Post contributed by Maria de los Angeles Lemus, a freelance writer and designer who also blogs under the pen name Manola Blablablanik.
Everyone knows that fancy cars and glass-walled condos are just but a few of Miami-Dade’s little luxuries, but did you know sand was a precious commodity? Yes, sand. In a recent article posted on Florida Sportsman’s website, I learned that Miami is basically shopping for that stuff under our feet, trying to whisk it away from other Florida beaches.
"Deepwater dredging is difficult and expensive, and the environmental impacts aren’t well understood. And according to Dade County officials, they have but one easily accessible ‘borrow area’ left in emergency reserve, which they say contains relatively low-quality material. The pressure to dredge very close to coral reefs in Broward suggests that those municipalities have nearly exhausted offshore ‘borrow areas.’"
The debate on the efficacy of beach nourishment is considerable and beyond the scope of this introduction to the article. But one thing is certain: beach nourishment is common public works in many coastal areas around the world, as erosion occurs naturally, even without the encroachment of human habitat.
Benefits of beach nourishment include storm surge protection and additional habitat for flora and fauna that depend on shorelines for food. Humans also enjoy the recreational advantages of simply having more sand in between the water and the parking lot, which fuels the tourism industry. Beach nourishment, like so many things South Beach, is the environment’s equivalent of plastic surgery. Without beach nourishment, bikini-clad damsels and their six-pack princes would have to endure such annoyances as high tide.
It’s all good, until you notice two remarkable disadvantages, which are painfully obvious: beach nourishment doesn’t last forever and sand is not an easy renewable resource.
This is a case of human hubris meets environmental reality. A naturally occurring condition and the scarcity of sand only underscores yet another oversight from developers and local officials who keep signing permits by the dozen to build yet more condos for transient residents on our already overcrowded island. Let’s face it: it’s not for the birds, it’s for the selling power of dream vacations and high-priced condos.
"Borrowing sand" away from an ecologically sensitive yet relatively stable area like Port St. Lucie’s shoal isn’t borrowing — it’s stealing. Let’s hope our scientists, engineers and local officials put on their thinking caps to arrive at a better solution for all creatures great and small. In the environment, as in life, everything is connected.
3 Responses to “Borrowing Sand”
Eeek. I know very little about this issue, but it totally freaks me out. There DOES appear to be a natural tension between a natural process (beach erosion) and human desires (beachfront development). The thing to remember, I think, is that human beings are part of nature; our cities are no less “natural” then an ant colony sticking out of the ground.
If we need to shift sand from one place to another, I figure we have a little leeway. Will it cause problems down the road? Maybe. But problems are part of the world.
Not a renewable resource?
In the long run, NOTHING is a renewable resource. In the short run, if we run out of beach sand we can grind up some limestone. Or we can dredge sand from the seafloor (isn’t that where the eroded sand goes?).
According to what I’ve read, dredging is far more expensive, less effective and still damaging to the environment from which the sand is dredged.
There’s no doubt that human desire and the planet’s health must co-exist; however, taking sand from St. Lucie to put a band-aid on Miami simply doesn’t make sense to me.
When push comes to shove, I think it will be figured out.