Place me in the "critics" column:
Should the state [of North Carolina], for the first time, allow structures that stabilize some stretches of beach but may starve others?
Will the race to protect real estate end up destroying some public beaches?
State legislators took up the fight last week, introducing a bill that critics say would upset the uneasy balance between development and nature.
The bill would allow terminal groins, which jut into the sea like fingers, trapping sand along inlets. Groins could stabilize the eroding ends of barrier islands, including the tony enclaves of Bald Head Island and private Figure Eight Island near Wilmington.
But while groins stop erosion on one side, they can magnify it on the other. North Carolina and Oregon are the only two states that forbid hard structures such as seawalls and groins, which may protect property at the expense of a natural beach. State policy holds beaches in trust for public use. ...
The barrier islands and their beaches are restless by nature. Currents, wind and storms incessantly reshape them, depositing sand here, whisking it away there. Inlets between the islands change course often, wagging back and forth like a retriever's tail.
Rooted on those islands is $7.7 billion in insured real estate, from weathered cottages to gleaming high-rises. Preserving those buildings means trying to out-flank nature. ...
Is spending justified?
Insured-property losses from hurricanes averaged $10.6 million a year (in 2005 dollars) from 1949 to 1988 in North Carolina, the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America says. As development grew and hurricane activity intensified, average losses between 1989 and 2005 soared to $296 million a year.
Taxpayers share the burden, helping pay to repair storm damages and install erosion-control measures. The federal flood-insurance program has rebuilt homes that have been repeatedly flooded on the state's coast.
Beach towns argue that the spending is justified because their strands draw visitors from all over, fueling the state's $20 billion tourism industry. ...
Critics counter that it's a waste of public money to try to hold in place a constantly shifting environment.
The key question for me is: would people stop going to the beach if the cottages and hotels aren't right on top of the ocean? Based on some research I've been trying to conduct*, the answer seems to be a net no. Some people would stop going but others would be just as happy, or happier, staying in a cottage or hotel off the ocean, a short drive or walk to the ocean. The key variable is beach width ... people want a strip of sand to hang out on. Beach hardening could potentially make that go away.
However, it sounds like the economic values that show up in markets will be weighted more heavily than the more difficult to measure market values.
*It is based on the best available revealed preference data, so the results are totally convincing. I'd ideally like to design a stated preference study for this issue.
