The brouhaha over the buyout of beach front dwellings has flamed into an inferno. Many demand that the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program money be spent in less affluent neighborhoods in the central city, repairing homes that may well attract residents back to the city. Heber Taylor, editor of the GCDN, has argued this case repeatedly and effectively. As recently as today Heber is bemoaning the fact that West Enders are getting a sweet deal on their homes.
There is merit to both arguments, I believe. I live in the central city, and I would love to see hazard mitigation money be used to redevelop the contracting neighborhoods that surround me. But I also see how a strategic buyout on the west end offers an opportunity to address our flood risks in a unique fashion. To be honest, One Galveston should address both of these issues, no matter income levels or geographical location,.
For the moment let me focus on the west end. In recent weeks there has been a push for Galveston to consider armoring the entire length of the west end of the island. This “Ike Dike” would connect with a series of retractable or collapsible flood gates at Bolivar Roads, San Luis Pass, and across the GIWW. Even though the cost of such a massive project would be many billions of dollars, there has been little critical debate concerning its merits (like, would it work?). Galveston’s mayor and the county judge have already sped ahead with lobbying for this approach without critical analysis (or thought). If we are going to spend billions on such a massive structure, shouldn’t we at least know that it is not a Maginot Line?
During my past week’s recovery, I have had the chance to spend several days reviewing the literature (the only side benefit of being stuck in a hospital with a laptop). A review of the science, I found, should give us pause. Hardened or armored coasts are among the most significant causes of the loss (not gain) of beaches. In fact, Galveston’s seawall is often identified as the classic example (the beach having disappeared by 1916). Any “Ike Dike” would require continuous beach replenishment, a cost for which a source has yet to be identified (perhaps to be funded by beach front property owners?) The debate over who should pay for beach renourishment has been a point of contention around the country for decades, with many citizens objecting to being taxed to fund sand that benefits only a few.
There is an alternative to armoring the coast – a manageable or strategic retreat. In this scenario development is removed from the beach and the natural dune system is allowed to restore. In the case of west Galveston Island, the funds available for buyouts would be used to remove all beach front dwellings. Beach renourishment would still be necessary to stabilize the shore slope (the Bruun Rule), but a broad beach with an extensive dune structure would provide a buffer against all but the most severe storms. Since dune building is generally an aeolian (wind driven) process, I suspect that it would also be necessary to restrict vehicular traffic along the beaches to avoid compaction.
The same strategy of managed retreat would be necessary along the bay shore as well. Housing development should retreat to the upland properties that form the ridge of the island. The coastal wetlands should then be restored, and near shore boat traffic restricted, decreasing turbidity and allowing the once-prevalent sea grass beds to regenerate. Beach replenishment along the bay could come in the form of beneficial use of spoil from the dredging of the GIWW to extend the bay shore outward. In other words, a combination of beach replenishment and bay shore restoration with spoil would serve to widen the island and protect development in the interior.
The ultimate goal, of course, is to restore the natural buffers that once protected this island. With elevated housing limited to the interior, development can continue with limited risk. Natural beaches and wetlands will have been restored, offering residents recreational and aesthetic benefits that far exceed those available today. Significant efforts to rebuild a broad dune structure may well function in tandem with the planned flood gates at the ends of the island. In other words, Galveston may well be able to develop a cutting edge flood protection system where a majority of the structure is a restored natural system of protective dunes and wetlands.
No one is lobbying for a massive taking of property. Such a program could be accomplished by willing sellers selling to willing buyers (the government). This program would also require that the city planning department develop a progressive Comprehensive Development Plan, backed by council passing forceful rules and restrictions to insure the implementation of the plan. Of critical importance would be for rules that would disallow any new development in these buffer areas.
Today Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that “the time for action and realism is now” when facing the challenges of global warming. The same is true for Galveston and sea-level rise. We simply can no longer afford to blithely stumble forward, pretending that the forces of global climate change will somehow overlook our small sliver of sand.
In conclusion, the following is a summary from a study by Western Carolina University that speaks volumes to these very issues.
To reverse our losses, we must learn how to retreat from the shoreline. Where development already confronts the ocean, we must adopt corrective measures that are sure and fair. Where beaches are relatively undeveloped, we must apply preventive measures. A commitment to retreat as a guide to public policy and private investment would achieve the following goals:
- Reduce the loss of property and lives by replacing present high risk development with stable, safe development in suitable locations away from the open beaches.
- Meet increasing demand for public beaches by improving public access to natural beaches.
- Develop a more stable economic future for coastal communities.
- Eliminate unessential government spending and move coastal investment closer to a marketplace mechanism where economic decisions include realistic risk and cost without the benefit of direct or indirect government subsidies.
- Facilitate removal of many of the defensive structures and developments that now magnify the effects of erosion and the costs of disasters.
Wonderful article and excellent analysis.
My organization ( Margate Citizens for beach preservation) has been fighting the Army for yrs. over the uses and abuses of so called beach replenishment. With the oceans rising faster then @ 1st thought We think the debate over replenishment has to move on to our only real alternative retreat. Elevating whole Islands as Galveston did back in 1901 is NOT an option today. Too much of the coast is developed and the cost today for such a project even on a small scale would be far more then the actual value of most of these communites. This isn’t 1900 in so many ways, so this isn’t a realistic option. Nor is moving whole towns as they used to do. What is a realistic option though is a measured retreat. As areas are identified as hazard zones requiring massive public funding to maintain they should be abandoned back to nature. The homes and business should be taken if necessary through the eminent domain process. The simple truth is that by late-century most of our coastlines are going to experience significant loss of land. If we don’t start moving back soon the costs for waiting will just sky rocket. More importantly we need to stop the headlong rush to develop the coast anymore then it already is. To that end federally subsidized flood Ins. either needs to reflect the actual costs involved or be removed completely. Society should not be encouraging a building boom along the coasts anymore.
All of this is going to be incredibly difficult to sell to the public and especially to the politicians. The politicians first instinct is to throw tax dollars at protecting that which already exists. The homeowners in question in many instances are wealthy well connected people who will go to great lengthens to grab as much public money as possible to keep a beach in front of their vacation homes. They don’t care about whether it’s fair or not, they just want what they want. In most cases the Pols will react by getting it for them. Right now many of us on the other side of this increasingly rancorous issue are watching as the lobbyists for the Dredgers and their allies are preparing to line up for money from the Obama stimulus to use for beach replensishment projects nation wide. First of all is this really an appropriate use for such money? Should putting beaches in front of the homes of a few tens of thousands folks mostly 2nd homes used 3-4 mos. of the yr. be a Fed. priority? Secondly, is this even ethical? The money will not save any jobs nor will it create many, no matter what Marlowe and Co . ( The J street lobby leading the charge for the Sand lobby in DC) says. In the end the Oceans are going to rise and we’re going to have to move back. We can do it in a orderly planned and rational way or in a pell mell panic ala New Orleans and Katrina , in either case we will be forced to do it.
Great post! It would be an unbelievably giant leap forward if manged retreat were undertaken in a major area with a huge tax base such as Galveston.
I believe the trick will be to find the politicians who have steel for skin and won’t be quickly diverted by the threat of property tax monies being lost.
Great article.
Managed retreat would be great for Galveston! Thanks for the post Ted!
if Galveston had taken this approach a hundred years ago, where would Galveston be?