A bill that argues with certain scientific methods of predicting the rise of sea level on coastal counties is meeting with push back from some groups and opening up the Tar Heel State to ridicule from as far away as England.

House Bill 819, titled "An Act to Study and Modify Certain Coastal Management Policies," is currently winding its way through the state legislature. If passed, the bill would change the method rising sea level is officially anticipated. Detractors say the bill places emphasis on misleading data, leading to a wrong-headed conclusion on how steeply sea level could rise on coastal communities between now and the year 2100.

Pressure from developers and others, including Tom Thompson, who leads a group called NC-20, has helped convince some in the legislature to require the state to only use historical data to predict sea level's rise. NC-20 is an economic development group with a 20-county membership.

But scientists say that abandoning global warning predictions while anticipating sea level could lead to state planners losing perspective when it comes to designing roads and infrastructure, as well as putting people needlessly in harm's way. They believe the ocean will rise much more rapidly than historical data suggests and that the bill legislates scientific application right out of government.

Perhaps the best policy would be for government to simply stay out of the development of private property in the first place and allow individuals and businesses to build at their own risk. The best indicator of whether a building site would be viable comes from an unlikely, but reliable, market viability indicator: the insurance companies. If North Carolina refrained from providing insurance for future residents when private companies fail to do so, the state could place the decision of whether or not to build where it should be — squarely on the shoulders of property owners and developers.

In those circumstances, it would be up to insurance companies to decide whether or not to write policies in areas they consider high risk. It's recognized that government still has an interest in coastal development — road building, extension of government services and, if needed, storm evacuation, would remain in its hands. However, each can be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Instead of the N.C. General Assembly attempting to legislate the application of scientific information — one way or the other — it would be more fitting to let the free market take people where they wish to go — or build, in this case. And if they make bad decisions, then they should own the outcome.

REPRINTED FROM THE NEW BERN SUN JOURNAL