The sooner we face this, the less painful it will be: Those beach houses on Plum Island are doomed. They shouldn’t be there in the first place. And we should be planning for a future when they won’t be.
The images we’ve seen coming out of Newbury over the past couple of weeks have been heartbreaking: homes sliding into the water during the March 7 storm; others demolished; residents desperately trying to protect those that remain, with stone barriers the state will likely declare illegal come summer.
Comments
Flawless logic, helpful policy background, etc. The true test of a new approach to coastal building is not Plum Island with its handful of homes which seemed doomed and predictably collapse into the waves every year. Let's see a series of stories about those south shore communities with sea walls, annual rebuilding, etc. Its either dikes or a New York style buyout or benign neglect. The current annual subsidies which go into rebuilding the doomed on the south shore is a tribute to raw political power.
I agree that we should see a more balanced article regarding other communties with erosian, as there are many, and not single out one.
What is that old saying about building houses on shifting sand?
Our bridges are ready to collapse, our streets are full of pot-holes, our water mains burst every Winter, our underground utilities are an accident waitint to happen, our electrical grid is on life support, and we are worried about saving too big house built too close to the ocean. We are running off to fight wars in places were we are hated and we give billions to people who would rather see us dead. Just rebuilding our own infrastucture would drop the unemployment rate to 4%. Flood insurance was and is a bad idea. Don't buy up flood prone land to discourage people from buliding there, just cancel all flood insurace policies and even the dimmest would pick up on it soon. Mother Nature will win in the end.
I sympathize with folks who are losing beautiful homes to the sea, but we knew this was coming...scientists have been jumping up and down warning us again and again, and scientists were being conservative rather than alarmist. A recent study shows that sea level rise is occuring 60% faster than predicted by the IPCC. We're moving toward a 1-foot sea level increase by 2050 under current emissions scenerios. Even if we quickly lower fossil fuel emissions and stabilize at a 2C (3.6F) warming over pre-industrial temps., we will see 2.5 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and a really dangerous 8 feet by 2300. If we don't stabilize at 3.6F, we could see a 15-20 foot sea level rise by 2100 (Hansen). So sure, move your house a few yards, put it up on pilings, but you will be chasing a moving target. To try and save coastal communities, you will have to take on our lack of national policy due to the ownership of government function by fossil fuel interests. Check out a fee-and-dividend approach to fairly taxing carbon and protecting regular citizens from rising fuel costs while spurring the development of alternatives. Source: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/28/1249391/study-sea-levels-rising-60-faster-than-projected-planet-keeps-warming-as-expected/. Interactive map of sea level rise: http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/.
We don't really have to do anything. Mother Nature will do everything that needs to be done.
we already do alot ... every year, as taxpayers we spend enormous sums rebuilding changing shore lines. and it is the refusal to stop socializing the losses of private property owners that Yvonne writes so well about.
The cult off climate change nay-sayers and the politics of convenience notwithstanding; the chickens are coming home to roost. Building on this tenuous seascape interface, always was, sadly for afflicted property owners a fools errrand, and it's now reaping the proverbial fools reward.
Ouch !!! No sugar coating or hand holding here..spot on.
This article speaks to the truth. These houses are doomed and should be taken down. It is just a matter of time before the sea claims them all. NO public money should be spent on sand berms or seawalls. It is a hopeless cause. Time for folks to move on. Mother nature is at work.
So how far from the ocean do you allow homes to be built? Trying to predict what will happen due to climate change is very subjective. How about leaving it up to the individual where they would like to live and let them assume the risk.
Agree with you regarding public money. Let those who choose to live by the sea build their own seawalls, as many do. Government should only get involved if it's to protect a roadway or a municipal property.
loulou babe... please forward your thinks to Mayor Mumbles in Boston and his dreams of turning the once a shipping port of South Boston into a multibillion community of high rises, tourist attractions and lots of other sorts of development mostly unprotected from a harbor whose waters rise and fall twice a day between 8 1/2 and 10 1/2 regularly and up to 12 or 13 feet in major ocean storms. Remember what the Blizzard of '78 did to the old steamboat that Anthony Athanas had tied up at the former Pier 4 restaurant? But Mumbles wants his tax dollars and thinks nothing about the risks to life and limb. Why? Because he thinks the Boston Harbor Islands offer protection - a partially right concept. But look at what happened to lower Manhattan this past winter. Do you aNd Mumbles share a view that Boston is immune from the ocean because it is The HUB and a World Class City or some other foolish advertising drivel? Lots of luck, babe.
It's a beautiful seashore and a great community but stands no chance whatsoever against the raging North Atlantic. Time for them to cut both their and our losses.
The person who rewrote the floodplain maps in the 70s should be Lynched. Until then, everyone was smart enough to not build permanent houses on sandbars. Someone made a mint by allowing insurance.
It's a sand dune. They built houses on it. The ocean keeps hitting it. Of course it washes it all away what did they expect? If a person's house burns down the state doesn't pay for it. If it falls into a sink hole the state doesn't pay for it. I feel sorry for them, especially those who couldn't get their belongings out before their homes were demolished but it is not the state's fault.
Amen! I like the idea of refusing insurance and NOT spending tax dollars on rebuilding plans; wondering if there are any organizations out there proposing ways to de-populate our vulnerable shorelines?
Slow down, Plum Island has next to nothing to do with rising sea levels. It has to do with the fact the "island" is a giant sand bar that is constantly eroding in one area and growing in another. Dig up a map of any barrier island like this from 100 years ago and you won't be able to recognize the shoreline. Guess what? You won't be able to recognize the shoreline of PI 100 years from now. Why all histrionics? Builder beware - you are on your own. These houses are going under. More will follow. Nothing you can do about it and it's none of our business.
Well said!
I agree. Nature is taking its course and anything done by owners to try and stop it, goes against Mother Nature. We are sorry you are losing your wonderful exclusive homes, but you can't fight nature.
Sad but true.
It certainly would have helped if Newburyport hadn't extended sewer lines there - making it even easier to build larger and more houses
Better than septic tanks leeching into the ocean.
I'd like to see more respect for the property owners involved in this situation.
In what way? We don't live in a feudal system where property owners have more rights than citizens. They weren't ripped off in some Ponzi scheme. Nothing illegal is going on. It's unfortunate but there it is.
I respect them with my pity with the entire angst-laden situation but not with any fraction of pooled insurance or other dollars that any of them might expect to be compensated with in their losing battle with mother nature.
Communities built where they shouldn't have been? How far back from the water do you allow people to build? Anyone who has a house on the water should understand the risk involved. A hurricane can take down a house.
There's a reasonable distance a property should be from the water but I personally don't want the government to decide what's an appropriate distance due to climate change. I also don't want my tax dollars going towards bailing out those who've had the privilege of living on the water, which I myself was fortunate to be able to do for a time. It's a personal choice to live on the water and, as a matter of personal responsibility, those living there should assume the risk without government intervention. That doesn't mean I don't feel for people losing their properties but, as you say, a line has to be drawn.
If you expect Police, Fire Department, Ambulance Service, and Coast Guard to come when you call then I guess you have to build where the government says you can build. By the way, we the people are the government, that was the whole point of this experiment.
i take it you've never dealt with a planning board or conservation commission. Might change your opinion.
The theory that (130) 400' steel towers, and subsea cable connection, and an Electric Service Platform with 40,000 gallons of transformer oil, can effectively be installed in the shifting sands of Nantucket Sound; and that this industrialization will address AGW, is faith-based at best.
Carnegie Mellon University researchers found that turbines placed in U.S. waters may be vulnerable to hurricane-force extreme winds because offshore turbines currently on the market are only designed to withstand Category 1 hurricane wind speeds.
The report makes interesting reading:
http://www.lowenstein.com/files/Publication/23b0d113-b158-4a06-a140-9c2e76fa6b25/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/a677f0c5-52bc-4af4-b09c-9d183737da5a/Extreme%20Weather%20Impacts%20on%20Offshore%20Wind%20Turbines.pdf
MA Audubon has campaigned for Cape Wind, yet their staff scientists have arrived at up to 6,600 avian mortalities per year by Cape Wind by estimate in their testimony. (page 9.)
http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/CapeWindDEIS.pdf
How does MA Audubon reconcile the slaughter of up to 6,600 birds by Cape Wind per year? This translates to up to 6,600 violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act by Cape Wind per year supported by MA Audubon. Is Nantucket Sound the altar of AGW, accepting sacrifice of endangered birds by fiberglass blades, to appease the climate gods?
You're badly off topic and an anti-Cape Wind kook. Bury it!
so it is your theory that Cape Wind is responsible for PI beach erosion???
So Abraham wants to tear down the seawalls around the Deer Island sewage treatment plant, disallow any development on the South Boston waterfront, tear down and rebuild Wall Street's financial instititutions somewhere in the Catskills. Does this suddenly expert reader of lots of DEP and EPA reports advocate no building of anything on land lower than 100 feet above sealevel? Would she level Miami Beach, Venice, Istanbul, Haifa, Alexandria, Hong Kong, Tokyo and Vladivostock? Really, now, this woman generates a whole lot of huff and puff and just loves the nanny state solutions advocated by the likes of Cuomo the Destroyer in New York. But we don't see such sanctimonious drivel coming from Massachusetts "leaders". These coastal communities like Marblehead and Scituate and Newburyport and Dennis and Plymouth want the property tax dollars they squeeze out of people whose residences are on the waterfront. The likes of Bendogger sanctimoniously don't "want my tax dollars going towards gailing out those who've had the privilege of living on the water". Bendogger and his ilk sure do like those tax dollars, though. You can bet your Abraham on that.
Boatwrote, my point of not bailing out homeowners was directed at "Cuomo the Destroyer" and his using tax dollars to buy back properties. I'm in favor of an individual choosing where they want to live and assuming the risk that comes with it. Sorry but I don't see that as a sanctimonious position to take. Me and my "ilk" support the first half of your diatribe.
I know it sounds heartless, but I must confess that I get a kick out of the idea of Miami being washed away - it has a nice "biblical justice" feel to it.
If you can't get private insurance for your house because of its location, then the house shouldn't be there unless the property owner is willing to assume the risk. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize private property in the form of Federal Flood Insurance.
Plum Island is a barrier Island. It protects the mainland from the sea's fury. 80% of Plum Island is a nature preserve and even the migrating birds know that when winter arrives it's time to leave.
Climate change has nothing to do with this! Obama is raising the ocean levels on purpose, Michelle was at the North Pole with a blow torch...I saw that image on Fox, to satisfy his global warming agenda! Just like he shot all those kids to further gun control. Seriously, how can any of the above argue that the rising water levels have nothing to do with climate change? And I do feel bad for the home-owners but they should have known this might happen.
People can build where and what they like...in accordance with environmental regulations of course. But then don't come looking to the government or government subsidized insurance programs to literally "bail them out". Wealthy folks who willfully block public access to these lands have a lot of nerve looking for help from the taxpayers they don't want on "their" beaches.
Isn't that the truth!
I don't know why anyone would pay top dollar for ocean front property these days...soon enough we will all have it for free.
Imagine what those people in the Hamptons are thinking.
It never a good thing when a columnist has no grasp of what they are writing about.
The homes on Plum Island (lost-6, condemned or endangered about 40) are in Newbury not Newburyport. The sewer and water were put in at the expense of the homeowners (betterments). This was a state mandate and many islanders did not want it. While this system is owned by Newburyport the users pay for it, just like in every other community. The homeowners are paying out of their pockets to save their homes; not taxpayer money. Many of these homes have evolved out of cottages from pre-WWII.
The writer also fails to mention that the Army Corps of Engineers allowed the jetties at the mouth of the Merrimack River deteriorate. This created part, only part but a significant part of the erosion problem as well as making the outlet dangerous for boaters. The homeowners have been begging the state for permission to protect their homes for years. It got to this point because the state was nonresponsive. I do not live on Plum Island, never have and never will. I just hate writers that omit key elements of a story to bolster their argument.
Your post is badly flawed by you finding it necessary to insult the columnist. "No grasp" is certainly incorrect, since you pointed out only a few technical errors that had little to do with the overall thesis that the homes are doomed. Make sure your brain is in gear before engaging your typing fingers.
The PI residents did not want the state mandated sewer line? I'm not surprised. They were perfectly happy with the existing no cost system of dumping their sewage directly into the river. If you want a prelude of PI future, take a look at Monomoy Island. Now South Monomoy and North Monomoy. Do you really think a few sandbags and some rocks are going to stop geologic forces?
I think, to be fair to fellow citizens, we should over a period of time purchase vulnerable properties and tear down the structures. If in the future any new structures are constructed on vulnerable land, the owners should be required to sign a waiver that they know what they're doing and expect no government assistance.
It's easy, of course, to blame the homeowners, but when many coastal homes were built there didn't seem to be any imminent danger. Besides, we're generally a nation with a heart. When there are major disasters, such as hurricanes, earthquates, etc., we step up.
We didn't say after Katrina that New Orleans was forever dead. In some locations, such as Boston and New York City, we have to be prepared to fight against the sea. A small barrier island is not the place to drawn a line, in my opinion.
I see no reason why we have to buy them out. The Cape is going to be gone and geologists have known that for some time, no one has bothered to listen. All those along the coast should enjoy it as long as they can. And there's a big difference between saving a major port like New Orleans and someone's beach house.
>>"And there's a big difference between saving a major port like New Orleans and someone's beach house."
You apparently didn't read the last line in my post.
Sincere people can disagree about a buy out. It's not something you can decide by pure logic.
The folks that bought those homes were fully aware that erosion was a problem. Its the rate of erosion that they couldn't forsee. The general public (the taxpayer) should not ever be considered as a source to buy-out these folks. People that buy risky shore line property (and the insurers that sell them insurance) should foot any resulting bills themselves...much like the owner of a Caddillac Escalade must suffer the consequences when gasoline prices rise to unbearable levels. When I'm gassing up my small 38mph car, should I be forking over a few bucks to the idiot at the next pump tanking up the Escalade? Of course not. Z
About all this controversy about spending tax dollars. If everyone had to agree on how to spend tax dollars, there wouldn't be any spending. Plum Island is in trouble, tax dollars typically get spent during times of need. Wealthier citizens pay the greatest share of tax dollars. Those folks living in those homes have just as much right to those tax dollars, perhaps more so.
There is clear precedence since the founding of this country for state and federal government to aid and protect the shoreline.
Plum Island home owners contribute a dispropotionately high share of total real estate tax revenues to the town of Newbury which benefits everyone living in Newbury.