Yesterday we announced a new opinion poll on whether federal money should be spent on beach renourishment. President Bush's budget has an answer to the question (Nothing shelled out for beaches):
President Bush's proposed budget doesn't include money to restore a single grain of sand to North Carolina's eroding coastline.
This isn't a huge surprise to coastal leaders. Neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations have been interested much in beach nourishment. So once again, getting the money comes down to lobbying Congress.
My answer to this question is a bit tortured. Imagine a world without beach houses, condos and hotels. Beach nourishment is not necessary. The beach moves with the tides and ocean currents, new inlets are cut by storms and old inlets get filled in. Big deal. Beach goers wouldn't care if the beach moved. There is a beach that supports recreation.
The thing is, there ARE beach houses, condos and hotels ... and the benefits of these things are enjoyed by their owners (mostly maybe) and people who rent them. It sure is a lot more fun and more convenient if your beach week is on the first row with the waves pounding outside your bedroom window. You don't have to haul all your crap all over the island and your kids can handle the short walk.
So, the benefits of beach nourishment are enjoyed by everyone who rents a place at the beach and the property owners.
The costs of beach nourishment are high. Like I said yesterday, the good sand is becoming more and more scarce and it takes some heavy equipment to move it. Another cost is environmental. Sea turtles and such don't always like the replacement sand.
The efficiency question is: do the benefits of nourishment exceed the costs? And, if so, who should pay? As you may know, if money for nourishment is in the federal budget, all you middle Americans (a shout out to the show me state!) are chipping in as much as all the North Carolinians are.
There are some other equity issues too. Beach property owners are mostly rich, beach renters are mostly middle class, and all other beach goers mostly takes day trips and enjoy the limited public access areas. Economists aren't very good at equity so I'll leave this one alone. Maybe my sociologist spouse, an equity freak who wants to own property at the beach, can handle it better than me!
As it happens, I'm going to the beach (the Crystal Coast!) during our spring break in a few weeks, and staying on the beach (yes, I'm part of the problem). Cromulently, I'm hoping to have a series of posts on this issue between now and then. Maybe I'll figure out what I really think before beach week.
Here are my previous posts on the issue so that you can check my inconsistencies:
Environmental Economics: Costs of beach nourishment
Costs of beach nourishment. Some simple economics, courtesy of the Wilmington ... The marginal cost of beach nourishment is upward sloping and the increased ... Environmental Economics: 2 peas in a pod: levees and beach nourishment
2 peas in a pod: levees and beach nourishment. The city of Wilmington, NC is hiring a lobbyist to make sure the federal government does its part to make ... Environmental Economics: Beach renourishment
When the feds act as the insurer of last resort when they pay for beach nourishment after a hurricane damages the protective dunes. Quoting Tim: ...
Hello ! This is very [url=http://www.google.com/bb497]good[/url] site !!
Posted by: Funkie | March 21, 2006 at 03:48 AM
Hi ! Your site is very interesting. Thank you.
Posted by: Dominic | March 21, 2006 at 03:50 AM
I don't think that beach nourishment is helpful in the long haul, but since it was the government that put in the groins on Long Island, beach nourishment will remain a necessary, costly repair until the government takes out those hated, destructive groins. Then nature can take care of itself!
Posted by: Alan Renshaw | April 05, 2006 at 09:54 PM