By Kevin Mittal `15, Staff Writer

The Jersey Shore is an icon of the Garden State. The state’s coastline has always had a distinct identity, and the region’s notoriety has only increased as a result of the famous MTV series “Jersey Shore.” While popular culture and media do not always showcase the shore in an elegant or tasteful light, the prominence of the Jersey Shore has resulted in national attention following the devastation exacted by Hurricane Sandy. With initial cleanup complete, the attention now turns to the long road ahead and the overall future of the coastline. If proper precautions are not taken, the region will not be viable in the long term.

Sandy, a Category One hurricane, hit the beach at about 8 P.M. on Monday, October 29, 2012, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, reported that “the level of devastation on the Jersey Shore is unthinkable.” The real estate markets will lose as much as $50 billion in damages. Local, state, and federal authorities have months, if not years, of work ahead of them.

Beach erosion is critical in some places. The average New Jersey beach is thirty to forty feet narrower now than before the storm. In some places it is more acute; the shore town of Mantoloking, for instance, lost about one hundred fifty feet of beach. “Some parts of the beach weren’t even affected, while others were completely destroyed. I think that the repair of the areas could even take until June,” reports Nina Pusic `15, a regular visitor to the shore and an organizer of several efforts to provide aid to affected peoples.

Managing erosion is possible but expensive. Those places with a federal beach fill have seen no major damage. The shore is a prominent facet of the state’s $35.5 billion tourism industry, but there is a large debate between politicians over whether taxpayer dollars should be funneled into a project to replenish the essential attractions. In typical beach-replenishment projects, the state pays sixty-five percent of the costs and the rest comes from local contributions. Although the expense could hurt taxpayers, fortification is necessary if the shore is to be saved.

The discussion over causes of the disaster is largely semantic. Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York remarked that, “We can argue about the cause for the weather change, and we can argue about whether the cause was human behavior or a natural cycle of weather patterns, but you can’t argue about the effect.” In regards to the cause, Mr. Erlandson, teacher of AP/IB Environmental Studies, stated that “there is no scientific evidence to support the theory that the storm was caused by global warming.” After all, global warming is simply a trend. One cannot point to a singular weather event and declare it an obvious product of climate change.

As for the effect, Mr. Erlandson believes that widespread destruction is inevitable when we build so much infrastructure so close to the shore. The main source of the incredible damage is the proximity of beach houses to the ocean. Because of that minuscule distance, a natural disaster was bound to hit the area especially hard if it ever came. “It was inevitable that something like this would happen to such an overdeveloped area, and it will happen again, whether in 10, 20, 50, or even 80 years,” stated Mr. Erlandson. He believes stricter building codes should be enacted in order to limit overdevelopment. This approach can be combined with a commitment to beach fortification projects. Hopefully, with proper preparation, a disaster of this magnitude can be avoided in the future.