Comments on: Beach Restoration: Sending $$$ Out To Sea?
Add a Comment
- This isn't about Obama or BV$H or even either party specifically. Both parties are guilty of wasting billions on this crap. Having "Rooster" Coburn on my side on this particular issue though makes me a bit sick, since he's a hypocrite on Fed. spending. It's ok if it's some porky project for his State or district or the GOP, but if it's for the other guys party , State or district watch out he's LOL a "fiscal conservative"
- Reply to this comment
- Yet Congress has dumped $3 billion over the years into the projects."
How many years CBS? Are you hiding something? Or is this another example of lazy reporting by the last-in-the-nightly-news-ratings a.k.a. CBS?
Posted by geminispyder-2009
According to the lobbyist they spend $100 million a year. so for the last 30 years this has been happening. The kicker is the fact that it is a continuing project, the beaches must be restored every year. - Reply to this comment
- I benefit from this foolishness. It's nice to see a wide strip of beach in front of our family condo in Florida, but it looks like a hot model's landing strip in a few years...so they do it again. Of course, if they didn't do it the entire condo complex would wash away in the erosion.
Supposedly, the reason for our beach erosion is an Army Corp of Engineers jetty that changed the flow of naturally replenishing sand.
OYE! Government! - Reply to this comment
- I work with a beach organization that supports science-based policy. Beach renourishment projects must be maintained, just like any other infrastructure. Consider some of the benefits to the economy. America's beaches have more visitors than ALL the state and national parks put together. They also have more visitors than all the theme parks in the U.S. Beach use is one of the least expensive forms of recreation for American familities. The hospitality industry in coastal areas provide jobs for millions of people. It is estimated that beaches contribute $322 billion annually to the economy which is 25 times the contribution of the national park system. All these figures do not even consider the storm protection benefits of beaches. They do not consider the environmental benefits to sea turtles, shore birds and other animals. With these kinds of figures (and returns in terms of tax revenues) to consider, it's hard to say that federal funds are being "wasted" by being used to protect our nation's shorelines.
- Reply to this comment
- "Yet Congress has dumped $3 billion over the years into the projects."
How many years CBS? Are you hiding something? Or is this another example of lazy reporting by the last-in-the-nightly-news-ratings a.k.a. CBS? - Reply to this comment
- Seriously, it is time for us to rethink this policy. We don't need to END funding for replenishment but we can certainly cut is dramatically. If there are communities that really want their beaches replenished, let tham raise matching funds to supplement federal dollars. Also, if we are going to replenish beaches then we should only replenish the ones with easy PUBLIC ACCESS.
One last point, there were a lot of breakwaters and jetties built in my area in the 50's and 60's (with federal $$) that are actually WORSENING beach erosion! Maybe we need the
have these things torn down. - Reply to this comment
- Whoops!
I meant to say The cost of lobbying - to get them to be even considered may actually exced the answer's implementation... See: http://jupitercoins.com/historicunderseamanagement.htm
You see... the sand is not dissappearing... Its just cycling at a rate that is not convenient to modern man's clocks and timepieces. There are ways to use natures forces to accomplish the same goals - Reply to this comment
- There are answers to this problem.... The cost of lobbying - to get them to be even considered may actually the answer's implementation... See: http://jupitercoins.com/historicunderseamanagement.htm
- Reply to this comment
- Instead of piling up sand that washes away, just let global warming continue and the shorline will naturally recede. It is Al Gore and friends trying to tamper with Mother Nature and she is ticked off at them.
This would save millions that Obama could squander on something else like creating phantom jobs and reducing income tax for us by $13 per week while raising non income taxes on the middle class. - Reply to this comment
- and youd expect washington to spend OUR money responsibly? its stimulation baby!
- Reply to this comment
