Some Experts Say It's Time to Evacuate the Coast (for Good)

[HumanCookie]

Finally an article that make sense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/science/04coast.html

October 4, 2005
Some Experts Say It's Time to Evacuate the Coast (for Good)
By CORNELIA DEAN
PENSACOLA, Fla. - As the Gulf Coast reels from two catastrophic storms in a month, and the Carolinas and Florida deal with damage and debris from hurricanes this year and last, even some supporters of coastal development are starting to ask a previously unthinkable question: is it time to consider retreat from the coast?

Yes, said Howard Marlowe, president of Marlowe & Company, a lobbying firm that represents counties and local governments, often in seeking support for coastal infrastructure, like roads, sewers and beach replenishment. "I think we need to be asking that and discussing that, and the federal government needs to provide leadership," Mr. Marlowe said.

He added, "I have never been an advocate for the federal government telling people that they have to move out, but it's important to have a discussion at all levels of government about what can be done to make sure more people do not put themselves in harm's way. It will not be an easy dialogue."

The idea that much of the coast is dangerous and getting more so is not new. Coastal scientists have been saying for years that global warming will threaten coastal areas with higher seas and more powerful storms, and that a hurricane lull that began in the mid-1960's will eventually give way to the far more dangerous pattern of storms that prevailed in the 1930's, 40's and 50's. Since then, though, development has transformed the nation's shoreline, especially on the east and gulf coasts.

By last year, when four hurricanes crossed the state of Florida in a matter of weeks, it was clear the lull had ended. This year, Hurricanes Katrina, Ophelia and Rita drove the hazard lesson home.

A. R. Schwartz, a Democrat who for decades represented Galveston and much of the Texas coast in the State Legislature, said he now regretted some of the legislation he had pushed that subsidized development on the coast, particularly a measure that provides tax relief to insurance companies faced with wind damage claims.

Mr. Schwartz, whose constituents knew him as Babe, said that measure was "a terrible mistake - in my mind, as opposed to my heart, because the people need the insurance - because it has been an invitation for people to build homes on barrier islands and on peninsulas that are exposed to storms, at public expense."

"We are facing a crisis now because of that law I passed," said Mr. Schwartz, who now lives in Austin where he works as a lobbyist and lawyer.

Daniel P. Schrag, director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, said that as coastal areas, and islands, recover "there has to be a discussion of what responsibility we have not to encourage people to rebuild their houses in the same way."

Even the fate of New Orleans should be open to discussion, Dr. Schrag said. "Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild a city that puts it in harm's way once again and relying on technology such as higher dikes and levees seems to me a very dangerous strategy," the more so in an era of global warming.

Erosion already threatens 70 percent of the nation's coastline, and is especially severe on the east and gulf coasts. In a report to Congress in 2000, the Federal Emergency Management Agency said that more than a quarter of the houses within 500 feet of the coast might be lost to the sea by 2060. The report said these losses would put an intolerable burden on the federal government, which insures many of the structures through its flood insurance program.

"We are getting these lifetime storms every couple of years," said Riley G. Hoggard, a resource management specialist at the Gulf Islands National Seashore, where the road to Fort Pickens, on Santa Rosa Island here, has been washed out and rebuilt three times in the last year. "Maybe we need to get into a program of orderly retreat."

In recent decades, people have been doing just the opposite. According to the Census Bureau, 87 million people, nearly a third of the nation's population, live on or near the Atlantic or gulf coasts.

Harry Simmons, president of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, which advocates for beach replenishment and other infrastructure support for coastal communities, said that 3,600 Americans moved to the coast every day.

"You cannot draw up a worse case scenario for increased property damage, risk to human life and cost to taxpayers," said Robert S. Young of Western Carolina University, who studies coastal development.

Just as a commission was formed to identify military bases for closing, he said, a commission should be formed to identify "those sections of shoreline that are clearly so vulnerable to storm damage that they should no longer receive any federal subsidy of infrastructure rebuilding, they should be yanked out of the flood insurance program, those sorts of things."

Mr. Young said the commission should be made up of representatives from FEMA, the United States Geological Survey, the Army Corps of Engineers and university researchers. "It could not have politicians on it because coastal politicians, even if they are fiscal conservatives, would want to defend their coastal turf," he said.

He said he would propose the idea this month, when he has been asked to testify before a subcommittee of the House Resources Committee. "We need to just make a start," he said.

Meanwhile, scientists from the geological survey have been making detailed observations of the coastal landscape, before and after storms, to try to identify characteristics, not always obvious, that make areas more or less vulnerable to storm damage.

The geological survey is not in the business of defining where people should or should not live, said Abby Sallenger, a scientist with the agency who has been leading data collection efforts on the gulf coast. But, he said, "There are sections of the east and gulf coasts that are extremely hazardous and the scientific community could come to agreement on where they are" so that policy makers could act on the information.

Like others who study this issue, he said two good candidates for retreat were Dauphin Island in Alabama, much of it wiped out by Hurricane Katrina, and North Topsail Island, N.C., which, he said, "gets wiped out routinely."

But plenty of people reject the idea that those who live on the coast are any more at risk than those who live in areas prone to tornadoes, earthquakes or forest fires, even in an era of increased storms.

"There are engineering solutions to almost any problem we face," said Mr. Simmons of the beach association, who is mayor of Caswell Beach, N.C., near Cape Fear. He said the problem with places like North Topsail Island is too little infrastructure support, not too much. "We are not doing a good enough job maintaining things" like beaches, he said.

In the past, the promise of engineering has prevailed against efforts to get the federal government out of the coastal development business.

More than a decade ago, for example, FEMA scientists suggested imposing new limits on federally subsidized flood insurance and government support for roads, sewers and other infrastructure in erosion hazard areas. But advocates for development denounced the move as undue federal interference, and it was defeated.

Setback requirements have been successfully challenged as unconstitutionally limiting people's use of their property.

But Mr. Marlowe, the lobbying firm president, said: "What I am looking for is a national commitment to a plan that says: 'O.K., we have people in these areas, how are we going to protect them? We have other people in these areas where we are going to discourage future development because we cannot protect things that are there.' "

Mr. Simmons said this kind of planning would be a good thing. But he said the beach preservation association "has always taken the position that sound development is the way to go," with zoning and building codes determined locally. "What I hear some people saying is you should just bulldoze the place and leave it to the birds and the turtles, and I don't agree with that," he said.

Mr. Hoggard of the Park Service said he would not consign even Fort Pickens to that fate. But, he said, it is time to consider replacing the road, possibly, for example, with a ferry service from the mainland. But, as is the case on all the developed shoreline, abandoning infrastructure means lost revenue, in this case fees from a year-round campground. So Mr. Hoggard said there would be pressure to maintain the road, flooded yet again by pounding surf churned up by Hurricane Rita. "We can do that with our technology," he said. "But only for so long, and at a great price."

[HurryKane]

It'll never happen.

[GalvestonDuck]

It doesn't make sense to me.

(Gonna copy and paste because I've said this many times and I just might as well repeat my opinion.)

Living here is no more dangerous than living in tornado alley, in flood plains, in the mountains where mudslides or avalanches occur, on fault lines where earthquakes shake the earth, in forests where fires burn, or up north with blizzards paralyze lives throughout the winter. If we could all find ONE nice cozy safe place on earth where we could live without EVER being at risk for a natural disaster, we'd end up being so darned overcrowded, underfed, diseased, and crime-ridden, it wouldn't be worth it. Or we'd all be packed into one nice, tight little perfect terrorist target, just right for dropping any sort of NBC weapon into.

BTW - the Red Cross' most responded-to disaster: simple one-home fires. The Galveston County Red Cross responds to at least 70 fires a month in our area, providing assistance and support to victims. It doesn't take a large-scale natural disaster to take a home or a life. And there's nowhere that's 100% safe to live.

So, unless Mr. Marlowe has an idea for the perfect safe place (safe from natural and man-made disasters), my happy little tailfeathers are going to stay right here on this Gulf Coast island, thank you very much. At least with hurricanes (and, in many cases, wildfires) evacuation is possible and lives can be saved.

~Gulf-Coast-living Duck and proud of it

[greeng13]

It doesn't make sense to me.

(Gonna copy and paste because I've said this many times and I just might as well repeat my opinion.)

Living here is no more dangerous than living in tornado alley, in flood plains, in the mountains where mudslides or avalanches occur, on fault lines where earthquakes shake the earth, in forests where fires burn, or up north with blizzards paralyze lives throughout the winter. If we could all find ONE nice cozy safe place on earth where we could live without EVER being at risk for a natural disaster, we'd end up being so darned overcrowded, underfed, diseased, and crime-ridden, it wouldn't be worth it. Or we'd all be packed into one nice, tight little perfect terrorist target, just right for dropping any sort of NBC weapon into.

BTW - the Red Cross' most responded-to disaster: simple one-home fires. The Galveston County Red Cross responds to at least 70 fires a month in our area, providing assistance and support to victims. It doesn't take a large-scale natural disaster to take a home or a life. And there's nowhere that's 100% safe to live.

So, unless Mr. Marlowe has an idea for the perfect safe place (safe from natural and man-made disasters), my happy little tailfeathers are going to stay right here on this Gulf Coast island, thank you very much. At least with hurricanes (and, in many cases, wildfires) evacuation is possible and lives can be saved.

~Gulf-Coast-living Duck and proud of it

Once again Duck you and I are on the same page.

But you forgot a couple of places...

living in giant cities in certain regions where even the "commodity" of drinkable water is not a sure thing (i.e. California, Vegas, etc.)

or packed into one region tied to the power grid that when one thing fails the entire region blacks out.

or even those that live in the mountains (i.e. asheville) aren't completely safe from tropical weather...look what frances did there last year

i could go on for awhile but just to say i agree...there is really no one place that you are safe from such disasters as wildfires (anybody live near trees), tornadoes, flooding (miss. valley and coastal and heavy rain induced), blizzards, mudslides, drought, heat waves (which do claim many lives..i.e. france a few years back), hail storms, wind storms, dust storms....

not to mention human factors...living right on top of the idiot who lit his furnace with the smell of rotten eggs in his apartment (i.e. a gas leak). or living in cramped apartment complexes or townhomes where fires spread like wel...wildfires, or car accidents and 40 car pile-ups, or just merely walking across the street nowadays you are not entirely safe, let alone cancer clusters, negligent landlords, toxic waste dumps.

then the other man-made ones like terrorist attacks, errant accidents resulting from car chases, drunk drivers, etc.....


please some one tell me where one can safely live away from disaster

sorry about the rant...i see where these people are coming from but i feel like i am beating my head against a wall trying to make the point that yes in some ways maybe it is foolish to live on the coast but anywhere you live is potentially dangerous!!!!!

[jasons2k]

Many people forget the #1 killer for hurricanes is inland flooding. Obviously the guy who did this study did too.

[caribepr]

I can take a bit of issue with the idea that living *on the coast* is an invitation to disaster. Growing up in Florida, the homes USED TO BE built differently...not structurally differently (though they were) but not in the same sort of places they have been built in the last 30 years. Even as kids, we started watching the development happen with houses (and condos) being built on what were literally sand spits that we all had seen ebb and flow with storms and wondered what the hell was going on. Much of it was European money, with no thought to the reality of building on such land. So yes, people have lived on the coasts for years, long before federal assistance was even a thought, but if you look closely at what gets destroyed, it's pretty easy to see a wide difference from 30 years before and 30 years since. I'm a beach baby, love being in sight of the water and totally understand the desire to be as close as possible, but if you don't pay attention to WHERE you build, you will reap the results sooner or later, be it hurricane or simple erosion in the natural course of things (so then they build *sea walls* which is, in my opinion, stupid, as it just makes the problem worse).

Blah blah...read John McDonald's book Condominium...he says it more powerfully, and much more entertainingly, than I.

[Derek Ortt]

Actually,

the threat of living on the Hurricane Coast is far higher than tornado alley, because a hurricane affects a very large area with the tidal surge, which is where we should not allow construction, in regions that repeadetly experience tidal surge flooding (Dauphin Island, the mouth of the Mississippi, the Outer Banks)

Gavleston is fine ebcause it has the sea wall

[MGC]

I'm staying near the coast till I die. Sure, I'll have to run from a few more canes till I check out. The risk is worth it......MGC

[Ixolib]

Sense??? Makes NO sense to me...

[timNms]

It doesn't make sense to me.

(Gonna copy and paste because I've said this many times and I just might as well repeat my opinion.)

Living here is no more dangerous than living in tornado alley, in flood plains, in the mountains where mudslides or avalanches occur, on fault lines where earthquakes shake the earth, in forests where fires burn, or up north with blizzards paralyze lives throughout the winter. If we could all find ONE nice cozy safe place on earth where we could live without EVER being at risk for a natural disaster, we'd end up being so darned overcrowded, underfed, diseased, and crime-ridden, it wouldn't be worth it. Or we'd all be packed into one nice, tight little perfect terrorist target, just right for dropping any sort of NBC weapon into.

BTW - the Red Cross' most responded-to disaster: simple one-home fires. The Galveston County Red Cross responds to at least 70 fires a month in our area, providing assistance and support to victims. It doesn't take a large-scale natural disaster to take a home or a life. And there's nowhere that's 100% safe to live.

So, unless Mr. Marlowe has an idea for the perfect safe place (safe from natural and man-made disasters), my happy little tailfeathers are going to stay right here on this Gulf Coast island, thank you very much. At least with hurricanes (and, in many cases, wildfires) evacuation is possible and lives can be saved.

~Gulf-Coast-living Duck and proud of it

I couldn't have said it better myself, Duckie...and I don't live near the coast. My beef with this is that when the US starts telling people where or when they can build, then we're in danger of losing our freedom. I say as long as people are willing to pay the premiums and insurance companies are willing to pay for the rebuilding, then leave it alone.
Yep, Derek, the odds of a cane striking a coastline may be greater than the odds of an F4 or F5 tornado hitting a particular area in tornado alley, but it only takes one to make a difference.

[Persepone]

I can take a bit of issue with the idea that living *on the coast* is an invitation to disaster. Growing up in Florida, the homes USED TO BE built differently...not structurally differently (though they were) but not in the same sort of places they have been built in the last 30 years. Even as kids, we started watching the development happen with houses (and condos) being built on what were literally sand spits that we all had seen ebb and flow with storms and wondered what the hell was going on. Much of it was European money, with no thought to the reality of building on such land. So yes, people have lived on the coasts for years, long before federal assistance was even a thought, but if you look closely at what gets destroyed, it's pretty easy to see a wide difference from 30 years before and 30 years since. I'm a beach baby, love being in sight of the water and totally understand the desire to be as close as possible, but if you don't pay attention to WHERE you build, you will reap the results sooner or later, be it hurricane or simple erosion in the natural course of things (so then they build *sea walls* which is, in my opinion, stupid, as it just makes the problem worse)....

I have to agree that WHERE you build on the coast has changed significantly in the past 30-40 years... Away from the coast also for that matter. I watch as developers build whole developments of houses on filled in (sort of) swampy land, on flood plains, etc. and just shake my head because you can see what will happen--perhaps not this year or next but within 10 years. But people buy those homes--for big bucks--and then they fix them up and cover the flood damage and resell them because they invested their life's savings...

Also, what is built in "risky" locations has changed--if how it is built hasn't (and I think a bunch of that has also). I can think of 5 coastal buildings (none are year round "homes"--they are more enjoy the beach camps) that are designed to be flooded. The owners (all now in the older than dirt category) are fully aware that these buildings flood and they own the trucks (which they keep elsewhere and gassed up) to go and empty these buildings on short notice. And they disconnect utiliites, etc. and literally remove windows and doors, and anything "mobile" and let the flood wash through. When the flood is over, they shovel out the sand, hose down the walls, etc. and put their stuff back. But note: they have MONEY to do this, and these are not primary residences. By the way, I suspect they are not insured either. But they have stood where they are for 80+ years or longer. The critical difference is that the owners know what they have, what these buildings do, etc. Also I'm guessing they probably would not be allowed to rebuild these structures--but actually they make a bunch of sense. Similarly, we had some waterfront property in the family that is now out in the ocean somewhere. But while it held wonderful childhood memories, there was no loss of life, no sentimental losses (no family pictures, etc. in those beach cottages), and, in the grand scheme of things, no horrific financial loss--these were not where the owners had invested their life savings or anything. I'd be surprised if they paid much of anything for the land or the structures--even back when they bought them! But today land like that goes for zillions! That bothers me greatly because then people build mansions on the land... And in the end it hurts all of us.

So I'm very divided--I am not going to tell others not to live on the shore--but I do think that there needs to be some serious disclosure to people who buy on certain types of land--and just telling people their house is in a "flood plain" is insufficient because there are flood plains and flood plains and the government sort of all lumps them together. But personally? I don't want to live on the shore (although I do live near the coast) and if I did win the lottery and buy a beach cottage, I would buy a "disposable" one and probably one of the ones where I could just remove windows and doors and let it flood and hose it out afterward... And I certainly would have to be emotionally prepared to expect it to be under 20 feet of water after a storm rearranged the coastline.

[wxmann_91]

People should live where they want to live. Moving away from the Gulf Coast does nothing. Each place has their own hazards, Cali has the quakes, Plains have their tornadoes, northeast has their noreasters, etc.

[arkess7]

well then they might as well evacuate the whole state of Florida huh? we are surrounded by water....imagine everyone that lived on the coast in florida moving inland.....YEA RIGHT!!!!!!!

[Derek Ortt]

EC of Florida really only needs a half mile zone, some places, only about 1,000 feet, like Coconut Grove, as the land quickly rises to about 10-20 feet above sea level right across Bayshore Drive

[george_r_1961]

Bigger and stronger storms hiitting the coast means that sooner or later insurers will stop writing policies on coastal properties. Therefore financing will be impossible to get. The retreat from the coast is inevitable folks. Sad as well

[beachbum_al]

It will not happen as long as people love living near the water.

From personal experience:
I grew up along the coast. Born and raised in Fairhope. There is no place like the coast and no place I would rather be. I moved to Misissippi in 1990-1991 while attending MSU. I dealt with tornadoes while at college. Matter of fact the year I was there we had a tornado hit campus. Scary event that we could not prepare for.

Then in 1992 to 1996 I was in Auburn. Once again we had several tornado outbreaks. Seems like tornadoes like me. The same thing happen while living in Sylacauga till 2001 when we decided to move back to the coast.

People ask me why I continue living on the coast knowing the risks...my answer is simply. No matter where you live there is some form of natural disaster that can occur. Some people deal with fires, earthquakes, floods, blizzards, tornadoes, and hurricanes. I would much rather deal with a hurricane because I can leave and get out of harms way.

[oneness]

I couldn't have said it better myself, Duckie...and I don't live near the coast. My beef with this is that when the US starts telling people where or when they can build, then we're in danger of losing our freedom. I say as long as people are willing to pay the premiums and insurance companies are willing to pay for the rebuilding, then leave it alone.
Yep, Derek, the odds of a cane striking a coastline may be greater than the odds of an F4 or F5 tornado hitting a particular area in tornado alley, but it only takes one to make a difference.

So you love life on the coastal strip? Who doesn’t? I also live about 120 meters back from the high tide level, upon an exposed beach prone to regular tropical cyclones, and of course, it is a very beautiful place to live. But when the next storm comes along to wipe away the continually encroaching coastal clutter I’ll be moving further back from the beach and I sure won’t be expecting the entire country’s tax revenue base to support any moves closer to the shore, nor to try and resist reality at that point. There is a lesson to be learned, I can see this plainly, and it’s going to be a tough one.

A hurricane can destroy a city, home to millions of people in just a few hours, so the danger is less frequent in return period but certainly more damaging than most other natural events, with the possible exception of major earthquakes, but a storm surge from a cyclone killed over 300,000 people in Bangladesh during Nov 1970. Again on 29 April 1991 an unnamed tropical cyclone struck Chittagong Bangladesh with a pressure of 898 millibars and a 20 foot surge. 138,000 people drowned from that storm. (yes, in-land flooding is a danger but surge is far worse and also far less predictable) The carnage potential of a major hurricane, and their regularity makes them far more dangerous than almost all other natural hazards.

Local council governance authorities tell people where they can or can not build each and every day. That is one of their primary activities. They survey, zone and re-zone, plus regulate all building development, and provide or disallow building approvals, necessary infrastructure, amenities and civil services. This is a very necessary and orderly function of local governments. Some just do it better and more responsibly than others. You can not build your gleaming new factory within a residential suburb for reasons which have zero to do with the erosion of freedom. In fact it’s about protecting the rights of residents to quiet enjoyment of their dwellings. Nor can you place a residence within the middle of a CBD, or industrial estate.

Everything in its proper place and context.

This is a matter of intelligent local policy review and sound decision making regarding building placement, building types, materials used and what is an appropriate construction and which is clearly highly inappropriate construction out of its proper place and context. The surge line provides the proper place and context. You don't allow placement of a new subdivision within a river bed, subject to flash-flooding and regular destruction and nor should a local government ever place a small satellite city upon a barrier island. Nor should a coastal community nor implicit state policies lead to concentration of economically significant businesses and infrastructures within range of areas guaranteed to feel the effects of tropical cyclone surge, at some point. That would be foolish and also a pending lesson about what not to do.

Furthermore, there’s no reason Federal Tax revenues from all states should be expended in vast sums, in order to support and replace the predictably shattered homes, businesses and infrastructures of those wantonly foolish enough to insist on building their homes or businesses within areas known to be highly vulnerable to hurricane surges. Why should such communities or local municipalities be endlessly bailed-out or the extravagant lifestyle-choices subsidised at fantastic expense after each surge inundation? Why should tax-payers in Nebraska be expected to pay the bills for barrier-Island lifestyles, post-desaster clean up, coastal community support leading to re-building within these very same vulnerable locations? Where is the Federal tax-payer's ‘freedom’ in this picture? Do they get a say in this cherished personal 'freedom' agenda, or must they just pay-up and not think it through or say anything?

Finance and insurance companies are also going to wise-up soon, so that even sans specific policy redirections banning and severely limiting (if not removing) coastal margin and barrier Island construction, such construction will be come harder to finance due to a lack of insurance cover on these new ‘investments’, or else, the insurance costs for such development will skyrocket beyond sustainable and economic levels. A change in local government building zonation and regulations, mandating more sturdy and more costly construction design and material, plus prohibitive insurance costs, plus a fall in property values and investment return should progressively put an end to this denial, macho bravado, and patently unwise construction.

It’s not the end of ‘freedom’ or personal choices. It has nothing at all to do with all that, it's just about wising-up. Subsidising, or even worse, providing a tacit financial incentive to greater construction folly is not indicative of wise civic leaderships or responsible planning and policy.

[JQ Public]

It would be beautiful though. If they just let it all go and left it to nature. It'd be the largest national park in the world.

[oneness]

http://www.disaster-management.net/cyclone.htm

[sunny]

It would be beautiful though. If they just let it all go and left it to nature. It'd be the largest national park in the world.

Where would you suggest we all go to live?