PO Box
1118 • West Babylon, NY 11704
917-256-1805
| |
|
|
|
| |
|||
| |
PO Box
1118 • West Babylon, NY 11704 |
||
|
CCA New York praises City Council of Long Beach decision to reject Corps of Engineers’ beach plan May 8, 2006 CONTACT: Charles Witek, 1-800-201-FISH “All along the coast, we have seen the natural beachfront destroyed by so-called ‘replenishment projects’” notes Charles Witek, State Chair of CCA NY. “Far from replenishing the beach, such projects ignore the natural littoral drift that moves sand along the shore and created our beaches in the first place. They ultimately cause more harm than good.” Despite that fact, various levels of government have made hundreds of millions of dollars available for projects designed to hold back the tide. Few, if any, have had any lasting effect. Tons of sand, pumped onto a beach at the taxpayers’ expense, is frequently washed back into the ocean during the course of a single northeast storm. The only way a beachfront “improvement” can survive is as an ongoing project, in which more taxpayer-funded sand is piled on the beach after every significant storm. “The impossibility of making permanent, artificial changes to the ocean shoreline has never deterred the beach-replenishment bureaucracy, which is largely driven by the Corps of Engineers,” notes Witek. “They can only justify their budgets and their very existence by constantly engaging in futile, expensive projects, or in unnecessary enterprises such as the one at Long Beach, where the ocean is already depositing sand and building up the beach at no expense to the public.” Beach replenishment is also a popular cause among a few individuals who purchase expensive real estate in areas threatened by the sea. “First they buy property in places where they know the beach might wash away,” says William Raab, President of CCA NY, “Then they demand that tax money be used to pay to protect their investment. Once the beach is “restored” at public expense, they do all they can to keep the public from getting to the sand that was paid for with tax dollars.” While public access and the protection of beachfront mansions wasn’t an issue at Long Beach, representatives of developers and beachfront property owners were vocal in their support of the project. “They know that beach replenishment doesn’t
make economic sense,” says Witek, “And they don’t want
any project examined on its merits, because they know that once the public
understands how much beach projects cost, and how little the average citizen
benefits, there’s going to be a tidal wave of opposition. So the
people who invest in beachfront property pull out every stop to support
any proposed project, even one as lacking in merit as the project proposed
for Long Beach, to keep the pro-replenishment momentum going. The Long Beach project would have cost taxpayers at least $98 million, and made no economic sense. It would also have had a detrimental impact on the beach itself. Sand dumped on the beachfront would have buried the important structure created by the groins and jetties, which host many different forms of marine alga, mollusks, crustaceans and the fish and birds that feed on them. The silt in that dumped sand would also have increased the turbidity in the water, making it less attractive to both fish and to swimmers. In addition, the artificial deposition of sand would have changed the shape of the bottom off the shoreline, and created hazards to the many swimmers who use the beach. “Beaches move. It’s a fact of life,” says Raab. “CCA NY is pleased that the City Council recognized that fact, rejected the proposed project, and in doing so proved itself to be a responsible steward of both the finances and the natural resources of Long Beach. We hope that other local governments on Long Island follow their example.” |
|
|
|
||
