Tag: shift

Ten Threats: Protecting Crumbling Shorelines

  • This is a private beach Charles Shabica developed for a homeowner on Chicago's North Shore. The grasses in the background are native to the area and help stabilize the beach and bluff. They also help trap and filter runoff. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is changing how the shoreline interacts with
the lakes. Humans like to improve on nature. For example, we like to build things to
protect our property. Protecting a home from forces like wind, water and soil erosion can
be a tough job and expensive sometimes. But if your property is along the shore of a
Great Lake, it can be especially difficult. Reporter Shawn Allee looks at one engineer’s
effort to protect lakefront property and nature:

Transcript

We’ve been bringing you reports from the series ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes.’ Our
guide in the series is Lester Graham. He says the next report looks at protecting property
and protecting nature:


One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is changing how the shoreline interacts with
the lakes. Humans like to improve on nature. For example, we like to build things to
protect our property. Protecting a home from forces like wind, water and soil erosion can
be a tough job and expensive sometimes. But if your property is along the shore of a
Great Lake, it can be especially difficult. Reporter Shawn Allee looks at one engineer’s
effort to protect lakefront property and nature:


Great Lakes shorelines naturally change over time. Beaches erode. Dunes shift.
Sometimes, even the rockiest bluffs collapse.


That’s OK for nature, but maybe not for a house sitting on top of it. So it’s no wonder
that landowners try to stabilize their shorelines. To do that, they sometimes build walls
of steel or concrete to block incoming waves. It’s a tricky process. If the walls are too
short, they won’t stop erosion. But if they’re too long, they trap sand that moves
naturally along the lakeshore.


When nearby beaches can’t get sand, they degrade into muddy or rocky messes.


Charles Shabica is a coastal engineer. He’s been working at the problem for decades
now.


“My dream is to see the shores of the Great Lakes ultimately stabilized, but in a good
way and not a bad way where you’re causing problems.”


Shabica takes me to a small private beach north of Chicago. He engineered it to keep the
shoreline intact. The keys to that are two piles of rock that jut out into the lake.


The piles are just the right size – big enough to protect the shore, but small enough to let
some sand pass by. There’re other elements to the design as well.


Tall, blue-green grasses line the beach’s perimeter.


“Not only do waves tend to move sand around, but wind is also really an important agent,
too. So the beach grass and dune grass tends to stabilize the sand. And what will happen
is, you can see these things are seeding now, wind will blow the seeds and pretty soon
you get that stuff growing all over the place.”


A lot of homeowners and city planners applaud Shabica’s work. But not everyone does.


Some environmental groups say, once a landowner builds a wall or rock formation,
others have to follow suit, just to preserve their own sandy shoreline.


The environmental groups’ alternative? Keep development farther away from shorelines
and allow more natural erosion.


But that hands-off approach is not likely to happen. The majority of Great Lakes
shoreline is privately owned. And in many states, landowners often prevail in court when
they try to protect their investments.


Keith Schneider of the Michigan Land Use Institute says the question isn’t whether to
build near the shore, but how to do it.


He says, in the past, landowners tried to get off cheap. They didn’t pay for quality
construction or get expert advice on local geological systems.


“If you don’t pay a lot of attention to these systems, it’s gonna cost you a lot of money.
And if you build inappropriate structures or inappropriate recreational facilities, you’re
going to either be paying a lot of money to sustain them or you’re gonna lose them.”


A lot of coastal geologists agree that, for much of the Great Lakes coast, private
shoreline protection efforts – even the bad ones – are here to stay.


In urban or suburban areas, housing developments near the shore often include a buffer or
wall.


Michael Chrzastowski is with Illinois’ Geological Survey. He says, in these cases, the
shore can look natural…


“But it’s going to be a managed, engineered facility, because wherever you are on the
shore, you’re influenced by some other construction or historical development along the
shore that’s altered the processes where you are.”


That’s definitely the case along highly-developed, urban coastlines, such as Illinois’.
Other parts of the region are catching up, though.


“What’s going to happen is, other places along the great lakes as they become more
developed and they become more urbanized, they’re going to use Illinois as a model.”


That could bring more projects like Charles Shabica’s little beach. Shabica says that’s
not necessarily a bad thing.


It’s just a way to come to terms with our presence along the lakes.


“Human beings are here to stay. It’s our responsibility I think to make our environment
better for us, but not at the expense of the biological community, and your neighbors.”


That sounds reasonable enough. But it will ultimately mean the vast, natural coastlines of
the Great Lakes will be engineered, one beach at a time.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

FARMERS CONCERNED ABOUT NEW FARM BILL (Part 2)

This fall, Congress is expected to debate how much to spend on a new farm bill, and there may be sharp disagreement over what programs should be funded. Traditionally, the money has been used to supplement farmers’ income. But now, environmental groups are increasingly demanding, and getting more money for conservation programs. In the second of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Gunderson reports that many farmers are concerned about organizations with no agricultural background shaping farm policy:

Transcript

This fall, Congress is expected to debate how much to spend on a new farm bill, and there may be sharp disagreement over what programs should be funded.
Traditionally, the money has been used to supplement farmers’ incomes. But now, environmental groups are increasingly demanding, and getting more money for conservation programs. In the second of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Gunderson reports that many farmers are concerned
about organizations with no agricultural background shaping farm policy:


As the fall harvest winds down, Ken Lougheed has more time to catch up on the farm bill debate. He’s not happy about the possibility of more government imposed conservation programs.


“Farmers have been very good stewards of the land for years. We have to live in the same communities, we have to drink the same water, breathe the same air. We’re probably more aware of what’s going on than a lot of environmental groups are.”


Lougheed farms several hundred acres on the Minnesota North Dakota border near Fargo. He says he’s seen what happens when environmentalists help write farm legislation. He points to a wetland protection program known as “Swampbuster” as an example of well-intentioned but intrusive government. Lougheed says a bureaucrat who’s never set foot on his farm decides where wetlands are located. And with that decision, parts of his land are taken away from farming. Lougheed says that makes him feel helpless, and angry.


“We need to have more common sense in these issues. Because it’s nonsense, there’s no common sense involved in it and we need to have more common sense.”


Lougheed says he’s never actually talked to an environmentalist, but he’d welcome the chance to seek common ground on conservation issues. But if the current farm bill discussion is any indication, that common ground may be difficult to find. Environmental groups want to shift funding from traditional farm commodity programs to conservation. Most farm groups staunchly oppose that idea, arguing new conservation initiatives should have new funding. There’s also disagreement over which conservation programs to fund. The House favors expanding the Conservation Reserve Program that pays farmers to take environmentally sensitive land out of production. But in the Senate, Ag Committee Chair Tom Harkin of Iowa is pushing the Conservation Security Act. That legislation would pay farmers to incorporate as yet undefined stewardship practices into their farm operation. Farmers fear that would, as one put it, let the environmentalists run the farm. Minnesota Seventh District Congressman, Collin Peterson, sits on the House Ag Committee and knows the middle ground on this issue can be hazardous. He’s been criticized by some of his farm constituents for voting in favor of expanded conservation programs, and painted as anti-environment by some environmental groups.


“You get those two groups on the extremes, in a lot of cases clashing, and the people in the middle are just keeping their heads down.”


Peterson says the fear some farmers have of environmentalists is well founded. He says environmental groups have a variety of political viewpoints, ranging from moderate to extreme; but he believes most have little real understanding of agriculture.


“They sit in their ivory tower and say, well, you guys are getting all that money. We’re paying you all that money, then we’re gonna have our way. The biggest problem is these groups are based in the urban areas. It’s not their fault, they just don’t understand. ”


But Peterson says farm interests must learn to compromise with environmentalists. That’s because farm state lawmakers no longer have the political clout to pass a farm bill without votes from urban members. And those urban members often represent environmental positions. But Peterson says, like abortion and gun control, environmental discussions often can’t get past ideology.


“The problem I have is you’re not even debating what the real issue is. They’re out there on their ideological extremes and they’re raising money and getting people stirred up and we never have the debate about the middle where we could get something done and make things better for people.”


At least some farm organizations say they are willing to compromise.
Minnesota Farm Bureau President Al Christopherson says it’s clear the days of farm groups writing the farm bill are over. They need support from environmental interests to pass legislation. But he says most farmers would be happy just to have Congress decide on conservation priorities and stick to them.


“Farmers have a very difficult time adapting to them if A; they’re not understood, B; they don’t make sense, and C; there’s a whole lot of shouting in the wings about what we ought to be doing.”


Christopherson says the cacophony will only get louder and the confusion greater as a dwindling farm population continues to lose political clout in Washington, and other interests vie for a piece of the agriculture budget.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Dan Gunderson.