilmington, NC
Contact: 910.796.8687 / https://genkisushiwilmington.com/
Food: Average / Very Good / Excellent / Exceptional
Service: Efficient / Proficient / Professional / Expert
Ambience: Drab / Plain / Distinct / Elegant
Cost: $26 Inexpensive <=20 / Moderate <=26 / Expensive <=35 / Exorbitant <=60
Rating: Three Stars
/////
Genki Sushi is an authentic Japanese restaurant that is located near Costco in a nondescript strip mall off Market Street. It’s the real deal! It is ranked #1 out of @694 restaurants located in Wilmington. The main focus of the restaurant is on the sushi bar. Upon entering you receive a warm welcome, the service reflects a commitment to the customer, combined with great Japanese cuisine it makes for a delightful experience.
Dining Guide – Local * Lou’s Views
Dining Guide – North * Lou’s Views
Dining Guide – South * Lou’s Views
Restaurant Reviews – North * Lou’s Views
Restaurant Reviews – South * Lou’s Views
Book Review:
Read several books from The New York Times best sellers fiction list monthly
Selection represents this month’s pick of the litter
THE LAST THING HE TOLD ME by Laura Dave / 2021
A mystery about a woman who forms an unexpected relationship with her stepdaughter while searching for the truth about why her husband has mysteriously disappeared amidst a work scandal. She quickly realizes her husband isn’t who he said he was. But as they start putting together the pieces of his past, and why he really disappeared, they soon realize they are also building a new future. Jennifer Garner is to star in an Apple Limited Series adaptation of the book.
THE FIRST TIME I SAW HIM by Laura Dave / 2026
This sequel opens exactly where the original story ended, using its epilogue as the starting point. Five years after Owen’s disappearance, Hannah and her stepdaughter, Bailey, have rebuilt their lives, determined to leave the past behind. Then Owen suddenly reappears—with a warning: they are in grave danger. The life Hannah thought she’d escaped is no longer behind her. Forced to run once again, she and Bailey flee from a ruthless criminal organization tied to Owen’s past. As the threat closes in, Hannah will risk everything to protect the girl she loves as her own—while clinging to the fragile hope that she and Owen might still have a future together. That hope, however, depends on making a dangerous deal with the very crime syndicate that wants them dead.
That’s it for this newsletter
See you next month
Lou’s Views . HBPOIN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Gather and disseminate information
- Identify the issues and determine how they affect you
- Act as a watchdog
- Grass roots monthly newsletter since 2008
https://lousviews.com/
Update –
Holden Beach selects new police chief