Rebuilding the beach: What’s next?
› Sales tax is back in play
› No more beach referendums, commissioners say
› Can Oakes’ plan succeed? New
› A visual commentary
› Maybe a warranty isn’t a bad idea
Nags Head Mayor Bob Oakes plans to go to the Dare County Board of Commissioners Monday to make a case for using $20 million out of the $24 million beach nourishment fund as part of a broad plan to rebuild the shoreline.
Here are some other things the town will need to do to move ahead with the plan:
› Ask the General Assembly to approve another 1 percent on the 5 percent occupancy tax. That will be used to retire a $16 million loan and replenish the $20 million from the county fund.
› Convince 66 percent of Nags Head’s oceanfront property owners to agree via a petition to a special tax on their shoreline frontage.
Other proposals that were not part of the original plan would require the town to:
› Ask for $5 million from the state, possibly from the Division of Water Resources or from the Department of Commerce.
› Convince the General Assembly to reauthorize the 1 percent sales tax for beach nourishment that was rescinded after a referendum in 2006.
› Contact federal officials to see if the project qualifies as “shovel ready” and eligible for stimulus funds.
See what people are saying:
Join the discussion:
Tim says:
We are at the point of having to spend money to solve our beach problem. The retreat from the ocean option will be expensive. The beach maintenance option is expensive. The retreat option spends money, destroys assets, harms the environment and gives us no return. The beach maintenance option spends money, saves assets, saves the beach, saves the environment and gives us a return on the money spent. Let’s all work together to get state and federal money involved. They have benefited greatly from our tax money and will in the future. That is what should be next.
Earl says:
Nourishment with foreign sand will destroy the quality of the beach and will drive away visitors to Currituck and other destinations with natural sand that people will actually want to recreate around. Sand bags, foreign sand and gravel are not going to save anything.
newjake says:
What continues to be surprising is the elected officials’ approach to this project. The majority of comments on this site are anti-nourishment.
The bond referendum in Oakes’ own town was defeated soundly by a 68% to 32% margin. And the County tax was defeated by over 80% to less than 20.
If this is, by the numbers, a politically suicidal move, why the headstrong push to shove it through? No reason to go all Stan White about it.
I can see having a different opinion than the majority, that’s fine for a private citizen, but isn’t he elected to represent the majority?
Luke says:
Isn’t this giving our tax $$ to the rich who own the million-dollar oceanfront homes? I realize they pay the highest taxes, but isn’t this dumping tax $$ into the ocean . . . or more accurately to the contractors who will profit from it?
I want state/county tax dollars to come here as much as anyone, but where is the best return on the money?
There’s a lot of unemployed and hungry people who could benefit much more than the contractors.
Luke says:
How about taking the $20 million and go to every state, county or city office here and ask where they could use new employees? $20 million would put a lot of people to work and the money would stay here . . . and that would be the best return on the money.
Jimmy says:
I had the chance to see Corps of Engineers beach nourishment firsthand and in progress while passing through Cape May, N.J. a few years back. The dredging/pumping/bulldozing/spreading process had turned the whole area into a construction zone. The “nourished” beaches looked alien, with weird swales, discolored sand and a funky smell. The pier was totally landlocked. In short, it was a really disturbing, disconcerting scene.
Do we really want to subject our natural beaches to Corps of Engineers “nourishment” for $36MM? Some higher-up decision makers must trust the Corps of Engineers more than I do, after seeing their product and the process in action.
Rob Morris says:
Just a note: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would not be doing the beach nourishment work in Nags Head. Beach nourishment was previously authorized by Congress, but full funding has not been included in any federal budgets.
Tim says:
There seems to be an underlying current within some of the people that are against beach nourishment. They seem to suggest if you have a certain amount of money or you have built a distance from the ocean you deserve to lose your property. How much is too much money? How close is too close to the ocean. Is the answer more than you and closer than you. These are terrible reasons to fight beach nourishment. These are socialist ideas. Our great country is founded on the right to own property and invest. If our towns, county, state and federal governments would maintain our beaches (as they should have for years) jobs would be created. Investments would be made. The environment would be enhanced. There is plenty of local sand in the ocean and inlets to make our beaches great.
Bobby says:
What is wrong with Sandbridge Beach and Virginia Beach? Absolutely nothing! You guys are all sounding off like experts and maybe you are but BN WORKS in Virginia Beach and there is nothing “foreign” about the look of the sand over time. There was a variance in the early going and they replenish in the summer for maximum success as I recall.
Duke says:
I am still trying to understand why everyone thinks everyone who has a house on the ocean is a big millionaire. Most of the damage to SNH was to three-bedroom beach houses built in the 70s and 80s, many three rows back or more at the time. I know it is a bigger argument than this but let’s just keep the facts straight. Take a ride there and see for yourself
Brenda Perry says:
These where peoples Homes –their Dreams
the homes paid the mortgage and when they weren’t rented the homeowners got to use them. Yes– they didn’t live in them full time and they rented them to tourists, but all of this is good for Dare County and the economy.
If they are gone—– look out–for our taxes will be going up—-and whole lot more that just one Penny.
Bob O says:
There are core samples of the potential nourishment sand at the Town of Nags Head library. See for yourself on the quality and compatibility.
I would say that political leaders are elected to be responsible stewards of their community. This does not always mean following the majority opinion. I think it is interesting that Nags Head elected three individuals who fully support beach nourishment in 2009. Doesn’t this say something as important as a referendum defeat on a funding proposal?
I think perspective is another key element. As a town, Nags Head has to take the long view. If you go 50 years into the future, retreat takes us in one direction, and nourishment takes us in another.
Earl says:
The long term perspective is very important. Each town needs to realistically plan for the future. Developing a strong tax base is important for Nags Head and the Outer Banks, as long as its done responsibly. Nags Head has plenty of stable land that can be developed and redeveloped in a responsible manner to increase the tax base. It is hard for some to accept, but parts of South Nags Head are not stable, will not become stable with engineering, and should have never been developed in the first place. Trying to perpetuate a mistake is not a good long-term strategy. Retreat in unstable areas will allow the town to use its limited resources in effective ways — this is a good long term strategy.
Butch Stone says:
To the people of Nags Head:
You elected the people that are for beach nourishment and everyone on the board is for it now. Let them do their job and stand behind them! Now is the time to finally take care of the beaches before it’s too late!
newjake says:
There were a lot of reasons the people got elected to the board, the election had many issues.
Saying now that three are for nourishment and that’s why they were elected (one of those appointed, not elected btw) is quite a stretch and not a mandate for nourishment.
Your town also voted it down. As did the county.
What I remember is assurances that other ideas would be investigated.
What is the cost to move the homes and build a stable dune? What’s the cost of future nourishments, as even your contractor says this type of work comes every five years at a minimum?
Would the pro-nourishment people (Oakes, Sadler, Cahoon, Butch, Tim etc.) be willing to be transparent about their own financial interests in nourishment before trying to get others to pay for it?
Tim says:
Who is going to finance the do-nothing plan? Retreating is going to be very expensive.
Butch Stone says:
To newjake
If we do nothing, one day we will have nothing!
The only reason this was voted down is the people were misinformed . . .
Butch Stone
Nags Head
Bob O says:
Actually, Oakes (that’s me), Sadler and Remaley were all elected last November.
A Beach Plan committee has been formed that will examine alternatives.
Moving homes runs from $20k to $50k. A lot depends on where you move them. Not sure on a stable dune – the FEMA berm that ran the length of the town was $5 million – the sand was trucked in from Currituck, way too fine (small), and it did not last. Compatible sand is a critical element.
In brief on financial interests: I live on the oceanfront, in a home that my wife’s grandfather built in 1933. The home is not in imminent danger, probably more of a problem for my children than me. My company manages homes from Corolla to Nags Head, with a concentration in The Village at Nags Head and The Currituck Club. I was the third largest employer in Dare County in the 4th quarter of 2008.
The others that we are asking to pay for nourishment are our guests and property owners, not our residents. Future renourishment would be paid by the oceanfront and oceanside property owners.
To Earl, how do you know nourishment won’t work in South Nags Head without trying it?
Thanks for your questions and comments.
newjake says:
Brother Butch, I’d love to have a beer with you over this, but I disagree. We will never have “nothing.” That’s just a scare tactic. And people are far better informed than you think, treating them like they don’t get it just makes them mad.
We might not have a few homes here and there, but we need to be smart about this. Nothing we’ve tried here (from bags to berm to beach pushes) has worked.
Where we are healthiest is where we have a solid, wide, vegetated dune with no houses shading the plants. Root structure is the key to you keeping anything down there out of the water.
Unfortunately, SNH blew it big time when they placed their houses (as did Kitty Hawk). But Kitty Hawk adapted without nourishment, and their tourism economy is fine. Learn from their challenges. It’s OK to lose a few of those houses, they’re just sticks and glass. You guys need to grow some dunes on this one.
Earl says:
South Nags Head is eroding at rates of 2 to 10 feet per year. http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Maps/Erosion/Oregon%20Inlet-Kitty%20Hawk.pdf To keep up with an erosion rate of 10 feet per year, there needs to be almost 1 foot of sand added every month to that beach. A beach is like an iceberg — we only see the tip. So it’s not just that you have to add a foot to the shore. T o be effective there needs to be additional sand added to the underwater slope. We do not have enough money to keep that much sand coming onto the beach forever.
Who wants to swim or recreate beside pipes and dredges? Visitors will see images of this type of engineering and get the wrong impression of the Outer Banks, just as they are now with photos of septic tanks, sand bags and condemned homes.
Everyone’s interest in this debate is to make sure that the Outer Banks is the best it can be for years to come. We all have limited resources and are in this together.
Imagine that you are caught in a rip current. Folks on shore may yell “swim . . . swim” and wave you in. Your instinct is to swim hard, fast and straight to the beach. If you choose this course, then you will likely run out of energy before making it to shore.
If instead you do not panic, go with the flow and use your strength effectively to swim sideways out of harm’s way you can live to swim another day. Nourishing beaches with high erosion rates is like swimming against the current. Retreat, especially in high risk areas, is the way to go with the flow and concentrate on strategies to keep us strong for 100 years.
Butch Stone says:
Earl
We dont have enough money????
The one penny tax brought in $6 million in 6 months. The nourisment will put 60 feet of sand out front — that’s five years or better — and we have to keep on doing it just like to take care of your home or your car. If you retreat — when will it stop?
When the ocean hits the sound! That’s when all of us will retreat — including you!
Lisa says:
I’m new to this debate, but aren’t there other solutions available? Does it have to be BN or nothing? Have the towns and/or the county researched the available alternatives with marine engineers? What do the oceanographers say about the long-term erosion prospects if the beach is nourished? What are the pros and cons of groins?
As for the argument made by Tim about opponents of BN having socialist ideas, I disagree completely. We chose to buy a house on the water KNOWING FULL WELL that we could lose it some day. That is the RISK we are willing to take to live in such a beautiful place, even it is for a short time. I do not expect any government to protect my house from the elements. Not so long ago, before government flood insurance and other government protections, only poor people lived in vulnerable areas like SNH. Nowadays the government protects you from the consequences of your choices . . . and everyone else has to pay.
Tim says:
The problem is we are at the point of having to spend a lot of money. If we just let houses fall down, we have to truck them to the landfill. If we retreat we have to buy property and pay for the houses to be moved. There is not just a few “hot spots” any more. Take a look from Duck to Hatteras. It,s not spend money or not. It is how we spend. Yes it will take other options of protection. Groins are needed. Not small ones that wash away. Ones that stay. These projects are needed and will work.
Butch Stone says:
Lisa
Groins are illegal in N.C I think they are considering them
One at Oregon inlet — i think it would stop a lot of sand from being lost — or maybe just a long jetty. I dont know.
When buying a home on the beach, you never think about people not caring for the beach — like the people here. Nothing and I say, nothing, has ever been done by the people here to save it!
And the beach is everything to them — it has made a lot of people very rich and none of you have ever put any of that money back to save it.
newjake says:
To say that the beaches are endangered from Duck to Hatteras is a gross overstatement. Please guys, stick to the facts.
The endangered beaches are only those where the homes were built on top of the dunes so the owner got right up to the ocean. The shade killed the plants. The roots died, then the storms ate the dunes away.
Almost all of the beach in Duck, Southern Shores, most of Kitty Hawk now and KDH have very, very few problems. Lots of vegetation.
None of those communities is currently considering any kind of nourishment project.
The proponents of BN exaggerate the “dire emergency” to try to get the entire county to absorb their tax and pay for a small stretch in South Nags Head that is about 100 homes long.
They got a bid for the job, it was 36 million, or about 360,000 per home.
Several very vocal real estate rental managers have been pushing this hard, and their heart is in the right place, even if the facts may not be quite so clear all the time.
The push for nourishment has been soundly defeated in two elections in the last 4 years.
However, the section in Nags Head is a mess. That’s true. They have no stable dune, the water table is high, the ocean is active, and the level of the ground there is below just about everything else.
Something will likely need to happen. It’s just not time to tank the whole project by pushing nourishment as the ONLY solution. There is already a really bad taste in voters’ mouths about nourishment and the number of anti-tax, anti-nourishment voters is (according to the referendum numbers) 5-1 against.
Earl says:
The 6 mil was raised countywide from Duck to Stumpy Point to Hatteras. You can put 60 feet out front of a SNH house, but the rest of the county will not see the direct benefit and there are better ways to spend the money and reasons not to tax in the first place.
It is unfortunate when the risks of buying property here are not fully considered.
Parts of the island are much more stable than others . . . Oceanfront is always a risk . . . SNH is more risky than elevated areas west of the bypass.
The beaches have been taking care of themselves for millions of years.
Under the worst case scenario — 4 feet of sea-level rise in 100 years – - and I sincerely hope that this does not happen, the Outer banks will still be here, only smaller.
Butch Stone says:
Earl
Yes the Outer Banks will still be here!! It will be called the Outer Islands– do you like this new name? The ocean will reach the sound in some places. You will need boats and bridges to get to them!
I think the Ocean is like a mud puddle. If you take a bucket of sand out, like beach nourishment,
the water goes down. Add a bucket of sand like Nags Head and the level goes up. Do nothing and you end up with nothing.
Gary says:
Mr. Oakes,
Why does the government of Nags Head feel your town should have rights to 80% of the County shoreline stabilization fund? To those of us in KDH and other towns, this doesn’t seem right.
Butch Stone says:
Gary
I didnt know if Mr.Oakes will see this or not, and no, I do not know him. But I think that Nags Head is the only one that will even have a permit to do this soon. I think it takes years to get. Why not let them have it and help save some of the beach, and the next money will be to whoever asks for it first or gets their permits next?
newjake says:
None of the other communities are pursuing a project from what I know. It’s an interesting point though, what kind of backlash might the town and businesses of Nags Head get from locals in other communities? Not ever shopping there? Anger over the “greed” associated with the proposed sales tax? Or will it just be focused on the politicians? These meetings might be very interesting.
Bob O says:
NewJake — I think you are incorrect when you describe homes built atop the dunes, and beach grass killed by the shade of the homes. When many of the homes in trouble in South Nags Head were built, they were a couple of blocks from the oceanfront. CAMA requires a 30 times the annual erosion rate setback, and has since at least the early 80′s. So they didn’t build these homes on the primary dune.
Gary, why should Nags Head go first? Well, we’ve spent 5 years and nearly a million dollars to get necessary permits from the state and feds. We’re not there yet, but very close.
The Nags Head project takes in 10 of the original 13 miles of the federal project.
Nags Head generates about 25% of the occupancy tax revenue. The particular shoreline fund is dedicated to this specific purpose. We’ve proposed a plan to refill the fund, so the dollars will be available in the future when our neighbors are ready with permits.
There’s a cost to the whole Outer Banks when the image of our area is tarnished, and the septic tanks on the beach in South Nags Head are not a pretty picture.
A project in Nags Head will give us much more information on how the sand moves and behaves, and we will make future decisions with actual data, not theories. A successful project will improve the chances of future successful projects.
Lastly, we are asking for help on the front end, but we are assuming responsibility for future renourishment, the really expensive part.
Thanks for the discussion and comments.
Butch Stone says:
Did you forget that the Tanger Outlet Mall is there, the new Jennette’s pier? And sooner or later all the beaches will need nourishment.
newjake says:
Thanks for the reply, I could be wrong,
I was just under the impression from all the old photos of the houses and the location of those original NH beachfront hotels/motels that this is the original “coastline,” and, like up near KH, the homeowners parked right on the vegetation. It looks like it when you drive through, but I could be wrong.
The dunes are working up north, why not a bid on A) moving the houses and B) building, vegetating a nice dune? (I’ll do it for 29 million, ha ha.)
Butch Stone says:
At that time, there was plenty of beach, and no,they were not on top of a dune. The dunes have moved back, just like the beach.
Where do we move the houses to? Would you have enough money to move your home? You would have to buy a new lot, pay a mover to raise and move your home, pay for a new foundation, septic tank, water lines, electric.
Should Nags Head pay for this? If so,maybe we need a 5 cent tax! And when we move the first row of homes, then soon we have the next row to do. Don’t you see why beach nourishment is the best thing to do?
newjake says:
No, sorry, in the long run, nourishment is far more expensive. Your own numbers (100 homes, 36 million) broke the current nourishment plan down to $360,000 per home, a minimum of every 5 years. (It could be every 2 years. It could be every storm.)
You can move the homes once for $20-50,000 each. To a landfill, new lot, who cares? That’s an issue for the homeowner. And it’s a one-time fee.
Then you have plenty of money left to build a dune (with vegetation this time).
Butch Stone says:
The homes with their pilings deep in the sand and the people pushing sand, help save beach Rd. and help save the other homes here by holding the sand and keeping it from being washed out to sea.
I know for a fact, that in Kitty Hawk MP4 during Isibel that the Road was destroyed at a place where there were no homes.
There was only one other place where the road was damaged and that was when a main water line broke and washed out the road.
If you lose the homes you will lose the beach and lose a lot of tourists.
Jackie says:
Our economy is dependent on tourism. Tourism is dependent on the beaches. Without tourism, no one will be hiring any new employees or even keeping the ones they have. This isn’t about wealthy oceanfront property owners. It’s about our beaches . . . they are public. It’s about our livelihood.
By the way, the 1% occupancy tax will just put Dare at the same rate as Currituck.
GB says:
Here is an idea–lets lower the occupancy tax by 1%. Every penny counts for discretionary (vacation) spending. Raising any local tax in this economy will make Dare County more vunerable to losing guests to other resorts.
Let’s all hope that Dare does not use Currituck County as a guide for responsible taxation and governance.
Mico says:
To repeat from other discussion:
How could you ‘northerners’ justify taking all of the money for your property owners if you have ever come to see the beach at Rodanthe?
I was just looking at slideshow of the beach at So. Nags Head — it just looks like our beach has for years.
Our northernmost oceanfront house was recently moved in an effort to keep our only road open during high tides. This house has been in the surf for some time now. As are and have been for years dozens of other houses. Our beaches are regularly littered with broken septic tanks, exposed cable, pipes and pilings. And have been for years. At high tide one can often not walk the beach without going under a house to avoid the water.
Again, remember the house, not five years old that went in two years ago. The one beside it is only held down by its concrete pool — so far. The water regularly rolls over our streets and main highway. Take a look at the aerials — we have lost full blocks of cottages in 15 years’ time.
Until the Shoreline Commission brings Hatteras Island into the discussion, it is obvious there are private interests at work rather than responsible governance and management.
Butch Stone says:
to Mico
I dont know exactly what you are trying to say. Do you want a nourishment at Rodanthe? Maybe if we had some of the money back we have spent on saving the road there we could do a beach refurbishing for 35 million, or maybe we should let the ocean go through, to the sound and put a billion dollar bridge there, like we need at Oregon Inlet. What is cheaper? How about we do the same thing at South Nags Head too. It’s only one billion. Let me see thats over 999 Million dollars, right.
I think everyone should share the money we put aside for beach nourishment, but whoever gets their permits first, like NH, should get what money they need, and the towns, and all the townships, should stop fighting, and join together for the first time, ever.
Mico says:
If Nags Head chose to spend their money and time getting permits for a process they may or may not ever be able to do and that has been shown not to work, that’s their choice. Gambling should not be rewarded.
But the main point is these conditions you all say are going to kill tourism are ones that have existed here for years with no alarm sounded by any of you. If your concern was for the Outer Banks or Dare County you’d have been speaking up long ago.
Bringing up the bridge and the road is silly. We have nothing to do with DOT’s work. And if anything you make a point for us to be nourished in order to preserve the tourist and tax base. You only have some old moldy houses at risk, we have all access at risk.
To your point, our visitation has not decreased due to the beaches being strewn with tanks, wires, pipes and sandbags.
You obviously have more on your agenda than just concern for the beaches or visitor rates.
Tim says:
People were speaking up long ago. We should have been spending money on the beaches at least 20 years ago. We are at a critical point now where 1000′s of houses will be on the beach in a short time. The DOT’s work is done with tax money. Could you imagine if we had to vote on funding every bridge and paving project? It would be the same arguments we are hearing about the beach nourishment. We need a department set up and funded by tourist revenue to contract beach nourishment, jetties and artificial reefs as they are needed. The people that are trying to get our beaches nourished have the best intentions for our community. It is time to stop suggesting there are other motives. Let’s stay focused on the issues.
gws says:
1000′s? I think that’s overstating it a bit. OK, a lot.
OF houses will slowly become exposed to the ocean as they always have.
We have time to fall back and build dunes and be smart about the way we spend valuable resources.
Tim says:
Take a look from Duck to Hatteras.
gws says:
This argument that the whole coastline is in a state of emergency is getting old. It’s not.
Take a look from Duck to Hatteras.
Brian Grffith says:
Nourishment does not protect or preserve beaches. It’s only done to protect and preserve what’s behind the beach. But why would we want to protect/preserve what’s behind the beach when that’s why we’re in this dilemma in the first place?
If threatened/vulnerable/damaged/condemned oceanfront structures were removed (either through relocation or removal) when their “time came” (which I know is a subjective term), what would it do to the local economy? Absolutely nothing! What would it do to tourism? Probably nothing as well . . . although I bet there’s a good argument that getting all that junk off the beach would have a positive impact.
The only potential losers in a retreat scenario are a handful of oceanfront property owners who willingly made a very risky investment. Does the government help you when your 401(k) loses money, even though the entire U.S, economy would benefit from you having more money to spend? Of course it doesn’t. So why should Nags Head, or Dare County, help those whose risky investments are now in jeopardy?
The bottom line isn’t that oceanfront property needs to be protected. It’s the quality of the beach that matters, and if there’s another – and better – way to have a quality beach shouldn’t that, at least, be considered?
Katie says:
When potential visitors hear about exposed septic tanks on “Nags Head” beaches, it affects tourism for all Dare county beaches. Clean up the mess first, then figure out the best way to preserve the beach. First impressions are lasting ones, and you can be sure new visitors won’t be returning if they’ve seen the condition of South Nags Head.
Mary says:
Nags Head just launched a contest to “beautify” the city by painting garbage cans. Ummm, perhaps they should focus their energies on cleaning up the beaches of condemned houses?
Butch Stone says:
To Mary
Nags Head is trying to “beautify” the city. It’s called Beach Nourishment!!!!!
Joe says:
The beach will take care of itself, if left alone. The natural beach will continue to draw tourists. When the front row of homes is gone, there will be a new front row, whose value and property taxes will reflect the new reality. The previous front took a gamble by buying in a known geologically unstable area. They had their time, and then lost the bet. We should not be bailing them out for their lost wagers.
When do we get real and look at the long-term expense viability of trying to hold a line in the sand?
Tim says:
If we are going to just let all of the oceanfront homes wash into the ocean, the oceanfront homes will have no tax value. And allowing the beach to just wash the homes in means we will have a poor beach with many services to pay for and tons of debris on the beach. Lets get real and have some forethought and solve some problems.
Mike says:
“Joe says: They had their time, and then lost the bet.”
I don’t think they lost at all.
Averaging 5k per rental week, 12 weeks, 40 years, those homes made their owners a gross of perhaps $2.4 million dollars.
At what they cost at the time to build? They probably paid off about 2000 percent or better.
The bottom line is if Oakes and his clan had tried to do this quietly with their own money, they could have pulled it off. Now so many people are so angry at Nags Head for being such a greedy neighbor, it’ll never happen.