Is Life a Beach?

After the 1953 ocean surges and flood, the Netherlands began a concerted effort to build massive ocean-blocking structures over the years that have literally saved that nation from a watery destruction. Their technology, constantly upgraded, provides some of the most expensive solutions to rising and surging ocean waters. For the Dutch, however, the alternative seemed to be a loss of most of their nation as the oceans sought to reclaim this low-lying landscape. Losing their country was simply not acceptable, no matter the cost. They have prioritized this expenditure over all else, and their military outlay is miniscule by comparison. We have prioritized military spending at the expensive of infrastructure.

The United States is massively bigger, and most of the country isn’t in low-lying coastal communities, although climate change may have introduced different disasters (drought and water shortages for example) to interior regions. While some coastal communities have particularly high-value assets, such as New York City or Boston, vast sections of coastline provide lower-density living, resort living at the edge of a potentially angry ocean or such large stretches of vulnerable land mass that the cost of building the necessary barriers to save our human habitat is economically unattainable.

Will almost a third of Florida be under water sometime in the not-too-distant future? Will New Orleans really survive in the foreseeable future? Are our wonderful beach communities able to fight the surging oceans? Can we really afford to rebuild homes and businesses in areas destined to be flooded again (and again) with government flood insurance money or through FEMA subsidies?

These are huge political issues, destined to drive wedges between those who want to live where they have always lived, notwithstanding the shifting risk profile because of climate change (2012 represented the greatest year for greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere… ever), and the rest of this deficit-impaired nation who are being asked to share the economic loss. Federal flood insurance is facing renewed deficits as claims progress.

North Carolina resident Orrin Pilkey (and Duke professor) writes these Op-Ed words for the November 14^th New York Times: “[T]here is already a push to rebuild homes close to the beach and bring back the shorelines to where they were. The federal government encourages this: there will be billions available to replace roads, pipelines and other infrastructure and to clean up storm debris, provide security and emergency housing. Claims to the National Flood Insurance Program could reach $7 billion. And the Army Corps of Engineers will be ready to mobilize its sand-pumping dredges, dump trucks and bulldozers to rebuild beaches washed away time and again.

“But this ‘let’s come back stronger and better’ attitude, though empowering, is the wrong approach to the increasing hazard of living close to the rising sea. Disaster will strike again. 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…

“We should also understand that armoring the shoreline with sea walls will not be successful in holding back major storm surges. As experience in New Jersey and elsewhere has shown, sea walls eventually cause the loss of protective beaches. These beaches can be replaced, but only at enormous cost to taxpayers. The 21-mile stretch of beach between Sandy Hook and Barnegat Inlet in New Jersey was replenished between 1999 and 2001 at a cost of $273 million (in 2011 dollars). Future replenishment will depend on finding suitable sand on the continental shelf, where it is hard to find.”

My in-laws built their lives in and around the Atlantic City area. Joe Williams is a highly respected dentist providing his vital expertise to an under-served community. His home was literally yards from where Sandy breached the shore. His house survived (see above)… but flooding took its toll on the structure and even the possessions that had been moved to higher floors. Our family is devastated, but he feels he must rebuild and continue to serve his community. The big question is when do we just pay folks for the pre-disaster fair market value of their homes and damaged possession… but ban rebuilding in zones where disaster will strike again in the not-too-distant future? Or do we rebuild and do the best we can? What do you think is the right course of action?

I’m Peter Dekom, and I am torn between the pain of moving… and the pain of staying… in disaster-prone areas of the United States.