![[Skip Navigation]](/images/pixel.gif){kind=tracking}
|
Beach Nourishment: A Guide for Local Government Officials
Beach Nourishment: Is It Worth The Cost? - CritiqueHome > Perspective > Critique > Response > Conclusion by Howard Marlowe Once again Dr. Pilkey, joined in this effort by his colleague Mr. Coburn, offers a highly critical view of the value of beach nourishment. What they ignore are the undeniable recreational, economic, environmental, and storm damage reduction benefits produced by healthy beaches. In addition, they conveniently ignore the consequences of neglecting to restore eroded beaches. This ignorance of both facts and consequences would not be tolerated if it pertained to any other natural resource. However, Dr. Pilkey has made a career of demonizing beaches as "playgrounds of the rich" which are "undeserving of taxpayer support." In fact, however, beaches are multi-purpose coastal public parks that not only deserve to be maintained with taxpayer dollars but produce far more direct tax benefits than most other government infrastructure investments. Dr. Pilkey argues against beach restoration on a variety of fronts. He calls beach restoration an unfair subsidy for beachfront property owners, ineffective as a means of storm damage protection, more expensive than other coastal management options, and harmful to the environment. On each of these points, his views are incompatible with mainstream thought and disputed by a wide body of scientific and economic research. Beaches are one of the most important economic, environmental, and recreational resources that America possesses. While Dr. Pilkey apparently feels that the United States cannot manage this tremendous resource without causing irreparable harm, we believe that it is possible to enjoy the beautiful, exhilarating, affordable recreation that a beach provides, while still being economically and environmentally responsible. Why We Nourish BeachesBeaches are a great recreational and environmental resource that also protect coastal communities from storm surge damage. While doing all this, they produce large amounts of money for local communities, and for Uncle Sam, as well. As we will discuss in more depth later in this paper, it is the federal government that receives the lion's share of revenue from beaches. Beach restoration projects have been shown by scientific study to reduce coastal flooding due to hurricanes and other storms. A wide, sandy beach provides a barrier to stop storm surges, devastating waves, and the otherwise unbridled destructive force of the ocean from overtaking the coastline and possibly endangering the lives of residents. Dr. Pilkey is quick to point out that a restored beach does nothing to prevent the danger to people and property that is presented by the high winds of storms. First, no one to our knowledge has ever claimed that a restored beach could somehow stop the wind. Second, consider what steps we take to mitigate the damage caused by a blizzard. Putting salt on the road does not stop wind damage either, but we still see that as an acceptable action. The fact is, taking steps to mitigate some, even if it is not all, risk caused by storms and flooding is a legitimate government function. Just because we cannot effectively stop all damage does not mean we should not try to stop some. If we could keep snow out of mountain passes, would we not do so before an avalanche blocks the interstate highway or threatens lives? Playing Word GamesNext, Dr. Pilkey presents his confusing anti-nourishment rhetoric that is more reliant on semantics than on reason. He states that "buildings are clearly the cause" of beach erosion, and complains that we should not spend public funds to "solve a problem created by affluent beachfront property owners." Once again, this statement makes it sound as if property located along the coastline somehow is the physical cause of beach erosion. That is completely incorrect. There is no study that claims that homes along the shoreline cause coastal erosion. They do not, and just because Dr. Pilkey says they do will not change the facts. Rather, it is Dr. Pilkey's fondest hope that the removal of buildings along the coast would "eliminate the problem" of coastal erosion because no one would care if the beach eroded. However, even this is a false assumption. Beaches are one of our most beautiful and enjoyable natural resources; they serve as coastal parks that all Americans can enjoy. Federal tax dollars are only spent to restore beaches with public access, beaches that are open to everyone. While protecting property is important, one of the major goals of the federal beach restoration program is also to protect our nation's beautiful coastline so that generations to come will enjoy its splendor. For example, one of the biggest successes in the Brunswick County, North Carolina beach restoration project is in the oceanfront conservation areas where there are no houses, but where the beach was so narrow that at high tide merely walking on the beach was a dangerous problem. Retreat vs. RestorationDr. Pilkey's lack of appreciation for economic, environmental and recreational importance of the beach leads him to present his entire solution to the argument surrounding beach restoration: "Let the buildings fall in." That is it, plain and simple. Regardless of any other consideration, this view is irresponsible simply because it is infeasible. No community in America is willing simply to let their personal property, their homes, their businesses, and their public infrastructure, simply fall into the ocean. For those unwilling to stand idly by while their most valuable personal possessions and public property paid for by tax dollars collapse into the sea, Dr. Pilkey suggests retreating from the eroding coastline. This means picking up structures and continually moving back as the coastline erodes. Besides the logistical nightmare involved in this process, it is also far more expensive. As mentioned in the first installment of this series of papers, the Delaware coastline is a prime example of retreat being far costlier than restoration. Studies have shown it would cost $291 million over the next 50 years to implement a retreat policy along the coast, 80 percent more than the $60 million it would cost simply to renourish the beach over this same time period. The Distribution of Economic BenefitsDr. Pilkey claims that the majority of beach restoration projects are funded by taxpayers living in "Memphis, Toledo, Phoenix and other non-coastal cities and towns." At the same time, he claims, it is local residents who receive the greatest benefit, as beach restoration serves to increase the value of their properties. This reasoning is flawed on several accounts. First, study after study after study has shown that it is the federal government, not local residents, that receives the majority of the benefits from beach restoration. Each year, the federal government makes over $80 BILLION in tax revenue from beach tourists (while it only spent $135 MILLION on beach restoration last year). Local governments see some of this tax revenue as well; however, ,they bear a much greater cost. Local authorities are responsible for beach maintenance, lifeguards, law enforcement, and other upkeep costs. When the revenue from beach tourism is netted out against these costs, is obvious that the federal government sees far more profit than the local governments. For example, a recent study of the City of Carpenteria, California showed the net tax profit per beach tourist of $0.98 for the city government, while the federal government makes a $17.07 net gain from each tourist. Another recent study, commissioned by the anti-beach restoration Office of Management and Budget (OMB), showed that at least two-thirds of the economic benefits of beach restoration are federal. Dr. Pilkey is correct in stating that beach restoration increases the property values of those who live in coastal areas. However, this is not unique to beaches. It is also true of almost any other project that includes some form of economic development. He is incorrect in stating that this is unfair to the taxpayers of Memphis, Toledo, and Phoenix. Just as federal tax dollars help finance beach restoration on the coast, they help finance bridges, interstate highways, irrigation projects, and countless other projects in non-coastal areas. Certainly if someone in Phoenix owns a restaurant and the federal government builds an interstate exit right next to it, the value of that restaurant will increase. The same holds true for a homeowner whose property is protected by a new federally funded dam. Is it fair to have federal tax dollars from coastal residents paying for these projects in Tennessee, Ohio, or Arizona? The answer is yes. The federal government cannot earmark every tax dollar it receives to be spent in the same place it came from. That is simply not how our system of government works. Moreover, all beaches that receive federal funding must have public access. If the beach is not open to the public, no government will spend even one cent to help restore it. The Environmental Benefits of BeachesThe next attack on beach nourishment presented in the paper is based on the supposed negative environmental impacts of beach restoration projects. Dr. Pilkey claims that beach restoration projects are harmful to the coastal ecosystem, upsetting the delicate balance of life on beaches and the surrounding waters. He claims that as a result of beach restoration projects in North Carolina, the beaches are now too rocky for sea turtles to properly utilize for nesting. However, the fact is that all areas nourished during the last twelve months in Brunswick County, North Carolina now have viable turtle nests in place, several in areas where the nests would have been washed out by high tides before sand was placed on the beach. A stunning environmental benefit of the Brunswick County projects is the sea-beach amaranth, a plant on the Federal Endangered Species list. Early counts by North Carolina Coastal Management Extension Specialist David Nash indicate that more than a thousand plants will naturally occur on the renourished beaches of Brunswick County during the 2002 growing season. This is a tremendous increase over previous years' counts and compares quite favorably to the "almost 50" plants that National Park Service considered a success last year at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Dr. Pilkey also dismisses the findings of a long-term environmental study of the largest beach restoration project in the world. This study, which measured the environmental impacts of beach restoration on the ecosystem along the New Jersey coast, showed that beach nourishment has no long-term environmental impact. Even if the convincing New Jersey study is not enough, the aforementioned study commissioned by OMB offers even more proof of the environmental worth of beach restoration. It states:
Endangered species, like piping plover, require wide, sandy beaches in order to reproduce effectively. This is common sense; the rocky, narrow sand strips that characterize eroded beaches do not provide adequate camouflage, protection from the waves, or simply enough space to allow animals to utilize them. Federal ResponsibilityFinally, Dr. Pilkey's argument against beach nourishment fails to address what is possibly the most important factor in the debate over who should be responsible for the cost of beach restoration. The fact is that people building homes near the beach, sea level rise, or convoluted geophysical processes do not cause most beach erosion. The major cause of beach erosion in the United States is the federal government. For hundreds of years, our government has been building inlets, navigation channels, ports, and a variety of other things along the coastline. These federal projects, most of which are important to our economic and physical well being, interrupt the natural flow of sand along the coastlines. This can in effect "starve" beaches of the sand, causing severe erosion. Beach restoration is a way of restoring these beaches to their natural state, what they would look like if we had not altered the coastline. Since the federal government is the primary cause of this erosion, it only makes sense that the federal government should be primarily responsible for correcting the problem. ConclusionDr. Pilkey and Mr. Coburn present an argument against beach restoration that is based largely on the same tired, unsupported themes: class warfare, games of rhetoric and semantics, and baseless environmental charges. Restored public beaches, just like almost anything ever built in the history of the human race, require occasional maintenance to function properly. Actions of the federal government are a primary cause of damage to beaches and the federal taxpayers are the primary beneficiaries of well-maintained public beaches. It makes sense that federal coffers should be the primary source of funding for beach restoration, in partnership with state and local governments. Additionally, beach restoration is a benefit to the economy of the entire United States, not a subsidy for the rich. Finally, multi-disciplinary scientific studies have shown that beach restoration has no long-term negative impact on the beach environment, and in fact provides enhanced habitat for several creatures and plants found on the Federal Endangered Species List – a win-win situation. Perspective > Critique > Response > Conclusion |
