Mary Wawro
3 Eat Fire Spring Rd.

Editor's note: This week, The Nantucket Independent continues Voices Away from the Bluff, examining the ramifications of the Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund's beach nourishment proposal. We encourage letters to the editor sent to don@nantucketindependent.com or to 15 North Beach St., Nantucket, MA 02554.

Tell us about yourself - line of work, connection to Nantucket.

My husband, Peter Morrison, and I grew up in New York state and pursued professional careers in Los Angeles, Calif.; Peter, a demographer, and I, a municipal lawyer for 25 years with the County Counsel's Office representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

We discovered Nantucket looking out a plane window returning on a honeymoon flight back to the U.S. from Ireland in 1983. We began spending time in Nantucket as seasonal renters, kayaking, picking beach plums, jamming, bird watching, biking, hiking and knitting. We were so happy here that in 1997 we bought a house and, in 2005, moved here as permanent residents.

ROB BENCHLEY/The Independent file Mary Wawro

We cherish this tiny, fragile island and are committed to examining and speaking out on issues that impact its future. So, here goes.

In general, what are your thoughts about the erosion control methods employed by SBPF in the past, presently and in its proposal?

Overall, SBPF is hobbled by two broad failures: ecological and political. Ecologically, the past SBPF efforts are demonstrably failures, or why would it be pursuing the "next steps?"

I am unclear what the "present" efforts encompass. If these include the jute and board system whose failure resulted in the devastation of the Squam coast in that pesky storm in April 2007, surely, no sentient being, including anyone representing SBPF, could possibly characterize that system as a success.

The ecological failure has produced a massive credibility problem.

SBPF apparently concedes that the jute and board system always was intended to work only after the beach nourishment system was in place. In April it worked exactly as was intended. According to SBPF it was "designed to fail." That was the explanation after the April 2007 debacle. The unanswered question here is: why didn't SBPF pursue to completion, or even disclose the necessity of implementing the beach nourishment system first?

The credibility gap has had a corrosive effect on the politics here. Given these failures to disclose, I'm personally disinclined to believe any of SBPF's representations now, no matter who in or outside the community is paid to carry their water. As they say, "Follow the money." (Has anyone done that here?)

And therein lies the political failure. The failure to persuade a broad constituency that there is a credible solution to the problem of erosion on the 'Sconset bluff.

From your perspective, what are the pros and cons of dredging sand offshore and pumping it onto a beach to rebuild it (beach nourishment) in relation to the SBPF proposal?

I've attended or viewed on Channel 17 a number of the recent presentations to ConCom by SBPF. So far, I have heard no convincing or even persuasive evidence that there are any "pros" to the dredging and pumping. There will be an immense noisy project that, in the best of circumstances and weather, will take four or five primetime summer months working 24/7 to complete.

Public beaches and our roads and tiny byways will be used for transporting, staging and storing enormous pipes, trucks, and a fuel depot for the giant machines that will spray sand and general muck on the beach. It appears to me that the beach at the staging area, Hoicks Hollow, may not even be big enough to store the giant pipes needed to bring the "borrowed" sand from its current home undersea.

There is no evidence or even mention of what protections will be implemented against potential damages from leaks in the fuel containers that will be stored directly on the beach in 'Sconset to service the spraying equipment.

Once this project is done, it will take three to five years for "recovery." During recovery, SBPF will be in full swing, implementing a bigger, heavier jute and timber system on the slopes in 'Sconset. Yes, a bigger, better, faster version of the contraption that last April created havoc when it washed into the North Atlantic and up onto beaches everywhere on Nantucket.

At the end of "recovery," we get to go through this experience all over again, and maybe again and again. (Ever hear of Sisyphus?) How SBPF can call this "recovery" is one of the deepest semantic mysteries I've ever encountered.

Oh, and by the way, nowhere is SBPF talking about paying for the work needed in the repeat process(es) following "recovery." And nowhere that I have seen is SBPF saying that there won't be more nourishment projects and more recovery periods needed to achieve its goals.

Should the Board of Selectmen approve the use of town-owned land, necessary for the project to go forward?

As a municipal lawyer for 25 years, I've had considerable experience observing and advising elected and appointed boards and agencies faced with the prospect of making difficult and controversial decisions. The fact is that decisions of municipal agencies often get challenged in courts and members of those agencies need to understand by what legal standard their actions will be judged.

This elected Board of Selectmen and our appointed Conservation Commission strike me as exceptional in their abilities and in their commitment to good stewardship of our island.

In making every decision on this project, they need to be fully aware of the applicable legal standard, carefully consider all the evidence in the record presented to them and assure that the findings on which they base each decision fully support that decision. They need to look to Town Counsel for a fully considered opinion on the potential liability of the town if town property is to be used for this project.

Where do you draw the line between preservation of public and private property and protection and conservation of natural resources?

Line drawing in this context is not a geographical or mechanical exercise. It's an exercise in policy. It requires analysis on a case-by-case basis. There needs to be a balancing of interests in each case. That is what is happening in the hearing process now going on. The interests of private homeowners are weighed against the interests of the community and the environment. Everyone who has something to say on the matter can be heard.

Based on what I have seen thus far, I'm not persuaded that the line should be drawn to allow this project to go forward. There is no evidence presented that the beach nourishment process has been successful in an area with sufficient similarity to the one now proposed here.

The homeowners do have other options, among them moving their homes. Given the known damage and attendant risks of the project and the less risky alternatives, I conclude that the mitigation measures offered by SBPF at this time simply do not mitigate enough.

How should SBPF modify its proposal to address the projected negative impacts of its beach rebuilding project?

It should assist the homeowners to move their houses away from the bluff. What could be more straightforward?

If this proposal is approved and harmful effects occur, what should SBPF be prepared to do to remedy the negative impacts?

Very simply, they should pay. This question really should be directed to SBPF. How much are they willing to put on the line monetarily for this project? Are they willing to sign a confession of judgment for liability in advance for all damages and claims of damages caused by this project? If so, that would suggest they have a high level of confidence in its success. I seriously doubt that they would do that.

Will they guarantee to indemnify the town for all claims of damages and all liability that may be incurred by the town and its taxpayers? It seems to me that an ironclad indemnification for the town is absolutely essential if this project is to go forward. In reality, though, no amount of money is sufficient to make up for what might be lost in this project.

If rebuilding the beach with offshore-dredged sand is not the answer, what should the residents of Baxter Road do to protect their property from erosion?

In the time-honored tradition of Nantucket, they should simply move the houses. Buy the golf course. Maybe we could all do with [fewer] golf courses. Has this even been considered? If it's good enough for Sankaty Light, why isn't it good enough for the residents of Baxter Road?

People who choose to live on the edge live on the edge. It's risky. Why should others and the environment bear the costs of those risks? What I find most shocking is all the new and incredibly elaborate construction going on on that road. With no disrespect intended, hubris is the word that springs inexorably to my mind at the sight of it.

Alternately, if the project and its environmental mitigation slows the rate of erosion, creates shorebird habitat, successfully replaces the cobble areas offshore with artificial cobble areas and does not harm the ocean bottom, would you recommend other island shorelines for this erosion control method. Why or why not?

It would take a long time to determine that all of those things had truly come to pass. Nevertheless, to reiterate, I don't believe in the mechanical approach to line drawing. A successful project in one place is certainly an important factor, but one of many factors to be considered in a determination of what is appropriate in another place. I certainly would not advocate doing away with the hearing process by which all sides may speak out on the issues.

Is there anything you want to say that I haven't asked you about on SBPF's offshore sand dredging and beach rebuilding proposal?

Yes. When I hear about the unhappiness of folks who don't like the kind of land use restrictions there are on Nantucket, I wonder whether there simply should be another Nantucket, near Las Vegas, perhaps. "Nantucket West."

There, a consortium could buy enough property to duplicate our island exactly. Maybe they could even surround it with a manmade body of water and build some ferries. It would always be summer there, no fog or pesky nor'easters, and everything would look exactly like our Nantucket, at least in the beginning. But, there would be no silly rules and restrictions protecting the wetlands, limiting the creative energies of the movers and shakers, the architects, builders and general dreamers.

Anyone aggrieved by an adverse decision of some municipal agency or other could get a free ticket, maybe a one way ticket, to Nantucket West where that agency's decision would be forever undone.

I think SBPF might profitably look into spending its beach nourishment dollars on initiating "Nantucket

West." Everyone everywhere might be a lot happier. I