Coastal Services Center

---

Beach Nourishment: It's a Good Investment - Conclusion

---

Home > Perspective > Critique > Response > Conclusion

by Howard Marlowe

Let me first say that I have thoroughly enjoyed this series of paper debates on the value of beach restoration. While my opinion is obviously vastly different from that of Mr. Coburn and Dr. Pilkey, the open exchange of ideas and beliefs is beneficial to us all. I hope that readers of this series find it to be a helpful tool in forming conclusions as to the worth and future of beach restoration in the United States. However, I caution such individuals not to limit their search for knowledge to this series alone. Please consider the value of beach restoration from a wide variety of viewpoints and through several paradigms. Good public policy must be the culmination of a plethora of different perspectives, each adding its own piece to the puzzle.

In this paper, I will review the four most important questions regarding beach restoration as the program exists in our nation today. This will serve as an overview of the arguments I have presented, as well as providing by conclusions for the future of beach restoration in the United States.

What Causes Beach Erosion?

The causes of beach erosion are vast and varied. Many of the complex geological and oceanic processes responsible for erosion are still being studied to gain a fuller understanding of them. While these natural phenomena cause erosion, other significant causes of erosion are not natural. Since we settled in the New World, we have been actively changing the profile of our coastline. Today, our coasts are lined with ports, inlets, and navigation channels. Most of these were constructed by the federal government. While these structures provide vital commercial and military functions, they are also a major cause of erosion. They interrupt the natural flow of sand along the shoreline, effectively starving adjacent beaches of sand. If these manmade structures were not present, then the natural flow of sand would continue, and the beaches would not erode. In these cases, beach restoration is an important tool for restoring the beach to a healthy state. Obviously, removing all of the ports and channels is not an option, nor should it be. Instead, beach restoration projects are used to mitigate and reverse the damage caused by these sand interruptions. And since the federal government is most often the cause of this erosion, it makes sense that the current cost-share formula for beach restoration has a 65 percent - 35 percent federal/non-federal cost share ratio.

What we know does NOT cause beach erosion is the presence of homes and buildings along the coast. While Dr. Pilkey and Mr. Coburn often used confusing rhetoric and syntax to imply that these structures caused erosion, when pressed on this issue they finally relented and admitted that structures did NOT cause erosion. They continue to assert that homes and buildings along the coast create an erosion problem, stating that if there were no buildings then there would be no need for beach restoration. I wholeheartedly disagree, as the economic, environmental, and recreational benefits still justify beach restoration, even in the absence of a developed shoreline. This point will be addressed later in this paper.

Who Benefits from Beach Restoration?

In order to answer this question, it is necessary to note that there are three types of benefits associated with beach restoration: recreational, environmental, and economic.

The recreational benefits of beach restoration are available to everyone. A narrow, rocky eroded beach is not a place where we can happily recreate. Wide, sandy restored beaches are far more suitable places for us to enjoy the beauty of the beach and of the ocean. Beaches are one of the most cost-effective, enjoyable forms of natural recreation our nation possesses. Because restored beaches must not only be open to the public, but also meet rigorous public access standards, including adequate parking and sufficient entrances, the recreational benefits of beach restoration are available to anyone who wants them. One can enjoy an entire day of recreation at the beach for less than the cost of a movie ticket. Perhaps this is why more people visit the nation's three most popular beaches than the entire National Park System each year.

The environmental benefits of beach restoration are extremely important to the continued viability of several endangered species. Studies have shown that beach restoration does no long-term damage to the environment. In fact, we know that beach restoration is extremely beneficial to several endangered species, such as piping plovers, sea turtles, and least terns. Beach restoration projects turn narrow, eroded beaches into wide, sandy breeding grounds for these species. Consider, for example, the nesting habits of the endangered piping plover. Plovers construct their nests and lay their eggs directly on the beach. If the beach is so narrow that it is entirely submerged at high tide, plovers cannot construct nests there. The same holds true for sea turtles. Beach restoration projects benefit these endangered species by providing vital habitat and nesting areas. The fact is that beach restoration helps endangered species to survive and to procreate. In previous installments, the case-specific environmental benefits of beach restoration were discussed. While it would be redundant to repeat them now, I urge you to refer to them to see the dramatic environmental benefit beach restoration provides on a case-by-case basis.

Perhaps most widely discussed are the economic benefits of beach restoration. Beach restoration opponents often argue that the economic benefits are primarily local, and that restoration projects amount to little more than a subsidy for those who live along the shoreline. As I hope was proved in the three previous installments, this is entirely untrue. Two thirds of the economic benefits of beach restoration go to the federal government. Tourism is the number one industry in the United States, and beaches are the number one tourist destination. Each year the federal coffers receive $80 billion in tax revenue from beach tourists, yet the federal government spent only $135 million on beach restoration in Fiscal Year 2002. That is a huge return on the investment for the federal taxpayer, and a massive boost to the national economy.

The second major economic benefit of beach restoration projects is storm damage mitigation. Wide, sandy beaches with healthy dune systems are important tools for protecting infrastructure and human lives from hurricanes and storm surges. A restored beach can drastically reduce the amount of damage incurred during major storm events. This saves the federal taxpayer millions in expenses from disaster relief and flood insurance payments. For example, a recent study of the North Carolina shore showed that during Hurricane Fran, communities with beach restoration projects sustained substantially less damage than those without. The restoration projects in place saved federal taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

Is Beach Restoration Cost Effective?

Beach restoration is a cost effective means of combating coastal erosion. I have already addressed its cost effectiveness in terms of tax revenue and storm damage mitigation. There is no question that with respect to these two topics, beach restoration is very cost effective. However, what remains to be addressed is how beach restoration compares to the cost of other strategies for dealing with coastal erosion.

The main alternative proposed by Dr. Pilkey and Mr. Coburn is that of "retreat." Under this strategy, we would simply move back as the shoreline eroded. Buildings along the shore would be demolished, relocated, or simply allowed to fall into the ocean. If the ocean continued to advance, we would continue to move back. In the end, they claim, this is a far less costly option that nourishing beaches. Scientific studies, however, show otherwise. A recent study of the Delaware shoreline compared the costs of retreat versus restoration over the next 50 years. It determined that cost of retreat (such as demolishing or relocated existing buildings and infrastructure) over that period to be $291 million. Over that same period, it would cost only $60 million, nearly five times less, to nourish the beaches and maintain the existing shoreline.

What Is The Future of Beach Restoration?

Congress has already begun the appropriations process for Fiscal Year 2003. Despite the protests of Dr. Pilkey and others, it has once again funded beach restoration at over $100 million. Congress realizes the benefits of beach restoration and that continued nourishment of our beaches is good public policy. Dr. Pilkey and Mr. Coburn claim that beach restoration is a failed policy because global warming and rising sea levels will continue to erode the shore at an increasing rate over the next several generations. While I do not believe there is conclusive evidence of continued sea level rise, this point is still irrelevant. Public policy must be crafted to deal with a manageable time frame. We cannot expect our government to create policy far beyond fifty years in the future. We simply cannot adequately anticipate what will occur.

Over the next fifty years, continued beach restoration is a viable, cost effective method for restoring eroded beaches. Will there come a time when the sea levels rises so rapidly that beach restoration becomes too expensive or ineffective to be implemented? We simply do not know. If such a time does come, then we certainly must explore alternative means to combating erosion. However, for our foreseeable future, beach restoration is the most efficient and effective means of restoring our coastline.

Conclusion

The ultimate goal of this series is to discuss whether beach restoration is worth the investment of federal taxpayer dollars. So far we have learned that a great deal of beach erosion is the result of human action and can be repaired so that it provides the unmatched public recreational, storm damage reduction, and environmental benefits that distinguish the thousands of miles of American coastline. We have learned that these recreational, economic, and environmental benefits are tangible. However, they cannot be taken for granted. The coast is a resource that requires management. We have learned that beach restoration is a cost-effective method for dealing with coastal erosion, certainly less expensive than a policy of retreat. And finally, we have learned that beach restoration projects will remain a viable tool over the next several decades. With all of these facts, we can finally answer the question: Is beach restoration worth the investment? The answer is yes.

Perspective > Critique > Response > Conclusion