The next time you walk on a North Carolina beach, take a close look at the sand that’s sliding between your toes. You may think it’s a product of Mother Nature’s natural beauty, but it could be the artificial result of a controversial beach renourishment project.
Since the mid-1960s, the state and coastal-area local governments have spent more than $27 million to counteract natural and storm-related land erosion, primarily by dredging sand from channels and moving it onto beaches. The federal government has contributed more than $40 million to North Carolina projects, putting the total price tag to date at about $67 million.
Beach nourishment has been underway in North Carolina for nearly 40 years, beginning with a 2.7-mile Wrightsville Beach project in 1964, and a 2.7-mile effort at Carolina Beach in 1965. Yet while the concept is far from new, the debate remains heated between detractors who argue the projects are expensive and fight a losing battle that’s damaging to the environment, and proponents who insist nourishment is critical to the economic vitality of beach communities.
North Carolinians aren’t getting enough bang for their buck with beach nourishment, according to the North Carolina Coastal Federation, a nonprofit group whose goal is to protect the state’s coastline. Executive Director Todd Miller contends that private property owners are the major benefactors of the spending, not the general public, making the use of public funds questionable.
Miller thinks property owners should pay for the projects themselves. After all, he said, if property owners reap the benefits of building in nature’s path, they should bare the responsibility of the problems that go along with it.
“Beaches are always going to be there. This is really about protecting private property,” Miller said. “Beach erosion is natural. It becomes a problem when structures are placed near them. These houses command good rentals in the summer. It’s a cost of their doing business,” he said.
That ship has already sailed, said Harry Simmons, mayor of Caswell Beach, a three-mile stretch of prime tourist area in Brunswick County. “It’s way too late to avoid the shoreline. There’s no way to totally avoid it. It’s less expensive to nourish than to move property,” he said. Besides, said the mayor who also is executive director of the North Carolina Shore and Beach Preservation Association, there is a renewed respect for trying to work with nature, rather than against it. “I don’t see people building irresponsibly like we used to,” he said.
At the very least, Miller responds, the public should have more access to nourished beaches in exchange for helping to fund them. He cites a Pine Knoll Shores project as an example of how the public’s interest can be accommodated.
“It had almost no access before nourishment. They took private lots and opened them up,” he said. The shortcoming he wants resolved is a lack of signage letting people know the beach is publicly accessible.
Simmons also dismissed Miller’s concern about the return on investment for the taxpaying public. He said nourishment is productive for everyone because a well-nourished beach attracts tourists who, in turn, spend money and stimulate the economy. That puts cash into the pockets of many businesses, as well as local government, not just people with beachfront homes. It’s simple to understand, he said. “A wide, sandy beach is nicer and better. It’s been great for us,” Simmons said.
When Caswell Beach’s neighbor, the Town of Oak Island, undertook two beach projects, the experience turned Mayor Pro Tem Dick Marshall into a nourishment supporter. The 2001/2002 Sea Turtle Habitat Restoration Project put 2.6 million cubic yards of sand on 1.8 miles of beach in Oak Island. Months later, during the usually busy summer season, another 2.6 million cubic yards of sand was deposited onto the beach on both sides of the turtle restoration area.
Bulldozers and the ensuing commotion hurt business while things were under way, and property and business owners complained, Marshall said. He could relate. As the owner and operator of Oak Island Accommodations, a firm that manages 500 resort rentals on the ocean, he experienced the frustration firsthand. Marshall and the Town Council determined how Oak Island would come up with its share of the cost.
To fund the two projects, the federal government kicked in $15 million and the state provided $7.5 million. Oak Island was required to contribute $3 million. The council decided to assess the town’s 12,000 property owners a fee based on the size of their property and its proximity to the new sand. Beachfront owners paid an average of $700 each. The cost to those with second-row homes averaged $350. Those further back from the ocean paid less. The town funded the balance with revenues from a local accommodations tax and private contributions.
When completed, memories of the hassle and lost business faded as tourists returned to the beach and spent money on hotels, beach rentals, groceries, restaurants, and more.
“I don’t think I had one person complain after the renourishment,” Marshall said. “There are millions contributed [to the local economy] because the beach is worth a damn,” he said. “People who say it’s not worth it are absolutely wrong.”
But money shouldn’t be the only factor considered when assessing whether nourishment should take place, according to Michelle Duval, a scientist with Environmental Defense, a private nonprofit group that looks for solutions to environmental problems. She’s concerned about detrimental effects on animal life of replenishing with sand that’s a different composition than sand that’s already on the beach.
“Most critters are highly dependent on compatibility of the sand,” said Duval, who has a doctorate in marine ecology from Duke University. “There are some examples recently which indicate that North Carolina has a need for sand compatibility criteria.”
For example, Duval said, projects at Bogue Banks over the past several years have placed material on the beach that is much courser than what was already there. She said potential problems are more than cosmetic; the new environment can be deadly to sand-dwelling creatures.
Miller agrees, and said that in some cases, incompatible sand acts like concrete, smothering and killing organisms. Compounding the problem, he said, is a shortage of sand in the southeast and predictions by geologists that it will be difficult to find enough sand in the future.
Unlike Simmons and Marshall, Duval isn’t ready to declare the Sea Turtle project a success. She said material placed in the area was larger than the existing sand. Some was covered up or washed away by the time the turtles nested in the summer, but some is still there. Duval gave the beach only a 50-50 chance of creating an optimal nesting place for turtles in the first two years after nourishment.
Duval wants to be more precise with her conclusions, but said she can only estimate the effects due to the lack of scientific research. She sees that as a serious deficiency facing North Carolina planners of beach nourishment projects.
“The cumulative and long-term impacts aren’t well assessed and are overlooked. Some may not show up until five years or so after it’s complete,” she said.
Martinez is an associate editor at Carolina Journal.