SACO — The long-sought drive to fully fund a solution to many decades of erosion at Camp Ellis that has seen the loss of 38 homes to the unforgiving sea over the last 50 years is closer than ever to becoming a reality.

U.S. Congresswoman Chellie Pingree on Wednesday Dec. 7 said the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which includes the Saco beach community project along with many others, could be fully approved and ready for the president’s signature before Christmas.

On Thursday afternoon, the House approved the NDAA bill,  which authorizes up to $45 million in federal funding to address the Camp Ellis erosion.

The bill now moves on to the U.S. Senate.

“That is about as good news as we’ve gotten all year,”  of the provision that included $45 million in the bill, Pingree said in a telephone interview Wednesday afternoon, Dec. 7. She  predicted  the bill would pass both houses of Congress and would  be on the president’s desk for his signature just in time for Christmas.

The $45 million authorization would ensure that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the full funding necessary to construct a 750-foot spur jetty off the existing jetty and replenish 365,000 cubic yards of beachfront, said U.S Sen. Susan Collins in a statement.

“For generations, the residents of Camp Ellis and the City of Saco have had to contend with a relentlessly receding shoreline that has claimed dozens of homes,” said Collins. “The devastating erosion impacting this community was caused by the jetty constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers more than 150 years ago at the mouth of the Saco River, and it is long past time to rectify this mistake.”

Collins pointed out the jetty altered the pattern of currents and sand deposition and is the primary cause of the severe erosion of Camp Ellis.

Congress authorized $26.9 million to fund a solution in 2007, but the so- called Option 6 jetty spur project never come to fruition.

Pingree and Collins noted the 1998 shoreline — 25 years ago — was 400 feet inland from where the shoreline stood in 1908.

The bill includes a provision stating the project “may include federal participation in nourishment,” or sand replacement, that the 2007 authorization did not include.

The city has been pursuing action on the Camp Ellis situation for many years, but there have been lulls in the conversation with the ACOE. In the spring of 2019, the city council indicated it wanted to restart the conversation and in the fall of that year voted to ask the ACOE for a Project Partnership Agreement.

Saco Mayor William Doyle by telephone on Wednesday, said the city is looking to finalize the Project Partnership Agreement that must be completed before the project can proceed. He said he expects the ACOE is waiting for passage of the bill authorizing funding before producing the PPA, which the city would have to approve.

“While we’re happy, we still have to finalize the agreement,” said Doyle. “This is one step closer to getting to the PPA with the Army Corps.”

SOS Saco Bay, an organization advocating for action on the Camp Ellis situation, said the news of the language in the bill authorizing $45 billion is welcome and a “huge” step forward.

“The next step is rapid and responsible action from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide a Project Partnership Agreement to the City of Saco, and ultimately get shovels in the ground,” said SOS Saco Bay Vice President David Plavin. ” We are grateful to the support from our federal delegation, and we need their leadership more than ever to bring this to completion.”

“Camp Ellis and the surrounding Saco community have endured an extremely long wait for this funding,” said Pingree. “For 14 years, my staff and I have worked with the City of Saco and the residents of Camp Ellis to shore-up this beloved area. ”

Doyle thanked both Collins and Pingree and their staffs for their work on the matter.

“On behalf of the City of Saco, we are extremely elated with the language included in the NDAA regarding Camp Ellis,” said Doyle. “Our community continues to be challenged with ongoing costs associated with storms affecting Camp Ellis.”