 mailbag
Dear Editors:
Thank you for your informative article discussing the Water Resources Development Act in the December 2003 issue of Making Waves. The article was right on the mark in highlighting the legislative reach this authorization bill has to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers policy.
Contrary to popular opinion, the Corps is not the "500-lb Gorilla" they are often characterized to be. Their hands are tied by Congress and the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) that either by policy, but by mostly using their discretionary spending authority, essentially dictate what the Corps can, or would even want to do. The Corps is charged with the Herculean task of maintaining the Nation's waterways, yet Congress and OMB provides bare-bones funding (or less) to achieve this objective. Let alone are there enough funds appropriated or policy initiatives "to do the right thing" from the start, such as returning dredged littoral sand to the beaches rather than dumping this precious resource in offshore disposal sites, or mitigating for environmental loss as part of the overall water resource project and not as separate, stand alone items. Corps funding is hardly "pork" in this regard.
It would also be myopic to think that the methodology the Corps employs to construct and maintain waterways and beaches are perfect. Many forms of local government, coastal advocacy groups, and the public at large have a "love-hate" relationship with the Corps. However, most of their projects are developed and implemented in accordance with the guidelines Congress has established for this government agency. Certain groups often penalize the entire Corps navigation and shore protection programs for a handful of individual projects across the country that have gone terribly awry. The real answer is developing policy and providing baseline funding necessary to again "do the right thing," not to paralyze the process with more review that should be conducted as part of the NEPA process anyway, or short-changing our beaches and infrastructure with paltry funding limits.
Obviously, beach nourishment is one of the more relevant Corps programs for surfers. The alternative to the Federal government's (i.e., Corps') involvement in beach nourishment is that community and resort owners would have to essentially "fend for themselves." When this happens, the surfer viewpoint will surely not be considered and the methods employed will be less expensive than beach nourishment. The methods would almost certainly include seawalls, rock revetments, and other isolated hard structures, which will be negative for everyone, especially the surf community.
The surf community needs to be a part of the process that develops solutions for eroding beaches. The Federal process of restoring beaches for all who use them is the best way for tube masters, aerial specialists, and every other type of surf demographic to have a say in the process. Many of the "Corps reform" initiatives, if passed, would actually stifle this vital input.
Greg "Rudi" Rudolph
Emerald Isle, NC
Making Waves welcomes letters from our readers. Send your hoots, hollers and
hassles
to makingwaves@surfrider.org.
Please make sure to include your name and location. In order to print as many
letters as possible, some letters may be edited for length.
|
|
