Coastal Services Center

---

Beach Nourishment: Is It Worth The Cost? - Conclusion

---

Home > Perspective > Critique > Response > Conclusion

What I Did On My Summer Vacation
By Orrin H. Pilkey

July 15, 2002, 8 AM. I climb up a seawall-walkover in Sea Bright, New Jersey, ignoring a Private Property-No Trespassing sign. Atop the massive 12-foot high boulder wall, I would have been able to see the Manhattan skyline if it hadn't been such a hazy day. Seaward of the wall is a huge and quite pretty beach, the northernmost part of the 26 mile long northern New Jersey nourishment project. A local sign proclaims it to be the largest such project in the nation's history. Cost was of the order of $200 million dollars.

The brochure of the Fairbanks Motel in Sea Bright, where I spent the previous night, proudly touts their "new private beach." Private it must be, because from my perch atop the wall, I can spot 2 fisherman in the hazy distance to the north and a single beach walker with flailing arms to the south. There is a public walkover, one of the few without a no trespassing sign, immediately in front of the motel, but since no public parking exists anywhere in the vicinity, the walkover is effectively a private one, just for hotel guests. Indeed the Fairbanks Motel does have a $200 million private beach!

10 AM. I check out of the Motel. The number of people on this part of Sea Bright beach, located within eyesight and easy ferry access of the greatest city in the world, has increased to a dozen, perhaps as many as two dozen. Something is wrong here.

9 AM, July 18. In contrast to Sea Bright, it is nearly impossible to find a place for a beach towel on nourished Rehobeth Beach, Delaware as tens of thousands of vacationers jammed the strand with both adequate parking and access.

Putting it all together, the northern New Jersey nourishment project is symptomatic of our deteriorating national beach nourishment program. Examples include:

I. In Long Branch, New Jersey, the Renaissance Condos have just been completed. The condos were built as a direct result of the new beach because the pre-nourishment beach site was low and frequently overwashed. Increase in development density due directly to nourished beaches is exemplified by these buildings. With each increment in density, a larger supporting cast of residents is there to promote the next nourishment project, to resist alternative approaches to the sea level rise problem, and to suffer property damage in the next large storm. Is it not reasonable to require communities to restrict development on the front rows after accepting public money to build a beach? Shouldn't we at least debate this?

II. Mr. Bill Rosenblatt, Mayor of Locharbour, New Jersey, told us that he estimates that property values of residences near the beach have gone up 100 percent on average – directly due to the new beach. The dramatic increase in property values due to a beach project must be part of the debate about who should pay. It never is. We hear much about takings and nothing about givings.

III. The astounding lack of public access in the northern New Jersey project can be seen on other recent beach projects including parts of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina and Pine Knoll Shores, North Carolina. What a come-down from the first large national nourishment project, Miami Beach, Florida where public access and public parking abound. Miami Beach has many parking meters allowing a three to six hour stay. Hilton Head's parking meters allow 15 minutes. (I know because I was ticketed!)

Privatization (and hence loss of still more access) continues on Sea Bright and in other towns involved in the northern New Jersey project. For example, a beach club with numerous members is being replaced by a half dozen high-end residences. Beach use at that point will go from many hundreds to dozens. Of course the stretch of publicly funded beach should never have been restricted to the private use of a beach club to begin with.

IV. A rock seawall built on top of the nourished beach protects the aforementioned new Renaissance condo development. The wall is constructed of startlingly small cobbles and boulders that will certainly be scattered on the recreational beach after the first significant storm. Poor beach quality such as this upcoming problem in front of the condo is increasingly a national problem because no one minds the store and enforces agreements once funding for the beach has been received, or after the beach is in place. The recently emplaced poor quality beaches on Pine Knoll Shores and Oak Island, North Carolina (discussed earlier in this dialog) are examples of this. In both cases, Colonel Deloney, the Wilmington District colonel, declared both beaches to be just fine, an example of flawed Corps oversight.

V. Adverse environmental impact of beach nourishment was said to be negligible, based on a New Jersey study. At several northern New Jersey locations I observed beach scraping or raking and saw evidence of beach shaping by bulldozing. I believe this happens on many if not most artificial beaches. This isn't considered in impact studies. If there is such concern about environmental impact expressed by the Corps and nourished beach supporters, why aren't steps taken to preserve beach fauna after beach emplacement?

VI. Not all is rosy regarding recreational activities on nourished beaches. Beach nourishment limits certain recreational opportunities. On the northern New Jersey project, more than half of the surf breaks valued by surfers have been lost through the nourishment process. On the other hand, there is no doubt that a number of recreational, economic, and storm protection benefits accrue from beach nourishment. But a price is paid. The decision to nourish a beach must be taken in a long range and long distance context. We must go for the response that will preserve the beaches for our great-grandchildren and for their children as well. There is evidence that if we take the wrong steps today, we could lose the beaches forever as they become piles of rock on top of lifeless piles of sand.

Finally, beach nourishment is highly political. It is perfectly evident that communities that get there firstest with the mostest and the loudest voices and best lobbyists bring home the funding. Sound regional planning is non-existent in such a system. The nourishment plan for most states is to extract all the federal nourishment money they can.

Lobbyists such as Mr. Marlowe and organizations such as the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association are driving the politics behind this state of affairs. They will get funding for beaches any way they can. The public needs are expressed foremost in their lobbying efforts (the beaches are "inexpensive coastal parks" etc.) but are hindmost in actual results of nourishment projects. Protests to the contrary ring hollow in the face of recent nourishment experience, bits of which are summarized above. Even the sea level rise is downplayed, but if it does happen to continue to rise, as the vast majority of scientists believe, we'll let the next generation worry about it

Pro-nourishment groups including the ASBPA are even trying to abolish government oversight by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, especially the New York and North Carolina offices that are considered too zealous in their oversight efforts. If they succeed, only the Corps of Engineers will represent the public's interests, but the Corps is a large part of the problem. This is a "take no prisoners" process. If they have their way the beachfront property owners will rule the beach world, science will disappear as will environmental concerns, greed and shortsightedness will prevail, and our great-grandchildren will be the losers.

We've said it all, in this series of replies to replies to replies. We're happy to have had the opportunity to present the case and we are pleased with the case we've made which, in the space provided, is necessarily a superficial one.

The most important conclusion from all of this should be obvious. A strong and broad-based societal beach nourishment dialog at all levels is needed and needed quickly. If we are to nourish our beaches, our society must be aware of the consequences. We must escape the propaganda machine of those who promote nourishment for financial gain.

The societal madness that drives people to build mansions adjacent to a retreating shoreline must not be encouraged and rewarded. Our beaches should not become the playgrounds of engineers.

Perspective > Critique > Response > Conclusion