On March 7, the Town of Camden Select Board met to consider a request by the Harbor Committee to initiate a feasibility of the breakwaters for Camden Harbor. The discussion led to a number of inaccurate statements by various speakers which need to be corrected in the public record.

1. 1)  It was stated that The Army Corp would not pay for maintenance of the breakwaters. This is patently false. Once adopted by the Corps as a Federal Navigation Project the Corp is responsible for all maintenance of structures including breakwaters. The Federal Government owns the property on which such projects are constructed, owns the physical structure and owns the cost of maintaining that structure.
2. 2)  The Town would require exercise of eminent domain to construct the breakwaters. This is misleading. There is no requirement for connecting the breakwaters to the shore therefore there is no requirement for seizure of property by eminent domain.
3. 3)  The breakwaters would create a navigation hazard. This is unfounded. Breakwaters are designed specifically for safe navigation and are provided with beacons, reflectors, whistles and visual aids specifically to avoid collisions. They are if anything less of a hazard to watercraft than the existing shoals which gird Camden's outer harbor today. Breakwaters are extremely visible and easy to identify on radar as they stand bold above the high tide surface of the water, whereas the shoals at the harbor entrance are largely if not fully submerged at high tide, have few navigation marks that are difficult to discern and interpret in adverse conditions. Occasional collisions that presently occur with the shoals would be mitigated by the presence of a breakwater.
4. 4)  The height of tide in December 23 storm was 11.5 ft. This is incorrect. The predicted tide for that date was 11.5 ft but the actual tide height was measured at 14.5 ft and there was at least 2 ft of wave run-up atop this level. Wave crests were well over the height of the Camden Yacht Club seawall that measures 15.3 ft above mean lower low water.
5. 5)  There was little or no damage to the inner harbor from the December 23 storm. This is incorrect. There was at least $300K damage to municipal structures alone. The seawall at the Camden Yacht, which is municipal property, suffered over $200K in damages. The evidence and estimates of damage were inspected and validated by FEMA.
6. 6)  The Army Corp will dictate to the town how the breakwaters will be located and constructed. This is misleading. The Army Corp has a legal mandate to take into account many public interest and safety factors: effectiveness in stopping surge, environmental impact, enabling of crucial harbor functions, legal, cost and etc. These factors will be weighed during the feasibility study and decisions on whether or not to proceed will be made in conjunction with the community. Without community agreement and cooperation the project will not move beyond the feasibility phase.
7. 7)  The “flushing rate” of the harbor will be negatively affected by breakwaters. This is an chimera. The argument that dates back to the 1969 breakwater debate when Camden did not have a sewerage treatment plant. The actual breakwater itself is likely to occupy less than 2/3 the length of the harbor outlet. This is not dissimilar in proportion to the extent of Rockland’s breakwater. There are many other examples of successful breakwaters designed by the Army Corps nearby including Bar Harbor and Matinicus, which do have problems with “flushing rate.”

8) Camden cannot afford breakwaters. This is false speculation. A $20 million project cost for breakwaters would entail a $4.5 million cost share for Camden. Long standing historical records put the cost of severe storms to Camden conservatively at $500,000 per year. The major benefit to Camden is avoidance of this cost. The payback period would be less than 10 years. In addition the Town will benefit from increased commerce in the form of improved access to and use of the waterfront. The purpose of the feasibility study is to validate this data and make an informed decision.

There is mounting evidence to warrant concern about the future viability of Camden as a harbor, commercially or recreationally, if some concerted plan is not undertaken to counteract the effects of increase storm frequency, severity and destructiveness. Over the past 90 years Camden has experience 22 storms of the magnitude we just experienced. Six of these storms have occurred in the past 5 years. The path we are presently on if we do not take the action to rigorously examine the feasibility of breakwaters will only lead to more destruction, cost and lost opportunity.

James G Bennett lives in Camden