Natural Hazards Observer
| November 2005 | Volume XXX | Number 2 |
Living on the Edge:
The Coastal Collision Course
How should society reduce the inevitable risks of living near the shore? Obviously, we cannot expect people to leave the coasts, but we can expect sound government policies that protect their long-term sustainability and diminish damage to the built environment through mitigation.
Hurricanes are a regular occurrence along the East and Gulf coasts of the United States; 167 tropical storms made landfall during the twentieth century. We are in a new cycle of increased Atlantic hurricane activity, and at the same time there is a continuing coastward migration of Americans. Coastal watershed counties already account for about 50 percent of the population. It seems that everyone wants a waterfront view, and beachfront property has become some of the most expensive real estate in the country. Small beach cottages have given way in recent decades to luxurious, multistory houses, and in South Florida, high-rise condominiums are approaching $500 million valuations. The “Gold Coast” of Florida, which runs along the southeastern coast between Palm Beach and Miami, has an appraised value exceeding $1.3 trillion that is highly vulnerable to hurricanes. Any erosion of the beach that takes place, of course, increases the exposure of fixed structures to the impact of coastal storms.
Coastal erosion is a national problem; best estimates are that almost 90 percent of the nation’s sandy beaches are receding.(1) This nearly ubiquitous beach erosion problem is particularly troublesome in that the rate of coastal erosion is about two orders of magnitude greater than the rate of sea level rise (SLR), so that even small changes of SLR result in significant land loss.(2) Since one of the most certain consequences of global warming is an increase in the rate of global SLR, the already severe coastal erosion problems witnessed in the twentieth century will be exacerbated in the coming decades.
Growing populations and concomitant beachfront development in the face of rising sea levels and shoreline recession defines a coastal collision course. There is also a collision of management philosophy and policies of the three principal federal agencies with statutory authority: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program.
The Corps of Engineers has been criticized for its role in encouraging coastal development and poststorm redevelopment through its subsidized sand pumping projects, which renourish beaches. Beach nourishment is seen by an increasing number of coastal communities as a panacea even though many renourished beaches have lasted only a few years rather than decades.(3) In contrast, the CZM Program offers states an incentive to better manage beachfront development. Unfortunately, best management practices have rarely been exercised.
Most of the burden of managing coastal development has fallen upon FEMA because of its national flood insurance, which is sought after by homeowners and communities that are literally “living on the edge.” FEMA has done an excellent job by providing incentives to build new structures above the storm surge elevation and to strengthen existing structures against windstorm damage, but there has been no direct consideration of horizontal shoreline movement, specifically coastal erosion.(3)
The lack of coordinated federal erosion programs and policies is abundantly evident as the coastal building boom continues. Nationwide, coastal erosion may be responsible for approximately $500 million of property damage each year,(1) including loss of structures and land. Within the highest risk flood hazard areas (called V-zones by FEMA) of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the risk of damage from erosion is almost equal to (and added to) that from flooding.
If the present trend continues, it is estimated that one of four buildings located within 500 feet (152.4 m) of the U.S. shoreline will be claimed by coastal erosion during the next 60 years.(1) These estimates do not assume any additional beach hardening, nor do they make assumptions about future beach nourishment projects. In actuality, more and more coastal communities are seeking beach nourishment projects funded by the Corps of Engineers. Through these Corps-authorized beach fill projects, the federal government is making 50-year commitments with little to no regard for global change impacts.
Estimates of erosion damage do not include the effects of accelerated SLR due to climate change because projections of future shoreline positions are based on historical observations. If SLR during the next 50 years is 3.9 inches (10 cm) greater than during the past half century, erosion rates would average 11.8 inches (30 cm) per year faster than observed historically. This would increase erosion rates along the East Coast by 33 to 50 percent on average, greatly increasing the cost of beach nourishment projects, which are designed to “hold the line” and protect shorefront development.
Most moderately to highly developed coastal communities have come to rely on beach nourishment for storm protection. Shoreline armoring is also used. The emplacement of seawalls (without beach fill) in the face of incessant erosion ultimately results in beach loss and hence the degradation of the recreational corridor that draws residents and tourists alike.
Some critics have called for outright retreat from the coastline, but rapidly increasing beachfront development combined with soaring real estate values make the option of retreat and land abandonment politically unpalatable and popularly unacceptable for landowners where “living on the edge” is a physical reality. We are long past the point of decrying that barrier islands as dynamic landforms should not be developed; the reality is quite different, and the goal now must be to maintain and manage environmental qualities. Therefore, beach renourishment is usually considered the only viable option to address erosion hazards, but obtaining Corps funding requires a tremendous investment of time and resources by coastal communities, and the process is largely politically driven.
A national policy for shoreline management is vitally needed.(4) In the absence of a coherent and consistent framework for managing the shore, Corps projects are undertaken on a project-by-project basis. Overall, federal programs are reduced to ad hoc efforts to deal with coastal hazards and environmental consequences. Florida has the best program in the nation for dealing with storm impacts and coastal erosion, as well tested in 2004 by Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Jeanne, and Ivan. In fairness to coastal communities that are confounded by the contradictory, or at least divergent, approaches to beachfront management, a coordinated policy and streamlined process to address the nations’ growing coastal hazard losses is clearly needed and long overdue.
Stephen P. Leatherman (leatherm@fiu.edu)
Florida International University
Gilbert White
University of Colorado at Boulder
(1) The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. 2000. Evaluation of erosion hazards. Washington, DC: Heinz Center.
(2) Zhang, K., B.C. Douglas, and S.P. Leatherman. 2003. Global warming and long-term sandy beach erosion. Climatic Change 64:41-58.
(3) Crowell, M., and S.P. Leatherman, eds. 1999. Coastal erosion mapping and management. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 28.
(4) U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
NEMA’s Recommendations for
Naming the Director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) released the following recommendations for naming the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Nomination and Confirmation Process for FEMA Director
- The director of FEMA should be a fixed term appointment for not less than five years (as is the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. Department of Justice, for example).
- Regardless of where FEMA is located in the federal government organizational structure, the FEMA director should have a direct report to the president of the United States.
- The president should continue to nominate and the Senate confirm the director of FEMA. Congress should scrutinize the nomination to ensure the appointed individual meets established criteria.
- A vetting process should be established that includes a role for input by emergency management constituent groups (using the judicial nomination process and rating by the American Bar Association as an example).
Recommended FEMA Director Qualifications, Knowledge, and Expertise
- Emergency management or similar, related career at the federal, state, or local government level
- Executive level management, government administration, and budgeting experience
- Understanding of fundamental principles of population protection; disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery; and command and control
- Understanding of the legislative process
- Demonstrated leadership: ability to exert authority and execute decisions in crisis situations
For more information about NEMA, contact NEMA, PO Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578; (859) 244-8000; http://www.nemaweb.org/.