NY Times Article on Beach Erosion

[DBOldford]

In the Science Times section of Tuesday's NY Times, there is an excellent in-depth article on beach erosion entitled, "Next Victim of Warming: The Beaches." A number of subjects are discussed, including seawalls. Here's a quote from the article:

"Maintaining eroding beaches with artificial infusions of sand is difficult and costly, and as sea levels rise, it may become economically impractical or even impossible. "The combination of sea walls and rising sea level will accelerate the rate of land loss in front of those sea walls," said Peter Howd, an oceanographer who conducts shoreline research for the U.S. Geological Survey in St. Petersburg. "So people with a sea wall and a beach in front of it will end up with just a sea wall. In time, rising water meets the wall and drowns the beach. Meanwhile, storm waves scour the wall's base and erode the underwater beach slope. Eventually the sea wall collapses because the situation is so extreme."

We are exacerbating the problem of beach erosion with sea walls as we armor our beautiful beaches. Not to mention the adverse impacts to diverse sea life. I have a mental image of a sea turtle trying to get ashore to lay eggs, along a line of these sea walls...not pretty. If you've ever watched a turtle's forward locomotion, you know that going around is not their best thing. Then there is the subject of our seabirds.

 

[BeachSiO2]

Just keep in mind when you read this article, and ones like it, that the underlying point of view is that areas like sowal should be totally abandoned and all of us should leave these areas and move north. How far north is anyone's guess. What does everyone think- are we ready to leave Sowal and move to Freeport or Bruce?

 

[DBOldford]

There is no such "underlying point of view" from these two beach homeowners and I doubt from the scientists quoted in this article. There are solutions available that do not involve seawalls, however. If you are a person who rejects science for ideological or economic reasons, that is one point of view. But the beaches of South Walton have existed and renourished themselves after storms for many years without the necessity of armouring the coastline. This is just a very sad result of people feeling that they should be able to build right down to the water's edge, as opposed to having a reasonable setback as has historically existed on our beaches.

I sympathize with people who are at risk of their homes' foundations being undermined by beach erosion, that they are acting to protect a considerable investment or asset. But we are all going to have a frontrow seat to see how ineffective and even endangering sea walls are if there is a significant storm event in our area or merely a series of lesser tropical storm events again. Much of the damage along the Mississippi and Louisianna coastlines was attributable to the battering effect of those floating casino barges. Wait until you see what happens when sea walls are undermined. I hope we don't ever witness this, but the odds are not favorable to that.

 

[aquaticbiology]

yeah - those dang barges broke the big tree next to my house almost 300 miles away from the coast!

blame it on anything but the truth

i predict:

there will be a new housing slump as interest rates climb and new construction starts slow

pre-sold-out condos stopping production at a big hole in the ground to wait forever for 'more profitable times' to resume construction

the beaches deteriorate even further and the damaged seawall debris drives tourists away from the built-on beaches

a market glut of furnished rentals increases as tourists begin to stop north of the coast, taking hourly shuttles to the pristine park beaches, staying at the big water parks with included-in-the-price stocked lakes, golf courses and fake beaches, close to huge shopping centers, and large hotel-anchored strip malls of upscale retail stores and resturants a'la hilton head

your membership to the badly damaged beach club was more than the current resale value of both your damaged house and half-gone lot combined

i hope i'm wrong, but what if i'm right?

 

[BeachSiO2]

Actually, I wasn't referring to the sea wall discussion at all. I agree completely with the observations that sea walls will have a negative impact on the existing beach.
My main point is that the typical belief is that beach restoration will not be affordable so that sea walls are inevitable. Taking that logic then neither sea walls or beach restoration should be done. I also agree that left to their own devices, beaches will retain a certain shape as sea level rises resulting in landward recession (see the Bruun rule). This led to my last statement. How far north are we willing to go? Keep in mind that sowal is very low in elevation especially on the bay side. Therefore, maybe the first thing we need to decide is how much north of 98 do we lose before we leave sowal. The other places that would be most hardly hit are around the dune lakes, so is everyone ready to abandon Grayton??

As for the scientists in the article, Orrin Pilkey has stated that the most preferred optin will always be retreat, or abandonment of coastal areas and Cornelia Dean was a student of his I think.