So who is responsible for the beach now

Not sure but you may want to attend this workshop:

http://www.sowal.com/bb/nature-envi...ents-beach-nourishment-workshop-4-6-11-a.html


BP?

http://www.sowal.com/bb/oil-spill-t...-bp-pay-new-sand.html?highlight=renourishment

My understanding is that FEMA will pay for any re-nourishment.

There is only a little difference in the words "re-nourishment" and "nourishment," but there is much difference between their definitions regarding who pays for each.

Did you perhaps mean "nourishment," as in the first time the beach is built up with sand by man?

How did the beach ever exist without beach nourishment??

How did the beach ever exist without beach nourishment??

once upon a time there were no buildings on sand dunes, no clearcutting to the dune line, no seawalls and the pompous asses who built them

No money for beach renourishment in Scott's budget - St. Petersburg Times
So if there is no money who will pay for renourishment. Is this going to be another divide between the Legislature and the Governor?

A 2003 study by Florida Atlantic University found that each state dollar spent protecting Florida's beaches that have public access prevents the loss of $8 in state taxes paid by out-of-state tourists and resident users of those beaches.

Barrier islands are not fixed in place. They move, waxing here, waning there, pushed and pulled as the waves wash their sand this way and that.

But once people began building homes and businesses on the beaches, they began looking for ways to make the movement stop. Engineers have been using new sand ? dug up offshore and pumped to the land ? to boost the size of beaches since 1922, when Coney Island needed enhancement.

Since then, more than 300 major renourishment projects have been pursued nationwide, dumping a total of 517 million cubic yards of sand on the country's waning beachfronts, according to a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Florida's beaches have reaped the greatest number of federally funded renourishment projects. Thirty-five of Florida's 67 counties have used taxpayer money to artificially enhance their beaches. Pinellas County's beaches have been renourished repeatedly since 1966.

The DEP has designated about 399 miles of the state's 825 miles of sandy beaches as "critically eroded." Since 1998, the state has spent $489.78 million on beach renourishment projects on 218 miles of that 399.

Thirteen years ago the Legislature voted to spend up to $30 million a year on beach renourishment, with the money coming from the sale of documentary stamps applied to real estate transactions. But when the real estate market collapsed, the money from documentary stamps eroded more rapidly than any beach.

"The last few years have been a struggle," Flack said. Still, the state Legislature has come up with about $15 million a year for the past two years.

Skipping a year of funding might not seem like a big deal, said Indian Rocks Town Council member Bill Smith, who serves on the board of the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association.

"One year is probably not much of an issue except it means more sand will be needed next year so it will be more expensive," he said.

However, he said, "the longer we wait, the more erosion occurs and the more expensive beach renourishment will be. And the narrower the beach, the less protection it offers from hurricanes."

This does sound short sighted. If we're going to have to spend it no matter what, and the return is good, we should fit this into the budget. Although this is only for one year, according to the article.

Not questioning the need, questioning Governor Scotts not placing it in the budget. If our economy is tourism related and the beach is one of its major attraction, then of all the things we should be ensuring is here, the beach should be one of them. Whether its for only one year, remember what if he sees no need for it next year because we have no hurricanes this season. Knock on wood.

Im against man-made beach "nourishment" of our beaches. Nature will take care of them just fine, though not as quickly as some may want. One minor problem is the numerous homes built on the dune systems, which don't allow the beaches to be beaches, rebuilding themselves.

This does sound short sighted. If we're going to have to spend it no matter what, and the return is good, we should fit this into the budget. Although this is only for one year, according to the article.

Spoken like a panhandle libertarian.

You are for government assistance as long as you as can benefit from it.

:idontno:

Spoken like a panhandle libertarian.

You are for government assistance as long as you as can benefit from it.

:idontno:

Absolutely. But it's not just me, it's everyone. The beaches are a major source of income for residents and the state and local government. Robust tourist and sales tax revenue insure we don't have to pay a state income tax. Any long term investment insuring this remains the case is a good taxpayer investment in my book.

Im against man-made beach "nourishment" of our beaches. Nature will take care of them just fine, though not as quickly as some may want. One minor problem is the numerous homes built on the dune systems, which don't allow the beaches to be beaches, rebuilding themselves.

There are major roads built in the dune area, also, Scenic Gulf Drive, for example.

Absolutely. But it's not just me, it's everyone. The beaches are a major source of income for residents and the state and local government. Robust tourist and sales tax revenue insure we don't have to pay a state income tax. Any long term investment insuring this remains the case is a good taxpayer investment in my book.

Most beach nourishment projects require federal dollars, too.

A taxpayer in Taos, New Mexico might consider spending federal tax dollars on beach nourishment an example of wasteful spending.

My point is what is wasteful often depends on how close the largess is to the recipient.

Absolutely. But it's not just me, it's everyone. The beaches are a major source of income for residents and the state and local government. Robust tourist and sales tax revenue insure we don't have to pay a state income tax. Any long term investment insuring this remains the case is a good taxpayer investment in my book.

we need a state income tax. this state must progress from something other than a place to retire.

we need a state income tax. this state must progress from something other than a place to retire.

Dang Bob! I've agreed with you, most of the time, until you brought up the state income tax. As to Fla. being a place to retire, you need to get out of south Fla. and settle into the Great Northwest. The best is yet to come. Not sure why I'm being so go get'em, must be the mega moon coming up next week.:blink: