rss
mobile
Feeds
Indeed, for the long-term health of the state's most valuable resources, it is the sensible approach. The trick is how to balance protecting what already has been built with the goal of moving back from an erosional shoreline.
For Hilton Head Island, the most troublesome part of the report is its assessment of the long-term viability of beach renourishment, an important tool in protecting and enhancing a vital asset for the island's tourism industry.
The report acknowledges that pumping sand onto the beach is preferable to using hard structures, such as rock revetments and seawalls, to protect beachfront structures. But it also cautions that it could be risky to rely on renourishment due to the decreasing availability of sand (leading to higher project costs); increasing rates of erosion, particularly due to sea level rises; and decreasing federal, state and local money for such projects.
A gradual retreat from the beach would allow the ebb and flow of shoreline to continue without continuing damage to beachfront structures, the report states.
Hilton Head probably would be able to continue its renourishment program, given its local funding, its strict development regulations and its careful monitoring of its renourishment efforts.
The policy changes would have more impact on other areas of the state, such as Hunting Island, that rely heavily on state and federal funding for renourishment. And that's a policy debate that needs to occur. We must weigh this public investment against its sustainability.
Since 1985, more than 27.5 million cubic yards of sand have been pumped onto state beaches at a cost of nearly $225 million in federal, state and local funding, the report states.
Since 1990, Hilton Head has paid about $41.2 million for four projects; all but about $8 million of that came from local funding. Because of that investment, Hilton Head fought the state's moving seaward the line that determines where building can occur even after renourishment. The town established its own rules to prevent that.
The good news in the report is that the town's approach could become state policy, too. The report also calls for increasing the setback, with its limits on construction, from 20 feet to 50 feet, also a good idea.
Another of the report's proposals is to expand beachfront real estate disclosure requirements. People ought to understand any risks inherent in the property they are buying. This might meet resistance, but it shouldn't. A thorough understanding of erosion and other risks associated with oceanfront ownership is important.
Of interest for Beaufort County and other municipalities is a recommendation that the real estate transfer fee be extended beyond Hilton Head so that money can be raised to buy land in beachfront and waterfront areas, the surest way to protect them from harmful development.
And the report doesn't stop at the state's beaches.
It also addresses erosion control efforts in our estuaries. It warns that bulkheads and revetments on the shores of rivers and creeks speed water flow and erosion. They often change the hydrodynamics of tidal creeks causing currents to increase and increasing downstream erosion. This can be prevent sediments from settling out and nourishing nearby marshes. Much of South Carolina's marsh system could be lost to sea level rise unless it can migrate inland.
This is where policy changes could have the most far-reaching impact. South Carolina has 187 miles of ocean frontage, the reports states, but has 2,875 miles of estuarine shoreline and more than 500,000 acres of salt marsh.
The report warns of the cumulative effects of these hard structures. Since 2001, the state Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management has issued 835 permits for bulkheads or seawalls and 188 permits for revetments along estuarine shorelines.
No one likes to be told what to do with his or her property, especially property they paid dearly for. But we will all pay a heavy price if we don't better manage our important natural and public resources.
