Ebeye's Seawall: Buying a Continuous Protection Line

The completed protection line

Ebeye's new seawall was handed over on 17 September 2026. Its construction sequence raises a material-allocation question for the next remote-island project: which assets will each completed reach protect, and what material and supervision will close that reach?

The Marshall Islands President's Office records completion and handover of the seawall and footpath. Hall Contracting's 30 September account describes a 1.81-kilometre seawall, an illuminated waterfront route and connections to the island's road drainage scheme. These works bring wave protection, public access and rainfall drainage into the same strip of land. Each function needs an operating owner. ^{[1] [2]}

The unfinished southern reach carried a different consequence

The World Bank's January 2026 implementation report recorded 1,421 metres built against 1,800 metres of new construction. It also recorded an unexpected rock shortfall, reported by the contractor in November 2025. ^[3]

Two indicators in that report reveal how differently a coastal asset can progress. Estimated annual damage reduction stood at US$560,000, calculated as 80% of the US$700,000 target. The protected-energy-assets indicator stood at zero: construction had yet to reach the southern power station and solar array. The report therefore combined a proportional estimate of overall benefit with a location-specific test for essential infrastructure. ^[3]

The remaining 379 metres represented 21.1% of the new-build length. Its significance to electricity supply depended on location, tie-ins and the flood paths serving those assets. For an owner deciding where to place the next barge-load of rock, the allocation decision depends on the exposed asset that load will help protect and the further work needed to make the reach function.

IMWO proposes an asset-linked completion schedule for comparable island schemes. Alongside chainage and placed quantities, show the asset served, the end connections, drainage interfaces and inspection needed to release each reach. The engineer can then distinguish a completed section protecting homes from a section whose benefit still depends on an unfinished connection. The sequence must also satisfy the temporary works design and safe access requirements.

The September handover follows that earlier construction snapshot. The late-2025 figures identify the incomplete protection that the owner faced when allocating scarce material.

Budget cuts can change the hydraulic system

The World Bank's April 2024 financing paper explains why Ebeye retained a full-length solution. A shorter wall could expose neighbouring occupied areas to flanking erosion. The procurement had attracted two proposals, with one passing technical evaluation, against a construction budget of about US$37 million. Additional finance supported the complete line. ^[4]

For a coastal owner facing an unaffordable tender, reducing length changes the defended boundary. The design team should redraw the inundation routes and check the new ends before presenting a shorter option to the funding board. A saving at tender can leave an exposed end beside a road or utility asset. That risk belongs in the option comparison, together with the cost of a later mobilisation to complete the line.

A workable procurement response prices the continuous protection system and identifies elements that can be deferred safely. The engineer should define the temporary end treatment, the exposure it is designed to withstand and the inspection regime during any interval between phases. The owner can then compare an adequately protected first phase with the fully funded scheme.

The economic margin was sensitive to construction cost

The same financing paper tested two investment assumptions under RCP1.9, a low sea-level-rise scenario, using a 1.4% social discount rate. ^[4]

The US$3 million increase in assumed investment reduced modelled net benefits by US$2.93 million, or 32.8%. This sensitivity gives the funding board a reason to refresh the appraisal when costs move. The two scenarios are planning calculations; the World Bank's contract register separately records Hall Civil Contracting's 9 May 2024 agreement at US$52,635,577.03. ^{[4] [5]}

At handover, an updated appraisal can use the completed asset, actual expenditure and a funded maintenance programme. Keep the price year, asset inventory and climate assumptions visible so the board can see whether a change comes from construction cost, the valuation of exposed assets or future hazard. The economic return measures public benefits over time. Contractor financing and payment decisions need their own cash-flow assessment.

IMWO original graphic

Reconcile the material account by function

Hall's completion account reports mobilising 84,000 tonnes of armour rock and fill. Its earlier project description used approximately 65,000 tonnes of armour rock. The completion total combines material functions that the earlier figure separates. ^{[2] [6]}

A close-out account follows each material class through dispatch, landing, placement and stock remaining. For armour, reconcile the specified grading with the accepted layer and section. Record fill and temporary works separately. This gives the owner a maintenance stock baseline and allows a later repair to be ordered in the right grading rather than by an undifferentiated tonnage.

The public handover account describes an investment of approximately US$47 million. Retain that rounded statement alongside the separately identified signed contract amount until the certified final account establishes a common scope and currency basis. ^{[1] [5]}

Put drainage and inspection into the operating budget

Haskoning's design account identifies low ground and limited stormwater drainage as continuing sources of flood exposure. Its stated protection allowance is a sea-level rise of up to 0.5 metres. ^[7]

An operating plan should therefore connect seaward inspections with rainfall drainage. After significant events, record displaced armour, toe changes, end conditions and blocked or damaged drainage connections at fixed locations. Assign a response owner and a repair trigger to each defect class. Keep photographs and survey references tied to the same chainage so movement can be compared over time.

For future island procurement, IMWO recommends funding that operating record with the works. Include the as-built section register, accessible inspection points, retained repair material, drainage responsibilities and the engineer's defect inspection programme in the handover requirements. Where the finance programme ends before the defects period, name the organisation and budget that will continue contract administration.

Ebeye's completed line now provides a basis for that continuing work. Its construction history gives other owners a more precise way to plan delivery: protect the critical reaches, close their connections and carry the asset through to funded inspection and repair.