Selection 11

Will Hurricane Katrina Impact Shoreline Management?

Orrin H. Pilkey and Robert S. Young

They discuss hurricane Camille in 1969 and how its destruction was very similar to Katrina which happened in 2005. They talk about Dauphin Island, Alabama and how it has repeatedly been hit with hurricanes and that each time the island can get washed northward creating more land on the north side and ocean water receding over the south side. In the past storms have also created inlets cutting across the island. It has been rebuilt a number of times because it is in a high hurricane area and it should have never been developed. In the American barrier island there is constantly new development happening and along with it is a rise in coastal population. Out of these lessons comes two views. One is that the U.S. should retreat from developing the oceanfront. The second view is that hurricanes demand that we increase our efforts and government spending on beach nourishment and continue to develop on the coasts. The followers of the second view believe that the primary goal would be to save lives and property. But really beach replenishment is a desperate attempt to hold off the natural response of the shorelines to a rising sea level. The authors believe that if you remove the coastal development then the beach will replenish itself and there would be no need for a replenishment program. They then give some problems of beach replenishment such as a constructed shoreline may look safe but might not be. And even though it may have storm protections it wouldn't matter when dealing with large hurricanes like Katrina. When pumping sand on a beach results in ecological impacts that effect a wide variety of biological life. And the costs for replenishment comes from all tax payers whether living by a beach or not.

Pilkey and Young believe that the government should stop funding development on all vulnerable coastal areas which are prone to hurricanes. They then list several obstacles to prevent rebuilding such as the hard ache that citizens go through when mass amounts of people die because they live in these at risk areas. Some think that not rebuilding where you live is seen as fleeing and unpatriotic but it's really insanity if you continue to live there. Even some think that coastal development is good for our economy but really it's not because so much is destroyed after a hurricane and so much aid and support is needed from the government. And some believe that the benefits out way the risk but then they should pay for all the damage that happens when a destructive force hits because they receive all the benefits when living there.

They believe that there should be a committee that determines which coastal areas the government will pull federal support from because they are considered a high risk area. It would consist of scientists and environmentalists and would use data and knowledge to determine which areas would be pulled. They believe that it will only be a matter of time until we are forced to do this because our federal deficit will reach a boiling point with the national economy.

They then talk about Louisiana's wetlands problems and high costs associated with helping the loss of wetlands. They then discuss concerns with this such as fixing the problems caused by engineering, water extraction, and rising sea levels. They think that if the U.S. is going to spend billions on this wetland then they should not forget about all the other wetlands.

Bottom line is that they believe the impact of Katrina on the coast could be used to help support a different national coast policy. Scientific knowledge along with social responsibility should be used and we should not rush into any immediate decisions.