Beach Restoration: Sending $$$ Out To Sea?

Congress Awards Billions For Pumping Sand, Despite Evidence It Doesn't Work

(CBS)  How would you feel if the federal government dumped piles of cash into the ocean?

According to a new report, that's essentially what happens every time it replenishes coastal beaches: the sand - and your tax dollars - quickly wash away, as CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.

It's a vicious cycle. Mother Nature erodes our beaches. Man tries to put them back by pumping in tons of sand.

It's called "beach renourishment." Advocates say it keeps tourism alive and makes a powerful buffer to save houses and lives during storms. It's also very popular among wealthy owners of beach property.

But a new Congressional report obtained by CBS News claims beach renourishment is nothing but a big waste of your tax dollars.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., put it this way: "We put sand up, it washes away. We put sand up, it washes away.

The government's own ocean scientists at The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration say the new sand "often disappears rapidly, does not prevent erosion and remains vulnerable to loss from [storms]." Other experts estimate nourished beaches disappear two to 12 times faster than natural ones.

Yet Congress has dumped $3 billion over the years into the projects. Meantime, more important priorities go unfunded. $3 billion would've been more than enough to fix and update the nearly 1,000 federal levees at risk of failing.

Asked how it is that levees are not getting funding while the beach renourishment projects are, Sen. Coburn responded, "The powerful force of lobbying."

When it comes to the powerful force of beach lobbying, nobody beats Howard Marlowe, nicknamed "the sand man."

Marlowe has convinced Congress to give more federal tax dollars to his beach town clients than any other lobbyist.

"Sand provides the best protection against the waves that come from storms," he said.

We asked him to answer some of his critics' basic objections.

Attkisson: The benefits are often only temporary.

Marlowe: Not really.

Attkisson: Some of the beaches are renourished over and over again.

Marlowe: True.

Take one of Marlowe's clients, Cape May Point, N.J. Along with the rest of the Cape, there have been at least 24 renourishments there, with more on the way.

Asked if he feels there is any limit to what should be spent on trying to save beaches, Marlowe replied, "We're only at $100 million a year."

He says that twice that is needed. Sen. Coburn says it's money thrown to the wind: "Natural beach erosion, you can't stop."

Stopping federal funding could prove just as difficult. When Congress commits to a beach, they'll spend however much of your money it takes to try to put back what Mother Nature takes.

[graydonWhutchinson]

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.

[riddelup]

Just like castles made of sand wash out to sea permanently. Your lobby dollars at work.

[rrozsa]

Lobbyists are as destructive to the good of our country as the unions have.ever been

[roach9703]

If these beach replenishments are so great, that don't the businesses and homeowners pay for it?

[Beacharoo]

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!

[mingwong-2009]

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.

[nottellin1]

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.

[mjvwsr]

"Congress Awards Billions For Pumping Sand, Despite Evidence It Doesn't Work"

are we supposed to be surprised?

[armyoftwelve]

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!

[Kuei1248]

"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.

[glennk1949]

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"

[debinok1]

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.

[griz326]

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!

[MsKateG]

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.

[geminispyder-2009]

"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?

[armyoftwelve]

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.

[captdom]

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

[captdom]

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

[impeachbhb]

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.

[wtcmedic911]

and youd expect washington to spend OUR money responsibly? its stimulation baby!