Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Resilience topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Save the Bay warns of accelerating coastal risks, urges funding, staffing and regulatory fixes
Summary
Jed Thorpe of Save the Bay told the House committee that Narragansett Bay faces rising seas, warming waters, increased stormwater pollution and microplastic contamination, and urged more staffing for DEM and CRMC, new funding approaches and stronger enforcement against illegal shoreline hardening.
Jed Thorpe, director of advocacy at Save the Bay, told the House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources that climate change is the single biggest threat to Narragansett Bay and laid out a series of environmental challenges and policy priorities.
Thorpe said sea levels have risen roughly 10 inches since 1930 and that the region could see about 18 more inches by 2050. He described changes to water temperature, fisheries and runoff-driven pollution and warned that hard-wall shoreline armoring — seawalls, revetments and breakwaters — buries habitat, blocks public access and exacerbates erosion on adjacent properties. He said Save the Bay staff mapped the bay-facing shoreline and found roughly 152 miles of bay-facing beach with about 16% (approximately 25 miles) already hardened, and about 96 miles of salt marsh with nearly 7% (about 7 miles) hardened.
Thorpe highlighted a high-profile enforcement example, saying the council recently brought legal action over a seawall at Quinesset Country Club and that it had been 871 days since the wall’s placement without compliance. “It should not take 871 days to get a property owner to come into compliance with our environmental laws and rules,” Thorpe said.
On financing for resilience, Thorpe summarized recent and proposed state investments: a $5,000,000 DEM Climate Resilience Fund in a 2018 green bond; the Ocean State Climate Adaptation and Resilience (Oscar) Fund created in 2021 with $2,000,000 in general revenue; municipal resilience bond allocations of $16,000,000 (2022) and $10,000,000 (2024); and an initial proposal of $20,000,000 in the proposed 2026 green bond for the resilient roadway infrastructure fund. He said the proposed resilient roadway fund is slated to be structured with 20% as direct grants to cities and towns and 80% as a revolving loan fund, and he warned the loan-heavy model may be difficult to use for climate-adaptation projects without dedicated local revenue streams.
Thorpe also flagged water-quality concerns: more than 70 water bodies are listed as impaired for nutrients, 23 water bodies had no-contact advisories in 2025 (three still in effect), and beaches experienced 123 closure days in 2025, up from 71 in 2024. He urged the committee to consider alternatives to repeated bonding for adaptation — such as dedicating a portion of general revenue annually — and to support municipal stormwater financing mechanisms, including stormwater utility fees.
On plastic pollution, Thorpe cited Save the Bay and university research noting an estimated 1,000 tons of microplastic on the bay bottom and urged both policy and research solutions. He also urged continued CRMC reform and suggested the legislature consider merging CRMC into DEM to improve efficiency and reduce politically appointed conflicts.
Members pressed Thorpe on implementation questions: which agencies handle water and septic issues (Thorpe pointed to DEM and CRMC depending on the topic), municipal options for septic upgrades and stormwater financing, and whether bottle-bill and single-stream recycling analyses overlap. Thorpe said Save the Bay will pursue public-education campaigns (Bay Friendly Living guidebook and an outreach campaign) and noted municipalities vary in capacity to enforce fertilizer and septic rules.
Thorpe closed by urging lawmakers to take early action to reduce future costs and said more staffing and funding for DEM and CRMC would be an important part of any long-term strategy.
