Development: Are We Loving Our Coasts to Death?

Photo: Pew Trusts

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Q: What’s the problem?

A: Development and tourism are fundamentally changing natural coastal ecosystems. Habitats, species, and whole ecosystems are threatened by the elimination of wetlands, the damming of rivers, and the stabilization of(inherently unstable) beaches and barrier islands. And the alteration of water flows, the loss of water quality, the breakup of large areas by roads, canals, and other infrastructure all harm wildlife habitat.

Q: How did this come about?

A: Growth in many Americans’ personal wealth along with cheap flood insurance have contributed to billions of dollars worth of real estate development in high-risk and environmentally fragile coastal areas. More than half the population of the United States lives in coastal counties, which comprise only 17 percent of the nation’s land area. Population density along the coasts is about five times the national average, and coastal population is expected to increase by another 20 percent by 2015. It’s estimated that 3,600 people move to the coasts each day.

Tourism is the second largest contributor to US GDP, and coastal tourism accounts for 85 percent of all tourism revenue. With tourism comes development, which in turn increases demand for housing, water, food, recreation, waste disposal, roads, and cars.

Q: What’s the most harmful impact of development?

A: The worse effect probably comes from polluted runoff. Transported pollutants can degrade water quality and habitats far from the sources of pollution. Surfaces impervious to water–paved roads, parking lots, rooftops–worsen the problem, affecting watersheds in two major ways: by altering the patter and rate of flow of rainwater to water bodies; and by collecting pollutants–hydrocarbons emitted by automobiles and pesticides and fertilizers from lawns and golf courses–and provide a conduit for their rapid transfer to water bodies.

Q: Are some areas more vulnerable than others?

A: Wetlands are particularly vulnerable. They support economically and ecologically important fish and wildlife populations, and provide ecological services by slowing down and absorbing stormwater, filtering pollutants from urban and agricultural runoff, and buffering coastal areas from storms and erosion.

From the 1780s to the 1980s, the US lost more than half of its original wetlands, overwhelmingly as a result of agriculture. Since the passage of the Clean Water Act and other statutes the rate of loss has dramatically decreased. Most wetland loss today is a consequence of residential and commercial development.

Q: What are some ways this problem could be addressed?

A: The Pew Commission’s 2003 final report on the oceans made these recommendations:

1. Develop an action plan to address nonpoint source pollution and protect water quality on a watershed basis.

2. Identify and protect from development habitat critical for the functioning of coastal ecosystems.

3. Institute effective mechanisms at all levels of government to manage development and minimize its impact on coastal ecosystems and their watersheds.

4. Redirect government programs and subsidies away from harmful coastal development and toward beneficial activities, including restoration.

Source: Pew Oceans Commission.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate