Moving the lighthouse half a mile inland from its current location just 120 feet from the Atlantic shore is, to be sure, a monumental task and one that carries with it some risk that the lighthouse will not survive the effort.

But the engineering experts believe it can be done. This will be a high-tech project, bearing little resemblance to moving a house across town. The project would employ state-of-the-art equipment and expertise. If you've been to visit the Kennedy Space Center near cape Canaveral in Florida, you get an idea of the scope of the project. Moving the space shuttle around the center is no mean feat.

Of course, the shuttles aren't old brick buildings. The lighthouse may be more fragile.

If the experts believe it can be done, however, their voices ought at least to get equal time with any group of well intentioned amateurs.

The trouble with the alternative is that it woudl be an exception to what is genreally recognized -- even by supporters of this alternative -- as sound state policy against building hardened structures designed to alter the natural shifting of the coastline.

There are both practical and philosophical reasons for that policy. The chief practical reason is that history has shown such structures to be, at best, a means of buying time, not a permanent solution. And in this case, one person's solution is another's problem. Prevent beach erosion in one place, and chances are good that you provoke erosion somewhere else.

The Philosophical reason involves the relationship of human beings to their environment. The understanding of that relationship continues to evolve and it is -- or ought to be -- a humbling experience.

In the grand scheme of things we are both relatively puny and capable of substantial damage. Efforts to mold our environment in attempts to satisfy our insatiable thirst for instant gratification have long-term consequences we are only now learning about. Those consequences could prove terminal.

Attempting to hold back the ocean seems more arrogant than appropriate. It would also contradict wise state policy and provide ammunition for those who would like to make other exceptions to the policy (Oregon Inlet jetties, for example, or the Shell Island Resort).

Moving the lighthouse could provide an ongoing, educational and tourist attraction during the process as well as afterward. Building a seawall wouldn't. But the main point here is simple: Moving the lighthhouse is right; building jetties is wrong.

That the fate of one of North Carolina's most visible and recognized landmarks is a matter of national concern shouldn't really suprise anyone. The Outer Banks popularity among tourists internationally guarantees a significant repsonse to the matter.

What has evolved as more of an issue with the famous nautical light, however, is that save-the-light- supporters are of two minds as to how the 155-year-old structure should be defended against the advancing sea.

It doesn't appear that money for either alternative is going to be a problem. Already, President Clinton has included $10 million in his budget to fund one strategy proposed by the National Park Service to move the lighthouse about a half-mile inland.

The other scenario would cost a little less in the beginning -- $5.7 million -- but would require regular maintenance that woudl add to the lighthouse's long-term costs. That plan, which has the support of others -- including the Dare County Board of Commissioners and other influential parties like Hugh Morton, owner of Grandfather Mountain -- is to construct a barrier or jetty to protect the lighthouse from the encroaching ocean and allow it to remain at its existing location.

Besides the desire to keep the lighthouse at is original, historic site, proponents of that course also fear that moving the structure could damage or destroy it.

Nevertheless, there are many agencies, scientist, engineers and influential officials who feel that moving the lighthouse makes the most sense -- as do we. And there is agreement from that side also, that the lighthouse can be moved without damage.

The most compelling reasons for moving the light are that it's a practical, good sense solution, and it's the only way to avoid bumping up against the state's environmental laws.

Consider that a seawall may eventually have to be built to entirely surround the base of the lighthouse. Waters that were once a half-a-mile away are now withing 120 feet of the lighthouse. Storms and annual natural erosion are going to eat away at the surrounding beaches. Even is a jetty were to slow erosion in front of the lighthouse, adjacent areas will continue to erode, eventually leaving the site of the lighthouse underwater. In effect, the lighthouse could eventually be the occupant of its own island.

Also, jetty supporters are bucking coastal environmental regulations that don't allow construction of groins, seawalls and other hard structures on beaches. Were the state to allow construction of a jetty at Hatteras, how could it prevent others who own beach property from also buliding their own jetties and other structures to protect their property from encroaching sea? They couldn't.

Fortunately, there us sufficient interest from both sides of the issue that seems to ensure that the historic landmark will be saved. We just believe that the option of moving the lighthouse out of harm's way is a better solution for both the lighthouse and those interested in its continued protection.

The Honorable James B. Hunt
State Capitol
Raleigh, NC 27611

Dear Sir,

I am writing to urge your support of the relocation of the historic Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. I am certain that after ten years of debate, several studies and numerous public hearings, you are well aware of the arguments for and against the relocation of America's and perhaps the world's most recognized lighthouses.

I will not belabor the issure with a repetition of the arguements. You already know two highly qualified and esteemed bosies in the scientific community, the National Academy of Sciences in 1988 and a group of Coastal researchers from North Carolina State University in 1996, both called for the relocation of the lighthouse as the only reasonable and responsible means of "saving the world's tallest maritime landmark". One of America's most respected and proven Lighthouse relocation companies, International Chimney Corporation, has indicated that relocation of the Cape Hatteras is possible and safe and they are willing to put their world wide reputation to the test, by advocating such a move.

Because I am not a member of the Scientific community and do not have a background in structural engineering, I must rely on those with proven track records of training, knowledge and experience who have reccommended relocation. Because I am a member of a Chamber of Commerce, I fully understand what prompted the Dare County Chamber of Commmerce to oppose the relocation of the Hatteras Light. It is safe to say that the expertise of most Chamber of Commerce members rest in the promotion of historic sites, not necessarily their preservation.

However, I do have over twenty years of experience in Historic Preservation. I have served on numerous Museum and Preservation related Boards; including the Board of Directors of the Florida Association of Museums as well as being appointed by Florida Secretary of State James Smith to the Florida Museums Grants in Aid Advisory Council. I served as a member of the Technical Advisory Committee of the Lighthouse Preservation Society, as well as a member of the National Lighthouse Museum Steering Committee. I have directed three lighthouse restoration projects, and consulted on six others and written over two million dollars in grants for various historic projects. I am listing all the above as a preference to my statement that any argument against the relocation of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse because to do so will mean the loss of its historic significance, is nothing more than a "red herring"

While no professional nor responsible preservationist would advocate the unneccessary relocation relocation of a historic resource from its proper historic context, there is the understanding and realization that sometimes, in the real world, we are faced with a "Move or Lose" situation. In fact, there have been several Lighthouses which have been moved in the past couple years which had full support and endorsement by the Preservation Community", because they understood that without relocation, the irreplacable historic resource would have been lost, diminishing its historic significance and destroying not preserving its proper and tangible historic context. Not one of the relocated lighthouses have lost any historic designations awarded prior to their relocation. Such is the case with the relocation of the Cape hatteras Lighthouse. All of the examples of lost historic designations related to relocation cited in the Save the Hatteras Light position paper were examples of historic structures moved without just cause. The situation with the Cape Hatteras Light is so different it does not even merit comparison.

Through my professional involvement in Lighthouse preservation over the past eleven years, I have become aware of several lighthouses which were relocated by the United States Lighthouse Service. Some were designed to be relocated, others were not. Over 17 lighthouses have been moved to prevent their loss, many others were lost because the technology needed for their preservation was not available at the time. After a decade of research into the United States Lighthouse Service, I assure you, that former Federal Bureau always attempted to act in good faith with the American taxpayer who funded the construction and maintenance of all U.S. lighthouses including Cape Hatteras Light. Their cost effective and common sense approach to their responsibilities would have been to make use of any available technology to save and preserve the lighthouses under their care. The technology needed to move the Cape Hatteras is still available and already proven today. If groins, synthetic seaweed, sand bags, and wishful thinking had been successful, there would be no need ot even discuss the relocation of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse now. Those approaches would have widespread acceptance and application rather than be prohibited in most areas including North Carolina.

While a few but influential beach front property owners might directly benefit from a Federally funded 4th groin, that approach does not address the effects of severe and prolonged storms, a universally accepted understanding that our coastline is in crisis, and the proven effects of salt water on the wooden timbers on which the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse depends. One need only look at Morris Island in South Carolina to understand that adverse and inevitable effect.

In conclusion, let me say that all of North Carolina should be proud that "America's Lighthouse" stands on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. That source of pride should carry with it a sense of responsibility for it. Everyone has a God given and American protected right to voice an opinion on the relocation issue. However, after ten long years everything that can be said has been. It is past time to put personal vendetta's and vested interest aside and "Save the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse" by moving it.

If it is not moved soon, then people who loved the Hatteras Light will only be able to drive to the Outer Banks, to look at a pile of bricks barely above water and a sign which would read, "Ruins of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse to the Left, protective groin to the Right."

Sincerely submitted,