By ED HUNT Observer correspondent
OLYMPIA--Anxious to move ahead with efforts to slow coastal erosion, Washington legislators have stripped money from a study of the issue and redirected the funds to an agency that facilitates local economic development.
It appears that disagreement over the wisdom of projects has led to a cut in purely scientific funding to determine the root cause of these problems.
While the appropriation to the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development will be used to help communities secure funding for erosion control projects, part of that money is being taken from a scientific study, Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Director Sue Mauermann said.
"The study will help us evaluate the long- and short-term solutions and better understand cost implications of various solutions," Mauermann said.
"Whatever the solution is, we're talking large investments of private and public dollars."
Projects in just Westport and Willapa Bay that attempt to control erosion exceed tens of millions of dollars in public funding.
"We have to be able to let taxpayers know whether these solutions are cost effective," Mauermann said. "Without this study, we're just throwing money at a greedy ocean.
How can you fix a problem without understanding its fundamental cause?"
Local officials are asked to make tough decision affecting private property all the time, she said. They need to make those decisions on sound science and the study was meant to give them that sound science.
Mauermann noted that CTED is an agency that has experience in funding coastal communities in rural economic development. They are a very logical agency to be working with coastal communities and in a way it allows Ecology to sharpen its focus on the technical aspects of the projects.
The Legislature's action comes just a week after scientists with the Southwest Washington Coastal Erosion Program met with local officials to present latest findings.
Now, this funding cut may spell the layoff of scientists studying the erosion problem and some portion of the study not being completed.
"I will say that it is surprising to see funding redirected from a long- term study like this," Mauermann said. "The results of this study will be the cornerstone for federal, state and local decision making for years to come. Even though we are only in the early phases of the study, the information is being used and we know it has already proved valuable to local communities."
Mauermann says the only indication she has as to why the decision was made stems from a document circulated during the 1998 budget session.
Titled "Coastal Community Request for Funding," the document contains a number of points including the statement that coastal communities want to "correct an error in the original appropriation." It goes on to state that although a portion of 1997 funding was intended to be used as pass-through grants for local projects, no funds were received by local communities.
Mauermann said the language of the 1997 appropriation states quite clearly that the money was to be used solely to continue the coastal erosion study.
However, this year DOE did request an additional $2 million to be used as pass-through grants for local communities using language prepared by a consultant hired by coastal communities.
"We supported it through our budget request to the governor," Mauermann said.
However, the request came out of the governor's office as $350,000. The document from the coastal communities claims that DOE "failed to support the request through the Office of Financial Management as the budget was finalized." The same document asked that community grants be directed through CTED, Mauermann said.
She said there is disagreement over the nature of erosion control projects being proposed and constructed, but she said she does not know if that led directly to the funding cut.
The Senate restored the $2 million in funding, giving it to CTED but the House appropriated much less. When the dust of budget reconciliation cleared, the coastal erosion study had lost half its funding for the year. CTED wound up with $250,000 taken from DOE plus an additional $275,000 in operating funds and $150,000 in capital funds.
For the past two years DOE geologists have been working with the U.S. Geological Survey to try and determine the cause of several areas of rapid erosion on the southwest coast. It is part of a five-year study trying to assess the impacts of dams, dredging, jetties and the forces of nature on building and tearing down the coast of Washington state. When completed, the study will be the most comprehensive of its kind in the U.S.
This dynamic area that had never been studied as a comprehensive unit before and many were caught by surprise when rapid erosion started appearing in places normally subject to beach accretion. Now Ft. Canby, Westport and Ocean Shores have joined places faced with rapid beach erosion like North Cove, which has been losing land for years.
At an initial meeting two years ago, regional DOE officials underscored the need to get scientific data to local community leaders as quickly as possible. They were the ones that had to make the tough decisions, it was said. DOE would provide the tools through the best science available.
While research was being conducted to better understand the forces at work on the Washington coast, coastal community leaders are under pressure to take action and have been hiring engineers to come up with ways to slow or halt erosion that appears to be increasing in pace.
Some of those projects&emdash;in particular a set of "wave bumpers" protecting development in Ocean Shores&emdash;came under criticism from outside the state. A national expert likened what he called "beach armoring" to a failed policy on the east coast years before.
Sen. Sid Snyder, D-Long Beach, said that lawmakers took the money away from DOE because senior staff at the agency had told the Office of Financial Management to cut funding for the program. Snyder said this effort was apparently due to opposition to erosion control projects.
"It appears there are third- or fourth-level people at DOE working on the budget request that don't believe we should do anything about coastal erosion," Snyder said.
"It's like the forest fires in Yellowstone Park; they think it's best to let them burn themselves out. I guess some people think we should let erosion continue and let the ocean take its course."
Sheryl Hutchinson, director of communications for DOE, said she was not aware of any request to reduce funding for projects. Hutchinson did say that DOE is concerned about erosion control structures because there is no evidence that they will work.
"These coastal issues are fairly new to science and we are all trying to understand the phenomenon and if there are solutions to it," said Hutchinson. "The Legislature is just trying to address the concerns of its constituents, but we don't know these solutions will work. Moving money to CTED does not change that debate. It is not certain a project will go forward if it can't get permits, and that issue doesn't go away."
DOE officials understand that local and state elected officials are under pressure to move erosion control projects forward, Hutchinson said. But the agency still has an obligation to determine whether the control structures will be beneficial in the years to come. DOE did approve the sea wall in Ocean Shores, but only as a temporary measure.
"We are very concerned about this and are working on it very hard," Hutchinson said.
"We are well aware of, and share, the frustrations of the people living on the coast, but the caution flag has been raised as to if some of these solutions are effective long term.
We've already put a lot of money into sea walls and seen a lot of sand move out to sea and the question has now been raised as to whether we want to keep doing that."
"We are very concerned," she said. "We know lives and livelihoods are at stake here, but we have to ask the question, is the solution being presented something that is really going to solve the problem long term? Maybe that seems like foot dragging sometimes, but that's a question that has to be asked."
Back to Estuary Index Page
Back to Whats New Index Page
Back to Chehalis River Council Index Page