Who should be on the beach?
Coastal geologist Orrin Pilkey on coastal development.
Orrin Pilkey – an expert in shorelines and coastal geology – is critical of the large–scale development occuring along the world’s coastlines. Pilkey is the James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of Geology at Duke University. His studies focus primarily on barrier island coasts. Earth & Sky’s Abby Frank spoke to him in September, 2005.
Frank: People like beaches. Nearly everyone I know would love to have a home on a beach, or at least visit a beach occasionally. But you seem to be saying that more people coming as tourists to beaches, and more development of beach–front properties, is increasing the magnitude of natural disasters along coastlines.
Pilkey: I think what is increasing the potential magnitude of the natural disasters is simply the crowding of the beaches, and the average density of individual buildings.
For example, we’ve seen in North and South Carolina that houses start out as rather inexpensive family beach cottages. These have tended to be replaced by million–dollar homes that are quite a bit bigger. Eventually, the tendency is for them to go to high rises or multi–family buildings. It’s all leading up to what we call “New Jerseyization” of the beach, where you have a beach such as in Atlantic City.
Each one of these steps produces a larger number of people who are in danger from the next storm. It leads to a larger amount of property that’s in danger. And it increases the difficulty of escaping from a coastal area before a storm hits.
So, it’s a very serious national problem.
Frank: Is there any kind of beachfront development that is less dangerous? Should the buildings be set back from the shore? I’m asking in light of the fact that sea level is known to be rising.
Pilkey: Setting buildings back from the shore doesn’t really solve the problem. Setback just puts off the problem, passes it on to another generation.
I think that the best way to go, the safest way to go, if you must develop next to a beach, you should only allow small buildings. They can be moved or demolished or be allowed to fall in as the shoreline moves back.
Suppose you tried to halt all shoreline erosion along our east and Gulf coast shorelines. This is called “beach nourishment.” You couldn’t do it. Eventually, it would create an economic impossibility, especially in a time of rising sea level. That’s what’s happening now. We have the sea levels rising a foot to a foot–and–a–half per year along much of the eastern Gulf Coast. It’s a lot more than that, by the way, in Louisiana.
Frank: Focusing on the Katrina disaster for a moment, what are some environmental considerations that people in New Orleans should keep in mind as they rebuild?
Pilkey: They should keep in mind that the storm that hit is going to hit again and the dikes will fail again. I don’t know if it’s going to be 50 years from now or whether it’s going to be a year from now.
I think they should keep in mind that the storms are intensifying because of the global warming problem. My solution for New Orleans, if they are going to go back, is that they try to elevate the buildings, just like the citizens of Galveston, Texas did in 1900 after 6,000 people were killed there in the Galveston hurricane.
As far as the open ocean coast of Mississippi is concerned, we have such utter devastation. This is the same utter devastation that occurred 36 years ago with Hurricane Camille. It seems to me the common sense solution to this is to not rebuild houses for the third time in three decades. The better solution is not to rebuild houses. Instead, replace the first several rows of houses with a long, artificial dune going the length of the Mississippi coast. I think this would offer some protection. It would make the beachfront much more pleasant and would certainly aid in the tourist industry, which is a big thing in Mississippi.
But to build the houses right back to where they were is simply madness. We must learn from these tragedies and we must recognize that they will occur again and again and with increasing frequency in the future.
Frank: To what extent are people justified in modifying the environment for their own enjoyment?
Pilkey: The major modification of the environment here for beachfront property owners is what’s called “beach nourishment.” It’s pumping up the sand on the beach. That’s a very common thing. It’s being done more and more every year along the coast of the United States. The principal motivation there is to save the beachfront houses, which are rental cash cows for a relatively small number of fairly wealthy and powerful people.
A better approach is to recognize that there is no erosion problem until you build a building next to the beach. There are lots of islands like in national seashores that are moving back, or the beaches are moving back, and there’s no problem because there are no houses, nobody cares. The beach is as healthy as can be.
So, if our priority for future generations is to preserve the beaches, then I think the time has come to get off the beaches with our development.
Now that doesn’t mean we should instantly move them back, but we should start slowly moving them back by not allowing post–storm reconstruction, by purchasing some properties and so forth. There are many ways to do this, but I think if my great–grandchildren are going to have beaches to play on, we must move back. We must get off the beach.
Frank: Why are people so hesitant to stop building on the beach? Is it just that there is a financial incentive not to?
Pilkey: There’s a strong financial incentive from the federal government. The federal government supports beachfront development in a very big way, starting with federal flood insurance, with the storm clean–up that we’re seeing right now.
I suspect most of those buildings on the Mississippi coast will be built back, largely with federal funds. The providing of power, roads, bridges, beach nourishment: all these things are via the federal government. They have to be increasing the density of development and making the environment much more attractive economically for people who want to build next to a beach.
But there’s also a greed factor here. There’s lots of money to be made from beachfront property.
And there’s an ignorance factor. I mean there are some people who come from inland who don’t even know about storms. Although you’d think that’d be pretty impossible, it does happen. So, there are many reasons for the rush to the beach, but it’‘s happening everywhere and it certainly shows no sign of slowing down.
Frank: What are barrier islands? How can hurricanes be good for barrier islands?
Pilkey: Barrier islands are these long, slim piles of sand that are fronting the entire Atlantic coast and Gulf coast, from the south shore of Long Island all the way over to the Mexican border with a few gaps.
And these barrier islands are really fascinating. If left alone, if human beings don’t affect them too strongly, they can move back and up as the sea level is rising, which is one of the reasons why the shoreline of these islands is eroding right now. It’s because of sea level rise. The way the islands migrate is through storms. Storms deposit sand on top of the islands to make them higher than the sea level rise. And also, they deposit sand on the back side, on the lagoon side of the island, widening the island.
So you have a three–part process here in island migration. One is the erosion of the front side. Two is deposition of sand on the top of the island, making it higher. And three is deposition of sand in the lagoon, on the back side, which actually widens the island. So between those three processes, islands move back and up in response to the sea level rise. And they’ve been doing that for thousands of years. They are really very flexible, amazing, amazing dynamic environments.
Frank: Is there anything else you would like to add?
Pilkey: I think I’ve said the important things from our standpoint. We have some hope that Katrina will prove to be a point of great change in the American approach to developing the shoreline. The first step might be to get the federal government off the beach. We have to enforce a sense of responsibility to future generations. We have to solve this erosion problem in a long term sense, not a short term sense. If we can start doing that, maybe my great–grandchildren will have some beaches.
As it is now, I fear that we’re looking to the future, with this rising sea level, to a long, sea–walled coast, with very few beaches on the developed portions of these islands.
