By Brandt Mannchen
When it comes to a mammal, humans are very interesting. We have large brains and good hand-eye coordination. We can look to the future and envision new things. However, we are not good at “learning from our mistakes”. In “forgetting to learn” we approach our environment, which makes our lives possible, as a competitor or enemy that we must defeat. Instead of a competitor, Nature is our mentor. If we follow its guidance, work with Nature and not against it, we will keep ourselves “out of harm’s way”.
This has been brought home to me on numerous occasions, but no more obviously than the document that I recently found on the internet. This document was written on March 25-27, 1981, 38 years ago. That is a long time for us, about half a human lifetime.
The document is entitled “Saving The American Beach: A Position Paper by Concerned Coastal Geologists”. This position paper was written in Savannah, Georgia as a part of the Skidway Institute of Oceanography Conference on “America’s Eroding Shoreline: The need for geologic input into shoreline management, decisions and strategy”. There were 104 conveners, participants, and or signers of this position paper. This was a call by the coastal geologist community for a shift in thinking about beach and coastal management.
Some prominent Texas coastal geologists participated and or signed the position paper including: Robert Morton, Bureau of Economic Geology, John B. Anderson, Rice University, David M. Bush, Pennzoil Corporation, F. Carman, Jr., University of Houston, William R. Dupre, University of Houston, Rufus J. LeBlanc, Shell Oil Company, J.H. MGowen, Bureau of Economic Geology, David L. McGrail, Texas A&M University, Martin A. Perlmuller, Texaco, and W. Armstrong Price, Corpus Christi.
The position paper not only makes eminent sense, but ought to be the basis for coastal policy in Texas today! The position paper stated:
1) People are directly responsible for the “erosion problem” by constructing buildings near the beach. For practical proses, there is no erosion problem where there are no buildings or farms.
2) Fixed shoreline structures (breakwaters, groins, seawalls, etc.) can be successful in prolonging the life of beach buildings. However, they almost always accelerate the natural rate of beach erosion. Resulting degradation of the beach may occur in the immediate vicinity of structures or it may occur along adjacent shorelines sometimes miles away.
3) Most shoreline stabilization projects protect property, not beaches. The protected property belongs to a few individuals relative to the number of Americans who use beaches. If left alone, beaches will always be present, even if they are moving landward.
4) The cost of saving beach property by stabilization is very high. Often it is greater than the value of the property to be saved especially if long range costs are considered.
5) Shoreline stabilization in the long run (10 to 100 years) usually results in severe degradation or total loss of a valuable natural resource, the open ocean beach.
6) Historical data show that shoreline stabilization is irreversible. Once a beach has been stabilized it will almost always remain in a stabilized state at increasing cost to the taxpayer.
Contrast this reasoned outlook which requires that people take responsibility for their actions and work with and not against Nature, to The Center for Texas Beaches and Shores (Texas A&M University, TAMU) proposal for storm surge.
TAMU recently put a Powerpoint presentation on the internet entitled “Developing a Texas Preferred Ike Dike/Coastal Spine”. This massive 70-mile-long, 18-21 foot-tall, and several hundred-foot-wide levee-seawall-floodwall proposal has a reported (not final) cost of 10, 20, or more billion dollars.
The TAMU political strategy contains statements like: “Act like self-evident”; “Avoid arguments”; “Point out no viable alternative”; and “Costs need to be right – funding still not well developed”. TAMU states that its approach to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the public is to “Focus on USACE report – ignore others?” and use “Technical arguments wherever possible”.
Instead of engaging in a discussion with the public about how to save beaches, reduce erosion, deal with storm surge, and keep people out of harm’s way, TAMU, a public university, relegates public discussion to a political strategy that avoids talking with the public and emphasizes the rightness of its position.
This “public be damned” attitude is wrong as is TAMU’s assertion that there are “no viable alternatives”. There are other alternatives that could be implemented, one of which the Sierra Club has proposed and is called the “Double EE (Economically and Environmentally Sound) Storm Surge Alternative for Galveston Bay”.
The Double EE alternative requires more personal and government responsibility when development and building on the beach or coast is contemplated. It is more location specific and addresses problems in a manner that reduces costs over the long-term while taking into account climate change effects like sea level rise, more frequent and intense rainfalls, more frequent and intense storms and hurricanes, and increased erosion of the Texas Coast will be with us for 100’s if not 1,000 or more years.
The Sierra Club alternative works with and not against Nature as much as possible while utilizing “strategic withdrawal” to adapt to rising sea level and the increased erosion this brings. As humans we must learn from our mistakes. Otherwise the prospects are not good for the mammal with the big brain who “forgets to learn”.