Rhode Island country club built an illegal seawall, yet hasn't fixed it in two years
That deadline came and went two weeks ago without an acceptable plan, and now the Coastal Resources Management Council has granted Quidnessett Country Club another 30 days to come up with something that complies with state regulations.
And so the saga over a rock revetment built without state or federal approvals to protect the private golf course's 14th hole from erosion will go on nearly two full years after enforcement proceedings began against the club.
The unanimous vote on Tuesday, July 22, to grant Quidnessett an extension left some observers frustrated.
'It's been 694 days, and the council feels they deserve more time?' said Jed Thorp, director of advocacy for Save The Bay. 'After they already issued an enforcement order? What are we doing?'
The extension decision comes with an appeal filed by the country club of the council's June 10 decision pending in Rhode Island Superior Court.
Nevertheless, Jennifer Cervenka, a lawyer for Quidnessett and past chair of the coastal council, said at the July 22 meeting that the club still intends to comply with the council order. It just needs more time to reach an agreement with staff with the state agency, she said.
More: Golfweek's Best 2025: Top private golf courses in every state, ranked
Dispute over the type of material to reduce erosion
But staff members raised concerns at the meeting about the latest iteration of the country club's plan, which would use bags made of plastic fiber that could be filled with sand or water to stabilize the shoreline. They said that council regulations require the type of system allowed on that stretch of coast to be made of biodegradable materials.
Cervenka described the system the club wants to use as 'enhanced sandbagging.'
'We believe that this could be an effective solution on this shoreline,' she said. 'We would like to have an opportunity to have a restoration plan based on this reviewed.'
And while council members acceded to the club's request, not all of them were happy about it. Kevin Flynn, who said he was 'reluctantly' voting yes, asked earlier in the meeting why Quidnessett isn't moving faster to take down the wall.
'This is all a discussion about a potential new application,' he said. 'But in the meantime, we have a wall that has to be removed.'
Restoration plan in a holding pattern
The matter is still effectively in the same place it was more than a month ago when the council granted Quidnessett 120 days to remove the wall, but left the details of a restoration plan unresolved.
Council staff met with representatives of the club twice after the June 10 decision, but the two sides were unable to reach an agreement in the time required.
On July 9, a day before the first deadline set by the council, Quidnessett lodged an appeal of the council's decision. It wasn't unexpected. At the June meeting, Cervenka urged the council against voting on the fate of the wall. She was adamant that the case, because it was contested, had to be assigned to a hearing officer, per council regulations.
But Jeff Willis, executive director of the council, and Anthony DeSisto, the council's attorney, both argued that on the most important issue at hand – whether the club had violated coastal regulations by building the wall in the first place – there was no disagreement. In filings to the council, the club had admitted to the construction repeatedly, they said.
Still, the club and the council failed to reach a consensus on fixing the problem. They disagree over how far inland the restoration efforts must go. While council staff want the club to take out more stone and fill, the country club wants to remove less.
The line pushed for by council staff would force the golf club to cut into the course and 'lose its 14th hole,' Quidnessett claims in its petition to the court. Willis said Tuesday that the council may relax its stance on the line.
Background on the seawall violation
The latest machinations are sure to draw out what on its face appeared to be a clear-cut violation of coastal rules that goes back to August 2023, when the council received complaints about a newly built wall on the bay's shore.
Staff inspected the site and determined that the club had violated coastal regulations by building the revetment without permission in Type 1 conservation waters, where new permanent structures aren't allowed because of environmental concerns.
The council frowns upon the construction of breakwaters, bulkheads and other hard shoreline structures because they cause erosion elsewhere by deflecting waves and blocking the flow of sand.
In a separate determination in 2024, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found that Quidnessett had violated federal rules by not seeking its authorization for the work.
The coastal council has come in for criticism as the case has dragged on. In a statement, Topher Hamblett, executive director of Save The Bay, said the group also believes the case should have been referred to a hearing officer and the council's actions on the matter are emblematic of other controversial decisions made by its appointed members.
'Rhode Islanders deserve a coastal agency that protects our natural resources without favor or delay,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
24-07-2025
- USA Today
Rhode Island country club built an illegal seawall, yet hasn't fixed it in two years
PROVIDENCE, R.I. – State coastal regulators in June gave a North Kingstown country club 30 days to come up with a plan to remove an illegal seawall and restore the shoreline along a 600-foot stretch of protected waters in Narragansett Bay. That deadline came and went two weeks ago without an acceptable plan, and now the Coastal Resources Management Council has granted Quidnessett Country Club another 30 days to come up with something that complies with state regulations. And so the saga over a rock revetment built without state or federal approvals to protect the private golf course's 14th hole from erosion will go on nearly two full years after enforcement proceedings began against the club. The unanimous vote on Tuesday, July 22, to grant Quidnessett an extension left some observers frustrated. 'It's been 694 days, and the council feels they deserve more time?' said Jed Thorp, director of advocacy for Save The Bay. 'After they already issued an enforcement order? What are we doing?' The extension decision comes with an appeal filed by the country club of the council's June 10 decision pending in Rhode Island Superior Court. Nevertheless, Jennifer Cervenka, a lawyer for Quidnessett and past chair of the coastal council, said at the July 22 meeting that the club still intends to comply with the council order. It just needs more time to reach an agreement with staff with the state agency, she said. More: Golfweek's Best 2025: Top private golf courses in every state, ranked Dispute over the type of material to reduce erosion But staff members raised concerns at the meeting about the latest iteration of the country club's plan, which would use bags made of plastic fiber that could be filled with sand or water to stabilize the shoreline. They said that council regulations require the type of system allowed on that stretch of coast to be made of biodegradable materials. Cervenka described the system the club wants to use as 'enhanced sandbagging.' 'We believe that this could be an effective solution on this shoreline,' she said. 'We would like to have an opportunity to have a restoration plan based on this reviewed.' And while council members acceded to the club's request, not all of them were happy about it. Kevin Flynn, who said he was 'reluctantly' voting yes, asked earlier in the meeting why Quidnessett isn't moving faster to take down the wall. 'This is all a discussion about a potential new application,' he said. 'But in the meantime, we have a wall that has to be removed.' Restoration plan in a holding pattern The matter is still effectively in the same place it was more than a month ago when the council granted Quidnessett 120 days to remove the wall, but left the details of a restoration plan unresolved. Council staff met with representatives of the club twice after the June 10 decision, but the two sides were unable to reach an agreement in the time required. On July 9, a day before the first deadline set by the council, Quidnessett lodged an appeal of the council's decision. It wasn't unexpected. At the June meeting, Cervenka urged the council against voting on the fate of the wall. She was adamant that the case, because it was contested, had to be assigned to a hearing officer, per council regulations. But Jeff Willis, executive director of the council, and Anthony DeSisto, the council's attorney, both argued that on the most important issue at hand – whether the club had violated coastal regulations by building the wall in the first place – there was no disagreement. In filings to the council, the club had admitted to the construction repeatedly, they said. Still, the club and the council failed to reach a consensus on fixing the problem. They disagree over how far inland the restoration efforts must go. While council staff want the club to take out more stone and fill, the country club wants to remove less. The line pushed for by council staff would force the golf club to cut into the course and 'lose its 14th hole,' Quidnessett claims in its petition to the court. Willis said Tuesday that the council may relax its stance on the line. Background on the seawall violation The latest machinations are sure to draw out what on its face appeared to be a clear-cut violation of coastal rules that goes back to August 2023, when the council received complaints about a newly built wall on the bay's shore. Staff inspected the site and determined that the club had violated coastal regulations by building the revetment without permission in Type 1 conservation waters, where new permanent structures aren't allowed because of environmental concerns. The council frowns upon the construction of breakwaters, bulkheads and other hard shoreline structures because they cause erosion elsewhere by deflecting waves and blocking the flow of sand. In a separate determination in 2024, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found that Quidnessett had violated federal rules by not seeking its authorization for the work. The coastal council has come in for criticism as the case has dragged on. In a statement, Topher Hamblett, executive director of Save The Bay, said the group also believes the case should have been referred to a hearing officer and the council's actions on the matter are emblematic of other controversial decisions made by its appointed members. 'Rhode Islanders deserve a coastal agency that protects our natural resources without favor or delay,' he said.
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Yahoo
Save the Bay poll finds majority of Rhode Islanders back a bottle bill
A crushed, discarded empty bottle of water occupies a patch of grass on Smith Street in Providence, not far from the Rhode Island State House. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current) More than half of Rhode Islanders support a bottle bill to create a recycling deposit program, according to survey results shared Friday by Save the Bay. The 10-page report is based on a poll of 400 registered Rhode Island voters conducted by research firm The Mellman Group in February via phone and text. Surveyors asked participants if they would support a 10-cent deposit on all beverages in recyclable containers. About 55% supported the measure, 36% did not, and 9% weren't sure. After survey takers heard arguments both for and against the legislation, favorable responses rose to 58% and unfavorable responses fell to 31%. 'These poll results show that Rhode Islanders support the adoption of a bottle bill and that they're likely to return their empty containers once a system is in place,' said Jed Thorp, Save the Bay's director of advocacy, in a statement. A bottle bill lets states levy an additional surcharge on certain drink purchases, usually between five and 10 cents per bottle or can, that is then returned to the consumer if they return the empties to a curbside or standalone recycling center. Overall, 10 states have bottle bills, each of which does things a little differently in regards to refunds, availability of recycling locations and beverages covered by the law. Only beer, soda and seltzer qualify for the rebate in Massachusetts, while in Maine everything but dairy and cider are subject to the bottle fee. A bottle bill has not yet been introduced in the State House this year, but an 18-member special commission has been studying how to reduce plastic bottle waste since 2023. Its co-chair, Rep. Carol Hagan McEntee, a South Kingstown Democrat, did not see her bottle bill pass last year. The beverage and retail industry denounced it despite McEntee, who also chairs the Rhode Island House Committee on Small Business, designing the proposed law to be as permissible as possible. The plastic waste commission meets on Monday and is expected to share the fruit of its nearly two-year investigation: A final report that will have recommendations for how to best proceed with a bottle bill. The report was supposed to have been completed last June, but was not finished in time, said House spokesman Larry Berman. The first state to authorize a bottle refund program was Oregon, in 1971, and the most recent state to pass a bottle bill was Hawaii, in 2002. Only one state, Delaware, has ever enacted and then repealed a bottle bill. The statute for a five-cent refundable deposit had been in place for 28 years before it was nullified in 2010, and then replaced with a four-cent, nonrefundable fee that's then fed into state recycling costs. Massachusetts residents have been able to collect refunds when recycling empty soda and beer cans since 1982, and Connecticut enacted its bottle bill even earlier, in 1978. The two states also had the lowest recycling rates of programs nationwide in 2023, according to stats from the Container Recycling Institute, with Massachusetts at 36% and Connecticut at 43%. Massachusetts also had the lowest percentage, 41%, of beverages covered by the deposit. The trendsetting Oregon program had an 87% recycling rate, the highest nationwide. Most states with bottle redemption programs had over 60% recycling rates in 2023. 'The problems of beverage container litter and plastic pollution are only getting worse,' said McEntee in a statement released with Save the Bay's survey results. 'Based on what we've heard during the study commission, I believe we can come up with a bottle bill system that will help our environment while not being a burden to businesses or consumers.' The survey found that environmental worries were a major driver of the desire for a bottle bill, with 85% of respondents concerned about shoreline litter. The state landfill nearing capacity was a concern for 73% of respondents. Another 71% of respondents believed Rhode Island's recycling system is 'not working.' 'Rhode Islanders are tired of seeing single-use beverage containers littering our streets and our shoreline,' Thorp said in a statement. Last year, volunteers working with Save the Bay on coastal cleanup efforts picked up 114,914 pieces of trash, of which 25,276 pieces were disposable drink containers. That may be unsurprising, given the Ocean State's not-so-ocean-friendly amount of litter: Stroll down most sidewalks in Rhode Island and you're bound to find some empty bottles, soda cans, or nips, like the ubiquitous empties of the cinnamon-flavored alcohol Fireball. And only about a third of the recyclable bottles and cans are actually recycled in the state, according to 2023 data from the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation, the quasi-public agency that runs the state landfill in Johnston. The availability of dedicated return centers affected respondents' willingness to use the program: 57% said they would probably participate, compared to 52% who would if there were no return centers. People who didn't think they would participate comprised 38% of respondents with redemption centers in place, but 47% said they were not likely to use the program if no dedicated return centers existed. The research group also broke down the responses into demographics including educational attainment, gender, age, location and political affiliation. Democrats and unaffiliated voters largely affirmed a redemption program, with 64% of 60% respectively, in support. The lowest rate of support came from registered Republicans, of whom only 38% supported the bottle bill after hearing both sides of the argument. But GOP voters were also swayed: Only 25% of Republicans said they supported the bill before hearing the arguments. There was also a gender gap in support: After hearing both sides, 69% of women supported a bottle bill, while only 47% of men did Respondents heard arguments for and against a bottle bill and redemption program. The arguments respondents heard from surveyors are reproduced below, as each was quoted in the report. Pro: 'Supporters say this is a proven way to reduce litter in our streets, shorelines and waterways and fix our recycling system. Other states have been doing this for decades – including Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York – and have 70% less beverage container litter. They also have much higher recycling rates of nearly 90%, while most of our containers end up in our landfill, which is nearing capacity. This is a proven way to fix the problems before they get worse.' Con: 'Opponents say that this proposal will burden working families because it's essentially a tax, increasing the cost of a 12-pack of soda by $1.20. Returning bottles will be particularly difficult for those in rural areas, the elderly, and those with disabilities. This proposal would also hurt Rhode Island's small businesses by incentivizing consumers to travel across state lines to buy beverages. We don't need another tax that could increase costs and hurt our economy.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Yahoo
Could this be the year of a bottle bill in RI? Survey shows strong support.
PROVIDENCE – More than half of Rhode Islanders support the passage of a bottle bill, while less than a third oppose it, according to a new poll. The survey, commissioned by Save The Bay, asked 400 registered voters their opinions about the state's recycling system and a proposal to create a redemption program for beverage containers. When given a basic description of the proposal to require a refundable 10-cent deposit on all purchases of drinks in bottles, cans, plastics and other recyclable materials, 55% of respondents said they were in support while 36% said they were opposed. After they were given a summary of arguments for and against the program, support climbed to 58% and opposition dropped to 31%, according to the survey conducted by the Mellman Group in February. In its summary of the argument in support, the survey cited the long history of bottle bills in other states, which have seen big reductions in litter and much better recycling rates. On the other side of the issue, the survey said that opponents call the bottle deposit a tax because it would be hard to redeem for some and would raise the price of a 12-pack of soda by $1.20. Jed Thorp, director of advocacy for Save The Bay, believes the results demonstrate a clear mandate in support of a redemption program for beverage containers and bolster efforts to pass legislation this General Assembly session that would create one. 'Even when presented with the strongest messages on both sides, people still supported it pretty heavily,' he said. The extent of that support among lawmakers will be determined in the coming weeks. A special commission on plastic bottle waste created by the legislature in 2023 has been meeting for well over a year, hearing from other states where bottle bills have been heralded as successes and from beverage container manufacturers who support the programs, but there are still divisions among its members. While environmental advocates and most of the lawmakers who sit on the panel, including the two co-chairs, have expressed strong support for a redemption program, representatives of the beverage industry in Rhode Island have reservations about how much it would cost to set up and how exactly it would work. The commission is set to meet on Monday to discuss its final report and start hammering out recommendations. In the meantime, Thorp, who is a member of the commission, is working with others on a bill to be submitted this session. He says the proposal will attempt to address some of the concerns of beverage companies by following the lead of other states and putting the system in the hands of an independent entity, rather than the state, that could set up free-standing kiosks for the collection of used containers. It's a plan that has the support of some of the biggest manufacturers of drink containers. Rep. Carol McEntee, the South Kingstown Democrat who is one of the commission co-chairs, said that when it's ready, she plans to introduce the legislation in the House. She and other supporters of the bill have been meeting with House and Senate leadership in recent weeks to try and win their backing. In a joint statement, House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi and Senate President Dominick Ruggerio acknowledged the meetings with stakeholders but said that "nothing is finalized at this point." "On Monday, we expect the commission to issue its report and findings, and we look forward to reviewing their recommendations.' Said McEntee, 'I'm hopeful, but I know it's going to be a heavy lift.' Bottle bills are a form of what's known as extended producer responsibility – a policy that puts the burden on companies to manage the waste their products generate. They work by charging a fee to consumers when they buy a beverage and then refunding them that money when the empty container is returned to be recycled. Nine of the 10 states with the highest recycling rates in the country have bottle bills, according to The 50 States of Recycling, a nationwide analysis of recycling systems. The recycling rates for the top states range from 39% to 65%. In contrast, Rhode Island, which ranks 26th in the nation, has a rate of just 17%. Redemption programs boost recycling by segregating beverage containers from other types of material, making them easier to reuse. For example, because glass bottles that pass through the single-stream recycling system in Rhode Island get mixed with fiber, plastic and other materials, none are recycled. Instead, they're ground up and used as cover on the Central Landfill in Johnston. However, in Oregon, which has the most effective redemption program in the nation, the recycling rate for glass bottles is 51%. The Oregon program, which is run by an independent nonprofit, and the program in Maine, which works with a private company, have been cited as possible models for Rhode Island. McEntee has introduced a bottle bill twice before and both times it's gone nowhere, in large part because of concerns from the beverage and retail industries. Their concerns range from the burden of trying to manage a redemption program to possible smells emanating from storing used containers on their properties. More recently, according to Thorp and McEntee, they've brought up issues of equity, saying that all industries that use packaging should be responsible for their waste. It's a reasonable argument and there is talk of expanding the bottle bill into broader legislation that would enact fees on packaging users to raise money for improvements to Rhode Island's recycling system. Representatives of the Rhode Island Beverage Association and the Rhode Island Liquor Operators Collaborative did not respond to requests for comment. McEntee isn't opposed to the idea of crafting legislation that covers other areas of extended producer responsibility as long as the bottle bill portion remains. That's because simply placing a fee on packaging users doesn't get at the litter problem associated with used bottles and cans, she said. Placing a 10-cent value on used containers acts as an incentive for people to pick up litter, said Thorp. And while some believe that public awareness campaigns can solve the problem, Thorp said that they don't address accidental litter – think of recycling bins knocked over on a windy day and spilling out their contents – which studies have found accounts for up to half of all litter. Among the supporters of a bottle bill in Rhode Island is the Can Manufacturers Institute, an industry group based in Washington, D.C. Its clients aim to dramatically increase the recycling rate for aluminum cans, from 45% in 2020 to 90% by 2050. Even getting to an interim target of 70% by the end of this decade will be impossible unless more states set up redemption programs, said Scott Breen, the institute's senior vice president for sustainability. The programs address a variety of problems with recycling. They get at the contamination issue that plagues single-stream recycling by separating out drink containers. They incentivize people who choose not to recycle by putting a financial value on used containers. Similarly, they give people a reason who buy drinks on the go to recycle the empty containers, rather than toss them into a garbage can or out a window. 'We don't know any other way to get to our recycling targets,' Breen said. Sen. Mark McKenney, the other co-chair of the plastic commission, said that testimony heard during its meetings showed that microplastics pollution and other problems caused by bottle waste are serious problems. He expects the majority of commission members to come out in support of a redemption program and recommend passage of a bottle bill. 'The evidence cries out for us to take action,' the Warwick Democrat said. 'It showed that bottle bills, contrary to some opinions out there, do work. For us not to do it, I think would be a serious mistake.' Even if the legislation gets through the General Assembly, it's still uncertain what Governor McKee would do with it. Although he's created an anti-litter program for the state, he has yet to voice support for a bottle bill. A spokeswoman said only that McKee would review a bill if it reaches his desk. Three-quarters of the respondents to the Save The Bay survey expressed concern that Rhode Island's recycling system isn't working. Thorp believes a bottle bill could go a long way to fixing it. 'I'm more confident now that we're ready to get this done and have a bill that everybody can live with,' he said. This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Could RI get a bottle bill? Support is strong with the public.
