That impact can be lessened through a variety of interlinking policies, with dunes, by elevating homes, by removing the most vulnerable houses, by moving farther away from the water and by making a practiced evacuation plan.

"All of these things have to be done with an adaptive strategy that adapts to the changing sea level rise over time," Vietri said. "We cannot sit here and have a static situation. It's got to be dynamic. We've got to be able to move with the water."

And on those islands where there's no room to move?

"Ultimately, I don't know. I don't know. You're right. It's an issue," he said. "You can't build a protective beach in front of them."

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

2 Comments

1. 1. RDH 12:02 PM 12/11/12

   Tax payers should not be footing any of the costs. There is a reason these are called "barrier islands". Building homes on them is just stupid. Almost as stupid as having tax payers foot any of the cost for someone else' stupidity demonstrated by their building a home on such an island.
   
   If we tax payers are forced to foot the bill, then we should only pay out an amount equal to what we pay for those that allowed the dunes that helped reduce their loss to those that did not allow the dunes.
   
   We learn from out mistakes. It is time to let those that denied the dunes learn from their mistake.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. pacer 02:02 PM 12/11/12

   Oregon has lost a large residential and recreational area I believe in the 1930's. Nobody got paid, they knew they were taking a chance.
   Since the 1960's all beaches in Oregon are open to the public. No private ownership. There are a few restrictions in the animal sanctuarys, safety restricted areas and military.
   No public dollars should be used for residences that restrict use of the beach.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this