Dr. Rob Young, professor of geosciences at Western Carolina University, recently addressed the John Locke Foundation’s Shaftesbury Society on the topic of “US Coastal Policy: Fiscally Irresponsible and Environmentally Damaging.” Today he discusses the issue with Carolina Journal Radio’s Mitch Kokai.
Kokai: You’re saying the U.S. coastal policy is both wrong fiscally, and also for the environment. What are some of the main problems?
Young: Well, I’d say that right now the primary problem is that we’re not using a science-based approach to coastal management. And areas that are particularly vulnerable, which we can clearly identify from a scientific perspective, are being rebuilt after hurricanes. That rebuilding is subsidized by federal and state taxpayer dollars. It’s not being done in a sensible way. Those areas are repeatedly damaged and repeatedly rebuilt. And so there are a number of important principles that are being violated by this. You know, the first principle is that we’re not using science to guide responsible expenditure of taxpayer dollars. We’re not using science to guide the way things are developed. But we’re also not allowing the free market to operate in setting property values because — let’s take the west end of Dauphin Island as an example. It has been wiped out five times in the last 25 years, and federal tax dollars flow in there after every storm and rebuild the infrastructure and subsidize the insurance. So, the lots that are for sale now on Dauphin Island after Hurricane Katrina, which hardly are going for more than a million dollars — the cost of those lots doesn’t truly reflect the free market value of that lot because the government has subsidized that entire economy. And I think that’s a major problem.
Kokai: And to clarify, this is an island right off of Alabama?
Young: Dauphin Island is a small island off of the coast of Alabama, near Mobile Bay.
Kokai: And one of the things that you mentioned in your discussion is that the price tag for these lots would be probably quite a bit different if people didn’t figure the government was going to step in every time and repay to have these things built.
Young: Right. I think, in many respects, the coastal economy and the economy of coastal development is a false economy because federal and state taxpayers are subsidizing that development and subsidizing the infrastructure. These are particularly vulnerable areas. And, in other words — let’s stick with North Carolina. Let’s look at North Topsail, North Carolina. This is an area that has had repeated damage over the last couple of decades. If the folks living in North Topsail actually had to be financially responsible for rebuilding the roads or the power grid or the infrastructure on this very risky island that they live on, that would certainly change the value of the lots that are out there, and the value of the homes. And, if that were the case, then we really would see how viable those economies are. We’re always told that those coastal economies are too important and too valuable for taxpayers to walk away from, but how will we know that unless we can see if they sink or swim on their own?
Kokai: Now, in your presentation, movie fans will probably chuckle when they hear that you had a suggestion of a way to go about changing our policy, and it wasn’t “Shrek” but it sort of sounded like “Shrek.” What is SHRAC?
Young: Yeah, it’s a horrible acronym actually — SHRAC — but I couldn’t think of anything else. SHRAC is an acronym for the shoreline retreat, or Shoreline Relocation Advisory Committee. And the idea here is, we need to find a way to get federal dollars out of these very vulnerable coastal areas. And we’re not suggesting that we make people leave. We’re just suggesting that we need to find a way to pull the federal money out in areas where it’s been spent over and over again. So, we’ve proposed a model that’s akin to the Base Realignment and Closing Commission, or the BRAC — another horrible acronym. The idea behind the BRAC was, it’s very difficult to close a military base in any community because that military base has an economic impact. So, in order to do so, they formed this commission that has no politicians. It has some former generals and other experts, and they decide which military bases are no longer viable. Congress and the president have to vote thumbs up, thumbs down on the whole package. And so it, you know, removes, to some extent, the political gerrymandering. And it gives cover for people to vote for it, because you’re not voting one at a time, so you have to swallow a base closing in your own district, it gives you some political cover to do so. We’re suggesting we do the same thing with the coast — that we establish a commission of scientists and engineers and coastal managers — no politicians — and we identify those areas of the coast that have had repeated and constant damage and required repeated expenditure of federal funds. We can identify those areas, both by looking at the historical impact of storms and looking at very well accepted concepts of scientific vulnerability. Scientists would have no trouble coming to agreement on which areas of our coast are most vulnerable. And then the plan is simply to say, you know, no more federal dollars go to these communities. It’s a free country. If you want to stay, you are welcome to stay and develop and live and prosper. But if you stay, you pay. The federal government is no longer going to subsidize your redevelopment and subsidize that particular community.
Kokai: If something like this — SHRAC — or a similar idea came to pass, what do you think would change in terms of how our coast is developed and how taxpayers are forced to deal with problems on the coast?
Young: Well, it would save taxpayers a tremendous amount of money to begin with. It would bring free market principles to coastal development. I would imagine that property values in some of those coastal communities might go down, but that’s difficult to say. You know, I don’t know if that’s the case or not. We haven’t attempted something like this before. And those communities that are able to find creative solutions to pooling their risk and maintaining their development and infrastructure will probably still prosper. The whole point is to ask them to find free market, private sector solutions to dealing with the fact that they are building in a very risky place, rather than simply relying on federal tax dollars flowing into those communities. So, you know, the most likely scenario one might think [of] would be — that there would be a decrease in property values, but I don’t know if that would be the case or not.
Kokai: If someone’s interested in this idea, saying, “Yeah, that sounds good to me, not having to pay my tax dollars for these people who own property at the coast,” what’s the best thing for them to do to learn more about this or try to get involved?
Young: Well, they can visit our Web site, which is psds.wcu.edu, and we have a lot of educational information on the Web site. But, you know, I would suggest that if they’re tired of seeing their federal tax dollars going to costal communities in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, maybe even North Carolina, the best thing they can do is write their representatives, both at the state level and the federal level, and tell them they want to see reform in the federal Flood Insurance Program. And they’d like to see reform in the Stafford Act, which is the act that allows emergency aid to be used for rebuilding infrastructure and beaches and things like that.