Posted on April 10, 2026
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is in the middle of a $72 million beach renourishment project along 26 miles of Grand Strand shoreline. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company began pumping sand onto North Myrtle Beach in December 2025, moved to Myrtle Beach in February 2026, and will reach Surfside Beach by summer 2026. Two million cubic yards of sand — enough to fill 200,000 dump trucks — will be spread across the coast as part of the Grand Strand beach renourishment effort.
The entire project is funded by the federal government. Not a dime of local money is required for the core footprint. That sounds like a gift. But this is emergency storm damage repair classified under Hurricanes Ian and Debby — not the normal arrangement. Under standard cost-sharing rules, Horry County taxpayers would be responsible for 35 to 50 percent of the bill. And the next cycle is coming. It always does.
Mark Kruea, City of Myrtle Beach Mayor, said: “The beach is our primary natural resource. It’s in the name of the city. That’s why people come here, and we want to make sure that beach is there and in best shape as it possibly can be.”
No one disputes that. The question is whether pumping sand onto the same 26 miles every seven to 10 years — at a cost that nearly quintuples every three decades — is an investment or just an expensive lease on nature.
We also reached out to Dr. Paul Gayes, Executive Director, Burroughs and Chapin Center for Marine and Wetland Studies at Coastal Carolina University.
As the Grand Strand beach renourishment project progresses, it will be crucial to monitor the long-term impacts on coastal ecosystems.
Said Gayes, “In the simplest terms, the pressures and options along the coast facing progressive sea level rise is retreat. For several areas along the coast this is a fast-approaching reality. The observed, sustained rising sea level and the reality that so much of our infrastructure and economy located along low lying coastal areas results in a range of challenges, mitigation options and length of time that present coastal management strategies are viable.
As some areas are much closer to the end of the viability of mid-term coastal strategies such as renourishment, which are not designed to combat sea level rise in the long term the question of “Then What?” becomes more urgent.
For some areas of the SC coast, waves, currents, and sediment supply conspire to drive erosion al rates > 20 feet / yr over the last 100+ years. See images below from USGS). In other areas, such as the much of the Grand Strand, centered on the headland coast of Myrtle Beach and North Myrtle Beach where there is relatively high ground immediately behind the beach, and term erosion rates are very small by national standards (0.5-01’/yr) re-nourishment has been arguably relatively successful.
While both are at risk, the risk is significantly higher and proximal in low lying areas (e.g., barrier spits and areas where paloedrainage carved valleys that endure today and form the basis in the “swash” systems familiar to those along the Grand Strand) None are immune e in the long term.
The pressures are not only at the immediate shoreline. In a great many communities, it is common to hear clear day flooding of streets and properties as due to the forces of “King Tides”.
King tides are astronomically driven and occur twice a year. We as slipping into calling all the low area flooding as king tides when most of the incursions are the accumulating effect of tides being on top off sea level rise. So, you are seeing retreat in some areas especially along the flood plains from buyouts in recurring flooding properties.
The economics of the coast changes the dynamic but just look up and down the coast where all the lawsuits are ongoing and you get a pretty good map of problem areas where renourishment is not keeping up as well as in some areas. The long-term pressures may be best mitigated by options that are challenging and potentially unwarranted to implement in the near term.
As areas closer to facing the long-term challenge sooner, there is opportunity to consider the larger challenges and inevitabilities of our changing coast. The critical missing tool for managing the challenge of rising seas and static coastal infrastructure is address the costs and evolving of critical economies to the coast, state and nation. Change is happening.
Acting or not acting is costly. There is, however, opportunity in change and a conversation of evolving management strategies, economic development, infrastructure, education and science focused on the realities of the issues and requires the full range of voices and interests to find answers to “Then what?” he concluded.
1. The Price of Sand Has Nearly Quintupled in 28 Years
In 1997, when the Army Corps first built up the Grand Strand under the 50-year Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) authorization, the cost was $7.50 per cubic yard of sand [Shore & Beach, 2012]. The total project ran $16.9 million for 2.25 million cubic yards. By 2008, the price had crept to roughly $10 per cubic yard. By 2018, it hit $24.86. Today it sits at $36.00 per cubic yard — a 380 percent increase since the project began [USACE Charleston District, 2025].
That is not inflation. Consumer prices roughly doubled over the same period. Sand costs nearly quintupled. The drivers are specific and worsening — rising equipment costs, a limited fleet of hopper dredges competing for work across the entire Eastern Seaboard, and offshore sand deposits that are getting smaller and farther from shore [SC Sea Grant Consortium]. Miami Beach is already paying close to $50 per cubic yard [CBS News]. The Grand Strand is not far behind.
Nationally, annual spending on beach nourishment rose from roughly $30 million in the 1950s to $616 million in the 2010s — both in inflation-adjusted 2022 dollars — a twentyfold increase that has nothing to do with building more coastline and everything to do with maintaining what we have [Western Carolina University PSDS]. Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates more than $16 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars has been spent nationally on over 2,500 nourishment projects in the last century.
**So what does this mean for you?** Every renourishment cycle costs more than the last, and the cost curve is accelerating. When the next non-emergency cycle arrives — likely in the early 2030s — the per-cubic-yard price will be higher, the local share will be mandatory, and Horry County taxpayers will see those numbers on their side of the ledger. The federal government will not write a blank check forever.
2. Four Cycles in 28 Years — And the Sand Keeps Washing Away
The Grand Strand has been renourished four times since 1997 — in 1997, 2008, 2018, and now 2025-26 [USACE Charleston District]. That is an average of one major project every seven years. Each time, the sand is placed at enormous cost. Each time, erosion takes it back.
Myrtle Beach’s oceanfront retreats at a rate of up to approximately one foot per year [Scientific American, 2024, citing USGS]. Hurricanes can erase years of work in a single event — which is precisely why the current project was authorized. Paul Gayes, a marine science professor at Coastal Carolina University who has studied Grand Strand erosion for over 30 years, does not sugarcoat it: “We’ve done it many times, and we are gonna continue to do it perpetually. There is no stop to that process.”
Perpetually. That is the word. Not “until we solve it.” Not “until the beach stabilizes.” Perpetually.
The SC Sea Grant Consortium warns that future sand resources will be “more numerous but smaller and farther from areas to be nourished” — meaning the sand itself is getting harder to find and more expensive to move. Robert S. Young, director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University, frames it bluntly: “Sand will run out before the money does.”
The 50-year WRDA authorization runs through 2048. After that, there is no federal commitment on the books. Twenty-two years from now, this community will face a choice about whether to reauthorize — and at what cost — with no guarantee that Congress will say yes.
**So what does this mean for you?** You are not paying for a permanent beach. You are paying for a temporary one. The sand you see today will be gone within a decade. The question is not whether the next renourishment will happen — it is who will pay for it, and how much it will cost when the sand is harder to find and the federal government is less willing to foot the bill.
3. The Economic Engine Argument — Strong on Paper, Thin on Scrutiny
Proponents of renourishment lean hard on the numbers, and the numbers are real. The Grand Strand’s tourism economy generates an estimated $26 billion in total economic impact, with $13.2 billion in direct visitor spending in 2024 — up 5.3 percent from the prior year [Myrtle Beach Area CVB]. Tourism supports approximately 82,000 jobs in the metro area.
Horry County collects more than $31 million annually in accommodations taxes — roughly 30 percent of the entire state’s take [Tourism Works for the Grand Strand]. The beaches protect over $3.5 billion in shorefront property [Horry County Engineering Department].
Cost-benefit ratios ranging from 3:1 to nearly 8:1 are cited regularly. Tim Kana, founder of Coastal Science and Engineering, has argued the return is $5 saved for every $1 spent [WMBF News, 2018].
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) puts the national average at $3.40 returned per dollar invested. The Army Corps claims renourishment reduces storm damage costs by up to 50 percent.
But here is what those numbers do not tell you. The Grand Strand-specific cost-benefit ratio — the one that would actually quantify whether this particular project pencils out for this particular community — has never been publicly released.
The 5:1 figure comes from a re-nourishment proponent. The 7.6:1 figure comes from a project in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina — not South Carolina. The Army Corps’ 50 percent storm damage reduction figure comes from the Corps’ own promotional materials. These are not independent audits. They are sales pitches dressed in government letterhead.
Critics — including Taxpayers for Common Sense and ProPublica — argue that renourishment disproportionately benefits wealthy beachfront property owners while costs are distributed across all taxpayers, federal and local alike. The $72 million being spent right now comes from the same Treasury that funds every other federal priority. The next $72 million — or $100 million, given cost trends — will come partly from Horry County’s budget.
**So what does this mean for you?** The tourism economy is real, and no one is arguing the beach does not matter. But when officials cite cost-benefit ratios to justify tens of millions in spending, demand the actual study — for the Grand Strand, with current numbers, reviewed by someone who does not have a financial stake in the outcome. Trust the data, not the brochure.
4. Garden City Got Left Behind — And Arcadian Shores Paid the Price
Understanding Grand Strand Beach Renourishment
Not every beach on the Grand Strand got sand. Garden City — an unincorporated community in Horry County where residents pay the same county taxes as everyone else — was excluded entirely from the federal project [WMBF News, March 2026]. The reason: the Army Corps based its project footprint on a feasibility study conducted in the 1990s, and Garden City’s southern tip was not included. Three decades later, that bureaucratic boundary means homeowners south of 1303 South Waccamaw Drive watch dredge pipes pump sand onto neighboring beaches while their own stretch erodes.
“We don’t get any of that benefit,” one Garden City homeowner told WBTW. For Garden City to be added, the feasibility study would need to be updated — a process that could take years and carries no guarantee of approval.
Arcadian Shores faced the same exclusion but had a different outcome — and a different bill. Because Arcadian Shores falls outside the federal authorization, the City of Myrtle Beach and Horry County agreed to split $9.7 million in local funds to add it to the project. The city paid $4.8 million; the county paid $4.9 million [Post and Courier, 2025]. That is $9.7 million that came directly from local budgets — not from Washington.
Arcadian Shores is the template for what happens when the federal government says no. Surfside Beach’s Town Council has already raised its beach renourishment fund cap to $2 million, signaling it expects to self-fund portions of future work. North Myrtle Beach is spending $1.5 million on a separate dune restoration project for a section of Cherry Grove that was also excluded from the federal footprint.
**So what does this mean for you?** The federal project covers 26 miles of authorized shoreline. If your beach is not on that map — drawn 30 years ago — you are on your own, or your local government is writing a check. Garden City residents are paying Horry County taxes and getting no sand. Arcadian Shores residents are getting sand — and a $9.7 million local bill to show for it. The federal footprint is not expanding. Local costs are.
—
5. No Alternatives, No Exit Strategy, No Plan Past 2048
South Carolina passed the Beachfront Management Act in 1988, establishing a managed retreat policy that banned future seawall construction and restricted building in predicted erosion zones [SC Code Reg. 30-21]. It was — on paper — an acknowledgment that the coastline moves and development should move with it. In practice, the retreat has never happened.
Regulators have loosened development rules for hundreds of seaside lots since 1988. The state legislature carved out an exemption in 2014 allowing DeBordieu Beach property owners to rebuild a 4,000-foot seawall — a direct contradiction of the Act’s core principle [SC Law Review].
Living shorelines — oyster reefs, salt marsh restoration, natural wave breaks — are promising in estuarine environments. NOAA awarded The Nature Conservancy $6.8 million to expand living shoreline projects along South Carolina’s coast.
But those solutions work in sheltered waters, not on high-energy oceanfront beaches like the Grand Strand. Rachel Hawes of the Coastal Conservation League describes oyster reefs as delivering “a one-two punch” against wave energy and flooding — but that punch is designed for the back bays, not the open Atlantic.
Managed retreat is politically impossible in a community where tourism generates $26 billion. Seawalls are banned — mostly. Living shorelines cannot handle ocean waves. Groins exist in a regulatory gray area — permitted because South Carolina does not classify them as “erosion control structures” despite the fact that trapping sand is exactly what they do.
That leaves renourishment as the only tool. And that tool is expensive, temporary, and getting more expensive.
The 50-year WRDA authorization expires in 2048. No one is talking about what comes after. The Army Corps has no public plan for post-2048 Grand Strand management.
The state has no dedicated beach resiliency fund — coastal leaders have called for one, but the legislature has not acted [Post and Courier, 2025]. The entire strategy rests on a federal authorization that is more than halfway through its lifespan, with no successor in sight.
**So what does this mean for you?** There is no Plan B. Every alternative to renourishment has been abandoned, defunded, or ruled out by geography. The only question is how much the next cycle costs and who writes the check. If you are a Horry County taxpayer, you are committed to this path whether you voted for it or not — and the path has no endpoint.
Conclusion
The Grand Strand’s beaches are worth protecting. A $26 billion tourism economy, 82,000 jobs, and $3.5 billion in coastal property are not abstractions — they are the livelihoods of the people who live here. No serious person argues for abandoning the coastline.
But protecting it honestly means acknowledging what renourishment actually is: a recurring expense — not an investment with a finish line. The cost per cubic yard has nearly quintupled. The sand lasts less than a decade. The federal funding that covers this cycle will not cover the next one. Garden City got nothing. Arcadian Shores got a $9.7 million local bill. And no one in Columbia or Washington has a plan for what happens after 2048.
The next time an elected official tells you the beach renourishment program is “working,” ask them one question: what is the plan for the cycle after this one? If they cannot answer with a number, a funding source, and a timeline — they are not planning. They are hoping.
Horry County taxpayers deserve better than hope. Follow the budget, not the press conference. Ask harder questions. Demand specifics. The sand is temporary — but the bills are permanent.
