Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 100 posts

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#11

Post by arbuge »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #7
master_crab wrote: post #2

Perfectly acceptable for homeowners to spend their own money to save their houses. But it’s the last sentence in the story that makes me boil over: “Now, the homeowners have asked the state to step in and provide assistance.”

> Property owners dumped 15,000 tons of sand in a Massachusetts town to fend off dangerous tides, but it was swept away in 72 hours The assistance they could benefit from most is not financial but a short educational course on basic construction science. Sand is not a great building material. It even mentions that in the bible (Matthew 7:24-27).

If you read the article, it was pretty much the only thing the government allowed them to do.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#12

Post by avidphantasm »

awestley wrote: post #8
master_crab wrote: post #2

Perfectly acceptable for homeowners to spend their own money to save their houses. But it’s the last sentence in the story that makes me boil over: “Now, the homeowners have asked the state to step in and provide assistance.”

I agree, but to be fair it was also the state that limited them such a silly option. They can't do anything more permanent than sand. Which, I understand has an environmental impact, but the beaches are going to keep eroding so why not "draw a line in the sand" so to speak and help protect the beaches more permanently. Regardless of how lives there now. * I live in the state but no where near the water. So I'm sure m…

Geomorphology doesn’t see lines in the sand. Development on sand dunes should simply not be allowed (as much as I like visiting the beach too).

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#13

Post by bitexploder »

The take away for me was that policy needs to change. Massachusetts prevents hard sea walls. Long term that seems like the only solution. Or people move away from living directly next to the ocean given that it is going to be a constant money sink for society so a small % of the population can enjoy a view and lifestyle unavailable to the people paying for it (presuming the state assists them in dumping more sand, or eventually constructing a sea wall).

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#14

Post by Loughla »

tromp wrote: post #10

> 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)…

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

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#15

Post by blagie »

master_crab wrote: post #2

Perfectly acceptable for homeowners to spend their own money to save their houses. But it’s the last sentence in the story that makes me boil over: “Now, the homeowners have asked the state to step in and provide assistance.”

Things which make sense to me:

1. Deregulate / reregulate to where residents are allowed to build a seawall instead of sacrificial dunes.

2. Bring in the Army Corp of Engineers to help with design, planning, and evaluation.

Things which don't make sense to me:

1. Blocking people from doing the work.

2. Funding the actual construction with state or federal dollars.

This is not an isolated problem. The Army Corp of Engineers should have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to plan this well. Assisting in projects like this is how you develop that skill set.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#17

Post by bell-cot »

It'd be nice to hear what sober expectations were for the $500k dune. I'd guess the experts knew that one modest storm would remove it.

> Republican state senator Bruce Tarr was working to secure $1.5m in state funding to replenish the sand.

...so if $500k of sand was washed away in 3 days, how long will $1.5m worth of sand last?

> Tarr, noting that a more permanent seawall was not an option because hard structures like these are not allowed on Massachusetts beaches, said: “We’re managing a natural resource that protects a lot of interests.”

Interesting. Is Tarr a pro-regulation / pro-environmental-protection Republican?

And what would be the prospects for a hard structure, anyway? My impression is that hard reality for many parts of the U.S. Atlantic coastline is "With unlimited money, you can somewhat delay the inevitable".

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#18

Post by mocha_nate »

Loughla wrote: post #14
tromp wrote: post #10

> 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)…

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

hard structures increase erosion around it. maybe its something to do with that.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#19

Post by awestley »

avidphantasm wrote: post #12
awestley wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but to be fair it was also the state that limited them such a silly option. They can't do anything more permanent than sand. Which, I understand has an environmental impact, but the beaches are going to keep eroding so why not "draw a line in the sand" so to speak and help protect the beaches more permanently. Regardless of how lives there now. * I live in the state but no where near the water. So I'm sure m…

Geomorphology doesn’t see lines in the sand. Development on sand dunes should simply not be allowed (as much as I like visiting the beach too).

I didn't mean it literally. a "line in the sand" is an idiom.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#20

Post by everyone »

"sea levels rise due to thermal expansion" ... It is a contributor but not the leading cause.

From here[1] (which I was able to find in 1 min)

"Both the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US National Climate Assessment conclude that ice loss was the largest contributor to sea-level rise during the past few decades, and will contribute to rising sea levels for the century to come."

[1]https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/overview/

Post reply on HN