Coastal Services Center

---

Beach Nourishment: It's a Good Investment - Perspective

---

Home > Perspective > Critique > Response > Conclusion

by Howard Marlowe

It is easy to understand why beaches are the most popular tourist destination in the United States, for American and foreign tourists alike. Almost everyone loves the beach: The soft white sand, the roar of the ocean, the warm sunshine, the laughing of children at play. Anyone who has seen the sun rise over the ocean, its soft red glow slowly emerging over the distant horizon, can attest to the fact that it is one of the most beautiful sights on Earth. And while their natural beauty is stunning, beaches contribute far more than aesthetic pleasure. They provide effective protection for public infrastructure and private homes against the ravages of wave-induced storm damage. In addition, beaches are powerful economic engines that tens of thousands of jobs depend on, and they create billions of dollars in tax revenue. They are also environmental havens, providing shelter and protection for a variety of beautiful and endangered species. And they are venues for affordable, enjoyable recreation for Americans of every economic class.

Despite all of the economic, environmental, and recreational benefits that beaches provide, there is debate over whether we should protect them or let them erode away into the ocean. Beach erosion is a serious problem. The causes of this erosion are complex, and continue to be studied in order to understand their full nature. However, it is already clear that a great deal of beach erosion is not due to natural causes. Human beings have altered the shoreline since we began development of the New World. We have built ports, harbors, ship channels, and inlets. These facilities alter the natural flow of sand along the shoreline and can in effect "starve" beaches of sand. The goal of beach restoration projects is to nourish beaches with the sand they need to remain healthy.

Beach nourishment works. Over the past five decades, dozens of beaches on the East and West Coasts have been nourished successfully. Nevertheless, there are some who oppose spending taxpayer dollars on the restoration of America's coastal parks. To understand their criticism, we must first examine the benefits our nation derives from its thousands of miles of sandy shoreline. From that base of knowledge and context, concerns of anti-nourishment advocates can be discussed.

The Value Of Beaches

Travel and tourism is America's largest industry, and beaches are the most popular tourist destination. Tourism supports 16.9 million jobs, that is one out of every eight workers in the United States. Beach tourism contributes billions of dollars to the national economy each year. While beach tourists' expenditures are important to the economic health of state and local governments, it is the federal government that benefits the most in terms of tax revenue. For example, the US Travel and Tourism Administration estimates that the federal government makes $2 billion annually from foreign beach tourists alone. Compare this to the $135 million the federal government spent on beach nourishment in Fiscal Year 2002. Then add the $14 billion dollars in federal taxes contributed just by California beach tourists, and the federal government is making $105 on each $1 expended. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The traditional economic benefit that is used in calculating the worth of beach nourishment is storm damage reduction. Beaches are important barriers that protect valuable infrastructure from damage caused by storms, waves, and flooding. A wide, sandy beach can go a long way in preventing catastrophic human and property loss in the event of coastal storms. A recent study of the North Carolina coast conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers supported this conclusion. It studied six coastal communities that were affected by Hurricane Fran. The study stated that the benefits of reduced property damages and federal recovery costs far exceed the cost of the beach nourishment projects.

In addition to their economic importance, beaches serve an important environmental function. Wide, sandy beaches are important to the health of numerous species. Endangered species such as sea turtles and piping plovers use beaches as important nesting and breeding grounds. They require a wide, natural beach; the thin strips of rocky sand that characterize eroded beaches are not useful to them. An equally important, but often overlooked, environmental function that beaches serve is as buffers that protect fragile natural areas, such as wetlands, from the sea. A prime example of this is a recent project undertaken by the Corps of Engineers in Cape May Point, New Jersey. Known as one of the most popular bird watching areas in the country, the Lower Cape May Meadows provide the only freshwater wetlands for migrating birds between Norfolk, Virginia and New York. These wetlands are supplied by a single freshwater spring, which was originally located safely several hundred feet inland. However, the completion of a federal navigation channel and accompanying groins to the north of Cape May Point has halted the natural flow of sand to the beach. This channel is vital, as it serves a Coast Guard base and is important for commercial shipping and fishing. As a result, the Cape May Point Beach has eroded over two hundred feet in the last fifty years, leaving the wetlands open to salt water intrusion by the sea. In fact, the dunes protecting the wetlands have been breached several times over the past decade. Experts have agreed that if these wetlands were lost, it would have a massive negative affect on birds all along the east coast. The Corps of Engineers is now hard at work restoring that beach.

Finally, beaches are an important place for recreation and relaxation for all Americans. Detractors of beach nourishment often focus on those individuals who live along the coastline, whom they try to portray (unfairly) as greedy, rich snobs, who want the beach entirely to themselves. The reality is that America's beaches are for everyone. Only beaches with public access are eligible for federal nourishment funding. These beaches provide affordable and enjoyable recreation opportunities to Americans of every economic stratum. On day trips to the beach, one can enjoy an entire day of pleasure for less than the cost of one movie ticket. Compare this with the cost of an amusement park or even a private museum. Nowhere is this truer than in our nation's urban beaches. Urban beaches, such as Rockaway in New York and Venice Beach in California, are accessible by public transportation and provide a low-price alternative to the relatively expensive activities in the cities. If the federal government does not partner with state and local governments to repair beach erosion, who will be hurt the most? The wealthy, be they beachfront property owners or vacationers, will suffer the least. They have choices from "self-help" (i.e., protecting their own property or choosing destinations in South America, Europe or Australia). Those middle- and lower-income Americans who make most of the two billion day trips to the beach each year are the ones who will suffer.

Addressing The Critics' Claims

One frequent argument made against beach nourishment is that it is a "subsidy for the rich." This claim is often followed with a statistic that takes the total cost of a project over fifty years, divides it by the total shorefront, homes and declares a subsidy for X dollars per home. For example, a $100 project covering an area of beach with twenty homes would be a $5 "subsidy" per home. These types of statistics are misleading. First, citing the number of residences along the shoreline is irrelevant. Only beaches with public access are eligible for federal nourishment. That means that the beach is open for everyone to use, not just the people who live there. Secondly, spending government funds to protect citizens and property from storms is a legitimate use of tax dollars. Living along the beach is no more dangerous than living in most other areas of the country. Each year the government spends $2.5 billion fighting and preventing forest fires, which occur mainly in sparsely populated rural areas. There has not been a major outcry against this "subsidy." The fact is that no matter where you live, there are dangerous natural disasters, be it earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires, or flooding. Saying we should not protect homeowners just because they live along the shore is equivalent to saying we should not help anticipate and rebuild after tornadoes in Kansas or earthquakes in California. Finally, we have already established that the federal government is the primary benefactor from beach tourism tax revenues. It follows that the federal government should take primary responsibility in maintaining the beaches.

Another frequent statement, and perhaps the most frustrating to deal with, is that "if there were no homes along the coasts, there would be no erosion problem." This is misleading and incorrect. It makes it sound like homes built along the beach cause erosion somehow. What it really means is that if no buildings were along the shore, then no one would care if the beach eroded. Either way, both statements are wrong. Everyone agrees that homes do not cause erosion. What does cause erosion is ports and harbors and navigation projects, the vast majority of which were built by the federal government. Which is why federal beach nourishment funds are necessary to restore the beach to its natural state.

It is often claimed that, if we had no structures along the beach, then it could erode and no one would be concerned. Stated in its most widely used format, this is a call for the retreat of people who live near the coast. Those who support retreat as the primary method of dealing with coastal erosion claim we should "let nature take its course" and just continue to move inland from encroaching ocean. Advocates of this approach are at least two hundred years behind the curve. The development of our coastline for waterborne commerce has eliminated almost all of what was once natural. Aside from this failure to face historic reality, this position has other critical weaknesses. First, it is far more costly to retreat from the erosion than it is to nourish the beach. For example, a recent study compared the cost of retreating from the Delaware coastline to the cost of maintaining it throughout the next fifty years. To retreat from the coast, we would have to move or destroy all homes, businesses and infrastructure as we move back. Property values, and therefore tax revenue, along the beach would also drop, as they would be subject to inevitable destruction or relocation. Overall, the study placed the cost of beach retreat in Delaware at $291 million. At the same time, Delaware could maintain its current beaches over the same fifty-year period for about $60 million, about 20 percent of the cost of retreat. Secondly, it is worth mentioning yet again that erosion is not a natural process. Most beach nourishment projects are designed to restore a beach after another man-made project has starved the beach of sand. Finally, and this is also repeated, eroded beaches do not have the same recreational and environmental benefits as nourished beaches.

Beach nourishment critics often resort to the unsubstantiated claim that it is harmful to the environment. A half-century of beach restoration project experience has provided no basis for this claim. In fact, nourishment is beneficial to the environment in many ways, from protecting fragile habitat to providing nesting grounds for endangered species. Also, the Corps of Engineers recently completed a study of the long-term environmental impacts of beach nourishment along the area of the New Jersey coast that was subjected to the largest nourishment project in the world. This study showed that none of the aspects of a beach restoration project, from dredging offshore sand to placing it on the beach, have significant negative impacts. Within two years, all forms of wildlife, from fish to plankton, have essentially recovered to their pre-project levels.

Finally, another argument raised against beach restoration projects is that they are simply throwing sand and money into the water. Why pay to put sand on the beach if it is going to erode again? The reality is that no engineered project is without continuing maintenance costs. Buildings, bridges, roads, dams, and everything else built by humans need continual upkeep. Restored beaches are no exception. Periodic renourishment of restored beaches ensures that they remain in a healthy, useful state.

Conclusion

Beach nourishment is well worth the cost. The economic, environmental, and recreational benefits derived from the relatively small annual cost of nourishment projects far outweigh their cost. Moreover, it is appropriate that the federal government continue its primary role in beach restoration, as it is the primary recipient of the benefits that beaches produce. All Americans are well served by a shore protection policy that will continue to protect and restore our nation's beautiful beaches.

Perspective > Critique > Response > Conclusion