Florida’s beaches draw millions of tourists each year, and coastal towns like Palm Beach have a great interest in protecting the beaches against erosion and sea-level rise. They have experimented with various adaptation and reinforcement techniques, some more successful than others, but none is a permanent solution.
In an administrative hearing on March 2, Judge Robert Meale rejected a beach renourishment project proposed by Palm Beach, criticizing both its harmful environmental impacts and the “worthless” engineering models that supported the project. The suit was brought by an alliance of surfers and anglers, united in their interest to protect the dynamic beach ecosystem, offshore reefs, and sea turtle nesting habitat. The judge’s ruling was notable not only for its harsh criticism of the project but also the clear environmental basis of his decision.
Beach renourishment is one of several techniques to address beach erosion, a naturally occurring process that will accelerate with climate change and sea-level rise. Renourishment means taking sand from offshore or inland dunes and placing it on the eroded beach to widen the shoreline. In theory, renourishment is a great solution – just track down the eroded sand and put it back on the beach.
As with many engineered responses to environmental processes, however, a huge gap exists between theory and practice.
When done correctly with matching sand, beach renourishment (without sand retention structures) is a preferred alternative to constructing “hard” structures, such as seawalls, groins, or jetties. Those reinforcement techniques do not accommodate the natural migration of the beach, causing the beach to erode completely.
But in practice beach renourishment often does not work well either. While renourishment may be effective at protecting coastal lands and preserving beach resources, it can have significant and long-term impacts on the beach ecosystem, from altering the fundamental composition of the beach to killing wildlife in the process of dredging the sand. Moreover, renourishment projects often do not last as long as projected and require replacement sand every few years.
One of the biggest challenges to any renourishment project is finding replacement sand that is similar in size, texture, and density as the eroded sand. In Florida, the mismatch affects sea turtle nesting habitat in particular. Five species of endangered or threatened sea turtles live in Florida waters and nest on Florida beaches. In 2006, fully 20 percent of the state’s loggerhead nests were in Palm Beach county.
Sea turtles are the proverbial Goldilocks of the beach – they need conditions to be just right, neither too hot nor too cold, for productive and successful nesting. In this case, Judge Meale noted that if the new sand is too coarse, a sea turtle will not burrow because the sides will cave in, but that if the sand is too fine, oxygen will not pass through to the eggs. In addition, the sex of the hatchlings is temperature dependent, so the color of the new sand may alter the heat transfer properties and thus the natural ratio of male to female sea turtles.
The most effective alternatives to renourishment or hard beach-reinforcement techniques are less palatable to politicians and coastal property owners, but in light of continued beach erosion they must be considered. In areas where there is no development, local zoning requirements should prohibit future developments. In areas where there is development, development setbacks (particularly for rebuilding after a storm) should be implemented and strictly enforced. More drastically, coastal communities should consider a landward retreat, an idea that is being considered in other countries.
Mike Sole, the secretary of Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection, now must decide whether to approve or deny Judge Meale’s recommendation. In this case, the Secretary can play one of two roles: the crotchety bear that banishes Goldilocks from the beach or an empathetic bear that understands “just right” means exactly that.
Showing 2,837 results
Yee Huang | March 18, 2009
Florida’s beaches draw millions of tourists each year, and coastal towns like Palm Beach have a great interest in protecting the beaches against erosion and sea-level rise. They have experimented with various adaptation and reinforcement techniques, some more successful than others, but none is a permanent solution. In an administrative hearing on March 2, Judge […]
Holly Doremus | March 17, 2009
This item is cross-posted by permission from Legal Planet. It’s easy for environmentalists to get depressed, given the amount of bad news about climate change, species losses, and the like. But sometimes there is unexpectedly good news. This morning’s New York Times has one of those stories. The Atlantic right whale, which not long […]
Rena Steinzor | March 17, 2009
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) invited public comments on the design of its new Executive Order on regulatory review, and CPR has now submitted our recommendations. We urged the Obama Administration to make fundamental changes in how OMB and prospective “regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein operate. We're hopeful that the new Administration will convert […]
Dan Rohlf | March 16, 2009
The Associated Press reported last week that the Commerce Department’s inspector general is looking into who leaked a draft of the Bush Administration’s plans to prevent federal agencies from considering the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, expressing concern over what he termed […]
Matt Shudtz | March 13, 2009
Last week’s Supreme Court decision in Wyeth v. Levine protected consumers’ longstanding right to take pharmaceutical companies to court for failing to properly warn patients and their doctors about the risks posed by the drugs they market. Unfortunately, people injured by faulty medical devices don’t have the same right following last year’s Riegel v. Medtronic […]
Shana Campbell Jones | March 12, 2009
The truth hurts. Some of us accept the truth; some of us ignore it. All too often, industry-sponsored scientists take another approach to the truth: attack. A recent spat over a study finding that perchlorate blocks iodine in breast milk is an object lesson in what CPR Member Scholar Tom McGarity calls “attack science.” […]
Matt Shudtz | March 11, 2009
Monday was a good day for our nation’s science policy. At the same time he announced that the federal government will abandon misguided restrictions on stem cell research, President Obama unveiled an effort to promote a sea change in the way political appointees will treat the science that informs so many federal policies. In […]
William Buzbee | March 10, 2009
On March 3rd, the Supreme Court issued its much awaited decision in Summers v. Earth Island Institute. This was the latest in a series of cases dating to the early 1990s where the central question has concerned citizen standing: will the courts allow a citizen to stand before a court to argue that government or […]
Robert L. Glicksman | March 10, 2009
(CPR Member Scholar Robert L. Glicksman replies below to CPR Member Scholar William Buzbee’s post on the Summers vs. Earth Island Institute decision.) The decision in Summers represents the latest salvo in a continuing battle between those Supreme Court Justices who view the function of standing doctrine as ensuring that litigation before the federal […]