You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Saturday, November 29, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Karl Grossman
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Sunday 17 February 2013
We must adjust to the reality of our shifting shores.

The Encroaching Coastline

Article image

Soon after Sandy struck, an OpEd piece titled “We Need to Retreat from the Beach” by Dr. Orrin Pilkey, a pioneer in what’s now become the science of shoreline dynamics, appeared in the New York Times.

Dr. Pilkey wrote, “As ocean waters warm, the Northeast is likely to face more Sandy-like storms” with “surges…higher and ever more deadly….Yet there is already a push to rebuild homes close to the beach and bring back shorelines to where they were.” This “is the wrong approach to the increasing hazard of living close to the rising sea.”  

“We should not simply replace all lost property and infrastructure. Instead, we need to take account of rising sea levels, intensifying storms and continuing shoreline erosion,” he said.

Dr. Pilkey, co-author of the landmark work The Beaches Are Moving, wrote that “we should strongly discourage the reconstruction of destroyed or badly damaged beachfront homes…This is tough medicine, to be sure, and taxpayers may be forced to compensate homeowners. But it should save taxpayers money in the long run by ending this cyclc of repairing or rebuilding properties in the path of future storms.”

Now, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, in an extraordinary move for a politician considering the intense lobbying through the years by beachfront homeowners, is proposing to purchase structures wrecked by Sandy­at their pre-Sandy value­have them demolished and then preserve the flood-prone land permanently, as undeveloped coastline.

“The land would never be built on again. Some properties could be turned into dunes, wetlands or other natural buffers that would help protect coastal communities from ferocious storms; other parcels could be combined and turned into public parkland,” reported the Times in breaking the story as a Page One lead article. 

In a follow-up editorial, the Times called the Cuomo concept “splendid” and stated that “buying damaged properties and returning them to their natural state, as Mr. Cuomo proposes, is one of the best ideas to come along.” 

But will good science and good sense come together when it comes to the shoreline?

It will be mighty difficult ­- but it very much needs to happen.

The problem: vested interest.  Many if not most of the folks who own beach houses­even ones left in shambles by Sandy and in highly vulnerable locations­don’t want to give them up. I appreciate this. Visiting an old friend with a beach house a while back, gazing out a window and seeing the majestic ocean outside, I thought of the thrill of having a house on the sea. Sitting on his deck, the waves breaking below, was exciting.

Dr. Pilkey realizes this. “I understand the temptation to rebuild,” he wrote in his OpEd. “My parents’ retirement home, built at 13 feet above sea level, five blocks from the shoreline in Waveland, Miss., was flooded to the ceiling during Hurricane Camille in 1969. They rebuilt it, but the house was completely destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.”

An inquiry by the Long Island newspaper Newsday, to gauge sentiment towards the Cuomo plan, found the “overwhelming number of Island residents would rather rebuild than relocate.”

The Army Corps of Engineers is another factor in what’s been a constant ­- after a big storm the dumping of sand (given the appealing term “beach nourishment”) on the coast,  sand often washed away in the next big storm, and otherwise taking on Mother Nature. The Corps is run by a combination of military officers and engineers who believe they can win any war including against nature. Also, coastal work keeps the Corps’ budget hefty.  

Then there’s the National Flood Insurance Program. After seeing a TV commercial promoting it recently, I requested a brochure. The government pamphlet began: “Since flooding typically isn’t covered under your homeowners insurance policy, the best way to protect your home is through the National Flood Insurance Program.” The reluctance of private insurance companies to cover homes built in the teeth of the ocean says a lot. The lobbying of beachfront homeowners was instrumental in getting Congress to provide this taxpayer-supported program.

Key to the situation is Dr. Pilkey’s observation way back: The Beaches Are Moving. They are in flux and need to be flexible to protect the mainland.  Add to this today’s rising sea levels and extreme weather caused by climate change. 

Retreat might not be a good word to use for what needs to be done. It infers losing. Adjustment is a better word. We must adjust to the reality of our shifting shores.



Author pic
ABOUT Karl Grossman

 

Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, is the author of Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power and host of TV programs including “The Push to Revive Nuclear Power” and “Chernobyl: A Million Casualties” (www.envirovideo.com).

Another N of C editorial

Another N of C editorial disgrace. It's bad enough that the pic is uncaptioned - like just about all the other photo-wallpaper in N of C pieces. Worse, N of C's editors and the text both leave unexplained whether the NY subways are - or are not - a prime example of what territory should be abandoned to the effects of sea-level rise.

Rising sea levels mean that

Rising sea levels mean that using government money to rebuild from Hurricane Sandy is just not good planning for the future. The Army Corps of Engineers will have lots of work to do building levees and berms strong enough and in the right places to protect from future storms. It's sad to not see these beachfront homes return, but I hope the Cuomo plan for parks and beaches is implemented.

It should be illegal to build

It should be illegal to build in a flood zone in a manner that is not designed to survive flooding, or insurance should not be available to such folks, for the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for the stupidity of the rich. Most of the beachfront property destroyed by Sandy wasn't primary homes, but rental properties, built on speculation for profit. So that makes it like bailing out the banks on taxpayer's backs. Sure we need to help people left homeless by such events, but repeating the same stupid construction mistakes over and over is not help.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...