Coastal Areas Fight Budget Cuts

From the California coast to North Carolina’s Outer Banks, the nation’s beach communities are marshaling their forces to oppose President Bush’s push to slash federal funding for sand replenishment projects.

In the White House’s view, Washington can no longer afford to pump sand onto beaches that are doomed to erode again and again.

But to some members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- Bush’s proposal to cut the money threatens to erode the economic base of coastal communities.

Bush is asking for $46 million for “shore protection” projects in his 2006 budget -- less than half the $102 million Congress provided for such projects this year.

The emerging battle over the funding is emblematic of the task the president faces in persuading even members of his own party to accept cuts.

The issue also is noteworthy for the alliances it has created. Some environmental groups who are often at odds with Bush have joined him in supporting the proposed cut. And some of the fiercest opposition to it comes from fellow Republicans representing coastal “red” states that helped Bush win a second term.

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.), citing the economic benefit of beaches, called the replenishment program “a case where taxpayers actually see a positive return on their dollar.”

Rep. Susan A. Davis (D-San Diego), whose district includes a proposed project in Imperial Beach, said: “California’s beaches are world-renowned for their beauty and recreational enjoyment. To neglect these national treasures would be wrong.”

Bush proposed no money for the Imperial Beach project; the city wants at least $200,000. Ultimately, the city hopes to secure about $9 million over several years to help finance a project that would involve removing about 1.6 million cubic yards from the ocean bottom and depositing it on the shoreline.

White House budget officials said that although the federal government should aid beach communities after storms, there should be a limit.

“Beaches are important,” said Chad Kolton, a spokesman for the White House budget office. “But part of our overall effort in this budget is to make sure we are spending taxpayers’ dollars in ways that are the proper responsibility of the federal government.”

The administration wants the federal government to continue to help pay for beach replenishment after a storm. But its plan calls for long-term beach maintenance -- which the federal government helps fund -- to be mostly the responsibility of state and local governments.

The federal program, run by the Army Corps of Engineers, maintains buffers that protect lives, homes, businesses and roads from storm damage and, in turn, reduces Washington’s exposure to pay large sums in federal disaster aid.

Many of the projects involve removing sand from the ocean and other parts of a beach and redepositing it in eroded areas, a process that environmentalists criticize.

David Conrad, National Wildlife Federation senior water resources policy specialist, said the proposed cuts would make communities think more about “whether costly, continual sand pumping is preferable to better planning” of coastal development.

There were about 100 projects in the country last year. Most were on the East Coast, in part because of the battering caused by hurricanes, especially in Florida.

In California, the federal government helped fund several studies of projects -- in Carpinteria and San Clemente, for example -- designed to counter beach erosion. And Bush’s proposed cut comes as a number of cities hope to move forward with replenishment projects.

This year, California is getting about $1.8 million under the program. Under Bush’s proposed budget, the state would receive slightly more than $1 million.

Bush has made past efforts to cut federal funding for the program, as did President Clinton before him. But they have been rebuffed by Congress.

Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), co-chairman of the congressional Coastal Caucus, expressed confidence that Congress would reject the latest effort.

One of the cities concerned about Bush’s proposed budget cut is Carpinteria, about 12 miles south of Santa Barbara, which is helping to pay for a federal study on its beach erosion problem.

“We would feel cheated if suddenly it stops,” said Matt Roberts, the city’s parks and recreation director.

He said that because federally funded flood control projects were partly responsible for the beach erosion, the federal government should help restore the beach.

Budget watchdog groups are backing Bush’s proposed cut. One group called the beach replenishment efforts the “only project the Army Corps of Engineers builds knowing they will fail because large storms and the ocean will eventually move the redeposited sand.”

Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy for Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Bush’s proposal was a “common-sense approach -- let those who benefit the most from projects, pay the most for them.” But he added, “Common sense rarely wins out by itself; you have to fight for it.” It remains to be seen, he said, “whether the administration will back up its bark with even a little bit of bite.”

Environmental groups express similar skepticism.

Sara Zdeb, legislative director for Friends of the Earth, said, “The administration has proposed similar cuts during the past few years, but has largely rolled over when powerful members of Congress put the money back.”