Comments on: Beach Restoration: Sending $$$ Out To Sea?
Add a Comment
- In the past twenty years since New Jersey has started beach replenishment, The beachs have been replenished two to three times depending on the area. Not the twenty three time reported. That would be more than once a year and if you knew anything about what you're reporting on, it makes the beaches unusable for most of the year during replenishment. Which wouldn't be great for a shore community depending of the beach for its economy.
Also.. another fact is, Most of the communities do pay for their own replenishment. The federal dollars only go towards the National Park Beachs along the coast. Which are mainly Bird cornservitories and protected land. This is why they only mentioned Cape May Point because the rest of the beaches pay for themselves.
This is just another case of CBS not doing their homework before reporting a story and a congresman. Thinking he's taking it to the streets by falsly planting a story to gain more votes. - Reply to this comment
- Just like castles made of sand wash out to sea permanently. Your lobby dollars at work.
- Reply to this comment
- Lobbyists are as destructive to the good of our country as the unions have.ever been
- Reply to this comment
- If these beach replenishments are so great, that don't the businesses and homeowners pay for it?
- Reply to this comment
- If all who read this story and comments will visit www.erosion.com, they will learn that beach erosion is completely man made (did not begin until we started dredging for harbors and inlets), and that it can be reversed simply and economically using a technology that has worked on a nearly 100 sites in the United States during the last 35 years. The ONLY reason it is not being employed everywhere, and saving taxpayers many millions of dollars, is that the dredging lobby, supported by the Corps and an old-boy network of so-called Coastal Engineers, have clamped down by denying permits and funding. Check it out. You'll be amazed--and outraged that it's not being used everywhere!
- Reply to this comment
- I'm from a beach area and the local people know not to build on a beach . Storms take the sand and your house.it's only the people that come in from other states that buy houses on the beach no matter how much sand the put back it all was gets washed away.twenty years ago we had three rows of houses one row in front of the other. now third street [third row] is now the frist row the other two row of houses are in the ocean.the have been putting sand in for years it doesn't work. this lobbyist just want money because it doesn't work its a waste of money. in twent years the house sitting on the beach will be gone. no matter what the spend.
- Reply to this comment
- Beaches need to be replenished because humans have diverted natural replenishment by taming (directing) the watershed. If the watershed had been left alone, beaches would not need man made replenishment.
- Reply to this comment
- "Congress Awards Billions For Pumping Sand, Despite Evidence It Doesn't Work"
are we supposed to be surprised? - Reply to this comment
- 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.
Posted by MsKateG at 7:37 AM : May 27, 2009
Well thank you for your thoughtful comments! Still, you must realize that all of these projects aren't of equal caliber. I can point to efforts in my area that only benefitted a few wealthy ocean-front property owners. I mean, there weren't any dunes protected or piping plovers or anything but a few McMansion's! - Reply to this comment
- "How would you feel if the federal government dumped piles of cash into the ocean? "
They already do. It's called welfare. I get to see my hard earned dollars go up in flames in the barrel of a crack pipe everyday. Welfare people typically trade government funds for crack and heroin and we pay the price. - Reply to this comment
