Coastal Services Center

---

Beach Nourishment: Is It Worth The Cost? - Perspective

---

Home > Perspective > Critique > Response > Conclusion

by Orrin H. Pilkey and Andy Coburn

Beach nourishment, the emplacement of sediment along an eroding shoreline, is a coastal engineering practice that attempts to artificially stabilize a naturally migrating shoreline. Although beach nourishment projects are intended to hold the shoreline in place and protect beachfront property, it is important to note that there is no need to protect the beach per se, which absent the trappings of man, will always be present.

Beach nourishment is hyped by well-funded and politically-savvy coalitions of special interest groups, oceanfront property owners, coastal engineers, and lobbyists as a way to "preserve" or "restore" our beaches, and sold to the public under the guise of "creating healthy beaches." When it comes to beach nourishment, the bottom line is money. Shorelines are only nourished to protect investment properties and the local tourist industry: the status quo. It is, therefore, disingenuous when nourishment proponents say they are concerned with a public interest and wish to improve the recreational value of our ocean beaches.

From an inequitable distribution of costs and benefits to the irreversible destruction of coastal habitats, the myriad of issues, problems, and benefits associated with artificially stabilizing our nation's beaches through beach nourishment must be openly addressed through a societal debate.

Why Do We Nourish Our Beaches?

A retreating shoreline without buildings is not a problem. A retreating shoreline with buildings is an erosion problem. Since buildings are clearly the cause, should public funds be used to solve a problem created by affluent beachfront property owners irresponsible enough to build next to an eroding shoreline? We say no. Let the buildings fall in or, even better, move them back or demolish them and the beach will be as wide and as useable as ever. And it will have a healthy ecosystem. Of course, there will always be those who claim to be unaware that an erosion problem existed and expect that the government should step in. Unless they have been living in Timbuktu, however, such ignorance stretches the limits of credibility.

So why does the public pay for beach nourishment to protect and enhance the value of property owned by the very people who caused the beach degradation problem to begin with? Nourishment proponents, when faced with this question, usually respond that the public wants a hot dog stand, motels, miniature gulf courses etc. and therefore to protect them is to protect the public interest. This is nonsense. The hot dog stand and other interests on the first row will quickly reappear in the second row if eroded away; the American free-enterprise system assures that.

The true public interest for the vast majority of beach users is a beautiful beach, with a natural ecosystem to promote fishing and natural sand to promote beach strolling, all unencumbered by seawalls and buildings immediately adjacent to high tide lines and unencumbered by taxpayer costs to nourish the beach. While it may be too late for this on many developed beaches, we must not confuse the interests of beachfront property owners with those of the vast majority of Americans.

Who Should Pay?

Much publicity has been given to the takings issue in recent years, but there is also a "givings" issue. Beach nourishment projects, the majority of which are funded by taxpayers living in Memphis, Toledo, Phoenix and other non-coastal cities and towns, greatly increase the value of beachfront property. According to one media report, property values increased an average of $250,000 as a direct result of a beach nourishment project in Westhampton Dunes on the South Shore of Long Island, NY. The city of Long Branch, NJ is in the midst of a large-scale redevelopment project that includes over $100 million in new beachfront development. According to the town's administrator, this redevelopment is a direct result of a 1998 federal beach nourishment project. In Sandbridge, VA, oceanfront property values increased an average of 14% in one year because of nourishment.

Just as important as who benefits from beach nourishment is the question of who pays, or who should pay? The answer to the former is we all do. Considering the enormous benefits that accrue to oceanfront property owners, the answer to the latter is clearly they should.

Increased Rates of Renourishment

Because of the rising sea level and diminishing supplies of sand, the future of the American shoreline is one of ever increasing erosion rates. As a result, we can anticipate two very important events in the future of beach nourishment that must be a part of the societal debate we are championing:

• As sea level continues to rise, other things being equal, the rate of renourishment will increase because a rise in sea level will increase the rate of erosion of nourished beaches. This is already apparent in a national beach nourishment survey that we are completing and have published on our website (http://www.env.duke.edu/psds);
• Artificially holding the shoreline in place, whether by beach nourishment or seawalls, usually causes the shoreface to steepen, which will also cause shoreline erosion rates to increase.

Increased Density of Development Due to Nourishment

As rates of renourishment increase, the density of development will also continue to increase. Single family units will become multi-family units which will eventually become high rises along most American barrier island shorelines. This is taking place right now in North Carolina in Atlantic Beach, Carolina Beach, Nags Head and Kill Devil Hills, and in South Carolina in Garden City and Folly Beach. In fact, it is occurring on virtually all barrier island fronts on the US East Coast with the exception of some very exclusive private islands such as Figure 8 Island, NC, and Little Cumberland Island, GA.

Some argue that beach nourishment is not responsible for increases in the density of development, but it is. If nourishment is not carried out and a shoreline is left to naturally retreat up to buildings, one can be certain that the density of development will not increase because beaches in a high state of erosion are not attractive places to develop. Development in Carolina Beach, NC dramatically changed from single family to multi-family structures almost immediately after a federal beach nourishment project in 1982. This "progress" was attributed in the media and by the local Corps district to the newly nourished beach.

Proponents of beach nourishment frequently point out that the increase in density of development along Miami Beach came as a result of nourishment, and that it has brought considerable economic progress to the community. This is true. But is it responsible to promote this kind of economic progress along eroding shorelines? Is it responsible to lock the public into perpetual payment for beach nourishment and other forms of hard stabilization that will be needed to protect this development? Is this even the type of development favored by most beach visitors? The answer to all three questions is an unequivocal no. So why not put the high rises at the back of the island or, better yet, on the mainland?

The point is that even if the change in the density of development is simply a straight line increase, this increase would not have occurred without nourishment.

Among the other problems related to increasing density of development are:

• More people and property at danger from the "big one" and
• Reduction in the flexibility of response to an eroding shoreline. Erosion responses available to a beach lined with high-rises are highly limited when compared to a beach cottage community.

This problem will only get rapidly worse unless zoning requirements become a part of the beach nourishment permitting process. Is it not reasonable to require that no change in the density of development be allowed for the first two to four rows of a beach community where a beach is nourished with public funds? We paid for the beach and it does, after all, belong to all people.

Access to the Beach

All beaches funded in part by the federal government are supposed to have public access complete with parking. Initially, this requirement was strictly enforced. Miami Beach, for example, which was nourished in 1979, has ample access paths and parking, but the system has recently broken down. Sea Bright, New Jersey has almost no access and parking in spite of the fact that it is part of the largest and most costly beach nourishment project in the nation's history. The entire Northern New Jersey nourishment project, in fact, has little access in spite of (or perhaps because of) its close proximity to millions of people in the New York City metropolitan area. In Pine Knoll Shores, North Carolina, where a loan from the US Department of Agriculture funded construction of the current beach, there is negligible public access. On Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, public access and public parking are scarce for day visitors. No one is minding the store for the Corps of Engineers on a national level, and it appears that districts are free to restrict access as much as they possibly can on an individual project basis.

What the Public Should Know about Beach Nourishment

There are several principles, valid for all beach nourishment projects, of which the public is frequently not made aware:

• Almost, without exception, nourished beaches disappear faster than natural beaches (2 to 12 times faster by our estimate);
• Nourished beaches recover poorly after storms compared to natural beaches;
• Because they erode faster, nourished beaches almost always have scarps, or small vertical cliffs, that serve as barriers to nesting sea turtles and are dangerous to beach users. The New Jersey governor recently broke his leg after falling from a four-foot scarp on a nourished beach;
• The predicted cost of federal beach nourishment projects are almost always underestimated, which produces questionable cost/benefit ratios;
• Along many reaches of American shoreline, economically feasible sand supplies available for nourishment are minimal or non-existent. As a result, we can anticipate that the cost of sand will increase dramatically;
• Both Corps and consultant engineers use predictive mathematical models that simply can not predict the lifespan of nourished beaches. Nature, at the shoreline, is far too complex to be duplicated by mere mathematical models. Despite the fact that engineering models such as GENESIS and SBEACH lack validity – as has been pointed out in the scientific literature – their use continues unabated;
• The design of beach nourishment projects is highly subjective and in the hands of the US Army Corps of Engineers, who benefits from constructing beach stabilization projects, and private consultants who must find the truth according to their clients' needs in order to survive professionally. Although public comment is allowed for federal projects, it is often nothing more than lip service and an exercise in futility (unless a congressman is involved).

What is a Healthy Beach?

A healthy beach, as defined by nourishment proponents, is a wide beach; but there is much more to a healthy beach than that. A beach is a complex and diverse ecosystem upon which a huge variety of organisms – from seabirds to fish to crabs to microscopic meiofauna that live between sand grains – rely for their survival. Two recent beach nourishment projects in North Carolina, one in Pine Knoll Shores and one in Oak Island, clearly indicate that a number of parameters must be considered before a beach can be described as "healthy." These beaches were constructed of such poor quality sediment that the ability of each to serve as suitable sea turtle nesting habitat is now in serious doubt. Ironically, Oak Island was the first beach nourishment project in the nation to be funded and constructed for the sole purpose of restoring sea turtle nesting habitat. In spite of current and potential long-term environmental impacts, and notwithstanding the significant reduction in recreational values attributable to these projects, declarations by local community leaders and by the commander of the local Corps district to the effect that the rock-covered beach was a high-quality one, are characteristic of the juggernaut that our national beach nourishment program has become.

While some localized studies indicate that the biology of nourished beaches may partially recover in months to years, there is no evidence to prove that repeatedly nourished beaches will not, in some way, result in significant long-term environmental impacts. Just as the Corps couldn't anticipate the detrimental cumulative impacts of altering the Florida Everglades for human benefit, we are unable to predict the long-term, cumulative impacts of beach nourishment.

What's Good About Beach Nourishment

Nourishment widens beaches and, providing the sand is of high quality, provides recreational opportunities on beaches that have narrowed up against buildings and seawalls. Nourishment is far superior to the seawall option which, although it may partially protect buildings, will destroy the beach over time. Finally, public access is – in theory at least – required when federal funds are expended to build a beach.

In addition, a widened beach is a strong buffer against storms. The upper part of the beach (the berm) absorbs the impact of waves and, to some extent, provides protection from the elevated water levels of a storm surge. In a few cases, sand eroded from nourished beaches moves to an adjacent shoreline and widens that beach.

It is important to note that nourished beaches will not entirely prevent storm damage, nor will they do much to mitigate storm wind damage. They also will not prevent massive destruction associated with the arrival of the "perfect" storm from the "right" direction and with the "right" duration and intensity.

The Future

Do we have the money and desire to nourish all the beaches along the east and Gulf coasts? The answer depends on the priorities of our society. But it is very likely that taxpayers, as a whole, will strongly resist funding beach nourishment projects when the folks responsible for the erosion problem, beachfront property owners, are paying so little. A public understanding of this discrepancy is creeping into the editorial pages of most local and regional newspapers. For those beaches that are nourished, we offer the following predictions about the future of our shorelines:

• Nourishment will continue but at ever higher costs due to sea level rise and the scarcity of sand;
• The national cost, in a decade or two, will approach a billion dollars per year, including the Pacific coast;
• The federal share will decease (an attempt to do this was made by the last two administrations) and costs will be deemed prohibitive for local governments;
• State shares will also decrease in response to a public educated about the real cause of the erosion problem;
• In a few instances, buildings will be moved back or demolished and nourishment will be viewed as a means to fine tune the retreat from the shoreline; and
• Seawalls will become the preferred solution, and the beaches in front of them will disappear.

The specific rate at which these events will take place will vary widely from place to place and depend on sea level rise, but they almost assuredly will happen over the next two to four generations. Surely we owe our grandchildren a debate on this topic.

Do We Have a Plan?

The environmental, economic, and social costs of nourishing all American beaches is impossibly high, but this is the direction in which we are heading. At present, almost all developed beaches in Florida are being nourished, are in the nourishment planning pipeline, or are actively being considered for nourishment.

There are substantial geological and oceanographic reasons why nourishment is more feasible on some beaches than others, and if we must nourish some beaches, there is a need to prioritize the process. For example, nourished beaches with high wave energy and/or high natural erosion rates are poor candidates for nourishment. Availability of a sand supply for years to come should also be a factor. As it stands now, beach nourishment is a highly political phenomenon, carried out on an ad-hoc or crisis basis. Communities with political clout or in particularly active Corps districts bring home the bacon (federal funding for a beach nourishment project). Planning in any context other than political is totally absent.

Conclusion

The sea level is rising and there is a significant chance this rise will accelerate. This is perhaps the first major global impact of the greenhouse effect, and it is important that we respond in a sensible fashion with a long-term viewpoint, not simply defend the status quo. The American beach nourishment program is decidedly an approach to defend the status quo.

Things on the shoreline are not going to be the same, two to three generations from now. With a rising sea level impacting on the most dynamic surficial features on Earth (barrier islands), trouble is just around the corner. There is a significant chance that recreational beaches and beachfront property will become a low priority relative to the preservation of our major coastal cities such as Manhattan, Boston, and Miami. To our knowledge, however, not a single state has entered a societal debate to explore all sides of the issue, to look at long term feasibility of nourishment in a time of rising sea level, and to determine which communities and beaches need nourishment and to establish guidelines for determining this.

We feel it is essential that the long term – several generations – be taken into account when debating funding a beach nourishment project. The reason for this is that, in actual fact, once a beach has been nourished in our system, there is a very high probability that it will continue to be nourished over and over. Like seawalls, once a beach is nourished, it will always be nourished. We should not take this first step until we know where it all leads down the road. The public must be given a thorough and straightforward analysis of environmental impacts and long-term costs and consider the issue of who should pay. We need a societal debate, carried out on a level playing field, regarding the future of beach nourishment in America.

Perspective > Critique > Response > Conclusion