![[Skip Navigation]](/images/pixel.gif){kind=tracking}
|
Beach Nourishment: A Guide for Local Government Officials
Beach Nourishment: It's a Good Investment - ResponseHome > Perspective > Critique > Response > Conclusion by Howard Marlowe For an individual who so expresses frequent disdain for the "politically-savvy," Dr. Pilkey and his partner Mr. Coburn certainly demonstrate a talent for obfuscation worthy of the most misleading demagoguery. Their second installment in this series contained so many semantic word games, out of context quotations, misrepresentations, and baseless accusations that it could make the most seasoned criminal defense attorney blush. Additionally, instead of engaging in debate over the worth of opinions differing from their own, they dismiss out of hand any scientific study or economic analysis that differs from their own reasoning. Apparently in their view, all research that does not agree with their hypothesis is faulty, biased, or conducted by untrustworthy individuals. Dr. Pilkey and Mr. Coburn open their paper with a page-long apocalyptic, and often disjointed, tirade concerning the dangers of global warming. They predict that if we do not heed their warnings that "farmers will continue to farm the same crops," and "fisherman, fur trappers, and…residents of the Mississippi Delta will continue their activities as always." They go on to claim that global warming will cause a massive sea level rise that renders beach restoration a fruitless task. What science tells us is that both sea level increases and lowering will happen with natural fluctuations in the world's climate in the coming millennia. There is no solid data that sea level has risen at an accelerated rate during the 20th century. It is not appropriate to interpret short term fluctuations as a trend. Additionally, the short term fluctuations do not suggest an accelerated sea level rise. The issue of time scale is important here. If we were to be immobilized over concern about what may happen several thousand years from now, then we would do nothing. The appropriate time scales for this debate, however, are human time scales. If we can stabilize a shoreline economically for several lifetimes, then the economic benefits and social values will have been worthwhile. In the department of unsupportable assertions, Pilkey-Coburn claim there would be no erosion problem if there were no houses along the beach. This rhetorical skullduggery is further compounded by their purposeful misrepresentation of my words to make it appear that I agree with them. This is a perfect example of them distorting my arguments because they have none of their own to make. The exact paragraph of Dr. Pilkey and Mr. Coburn's paper reads:
If we look back to the sentence out of the first installment in this series from which they selectively borrowed, we see that my actual words are:
It is obvious from the original context that I did not support their contention at all. In fact, I strongly disagree with it. Let me state it explicitly one more time: Homes do NOT cause erosion. Even if there were no homes along the beach, the coastline would erode, and this erosion would cause a problem. The individuals who reside along the coastline are only a very small percentage of people who use the beach. We know that beaches are the number one tourist destination in America. They are inexpensive, beautiful coastal parks that Americans of every economic stratum can enjoy. In addition, they are a major economic engine for our national economy. Domestic and foreign tourists pump over $80 billion each year in direct tax revenue into the federal coffers. Erosion of our beaches has a negative impact on the tourism industry. If we allow them to continue to erode, we will lose both foreign and domestic tourists to nations that take a more active role in restoring their beaches. In fact, studies already show that we are beginning to lose Japanese beach tourists to Australia, and Europeans to Spain. Loss of this foreign importation of tourism dollars is a significant blow to the American economy. Pilkey and Coburn next go on to attack my statement that a good deal of coastal erosion is caused by federal projects built along the coastline. They claim this is not necessarily true because erosion also occurs along seashores where there is no federal intervention. I agree that it certainly does in some cases. However, we know that as we built ports, navigation channels, and jetties along the shore we interrupted the natural flow of sand and caused significant erosion along adjacent beaches. Beach restoration is a tool to restore these beaches to a condition that approximates what they would have looked like had we not altered the natural flow of sand. If it is proven that a federal project is the primary cause of erosion on a beach, it makes sense that the federal government should be primarily responsible for repairing the damage. Dr. Pilkey and Mr. Coburn disagree. They state that in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence, not to mention common sense, they are skeptical that these projects cause erosion. They go on to say that, if any erosion is occurring it is once again the fault of the people who live along the water, most of whom own boats that require dredged navigation channels so the boats can access the ocean. (I fully expect to see this sentence taken completely out of context and used against me, something like: "Mr. Marlowe agrees that beach erosion is "the fault of the people who live along the water.") This is a completely baseless claim. Pilkey and Coburn have no statistics to prove that most dredging occurs to satisfy ocean front property owners with boats. They do not because the fact is that most port and channel dredging is done to (a) allow commercial ships in and out of ports in order to conduct commercial trade (fishing, imports, and exports); (b) remove dangerous navigation hazards and make water-borne transportation and recreation safer for everyone; and (c) allow for better access for Coast Guard, Navy, and law enforcement vessels in order to improve our national security. These are all legitimate, necessary actions for the federal government to undertake. After taking some non sequitur shots at the apparent lack of coastal engineering knowledge of the people of the Republic of Kazakhstan (I, too, am baffled by this), Pilkey and Coburn move on to the issue of retreat versus beach restoration. In my previous paper, I laid out my reasoning why we should not adopt Dr. Pilkey's long-term, do-nothing strategy of simply allowing buildings to fall into the ocean and continually retreating from the eroding coastline. I will not repeat all of the reasons I offered, but one of these was the compelling economics of beach renourishment. Beach retreat is more costly than beach restoration. As an example, I cited a study that showed the costs of beach retreat versus beach restoration in the state of Delaware. Over the next 50 years, it would cost Delaware $291 million to retreat from the eroding coastline, but only $60 million to maintain its current shoreline through nourishment. Pilkey and Coburn dismiss these facts as "based entirely on a faulty economic study," and cite their own data, which according to them indicates the costs of nourishment as $800 million during this period. My data comes from a published, peer reviewed article that has been presented at at least two coastal conferences that I and hundreds of others attended. I cited this article using a footnote so that it could be checked. Pilkey and Coburn simply insert a figure with the only reference being that it is "our own data." What data? Where did it come from? Where did they present it? Why do they not offer any citations so that other interested parties can research their sources and draw their own conclusions? Pilkey and Coburn next attack my belief that individuals should not be penalized because they choose to live along the coast. It is no more dangerous to live by the water than it is to live inland. They, of course, disagree. They argue that we would be safer if we relocated homes inland away from the ocean. There is risk from hurricanes and storms living along the coast; this is a simple fact. There is a risk of flooding along rivers, of tornadoes in the Midwest, of earthquakes along the West Coast, etc. No matter where we choose to live, there is always some risk from natural phenomena. Pilkey and Coburn state that there is a higher probability of damage along the ocean, but this too is incorrect. A simple analysis of damage payments from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) shows that victims of riverine flooding receive more money each year than victims of coastal flooding. At the same time, coastal residents pay more in premiums than riverine residents, essentially subsidizing the program for people who live along rivers. A major purpose of beach restoration is storm damage reduction. Dr. Pilkey and Mr. Coburn manage to agree with me that a restored beach does provide greater storm damage mitigation value than an eroded one, though they try to minimize that value. In my previous paper, I cited a study of the effects of Hurricane Fran along the North Carolina coast. It showed the effects of the storm on six communities along the coast, some with and some without shore protection projects in place. It clearly showed that beach restoration projects provide significant protection from storm damage in the communities where they were in place, saving millions of dollars in disaster relief payments. To this, Pilkey and Coburn say: "The study referenced by Mr. Marlowe regarding the impacts of Hurricane Fran on North Carolina…compares islands that got direct hits to those that didn't, and as a result, may have overestimated the benefits attributed to nourishment." They should have read the report more carefully, because they have their facts wrong. The communities WITH the beach restoration projects got hit by the storms the hardest, while the communities WITHOUT projects in place received less severe storm conditions. To quote from the report:
If anything, the benefits of beach restoration are UNDERestimated. The next target of Dr. Pilkey and Mr. Coburn is public access. It is a matter of law that all beaches that receive funding through the federal shore protection program have significant public access. This means that the beach is open to the public; there is adequate parking, and easy access to the beach. Pilkey and Coburn provide anecdotal evidence of a few places around the country where they do not feel there is enough public access. For example, they state: "In Westhampton Dunes, along the south shore of Long Island, oceanfront property owners are now suing to prohibit access to the nourished beach." Once again, they should have read more carefully. It is the Fish and Wildlife Service that has quarantined almost 95 percent of the beach from any human use, public or private. The residents are taking the government to court to fight for access. The FWS is now subject to a contempt of court hearing for violating its portion of the consent agreement in the Rapf v Suffolk County decision. Why has the FWS blocked access to the beach? Because following the nourishment of Westhampton Dunes, the endangered piping plover flocked there in huge numbers to build nests on the wide, sandy beach. While the FWS's action is certainly an overreaction, this is just an example of the next topic: How beach restoration helps the environment. Pilkey and Coburn also make a claim that the Department of Agriculture recently paid to nourish the beach at Pine Knoll Shores, North Carolina, and this site has no public access. To be clear, the nourishment was paid for by a loan from the Department of Agriculture, which will be repaid with interest entirely with local funds. Additionally, the construction of public access is part of the project and will be implemented shortly. Pine Knoll Shores has already designated five sites for the construction of parking lots and public access points; these areas will be completed in the very near future so that everyone may enjoy this newly restored beach. Finally, Dr. Pilkey and Mr. Coburn attack the environmental benefits of beach restoration. Again, they dismiss the evidence that I cite, which was a long term study of the largest beach nourishment project in the world. It found that beach restoration projects had no long-term negative impact on the environment. They dismiss the finding of this study as biased and not applicable to the rest of the nation. They dismiss a second study that finds that beach restoration benefits piping plover, sea turtles, least terns, and horseshoe crabs by creating additional habitat. The Westhampton Dunes example is a clear indicator that this study has merit. They go on to use Oak Island, North Carolina as an example of an area where the environment was harmed by beach restoration. They make ridiculous claims about giant scarps, moats, and mountains of marl. Did these features exist? Yes, but only while the construction was in progress. The completed project has no moat, a wide, soft and sandy beach that has become a prime nesting area for sea turtles, and no treacherous scarps or mounds of anything. Their claim is equivalent to visiting the construction site for a house just as the foundation is being dug and criticizing it for being just a big hole in the ground. The Pilkey-Coburn duo takes a slash and burn approach to arguing against beach nourishment. They draw broad generalizations from individual cases and anecdotal examples, and then apply them to any and every beach nourishment project they can find. We agree that not all beaches should be nourished, but not all beaches should be abandoned either. The decision of whether or not to nourish should be made on a case by case basis depending on the unique economic and physical factors associated with the beach under consideration. To attempt to develop a blanket policy relating to the stewardship of all beaches is simply inappropriate. In the end, Dr. Pilkey and Mr. Coburn argue that by definition, any beach "by its very nature of being nourished, is an unhealthy beach." They could not be more wrong. An unhealthy beach is an eroded beach that is not nourished. Eroded beaches are rocky, narrow strips of sand of little recreational or environmental benefit. Can a bird or a turtle built a nest on a thin beach that is completely submerged during high tide? Can a family enjoy the ocean on a thin strip of mud? Will tourists continue to supply much needed dollars to our national economy to visit these beaches? The answer is no. A healthy beach is a wide, sandy beach that provides habitat for wildlife, recreation for humans, and storm damage protection for infrastructure. Everything requires occasional maintenance and repair to remain in optimal condition. Beach restoration is a method of repairing damage, much of which is caused by humans, to our beaches. It makes sense, and it is definitely worth the investment. Perspective > Critique > Response > Conclusion |
