“You can’t zone for stupid.’’
That was the moderator’s response to a question from the floor as to why governments don’t simply legislate against people building too close to the coastline.
Mike Davies, president of the Canadian Coastal Science and Engineering Association, served as the moderator of a panel discussion at Wednesday’s Coastal Zone Canada conference, entitled Healthy Oceans — Strong Coastal Communities — Voices for Change.
The theme of Wednesday’s keynote session was Planning for the Impacts of Climate Change.
In terms of Prince Edward Island’s coast, Davies pointed out three problem areas.
“There are definitely concern areas like Charlottetown, Souris and, really, the entire north shore. There are a lot of places where cottage development is inherently problematic, it’s almost unwinnable,’’ Davies said.
As much as the answer comes down to zoning and planning, Davies said the Island is facing the march of time as the coastline erodes a bit each year.
“The communities (on P.E.I.) were established 100, 200 years ago and people were sensible, they didn’t put their properties on the shore then, they set (them) back from the shore but in the march of time we’ve seen already all of that setback has been used up. Now you’ve got communities like Souris . . . we’re getting to the point where we have to make tough decisions and it’s going to cost money.’’
As climates change and sea levels rise, storms are getting worse. Living on the coast brings with it a different set of circumstances.
John Charles, a planner with the Halifax Regional Municipality, pointed out that in the past two centuries the city’s sea level has risen 70 centimetres and said those factors play an important role in decisions made by the municipality when it comes to waterfront properties.
Hey, the shoreline is not a stable place, it’s not static, it’s moving. Everyone needs to understand that evolution and the dynamic changes that are happening at the shore. - Mike Davies, president of the Canadian Coastal Science and Engineering Association.
When someone in the audience asked why don’t planners and politicians simply legislate against building too close to the shoreline, members of the panel pointed out that it’s not quite that easy.
“It would be great if we could draw lines in the sand like that. People have already exercised their development rights (but) people do build houses in perfectly inappropriate places,’’ Charles said.
Peter Zuzek, a geologist in Oakville, Ont., said there are regulations governing setbacks around the Great Lakes.
“We do put lines in the sand,’’ Zuzek said, noting that Ontario has rules like flood hazard setbacks and dynamic beach setbacks of 50 metres.
Davies said, regrettably, the system is disaster driven, whether it’s the Saxby Gale that devastated New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in 1869 or hurricane Juan in 2003 - major weather events make people sit up and take notice of the consequences of living near the water.
“It made everybody take a deep think and when Katrina and Rita hit New Orleans, it made everybody rethink what it means to live at the coast, what the costs are,’’ Davies said.
The difference between what happened in 1869, 2003 and today is that the sea level is higher, thus the next major storm tends to pack more wallop than the last one.
One suggestion Davies made is that when people shop around for waterfront property they investigate how the shoreline has changed over the years to get a sense of what they might expect over time.
“Hey, the shoreline is not a stable place, it’s not static, it’s moving. Everyone needs to understand that evolution and the dynamic changes that are happening at the shore.’’
