Sentinel: ‘Beachfront pork’ is bad federal policy

Hurricane Isabel created the destruction seen in this picture, but it was federal policy that rebuilt the road in the same place.  Is this the proper function of our government?

The Orlando Sentinel has a critique of the recent Water Resources Development Act.  In an "Other Views" piece called "Beachfront pork: Bad science and bad federal policy - A framework for increasing coastal vulnerability and risk," Rob Young details why he thinks that the bill is bad policy for our beaches and for our government.  You’ll hear the great term "beach nourishment," which Young argues is about keeping beaches in front of rich people’s investment homes nice and pretty.

The Rapidsea view is that beach nourishment is usually temporary and costly; it is necessary to first address the reasons that the erosion is taking place in the first place (e.g., sea walls and rising sea levels).  And, in the end, we might have to accept that people should not reside in certain disaster-prone areas.  This idea might actually allow us to enjoy and respect those places even more.

Young is a professor at Western Carolina University in North Carolina where he teaches and studies geosciences and natural resource management.  Please visit the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, which he directs, for more information on the issues at hand.  And before you attack him for his statements, understand that he, like Rapidsea, loves the oceans, beaches, and paradise and wants to preserve them.

PHOTO CREDIT: Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University

- - - -

Posted on November 26, 2007
Filed Under Beaches, Current Affairs, Government |

Comments

Leave a Reply