E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Rich Schultz / AP
Two women walk along the shore where new sand is in place at the beach in Seaside Heights, N.J., on Nov. 18.
The average New Jersey beach is 30 to 40 feet narrower after Superstorm Sandy, according to a survey that is sure to intensify a long-running debate on whether federal dollars should be used to replenish stretches of sand that only a fraction of U.S. taxpayers use.
Some of New Jersey's famous beaches lost half their sand when Sandy slammed ashore in late October.
The shore town of Mantoloking, one of the hardest-hit communities, lost 150 feet of beach, said Stewart Farrell, director of Stockton College's Coastal Research Center and a leading expert on beach erosion.
Routine storms tear up beaches in any season, and one prescription for protecting communities from storm surge has been to replenish beaches with sand pumped from offshore. Places with recently beefed-up beaches saw comparatively little damage, said Farrell, whose study's findings were made available to The Associated Press.
"It really, really works," Farrell said. "Where there was a federal beach fill in place, there was no major damage — no homes destroyed, no sand piles in the streets. Where there was no beach fill, water broke through the dunes."
The beach-replenishment projects have been controversial both for their expense and because waves continually wash away the new sand. The federal government picks up 65 percent of the cost, with the rest coming from state and local coffers.
How big the beaches are — or whether there is a beach at all to go to — is a crucial question that must be resolved before the summer tourism season. The Jersey shore powers the state's $35.5 billion tourism industry.
But the pending spending showdown between congressional Republicans and Democrats could make it even harder to secure hundreds of millions of additional dollars for beach replenishment.
From 1986 to 2011, nearly $700 million was spent placing 80 million cubic yards of sand on about 55 percent of the New Jersey coast. Over that time, the average beach gained 4 feet of width, according to the Coastal Research Center. And just before the storm hit, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded nearly $28 million worth of contracts for new replenishment projects in southern New Jersey's Cape May County.
Wayne Parry / AP
A bulldozer pushes piles of sand around on the beach in Ocean Grove, N.J., beach in front of its storm-buckled boardwalk and damaged fishing pier on Nov. 15, 2012.
U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, used a photo of a pig on the cover of his 2009 report "Washed Out To Sea," in which he characterized beach replenishment as costly, wasteful pork that the nation could not afford.
"Taxpayers are not surprised when they learn how Congress wastes billions of dollars on questionable programs and projects each year, but it may still shock taxpayers to know that Congress has literally dumped nearly $3 billion into beach projects that have washed out to sea," he wrote.
A message seeking comment was left Monday with Coburn's office.
U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, predicted lawmakers from New Jersey and New York would be able to get additional shore protection funds included in the next federal budget, despite partisan wars.
"I think we will be able to make the case," he said. "We can show that this provides long-term protection to property and lives. You can either pay up front to keep on top of projects like this, or you can pay on the back end" through disaster recovery funds.
Menendez this week noted that Congress has approved emergency recovery funds for victims of Hurricane Katrina and tornadoes in Missouri, among other natural disasters.
During a tour of storm-wrecked neighborhoods in Seaside Heights and Hoboken, Vice President Joe Biden also vowed the federal government would pay to rebuild New Jersey.
"This is a national responsibility; this is not a local responsibility," Biden said. "We're one national government, and we have an obligation."
Jogging in the street because Sandy had destroyed the Spring Lake boardwalk for the second time in little over a year, Michele Degnan-Spang said it was difficult to comprehend how things have changed in her community.
A few stray planks of the synthetic gray boardwalk that was just replaced last year after Tropical Storm Irene were strewn about the sand; concrete pilings that used to support the boardwalk now stretch for a mile off to the horizon like little Stonehenges.
"It's horrible," she said. "It's draining to see this. It's surreal. I'm walking through it and saying, 'This really is happening.'"
Degnan-Spang predicted she and her extended family would be back on the sand soon, though.
"The drive is going to be to get back on the beach next summer, no matter what it looks like," she said. "We don't go on vacation because we live in the most beautiful spot in the world. We all go to the beach; it's what summer is. It'll come back; it'll just be different."
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Theft of sacred rock drawings stuns California tribe
- Paula Broadwell given warm welcome on return to NC home
- Newest family budget killer? It's the $300 cellphone bill, readers say
- Bishop sorry for allowing child molester on school grounds
- Is serial killer targeting NYC shopkeepers?
- Video: Injured veteran: 'I heard somebody yelling 'train''
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
People who place their houses in harm's way, say a few hundred feet from the eastern shore of the US, should have to pick up the entire tab for beach restoration. Beach erosion is a naturally occurring phenomenon that has been going on for centuries. Don't interfere with it. Move back from the water's edge.
Disaster relief that has been promised should be delivered but not simply to redo the same dumb things that were done before. Again, move back from the water's edge. It's silly to build a house on a foundation of sand. If you choose to do so, do it at your own expense.
Darn,
We build our shore houses now, (since 1968) up on pilasters. Pilasters are those telephone pole looking logs that get pounded into the ground until they hit bedrock. The lower part of the units are covered with lattice with a two car garage keeping the living quarters 12 to 14 feet off the ground. The lattice gets blown out easily relieving the rest of the building of stress and they can take it when flooded.
The houses that were destroyed were on slabs or foundations built before then.
Also, why would a homeowner living along the beach be liable to pay for the restoration of a State/Twp or County owned beach? Makes no sense to me. Have you ever even "seen" the ocean?
Can't move back from the ocean. All the land is owned by someone and you'd be encroaching upon someone else's land. Land at the Jersey Shore line can cost as much as a million bucks an acre and NJ has the highest taxes in the nation.
Your post makes it seem like you've never seen the ocean or appreciated it before. As if you live in the center of the USA and didn't fall far from the tree.....
My ex-wive's family has beachfront property which they should have sold 15 years ago.
why because YOU said so? do you know what the word ...."EX" entails?
I have read studies, some time ago, that the jetty's placed all up and down the coast have the effect of pushing sand out to deeper water and thus reducing the size of beaches on a regular basis. So the taxpayers (in most cases) pay to create the jetties, and then pay to fix the beaches that the jetties destroy.. and of course the taxpayers provided the guarantees so that flood plain insurance is available so some of the well to do and built houses right where they'll be destroyed too, and so a few folks essentially get a free lunch on the rest of us so they can sit right on the beach in a nice house, and if a storm comes along, raise hell with the taxpayers for not fixing things fast enough... As usual the biggest problems are created by government solutions!!
Creek, of course I've seen the ocean and I like the ocean. It's difficult to appreciate it though when houses are so close by. And on the east coast, there has been a natural, long-term trend of the beaches moving west, which means.... smaller beaches. Also, "restoring" the beach (or worse, the Orwellian term "beach renourishment", which thankfully the article did not use) essentially kills everything that gets sand dumped on it. Renourish indeed.
When I say "move back from the ocean", I mean let the shore migrate as it naturally should. The front row of houses may be lost, then another. But a huge mistake has been made building so close to the beach, not just in NJ, but all along the east coast. The fixes are to let nature take its course and let the people who build there bear the full costs of remaining, which is what I favor, or keep taxpayers on the hook to continue dumping money onto beachfront property owners. These owners are usually more well-off than us peasants that are forced to finance such silliness. I might favor a phaseout of tax subsidies to these folks to ease the blow, but I'd like to get in harmony with the sea here. See, I appreciate the sea in a way that you do not. You want an armored coastline. BTW the term "Newjerseyfication of the shore" is used outside of NJ to describe what folks do NOT want to happen to their state.
Good idea regarding building on pylons. My brother's beach house was built that way too. It survived Hugo.
I don't live in the US, but.... people build near the shore here too, but the govt does not help them or subsidize them. It does keep up the limited services that were promised, e.g. rescraping a road now and then. Oddly, I can indeed appreciate the power of the ocean sitting amidst a "sea" of ruined housing, a not uncommon sight here.
Regardless, survive!
Disenwit, the Army Corps of Engineers continually conducts shoreline studies which virtually always show that a jetty, berm, seawall, whatever, will hold back the ocean. They are always wrong. These studies are merely self-serving exercises in finding an excuse to exist. The word "Army" implies that there's some sort of national security side to this too, which 99% of the time there is not.
Survive!
NJ, along with every State with Ocean Shorelines should be happy that they still have any beaches at all. Possibly in our lifetime, our Nation's size will be considerably smaller if predictions are correct about Climate Change. The Oceans will make sure of that as they rise due to Glacier Melt and flood the Seashores and Islands. In the meantime enjoy what you have now.
@DarnThatDream...
And people who live in the tornado belt should pick up the tab for all of their disasters as well, right? I mean, how stupid of them to live in a state that has tornadoes. Tonradoes are a naturally occurring phenomenon. Right?
Erosion along the eastern shore is a near constant phenomenon, operating year in, year out in geologic time-frames. It in no way resembles the randomness of tornadoes. If you build in a floodplain, it WILL flood at some point. If you build in the tornado zone, which encompasses a good part of the US, you will very likely NEVER have your home blown away by a tornado.
The whole issue can be settled by simply not subsidizing with tax money, directly or indirectly, , building, regardless of where it is located. Let them pay a market rate for insurance, storm shutters, fire protection, "beach renourishment", whatever and let things shake out that way. Where I live earthquakes are a problem.... and I'm gonna hafta pay up for earthquake insurance. Yes, I will appreciate someone helping dig me out of the rubble, but I will not expect anyone to help me rebuild my house or even be quick about rebuilding the roads. And don't worry, they won't.
Creek wrote:
Because, but for the presence of your house and those of your neighbors, there would be a perfectly healthy beach there, not one in need of restoration. The problem from your perspective would be that that beach would be where your house is. Your house caused the problem and made the restoration necessary. You benefit, you pay. Regardless, survive!
P.S. Thanks for the info on pilasters. I was familiar with the concept but did not know that you could reach bedrock in NJ. The North Carolina barrier islands are just sand, no bedrock. They move. The coastline has changed dramatically since colonial times. Oregon Inlet and Hatteras Inlet were created by gales in 1846. Check out the changes over the centuries. The place is unrecognizable.
Why should someone from out of state have to pay to replenish a beach when they will charge that same person to sit on it when they vacation there. If you expect me to pay for more sand to get washed away next storm don't slap me in the face by making me pay to sit on the sand I've already paid the rent on upfront.
....why do people from the east coast have to pay for farm subsidies, or earthquake/tornado rebuilding or protection?
Sounds like someone needs to do a little exploring! Nothing against the Jersey Shore, and I am sure that it was some sort of paradise to these people, particularly in hindsight, but it hardly qualifies as the "most beautiful spot in the world". Sheesh!
This sounds more like a question as to whether anyone should live on the coastline. Because naturally coastlines shift and change. Where I grew up no one could own the land because it was a barrier island. You could only lease property for 99 years. Mainly because it might not be there within a century (or after one massive storm). That beach stayed fairly undeveloped until James Watt under Reagan started selling it off to private interests, now much of is paved. The protective dunes are largely gone and the groves of naval oaks are mostly gone. Someday all of that concrete and asphalt may be the only thing remaining. Without these sand replenishment programs that might already be the case.
Man may be the most intelligent being on the planet but sometimes I don't think that is saying much.
Vox,
Have you ever been to any Jersey Beaches? There are 130 miles of beach to choose from and yes, they "are" beautiful thank you...
Have a nice day...
Creek Dog
I have been to Jersey beaches and they are unique! Something about watching the morning sunrise glimmer off the medical waste, sewage and trash just says paradise!
navyvet00,
Was this while you were enlisted and looking off the backwash of your ship in the morning?
Have a nice day...
Much of the shore is effectively cut off to visitors due to really screwed up public access laws in place. But if you don't mind walking about a mile from where you parked to get to the beach it's very scenic. But most Jerseyans really suck. Egotistical, paranoid and insecure.
And that's if you can endure that f*#king smell that slaps you in the face the minute you enter dirty jersey on I95 north. The only good things Jersey has are the Giants and Bruce Springsteen.
That smell is our refineries creating the fuel that we sell you!
I know it "is" nasty but it's from the sulfurs used during the refinement. I live about 60 to 70 miles south of there but do have to travel up that way once in awhile.
I don't know how the people that live up there can take it day in and day out.
When they do replace the "Boardwalk" why don't they just use say preformed concrete slabs instead of wood or synthetic fiber boards? I realize that it may not look as pleasing as the boards did but if it stays in place and is more cost effective then it should be a no brainier.
To me it would sort of act as a barrier for future storm surges and I would think would stand up better to the elements in the long run. I have never visited the area although I would enjoy doing so some time in the future.
Isn't there some way to keep the sand in place? I seem to remember an article not to long ago where they had used some type of mating to hold the sand in place and prevent it from being washed away?
If were going to rebuild the area and its beaches then it should be done using common sense and the best of all ideas to get it done right this time.
Muddie, that's the problem: there is no right way. It cannot be done. Anything you build on the shore, no matter how fortified, can always be undermined. A huge fortune awaits anyone who can conquer the sea. We cannot win this battle and are foolish if we even try. I'm willing to let people act foolishly, but I want them to use their own money in the effort.
Access to us peasants is largely blocked by rich folks who understandably want a nice house on the ocean. That's ok. I believe in private property, but I don't like them whining to the govt when the beach in front of their house, during its natural cycle, diminishes to nothing. There would always be a healthy beach if there were no houses to protect. A relative handful of mostly well-to-do folks have ruined the seashore for the masses.... with our money.
People, get off your knees and say "no" to this theft. This is not the common good. It is to the good of a few well-off folks. Let them pay for it. So far, their side has been winning. Your access to the beach is limited while you pay for their cushy access to the beach. Don't be an Uncle Tom. Say "no".
I don't think people should live on barrier islands, they are a natural buffer between the sea and the mainland. They constantly erode and rebuild, the sea is much too powerful to try and contain.
Charge the cost of beach restoration to the beach front property owners !!!
meanwhile the residents have gotten 50% bigger............
Ewww...It's New Jersey for Pete's sake...waste of money
That's just a myth,...Scooter!
And what's Pete have to do with it?! WTF...
NO! A government 16 1/4 trillion dollars in debt should NOT be spending money to put sand on beaches. It is completely moronic that the question is even asked?
I live in NJ but I don't see why the federal government should contribute so much to beach restoration. If you build a house that close to the ocean, you are assuming the risk that goes along with it.
Since they claim the shore pulls in $35.5b for the state, then the state should be footing the bill. If they need to raise money to do so, then all the businesses and folks who live within "x" miles of the shoreline should pay a surcharge. If you squeeze a little out of many, you get a lot. Similar to an app for your smartphone.
I'm don't see why all U.S. taxpayers should have to pay for beach restoration. Didn't the states want greater freedom to do what they think is right during this past election?
Thank you Tiggle.
Yes, I have seen the ocean, I grew up in Miami and later lived for 17 years 1000 yards from the beachfront at Wrightsville Beach NC. That said, it is time to consider an orderly retreat from the beaches.
The natural life cycle of a barrier island beach is that they form as sand bars in front of an existing beach and when a storm over-washes the beach sand is moved from the beach side to the sound side of the island and the result is that the island moves a little closer to the mainland. Over time the entire island migrates ashore to merge with the mainland and the former sand bar becomes the new barrier island beach and the process continues. Building on a barrier island is building on shifting sand, anybody recall that old proverb?
Add to this situation the rising sea levels and it is clear that at some point the recent efforts at "drawing a line in the sand" and declaring that "the beach stays here." are doomed. There will always be a seashore, just not where it is at any one moment in time and certainly not where people decide it ought to be.
Yeah, I've seen the ocean plenty of times, that big sandy thing right at the edge of it is where people with more money than good sense build their houses.
i know a lot of people are going to take personal offense to this and i apologize in advance.... but....
Sandy just declared a new coast line. If it takes the 'one year' to rebuild that it's predicted to take then the repairs will be done just in time for the next hurricane to wash it all away. I'm very sorry for the loss of life and damage to property... but this is a losing battle.
the beach didn't lose and width....it just got pushed back....
No offense taken here.
The fools who built on the beach actually had it coming to them. Problem is, most will act as fools again and have their houses swept away again.
Where will Snooky go? This is a really bad Situation....
You can't blame someone for wanting to build their house on a beach. Beaches are beautiful (unless trashed) and most everyone can enjoy waking up and watching the sunrise over the water from their house. BUT, those same homeowners can't blame anyone if a storm comes and wipes them out. It is the risk you take when you build on the ocean, anywhere.
I feel badly for the people who have lost their homes and livelyhood on the upper east coast. What they are going through is heartbreaking, especially as we near the holidays.
The beaches naturally shift, shrink, grown, broaden, etc. and with the force of nature, like Sandy, of course the beach front will change. Something that large and powerful is not going to keep things the same. It should be common knowledge that the beaches will shift.
And this is why we are so deep in the hole as a nation. If beach rebuilding is so important to a 35 billion dollar tourism industry, then that industry ought to pay for the beach restoration. If using tax money to feed poor welfare children is so abhorrent to the wealthy beachfront property owners, why is it OK for that same tax money to be used to rebuild a beach that only a fraction of the population will ever see or use? Why don't the insurance companies pony up? Why do I, living inland, need to finance the folly of constructing expensive houses within range of naturally occuring storms and pay for the very expensive government clean up when the expected disaster strikes - for the second time in two years? This kind of selfishness is what's driving us to ruin.
Patience please. The beaches will restore. It does help to use front loaders to pick up the sand that was pushed inland and truck it back east to the shore.
Even if you don't, the shoreline will return.
Here we lost 100 feet of sand at southest end of Lake Michigan due to 35 foot waves and 60+ MPH winds. All came back within 5 months.
The beaches on the east coast seldom return. There's a long-term pattern of erosion and of the beaches moving westward, which will end some day, but not perhaps for millennia. You can see why some of us don't think it's wise to keep fighting a losing battle.... and certainly not with our money.
Sigh....Humans. Still arrogant enough to believe we have some say in what Nature does with the Planet.