Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />• <br />13.C.2. BEACH PRESERVATION FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY <br />(PRESS JOURNAL EDITORIAL) <br />Al2 Press Journal Friday. August 13. 1999 <br />A,.Uikiorial 4< -at -10 be cddeJ <br />-! rCIq �laurtlar <br />� <br />M1 <br />Founded in 1919 <br />�stHOWAI� "Give light, and the people <br />will find their own way.' <br />nx <br />EDITORIALS <br />No pork wave <br />■ Law enacted by Congress <br />correctly places some burden of <br />beach restoration on federal <br />government's shoulders <br />In a session that has been dominated by debates <br />over budgets doomed to vetoes and mythical sur- <br />pluses, members of Congress recently did at least <br />one thing right: They restored federal authority to <br />fund beach -restoration projects. <br />Congress' action was part of a larger bill to deal <br />with waterway issues called the Water Resources <br />Development Act, which includes work on the <br />Florida Everglades and the Indian River. The law <br />would have the federal government pay 50 percent <br />of the costs for beach projects and essentially over- <br />turns a 5 -year-old Clinton administration policy <br />that blocks federal funding to beach projects. <br />Potentially, Indian River County beaches could <br />see some money from the bill, which has provisions <br />to help fund restoration projects on 1.7 miles of <br />beachfront in northern Indian River County and <br />2.6 miles of beach in Vero Beach. <br />It may sound like pork barrels riding waves into <br />beach communities, but that would be the wrong <br />impression. Federal government does have a role in <br />these matters. <br />Think about it first this way: What causes <br />beaches to need restoration projects in the first <br />place? Many, many factors have been implicated. <br />Inlet jetties, dammed rivers, oceanfront construc- <br />tion, beachside-dune destruction and even the natu- <br />ral ebb and flow of beach environments are just a <br />few examples and not all of them can be construed <br />as "local" problems. Some of these causes, such as <br />jetties and river dams, are federal projects or cause <br />effects across state lines, hence the federal govern- <br />ment has a role in reducing the. beach damage <br />they've caused. <br />Also think about who benefits from strong <br />beaches. Certainly, those who reside on the beaches <br />benefit. But so do mainland residents who use the <br />beaches. And the tourists. And the businesses that <br />cater to beachfront homeowners, mainland beach <br />users and tourists. And the employees of businesses <br />patronized by beachfront residents and the tourists. <br />And... well, you get the idea. <br />Locally collected taxes alone can't be expected <br />to account for all of these groups' use of beaches. <br />Federal involvement is a logical solution. <br />Of course, communities still must to pony up <br />their share, and to its credit, Congress recognized <br />this, although it has been forced to compromise. <br />Instead of paying 65 percent of beach projects' <br />costs, which was the standard prior to President <br />Clinton's moratorium, the act reduces the federal <br />share to the 50 percent. Fair enough. <br />The next step for Congress is appropriating <br />money for the protects detailed in the act. <br />Lawmakers have a job to do with the nation's <br />beaches, and they should fulfill that duty to its full- <br />est. <br />Commissioner Grin called the above "wonderful". She believed that the <br />appropriations might have to go through the Army Corps of Engineers, which may be <br />troublesome. She felt the Commissioners ought to contact Congressman Weldon and <br />perhaps our Senators. <br />AUGUST 17,1999 <br />85 <br />�Xj�K .R _ !tM.J.,l6 <br />to <br />