Similar problem to what happened on the New Jersey coast (moving sand, non-moving mansions). Except in that case the rich beach house owners lobbied the federal government to spend hundreds of millions to bail them out. Wouldn't be surprised if we see a similar dredging effort paid for by the federal government in Hawaii.
Couple of posts in 2020, sadly nothing for 2017-2019.
If you live in the US, and care about being able to visit a beach in the future, consider supporting the Beach Preservation committee of your local Surfrider chapter:
One thing I'm not clear of, what is the supposed intended purpose of these seawalls? The article doesn't explain that. Is it meant to prevent erosion, but simply back-firing? Or is a more flood prevention measure?
The cynic is me also wonders if some more reclusive property owners don't actually prefer having their property end at the water rather than a beach with public access rights.
It's to prevent catastrophic erosion to the property, at the expense of the beach. You build a house on the beach like a fool, then destroy the beach to protect your investment. Nature-loving people.
Scrape off the seaward row of houses, let the sand under them become the new beach. Neighbors across the street now get their turn at owning an oceanfront view. Repeat as required.
And then we can all look forward to walking on a sandy beach in our old age. Just a small matter of politics to make it so ...
Build 20-30m further inlands. Perhaps also plant some trees or bushes at the end of the beach.
But no, that won't do. The rich folks need to have the sea at pissing distance.
I own a condo at one of the properties in the article. The building and surrounding buildings are working with the county to help restore the beach. In our case, pockets of sand were found just offshore and will be brought in along with some stabilizing structures to widen the beach by up to 150 feet. The buildings (specifically our AOAOs) are responsible for the cost.
Natural sand dunes with native vegetation are the best way, large erosion events will always happen and these limit the extent and provide a buffer for sand to be restored. I don't think you can have building on the oceanfront and keep beaches long term though.
Probably all three, if you include sand pumping. (I guess that's beach reconstruction said another way)
Hawaii might be different to the continental shelf abutting changes i see here in Oz. Its driven here by a northward sand flow, combined with erosion. Sea walls and groynes and channel guides and dredging for river access are a dastardly trio which wreck the natural beach as does building on sand dunes.
The beach erosion is accelerated by the presence of walls [1].
In general the regulation of seaside buildings is extremely lax in the US, and this takes a toll on the beaches. As a counter-example, in Greece seaside houses must be built at least 30m inlands from the end of the beach. It is also illegal to cut-off public access to the beach.
The houses are doomed. Anything built right next to the ocean is temporary, and if you were dumb enough to put millions into a fancy house there, that should be taken as an expensive lesson.
In the absence of seawalls, the beach will advance as the ocean rises, but the loss they're describing is far in excess of anything caused by sea level rise.
In the long term, you are probably quite correct. In the short term though, the sea-walls give an impression of safety and protection, allowing the owners to sell their properties at great profit before the values collapse.
Here in New Zealand, waterfront property owners have been making legal attempts to block authorities from placing warning notices in the Land Information Memorandum (LIM) documents. These LIM documents are examined by lawyers when a property is being purchased, so to have a warning about your property in the LIM can seriously affect the value of your property.
> not even sea walls are going to save those houses
I would like to believe that's true, but here in California new seawalls are a foot-thick web of epoxy-coated reinforcing bar, encased in two feet of concrete, on a foundation sunk some ten or so feet down into the sand. I have yet to hear of one of these falling down.
I live in Oahu and believe me there's still plenty of beach.
Even if their main figure is true (20% loss of beach area in 100 years), that doesn't seem so bad. I would be surprised if the figure hadn't changed because the tide and ocean has busy hands.
Honestly I have a lot of faith that the Army Corps of Engineers could step in and figure things out if it was a big problem.
Disclosure: I have no scientific expertise here and I'm just a huge Obama fanboy and feel if the family wants a seawall we should let the family have a seawall. C'mon he took a job where 10% of previous occupants were assassinated—they earned this one.
I am seeing alot of opinions draped as journalism coming from propublica, I tend to avoid that site as it is extremely biased and in alot of cases plain wrong.
[+] [-] jet_32951|5 years ago|reply
In 1991 there were nothing but rocks facing the ocean at the same place.
In 2004 rocks were being imported to shore up the new McMansions, and the beaches had mostly disappeared west of the 1200 block.
The erosion was said by the elders to have been predictable because of all the local intervention with the constant ebb and flow of sand.
I regret to observe they were probably right.
[+] [-] numbernine|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bavila|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mips_avatar|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] everybodyknows|5 years ago|reply
https://oahu.surfrider.org/category/beach-preservation/
Couple of posts in 2020, sadly nothing for 2017-2019.
If you live in the US, and care about being able to visit a beach in the future, consider supporting the Beach Preservation committee of your local Surfrider chapter:
https://www.surfrider.org/initiatives/coastal-preservation
[+] [-] pimlottc|5 years ago|reply
The cynic is me also wonders if some more reclusive property owners don't actually prefer having their property end at the water rather than a beach with public access rights.
[+] [-] burnthrow|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickip|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] everybodyknows|5 years ago|reply
https://www.surfrider.org/search/results/710d4c63582a903c67a...
Scrape off the seaward row of houses, let the sand under them become the new beach. Neighbors across the street now get their turn at owning an oceanfront view. Repeat as required.
And then we can all look forward to walking on a sandy beach in our old age. Just a small matter of politics to make it so ...
[+] [-] m000|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrwn_frthr_awy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flukus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggm|5 years ago|reply
Hawaii might be different to the continental shelf abutting changes i see here in Oz. Its driven here by a northward sand flow, combined with erosion. Sea walls and groynes and channel guides and dredging for river access are a dastardly trio which wreck the natural beach as does building on sand dunes.
[+] [-] ska|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gimpei|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m000|5 years ago|reply
In general the regulation of seaside buildings is extremely lax in the US, and this takes a toll on the beaches. As a counter-example, in Greece seaside houses must be built at least 30m inlands from the end of the beach. It is also illegal to cut-off public access to the beach.
[1] http://www.beachapedia.org/Seawalls
[+] [-] madhadron|5 years ago|reply
In the absence of seawalls, the beach will advance as the ocean rises, but the loss they're describing is far in excess of anything caused by sea level rise.
[+] [-] mustntmumble|5 years ago|reply
Here in New Zealand, waterfront property owners have been making legal attempts to block authorities from placing warning notices in the Land Information Memorandum (LIM) documents. These LIM documents are examined by lawyers when a property is being purchased, so to have a warning about your property in the LIM can seriously affect the value of your property.
[+] [-] everybodyknows|5 years ago|reply
I would like to believe that's true, but here in California new seawalls are a foot-thick web of epoxy-coated reinforcing bar, encased in two feet of concrete, on a foundation sunk some ten or so feet down into the sand. I have yet to hear of one of these falling down.
[+] [-] BXLE_1-1-BitIs1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] backing|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] breck|5 years ago|reply
Even if their main figure is true (20% loss of beach area in 100 years), that doesn't seem so bad. I would be surprised if the figure hadn't changed because the tide and ocean has busy hands.
Honestly I have a lot of faith that the Army Corps of Engineers could step in and figure things out if it was a big problem.
Disclosure: I have no scientific expertise here and I'm just a huge Obama fanboy and feel if the family wants a seawall we should let the family have a seawall. C'mon he took a job where 10% of previous occupants were assassinated—they earned this one.
[+] [-] subsubzero|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggm|5 years ago|reply