Why would someone build or buy a home atop a 60 foot cliff that is in danger of sliding down from erosion in the first place, be it from weather or an endangered beetle. People who build in wackadoo locations where mudslides rising tides wildfires etc lose the right to be "shocked" when something bad happens, and need to quit costing the rest of us money. I mean the obvious ones, im not belittling natural disasters, it would help with a picture.
A lot of those homes were built when there was no ESA and creosoted lumber seawalls were the norm.
I remember building such seawalls in the summer on the Potomac when I was 14-16, many years ago. The walls were effective at preventing erosion. Now they use salt treated lumber, where permitted.
Many areas no longer permit building or replacing the walls, or, in this case, emplacing rock revetments (which have become the main means of erosion control), so what was a home comfortably set back from the water, can, with a few substantial storms or just a couple of hurricanes (or years of slow erosion) end up teetering on the brink of a 60 ft. cliff.
The problem is not mudslides, but wave action (from storms and boat wakes) undercutting the base of the cliff. When waves have removed sufficient material from the base, the unsupported strata collapse and are eventually washed away. Stop the undercutting and stop the problem.
Apparently the endangered beetles are accelerating the process and are also the reason the homeowner (aside from the incredible plethora of other environmental regs) can do nothing to stop the erosion.
Atop the cliffs at Grove Point, Twohy for the past six years has enjoyed living in retirement with his wife in a 60-year-old white ranch-style house with a broad porch and stunning views of the northern bay. He said he doesn't know how much respect to give the puritans that breed on his property.
That shoreline can move a lot in 60 years.