Grinshpun
1
In our country we have nearly 80,000 miles of coast line and a great deal of
money invested in our beaches. Besides money being an issue, we as a society love the
beach and love to take advantage of the many beaches our country houses, this is just
what we are accustomed to and will expect our country to maintain. The problem then
becomes, coastal erosion and the question is what can be done to protect our precious
beaches. Due to a great deal of development on these coastal areas, the entire United
States faces erosion problems (Michaels 2001). To help you better see what the
condition of the U.S. coast is as of now is Figure 1, which highlights those areas that face
great erosion problems.
Figure 1
Looking into this graphical representation of the U.S. coast it is easy to see that a
very high percentage of the American population resides at or near one of the coasts.
Preserving beaches is a very costly endeavor and there have been many debates over
which way this country should go about doing so. On the east coast the current strategy
is, “beach nourishment programs”, whereby sand is taken from available sources and put
Grinshpun
2
back onto the eroded beach (Michaels, 01). In 1999 the United States government spent
about $150 million on beach nourishment programs, state and local governments along
with those who own their own beach property spend even more on such projects
(Michaels, 01). Recently, however, the amount reserved for these projects in the national
budget has been decreasing. The problem with the beach nourishment programs is that
they are very short term and too costly, resulting in beaches which are still being eroded
and a what seems to many, as a waste of taxpayer dollars. So we have a high demand for
beach use and a low willing- ness to supply funds to preserve the same beach. The forces
of man and nature have created a coastal erosion headache for millions of residents in the
U.S.
As is the case with many environmental problems, nature and man have combined
forces to create a coastal erosion problem (Michaels, 01). Development along the coast
line has contributed greatly to erosion and has done so in several different ways. Some
property owners have totally demolished coastal dunes in an attempt to provide better
views of the ocean for the properties they build, and along with that have also completely
destroyed natural vegetation in order to construct jetties or other manmade devices to
improve ocean access for their property (Michaels, 01). Man, however, is not the only
cause of erosion and in fact over the long term it is nature which is mostly responsible for
beach erosion. There are several factors of nature that affect erosion such as: 1. sea level
2. sediment availability 3. ocean currents 4. weather. Nature is the final deciding factor
of which ocean property will survive and which will be wiped away. “The ocean
differentiates little between its treatment of sand castles built on the beach by children,
and the bigger vacation castles built by their parents on or behind the sand
Grinshpun
3
dunes.”(Michaels, 01) So the question is what can be done in order to save the billions of
dollars invested in American beaches or should we just cut our losses and stop attempting
to develop on these lands, concentrating on only recreational beach use as opposed to
developmental use.
Lets first look at the dangers of building on the beachfront. A new report
released by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2000) states that in the
next 60 years, nearly 87,000 houses and other buildings will be destroyed by erosion on
the U.S. coast (Ward 2001). Nearly a quarter of the buildings built within 500 feet of the
coast are in danger, the most severe danger being in the Gulf Coast and Atlantic areas
(60% of all expected erosion in these areas). The FEMA director, James L. Witt, claims
that if all current trends stay on course, “more than 1500 homes a year will be lost to
coastal erosion.” The total cost, in economic terms, will be somewhere near $500 million
per year, and only $80 million of it will be covered by federal flood insurance (Ward,
01). The problem is that when the Flood Insurance Program was set up (in 1968), it did
not include provisions for erosion damage. Witt called for other states to follow the lead
of North Carolina, which has “already established setback requirements for any new
housing on the coast” (Ward, 01). These setback rules require the structure being built to
stand a certain (predetermined) distance from the water. There are also two alarming
factors in the FEMA report that are deserving of some attention. First is the fact that
climate experts report that the nation is currently in the “middle of a period of heavy
hurricane activity” (Ward, 01) and is expected to last for at least a few more years. The
second factor is that the nation is in the “middle of a period of heavy coastal relocation”
(Ward, 01). In fact, FEMA estimates that on average nearly 3600 people move to the
Grinshpun
4
coast per day (27 million people in the next 15 years). To deal with the insurance costs
the John H. Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment conducted a
study under contract with FEMA (Ward, 01). The study recommended for FEMA to
create “erosion hazard maps” for areas along the coast and to factor in the cost of
“expected erosion” when they determine the new insurance rates.
According to Cornelia Dean, writer of “Against the Tide: The Battle of America’s
Beaches”, scientists now estimate that 70%-90% of all U.S. beaches are eroding
(Johnson, 2000). Coastal erosion follows a “predictable pattern” of people developing
homes and businesses too close to the shore. The next step in the “pattern” is the factor
of time bringing in the inevitable storms and here is where the final step occurs, we
protect the beachfront houses and hotels instead of the beach. We attempt to hold back
the sea so that we can save the buildings, but these attempts only damage the coastline
along with the fact that they are costly and “ultimately futile” (Johnson, 00). This is a
“pattern” that will have no end unless something is done concerning the property rights of
those who own beachfront property. Meaning that the only option we have in the hopes
of controlling future development on our coasts is through private property rights, which
we will discuss later.
Most of the communities with beaches have had a number of options in dealing
with beach erosion, most of these solutions fall into two categories: hard solutions and
soft solutions (Isaacs, 2000). The “hard” include things such as groins, seawalls, and
breakwaters; the “soft” include beach nourishment, dune construction and property
retreat (Issacs, 00). The According to Dean, when we “armor” the coastline with hard
structures it results in a reduction of access to the beach along with the horrible views of
Grinshpun
5
concrete. Structures such as walls or breakwaters are very dangerous to swimmers,
underwater breakwaters only hamper navigation, and seawalls cause a great amount of
erosion along with the inevitable destruction of the habitat for many of the sea creatures
and birds. When such coastal engineering projects actually occur it creates a false sense
of security around the community, allowing for more development in that area (Johnson,
00). People feel that once the jetties or the seawalls are up, they are now safe from any
type of beach erosion when in reality it only creates a bigger problem. The main problem
with beaches is that sand moves all the time (Andrews, 1999). Bruce Rogers, planning
director of Sanibel, Florida, states that once you have built buildings or infrastructure,
“the beach may not be where you want it to be” (Johnson, 00). This means that coastal
development leads to unpredictable beach formations, which is why much of the East
coast is involved in beach nourishment projects. They build on the coast and the sand
goes somewhere else, so their solution is to just pick it up and bring it back to where they
think it ought to be (an oversimplified explanation but it does show the flaw in beach
nourishment thinking). Even though beach nourishment is the way beaches are generally
preserved on the east coast, there are many critics of the program (Isaacs, 00). Steven
Leatherman, director of the Laboratory for Coastal Research at the International
Hurricane Center, claims that, “Essentially, beach nourishment is treating the symptoms,
not curing the disease,” (Isaacs, 00). In places like Miami Beach people are also starting
to wonder if the beach nourishment project was the right thing for them to do. The
problem there is that they are running out of locally available sand deposits and are now
forced to look to the Bahamas for sand in order to continue their project (Isaacs, 00).
Grinshpun
6
Similar problems will start to appear on the East coast if the beach nourishment projects
continue, thus creating an even more expensive temporary solution.
The cost for such projects is enormous and the proper amount of governmental
support is not there for our beaches. In a press statement by Gregory Woodell, president
of the American Shore and Beach Association (ASBPA), he points out the disappointing
numbers from President Bush’s proposed budget for “fiscal year 2003”. Woodell points
out that only $73 million is being given to beach nourishment, this is 16% less than the
2002 numbers and almost 45.5% less than the numbers from 2001. The new budget
proposal shows that coastal protection is a low budget priority to Bush’s administration,
even though they claimed it will not be (Woodell, 2002). Woodell sees this low level of
funding as a serious problem to the nation’s shores because if not enough money is
devoted to these projects they will be left “half-completed”, causing them to continue to
“erode at a faster rate”(Woodell, 02).
In 2000 the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) conducted a survey on
American beaches. Their numbers show a total of 1891 beaches for the year 2000 (a
35% increase from 1999 and a 50% increase from 1998), and breaking down the numbers
even more there were 1074 coastal beaches, 528 inland beaches, and 289 Great Lake
beaches. What is alarming about the increase in the total amount of beaches being
reported is that more and more of our beachfront property is becoming privately owned,
therefore dividing up the coastline between private owners. The problem with this is that
those who have private property rights (to beachfront property) usually opt to cash in on
that very profitable property. They build on these “unstable landforms”, and then attempt
to avoid the inevitable consequences of their actions (Dean, 1999). Through the help of
Grinshpun
7
“quick technological fixes” they try to hold back beach erosion. These can include:
concrete seawalls, artificial reefs, sand-trapping steel groins, jetties, underground
“dewatering” systems of pipes and pumps, etc. (Dean, 99). Even though these “technofixes” may prolong the life of a coastal building, it will in fact accelerate “erosion and
environmental degradation”, leading to taxpayers spending tens of millions of dollars to
“protect the property of those who knew they were building or buying in an unsafe place”
(Dean, 99). To some this may seem unfair, however, this has become common practice.
So what is to be done about our nation’s shoreline erosion problem? Well for
starters we can implement a plan of “retreat” for those areas, which are already
developed. When a structure becomes more of a burden than a benefit to either the
environment or the public we must be willing to remove, revamp, and demolish or
relocate major structures. A good way to determine whether this ought to be done is
through a simple cost benefit analysis. Determining how much revenue a certain building
brings into the community and measuring that up to the amount spent on protecting it
from erosion. If the building is “in the red” (Dean, 99), or in other words the costs
outweigh the benefits, then that building should be either demolished or if absolutely
necessary relocated. The policy of retreat that I am suggesting is not an all out retreat
policy, but instead a slow and steady solution for those places where the coastal area has
created a large and important commercial region, and one that cannot be easily changed.
We can use a variety of legal and economic tools to create a strategy that is fair to those
who own the land and those who wish to change the landscape. The choice of what type
of government regulation to use must be made with the full understanding of erosion
rates, the functions of primary and secondary dunes, the dynamics of barrier islands, the
Grinshpun
8
role of plant communities, volumes of sand supply, and the economic value of
development. In reality what is needed is a very precise study on the currently well
developed coastal areas in each stated, thus giving the government and idea of what kinds
of changes are necessary for the survival of these areas. This strategy is designed for
very developed to moderately developed areas, as for those areas in which there has been
none to minimal development I have a different suggestion.
In general terms economic theory states that public goods (common property resources)
are sometimes “used inefficiently because private users normally do not take into account
the social costs of their actions”(Rinehart and Pompe, 2001). Meaning that when
someone uses a public good or service they will abuse it because they do not have to pay
for it. Either they don’t care or don’t know about the negative secondary effects it will
have on society (someone will have to bear the cost). More than 50% of the U.S.
population now resides within 50 miles of a coastline (Rinehart, 01), and more arrive
each day. It is my belief that well defined and adequate property rights can lead to proper
use of our coastline. If we apply the “Coase Theorem” (coase theorem: if property rights
are securely in place and transaction costs are low, the market tends to automatically
work to resolve negative secondary effects) to coastal development we can see how this
can work. For areas not yet developed we have a fresh start and I propose using these
three aspects of development to ensure the proper use of the beachfront property: 1. deed
covenants to set environmental standards 2. property owners’ associations to enforce
compliance with the deed restrictions 3. community gates to control access to sensitive
resources (Rinehart, 01). If a certain piece of coastal property is sold to a land developer
who chooses to create a housing development on this property then I propose for that
Grinshpun
9
development to become a gated beachfront community. This will create a sense of
security and most gated communities set up their own homeowner’s associations in order
to enforce the covenants of their deeds. If you own property in such a community, which
will probably cost a great deal of money, you will not want to see anyone abusing their
property in a way that will depreciate the value of yours. The owner of the entire area
(beach community) will plan and develop it before any section is sold off to a
homeowner. This will allow for proper governmental regulation to establish
development rights that do not exceed the maximum level of development in that coastal
area, thus ensuring that beach erosion does not become an issue in the future.
Government regulation in coastal areas is costly due to the fact that many times when
there is a change in policy or regulation there is also heavy litigation following it along
with high legal expenses for both sides (Rinehart, 01) With the predetermined private
property rights and government regulations that have already been met by the land
developers of the community there will be none of the heavy litigation costs nor any
confusion about whether any more development can occur in a beachfront community.
With well-defined property rights in these areas, those who own property there will be
forced to pay if they do not comply with the predetermined regulations. Therefore, there
will be no abuse of the land because it will be privately owned and the private
landowners will be held responsible for their actions.
Grinshpun 10
Works Cited
Andrews, H. James. “Shifting sands, sliding land”. Planning. Chicago, June 1999.
Vol. 65, issue 6, pp.4-9.
Dean, Cornelia. “Against the Tide: The Battle for America’s Beaches”. Publishers
Weekly. New York, May 24, 1999. Vol. 246, issue 21, pp.55.
Issacs, Lindsay. “Shoring up the nation’s coastline”. The American City & County.
Pittsfield, September 2000. Vol. 115, issue 13, pp.56-61.
Johnson, Dan. “Beaches vs. Buildings”. The Futurist. Washington, February 2000.
Vol.34, issue 1, pp.8-9.
Michaels, A. Patricia. “Beach Erosion”. http://envirionment.about.com
Rinehart, R. James, Pompe, J. Jeffery. “Coastal development, environmental amenities,
And market forces: An application of economic theory”. Southern Business
Review. Statesboro, 2001. Vol.26, issue 2, pp.1-5.
Ward, Christina. (Staff Writer) “Coastal Erosion Could Take 1500 Homes a Year,
FEMA Says”. 2000. http://www.DisasterRelief.org. pp.1-5.
Woodell, Gregory. Press Statement 2002. http://www.calcoast.org.