This paper replies to Houston's analysis which falls short of his promise to discuss "the editorial PILKEY (1990) and the paper LEONARD et al., (1990)." Actually, Houston's discussion is limited to one figure (Figure 2, LEONARD et al., 1990). His discussion, an extremely flawed analysis, is a contrived attempt to discredit our studies. Houston incorrectly asserts that essentially all of the pre- and post-fill erosion rates in our analysis are wrong. With three exceptions, we note sources for and successfully defend the values used to construct the figure in question. Houston concludes that eleven of the twelve beaches discussed have post-fill erosion rates roughly equal to their pre-fill erosion rates. We demonstrate that this conclusion is wrong. Our study (LEONARD et al., 1990) remains an important contribution to the science of beach replenishment.