The Virginian-Pilot
©
NAGS HEAD
When a tornado roars through a community, few people would question rebuilding; no one would say it was the residents' fault for living there, an environmental consultant told a group in Nags Head.
When an earthquake ruins a city block, the public expects that it will be repaired, he said; it would be considered crass to blame the residents who live there.
But that's not what happens in beach communities that suffer storm damage, said Peter A. Ravella, who has advised beach communities in Texas, North Carolina and Florida.
"It's only when you get to the beach that that sort of philosophy evaporates," he said Thursday. "I don't understand it."
Ravella was paid about $2,000 from Dare County's shoreline management fund to give a presentation on what he characterized as a pragmatic, fair way to fund beach nourishment projects.
An Austin, Texas, resident with experience in law and coastal management, Ravella reiterated the familiar mantra that the beach drives the economy - every job, every business.
And if you look at it like any other vital infrastructure, he said, the beach must be maintained, and sometimes it has to be rebuilt.
"Erosion is a natural process, just like rust," he said.
Why paint the house every 10 years? he argued. Why replace the 40-year-old bridge? It's just going to have to be redone again.
"It's about maintenance, and whether you like it or not, your community has a relationship with the ocean," he said. "Yes, it's an ongoing obligation. No, there's no permanent, one-time solution. There is no silver bullet."
Living on the beachfront is great for those who can afford it, he said, and many love to visit it. But an ugly, eroded mess of a beach strewn with septic tanks and broken buildings is bad for everyone in the community, whether they ever set foot on sand.
If the beach is regarded as a natural wonder - like the Grand Canyon - beloved by many and worthy of preservation, he said, then beach nourishment might be viewed as a necessity rather than an expensive exercise in futility.
Ray Midgett, a founder of BeachHuggers of the Outer Banks, an anti-nourishment group, said in an e-mail that opponents need to be convinced of two points: that beach nourishment on the Outer Banks' high-energy beaches will stay in place for an acceptable amount of time, and that it is cost-effective.
"Until they are able to do that magic trick," Midgett wrote, "it will be business as usual on the Outer Banks."
But Ravella said that even though a storm can take out a project in a weekend, it's better that it takes the beach than millions in infrastructure. And just because there's a risk, he said, does that mean it shouldn't be done?
"Keep in mind, when a storm hits, that sand moves," he said in an interview. "It doesn't go to outer space. It moves to the nearshore."
The key to funding is being fair, Ravella said. That requires that on-beach and off-beach residents stop battling and acknowledge the overall value of the beach. It requires the beachfront owners to contribute more because they benefit more. It requires a share of private and public funds.
Forget about federal funding, he advised. It is sparse, and waiting for it only creates paralysis.
Congress approved a 14-mile beach nourishment project in Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills and Nags Head but has never provided the funds for it. In 2006, Nags Head decided to find a way to get its beaches protected without the federal government.
Engineers designed a $30 million project that would last 10 years. But in April 2007, Nags Head's voters rejected a $24 million bond proposal that would have been paid back by a five-year increase in property taxes.
Since then, the town has been exploring other ways to afford beach replenishment. It has continued to pursue permits for the 10-mile nourishment project in hopes it will find a way to fund it.
Meanwhile, the shoreline in South Nags Head has been battered by repeated nor'easters, and some property owners are feeling desperate.
Ravella said that the town should find a reasonable solution to restore the shoreline and get about two-thirds of the property owners to agree. He said that if he assisted the town, it would cost about $60,000 to $80,000 and take up to nine months.
Catherine Kozak, (252) 441-1711, cate.kozak@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
OBX vs. The Sands of Time
It is just too bad that folks that have chosen to live at the water's edge are facing an uncertain future. Homes and roads that were once at various places in the late 60's were washed to the ocean shortly after. Hwy 12 near Rodanthe has been washed away and move soundward many times over the decades. Seaside homes near Pea Island are under immediate threat of loss. The Bonner Bridge has little of the many support pilings in sufficient foundation for continued use for very long. Sand moves in great quantities, in different directions, with every storm and tide change. Once the primary dune line is lost, the coast will move to re-establish, man be darned. Coastal planners must set the new public protection standard and no longer allow homes to be built seaward of the most eastern roadway along the OBX, and any sand-bar community. Why should it fall to the greater public to support, bail-out and subsidise those that have chosen to build their homes on shifting sands. Heck, even the old-guy authors of the stream of bibles knew better than that.
A detailed response to Mr.
A detailed response to Mr. Ravella's presentation can be found at
http://www.beachhuggers.com/ourtake
Mr. Ravella's analogy of comparing reparation after an tornado or earthquake to damage from ocean erosion is a "dog that won't hunt."
Beyond that, there is no need for debate on that argument.
Beach renourishment
First - these houses are built on a sand bar!
Second - tornadoes and earthquakes don't happen in the same exact same place every year or a couple of times a year (like this year).
Risk is measured by frequency and severity. The more often it can happen and/or the greater the damage, the worse the risk is. So the risk of the ocean washing over and damaging houses built next to it is pretty high in the Outerbanks.
So who should carry the burden of the risk - the people who built where they shouldn't have or everyone else? Maybe it is time to cut the losses and realize the ocean wins, every time.
If I lived in a house that was struck by tornadoes on a regular basis, I wouldn't stay there.