Every hurricane season, Gulf Coast shores are battered by violent waves and storm surge, and Texans are delivered the same message: build a bigger seawall. There is no doubt that concrete plays a critical role in protecting lives, ports, and billions of dollars in economic activity, as Texas ports handle more than 500 million tons of cargo annually. However, seawalls alone cannot address the full range of challenges that face the Texas coast.
Increasingly, coastal resilience engineers recognize that hybrid defenses—combining traditional engineered structures with oyster reefs, marshes, wetlands, and other nature-based systems—offer a more comprehensive approach to coastal protection. Yet despite their proven value, these nature-based defenses are often siloed as "environmental restoration projects" rather than a vital coastal solution because they do not fit the same plug-and-play design as concrete. Unlike a seawall’s performance, which can be modeled with precision, a living shoreline is a dynamic biological system that evolves over time. However, that complexity should not diminish its value in coastal defense.
The science supporting these hybrid systems is extensive. Data from the Naturally Resilient Communities project show that healthy offshore oyster reefs can reduce incoming wave energy by an astonishing 76 to 93 percent, while National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) models indicate that just 15 feet of coastal wetland can absorb up to 50 percent of incoming wave energy before it reaches shore. Beyond storm protection, these systems reduce erosion, improve water quality, strengthen fisheries, and restore coastal habitat. If the protective value of living shorelines is so thoroughly researched and increasingly recognized, why are they still funded primarily as environmental restoration projects rather than coastal defense and support?
That question matters because projects that protect communities from storms should be funded according to the protection they provide, not the category in which they are placed. When hybrid shoreline projects compete for restoration grants rather than broader funding, fewer are built, and fewer communities benefit. For coastal communities facing stronger storms and rising seas, this results in an unnecessary loss.
The irony is that Texas already recognizes the importance of these systems. According to the Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan, the coast is recognized as an interconnected system of natural environments and manmade foundations. The plan outlines over 120 priority projects that highlight these principles, yet this funding distinction still exists. A seawall is almost universally viewed as necessary because its benefits are immediate and easily measured. An oyster reef, by contrast, is often viewed primarily as an environmental project despite providing many of the same protective functions in reducing wave energy, limiting shoreline erosion, and strengthening the local marine habitat while helping shield coastal communities from storm impacts.
The Gulf Coast faces challenges that neither engineered nor natural systems can address alone. Hurricanes, land subsidence, sea-level rise, and erosion threaten communities, ports, fisheries, and energy across the region. Hybrid systems address this reality by creating redundancy: the oyster reefs weaken incoming waves before they reach shore, marshes and wetlands absorb floodwaters and trap sediment, and strategic barriers and seawalls can then provide a final layer of safety for communities and the coastal economy. Each layer lessens the pressure on the next, building a system more resilient than any project on its own. Research published in PLOS ONE estimates that nature-based solutions could prevent more than $50 billion in flood damages across the Gulf Coast. At a time when storms are increasingly costly, choosing anything but the most efficient environmental solution becomes unjustifiable.
Critics argue that hybrid shore solutions are more complex than traditional technology and require additional planning, monitoring, and coordination. This is a true statement. However, the relevant comparison is not between the simplicity of a seawall and the complexity of a hybrid system. Instead, it is between the cost of investing in resilience today against the cost of rebuilding after increasingly destructive storms tomorrow. Concrete seawalls are depreciating assets that inevitably degrade over time and require costly maintenance; nature-based structures are self-healing: as sea levels rise, healthy marshes and oyster reefs naturally trap sediment and grow vertically to meet the rising tide, providing ecological and economic value long after construction.
Texas needs to realign its funding priorities with its own understanding of coastal resilience. State agencies should evaluate living shorelines as more than environmental enhancements because they have never been just that, nor are they supplemental to the health of our ocean ecosystems and coastal communities. Funding decisions should reflect the full range of benefits these projects deliver rather than the category into which they happen to fall.
The future of the Texas coast will not be secured by concrete alone. Every dollar invested in coastal resilience is ultimately an investment in the communities, businesses, and families that depend on the safety provided by a healthy shoreline. Oyster reefs, marshes, and living shorelines, together with seawalls, can create the safest future for those coastal residents. They are infrastructure, and Texas should fund them accordingly.
The views expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Saving the Sea Organization. This piece was written as part of the Emergent Fellows Program, our summer fellowship in environmental policy and advocacy.