Beach replenishment could be a costly failure
(CNS): Tourism Minister Kenneth Bryan has said that bringing in sand to replace the stretch of Seven Mile Beach that is being eroded could be a costly failure for the public purse. During the Cayman Islands Tourism Association meeting last week, the Marriott hotel’s general manager asked the minister what the government was doing about the long stretch of the southern end of the beach where the sand has almost disappeared. In response, Bryan warned that replenishment might not be the answer, given that there are still hard structures on the beach.
The tourism minister pointed out that the decision lies with Premier Wayne Panton, who has responsibility for sustainability. However, while Panton has earmarked around $21 million of public cash to fund a potential beach re-nourishment project, there are concerns that it will fail and the money will be lost unless there are significant changes.
Speaking in response to Hermes Cuello, the GM of the Grand Cayman Marriott Beach Resort, who described the issue as the elephant in the room, Bryan said he was fully aware how bad it is and the potential impact on the tourism product.
But he raised “the uncertainty” over how long a restored beach would last, given the potential significant investment. “If we were to put that sand back and another storm comes and just takes it right away, that’s a substantial amount of money that would be lost,” he noted.
Conservationists are warning against beach replenishment as a solution to erosion because research reveals that it might ultimately do more harm than good by providing a false sense of security in critically eroding areas. The process damages marine habitats and imported sand brings its own challenges. In addition, if nothing else changes, the beach will erode again even more quickly than before, given the changing climate.
Bryan pointed out the need “to start talking about the sustainability of our tourism product and the fact that we should no longer allow buildings to be built so close to the beach”. He made it clear that PACT was going to stop allowing this but admitted that future development regulations would not solve the Marriott’s current problem.
However, he committed to keeping hotel and condo owners in the area and the CITA membership abreast of government plans. “I can understand your concern,” he added.
But the minister made no mention of managed retreat and the need for properties like the Marriott to move structures such as pools, walls and terraces that were constructed on the beach itself against the advice of the Department of Environment. Speaking to CNS recently, Cuello said the Marriott owners had not even considered the need for managed retreat because, he claimed, there is no room.
The conundrum the government is facing is the need to support Cayman’s tourism product by tackling the beach loss clashing with the reality that the costly investment into this project is unlikely to work for any meaningful time. It would also directly assist the owners of some of Cayman’s most valuable real estate without them taking responsibility for their part in the erosion.
Climate and changing weather patterns and currents and the ultimate rising sea levels are partially responsible for the erosion, but as evidenced by the retention of sand in parts of the northern end of Seven Mile Beach, where development is less dense and further back from the high water mark, the structures have played a significant part.
Like many other small islands, Cayman must deal with the inevitable consequences of climate change, which means rethinking future coastal development and rolling out a plan for managed retreat now.
“We will have to face this issue head-on,” the premier told CNS earlier this year, though he hopes the government will not have to force owners to move existing structures. “I would like to think that there will be consensus across the board… and we will find a way to accomplish this together rather than having to legislate and have long drawn-out arguments about it.”
However, at this point, none of the impacted beachfront property owners appear ready to discuss the real elephant in all their rooms, which is the imperative of a managed retreat.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Business, Science & Nature, Tourism
So sad to see the Cayman Reef without the beach. I remember when the beach was so far from the shore. it is definitely sea walls that cause bad beach loss. too many in one area. might have to get rid of them, it would be hard to see the destruction of a few places , but it might be necessary.
The government should do their homework and talk to the municipalities that utilize it. Beach replenishment works and is done amongst others at beaches in Florida, California and the Hamptons. The beach replenishment stays, in general ,around for many years. Beach replenishment is used in areas that depend on tourism and it becomes a budget item every so many years. If Cayman wants to keep a beach for years to come it has to come to grips with he fact that this will only happen with beach replenishment.
@8:22:
Replenishment does not work in all cases. The success stories do not tend to take into account that the decision to use direct replenishment takes place after extensive consultations, studies and analyses. I dare say that their success is due to the fact that extremely careful consideration was given before undertaking the projects. One of many problems I foresee is locating the sand donor site. The areas you mention have a vast choice of viable donor sites, not so the Cayman Islands. The outlook for how long the replenishment might last is foreshadowed by the rapidity of erosion in the relatively proximate time frame. The erosion on SMB has certainly accelerated in recent years. One reason being that drastic change in the seabed contours in front of the eroding beaches has taken place due to successive storms. Absent addressing and mitigating this issue, the replenishment will likely erode at the approximate same rate. Successive storms will further impact both the beaches and the seabed contours. Then there is the issue of seawalls. They tend to facilitate and accelerate erosion. There is a LOT of work to be done before even beginning to give a nod to replenishment. Just because it works elsewhere does not mean it will work here. One must read of the failures and cons as well as successes and pros to get a clerer picture. Rose coloured glasses are wonderful…for looking at roses.
In the headline, “Beach replenishment could be a costly failure”: change the “could” to “will” and there we have it.
Mother Nature is a School Mistress who is very harsh and unforgiving to fools.
Stop trying to fight Mother Nature. It’s a waste of money. Tear down the offending structures and adhere to the set back requirements in future. Stop letting individual developers rule.
A Fool and his money shall soon be parted.
10:39 that was my reaction. You may as well start a bonfire on the beach with that money. It is very simple, “the elephant in the room” won’t go away because you want it to. Structures are too close! How long will both sides gaze at each other.
Government- we want to protect cayman’s tourism, but we can’t upset the stacks of money (aka business owners and special interests)
Property owners- yes, help please, Mother Nature is destroying us, more sand and sea walls please…that you pay for.
Reality- no you fools, stop tap dancing around the problem and pointing the finger at climate change.
How long will this go on.
These Hotels and their shareholders make millions of dollars and the few locals that work at these Hotels make cents of every dollar because of the trickle down economics but we must fit the bill to replace sand in front of their Hotel . Have the world gone mad . What the hell . Poor people can’t buy food and we thinking about spending 20 Million on sand . Cayman wake the hell up . Make them fix it or close the hell down.
@7:16:
I fully agree. The developers made a willful choice in regard to where to place their structures. We the people did not instruct them to build where they built. It was totally their decision. Just because the law allows something, does not mean that it is prudent and will not result in harm.
Why is this so hard? Suck sand up from the water spray it on the existing sand. How beach replenishment has worked for ages.
The same thing that happened to the first stretch of sand will happen to the imported sand… are we planning to build an artificial reef or enclose the entire beach area like a lagoon as well?
The sea levels are rising… no very much humans can do about it and the little we can do, nobody wants to do because it means we have to stop sucking mother earth dry just for us to design and create myriads of useless human junk and waste.
The people on top are really good at making mistakes.
The sand has not migrated to Miami it’s still on the sea bottom,just a bit further out. Why not have Govt invest in a dredger which could be moored in North Sound and brought round after storms to dredge up the sand and drop it back on the affected areas. These dredges can move very large quantities and would be a lot cheaper than paying to import sand from other parts of the Caribbean.
be very careful of dredging. I saw a dredging dome in Honduras and the sand from the beach down the way ended up in the dredges hole. made it worse, the boat that hey use on the gold coast is ggod.
The gall of these people! They acted against planning advice and built on our property, the beach, because of their greed, resulting in the beach erosion. Now we blame climate change and expect us to pay for it??? Ridiculous! They should be sued or fined for destroying the beach! MPs, implement a one-off law to tax them for the cost of repairing the beach and to cover the cost of compensating them for removing their illegal structures.
The foreman actually forced Ezzard Miller off the property when he appeared on site and queried how close they were building to the sea. They can (and should) all (but certainly not Ezzard) go screw themselves.
I doubt they intimidated Mr. Ezzard!
Did they really build against Planning advice? Did the CPA refuse the set back plan? If so it’s very sad that we have such weak enforcement. No way the public purse should pick up this bill and in any case it’s an exercise in futility.
Dont forget about the beach up northside where huts are now in the water. -_-
You mean where all the Mangroves were pulled up?
Where exactl?
This is a Marriott problem. They can build their guests a sandbox to play in, and/or rebrand to a scuba dive resort!!
Marriott created this self-induced problem.