5 ms·

> Local news outlet Fox59 reported that the Republican state senator Bruce Tarr was working to secure $1.5m in state funding to replenish the sand. > Tarr, not

by tromp 3y ago

> Local news outlet Fox59 reported that the Republican state senator Bruce Tarr was working to secure $1.5m in state funding to replenish the sand. > Tarr, noting that a more permanent seawall was not an option because hard structures like these are not allowed on Massachusetts beaches If the only alternative is to drain state funds dumping tonnes of sand that quickly get swept away, then it's time to change the (by)laws.

Loughla 3y ago
I wonder what the logic is behind the hard structure ban. Is it only aesthetics, or is there some ecological reason?
- mocha_nate 3y ago
  hard structures increase erosion around it. maybe its something to do with that.
  - kitd 3y ago
    That depends on design and implementation. Elmer Sands on the UK south coast, was badly affected by erosion. Authorities built a series of elongated rock islands parallel with the shore (visible here [1]). These a) protect the shore from wave damage, and b) encourage the build up of sand behind them, ie between them and the shore. Yes, there is still erosion, but you can better control where it happens and who it affects. [1] - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7920857,-0.6012103,1309m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7920857,-0.6012103,1309m/d...
- mc32 3y ago
  In Japan, you’d very likely get tetrapods. It’s either aesthetic reasons or maybe they think they’re unnatural and can have consequences for other shorelines. I wonder if compacted sand that’s pretty hard would work any better? In a way, they got their money’s worth. Without that sand it’s likely some of those structures would have been damaged.
drewcoo 3y ago
Or eminent domain the properties nearby and make people move to someplace where they won't be washed out to sea like that sand was. Unlike the perpetual sand bill, it's a one-time cost for ME.
acdha 3y ago
The problem is that seawalls are very expensive and make the problem worse for your neighbors. If you build a sea wall, you break the natural process which replenishes sand on the adjacent beaches and they’ll shrink and disappear. https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/09/26/lessons-from-california-on-how-to-adapt-to-sea-level-rise https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/09/26/lessons-from-califor... The real solution is to accept that anyone who bought in the last half century should have factored in the scientific evidence of climate change and not expect taxpayers to subsidize their failure to plan appropriately. At this point, the window for easily dealing with the problem is long closed and we should be prepared to write off high-risk areas: give the current residents support for moving somewhere safe and turn the land into a preserve where we can let the local ecosystem recover. A lot of beaches around the world have involved clearing things like mangroves which improve storm resilience, too, so restoration would help everyone further from the shore.
- ratg13 3y ago
  These homeowners cleaned the beaches free of any plants that would have helped prevent this in order to make their homes look nicer. These people just want sympathy and for someone to pay for their mistakes.
- vmfunction 3y ago
  >The real solution is to accept that anyone who bought in the last half century should have factored in the scientific evidence of climate change and not expect taxpayers to subsidize their failure to plan appropriately. Glad someone said this. If you got money to buy properties at Martha Vineyard, then how much do you really believe in climate change? People who build there should just accept the risk that their properties will be destroyed with little notice.
- jmacd 3y ago
  A sea wall performs much differently than a properly sloped structure. There are different engineering approaches to this problem and they function well when in place. That said, it's a waste of time, money and resources.
- pixl97 3y ago
SamuelAdams 3y ago
In the 1950’s Lake Michigan had a similar problem. Academics at MSU measured the sand volume over time and realized that the amount of sand was receding quickly. So they took on a massive project to plant marram grass all along the lakeshore. This takes several years to mature, however once it does the roots grow deep and the sand stays in place for a much longer period of time. I am not sure what this community can do now, it feels a little too late. Maybe build a temporary sea wall, plant grass to hold the new sand, then remove the sea wall? https://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/communities/description/10714/Sand https://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/communities/description/10714/Sand
Veliladon 3y ago
It's because they're doing a shitty job of restoring the dunes. If you dump a ton of sand of course it's going to be washed away. There's literally nothing keeping it there. If they want to keep a dune there they have to rehabilitate the whole dune ecosystem and part of that is having an ecosystem between them and the ocean. If there were plants established and holding onto the sand they wouldn't be washing away in three days! Massachusetts literally gives a guide for this shit but these idiots are just DUMP MORE SAND THIS TIME IT'LL WORK! https://www.mass.gov/info-details/landscaping-a-coastal-beach-or-dune https://www.mass.gov/info-details/landscaping-a-coastal-beac...
- pixl97 3y ago
  Or to say it another way, they are spending $500k on a $5+ million dollar problem that requires buy in from a huge number of people over a long distance and to change behaviors of people using the beach to ensure they don't kill any plants and mitigations.
sp332 3y ago
The houses are getting swept out to sea. The pace may have increased in recent years but this has been a fact of life on the sandy beaches of MA for centuries.

by tromp 3y ago

Loughla 3y ago

I wonder what the logic is behind the hard structure ban. Is it only aesthetics, or is there some ecological reason?

mocha_nate 3y ago
hard structures increase erosion around it. maybe its something to do with that.
- kitd 3y ago
  That depends on design and implementation. Elmer Sands on the UK south coast, was badly affected by erosion. Authorities built a series of elongated rock islands parallel with the shore (visible here [1]). These a) protect the shore from wave damage, and b) encourage the build up of sand behind them, ie between them and the shore. Yes, there is still erosion, but you can better control where it happens and who it affects. [1] - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7920857,-0.6012103,1309m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7920857,-0.6012103,1309m/d...
mc32 3y ago
In Japan, you’d very likely get tetrapods. It’s either aesthetic reasons or maybe they think they’re unnatural and can have consequences for other shorelines. I wonder if compacted sand that’s pretty hard would work any better? In a way, they got their money’s worth. Without that sand it’s likely some of those structures would have been damaged.

drewcoo 3y ago

Or eminent domain the properties nearby and make people move to someplace where they won't be washed out to sea like that sand was. Unlike the perpetual sand bill, it's a one-time cost for ME.

acdha 3y ago

The problem is that seawalls are very expensive and make the problem worse for your neighbors. If you build a sea wall, you break the natural process which replenishes sand on the adjacent beaches and they’ll shrink and disappear. https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/09/26/lessons-from-california-on-how-to-adapt-to-sea-level-rise https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/09/26/lessons-from-califor... The real solution is to accept that anyone who bought in the last half century should have factored in the scientific evidence of climate change and not expect taxpayers to subsidize their failure to plan appropriately. At this point, the window for easily dealing with the problem is long closed and we should be prepared to write off high-risk areas: give the current residents support for moving somewhere safe and turn the land into a preserve where we can let the local ecosystem recover. A lot of beaches around the world have involved clearing things like mangroves which improve storm resilience, too, so restoration would help everyone further from the shore.

ratg13 3y ago
These homeowners cleaned the beaches free of any plants that would have helped prevent this in order to make their homes look nicer. These people just want sympathy and for someone to pay for their mistakes.
vmfunction 3y ago
>The real solution is to accept that anyone who bought in the last half century should have factored in the scientific evidence of climate change and not expect taxpayers to subsidize their failure to plan appropriately. Glad someone said this. If you got money to buy properties at Martha Vineyard, then how much do you really believe in climate change? People who build there should just accept the risk that their properties will be destroyed with little notice.
jmacd 3y ago
A sea wall performs much differently than a properly sloped structure. There are different engineering approaches to this problem and they function well when in place. That said, it's a waste of time, money and resources.
pixl97 3y ago

SamuelAdams 3y ago

In the 1950’s Lake Michigan had a similar problem. Academics at MSU measured the sand volume over time and realized that the amount of sand was receding quickly. So they took on a massive project to plant marram grass all along the lakeshore. This takes several years to mature, however once it does the roots grow deep and the sand stays in place for a much longer period of time. I am not sure what this community can do now, it feels a little too late. Maybe build a temporary sea wall, plant grass to hold the new sand, then remove the sea wall? https://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/communities/description/10714/Sand https://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/communities/description/10714/Sand

Veliladon 3y ago

It's because they're doing a shitty job of restoring the dunes. If you dump a ton of sand of course it's going to be washed away. There's literally nothing keeping it there. If they want to keep a dune there they have to rehabilitate the whole dune ecosystem and part of that is having an ecosystem between them and the ocean. If there were plants established and holding onto the sand they wouldn't be washing away in three days! Massachusetts literally gives a guide for this shit but these idiots are just DUMP MORE SAND THIS TIME IT'LL WORK! https://www.mass.gov/info-details/landscaping-a-coastal-beach-or-dune https://www.mass.gov/info-details/landscaping-a-coastal-beac...

pixl97 3y ago
Or to say it another way, they are spending $500k on a $5+ million dollar problem that requires buy in from a huge number of people over a long distance and to change behaviors of people using the beach to ensure they don't kill any plants and mitigations.

sp332 3y ago

The houses are getting swept out to sea. The pace may have increased in recent years but this has been a fact of life on the sandy beaches of MA for centuries.