Should your tax dollars continue to fund beach replenishment projects? 

Sand, by its very nature, will erode and return at the edges of the seas till the end of time. Annually replenishing it for the benefit of those who "live by the water" is just one more absurd use of the taxes taken from the many to improve the life of the few. STOP FOOLISHLY SPENDING OUR MONEY !!!

Most of these structures they are trying to protect are built beyond what is called the "Primary Dune" On the west coast of Florida you are not allowed to build anything that casts a shadow on the water between 9 AM and 5 PM. Or at least that is how it used to be. You can find out more about this from a book called "Design with Nature" By Ian McHarg (I hope I spelled that correctly) Look it up, it is quite interesting.

I didn't think Obama was truthful in some of what he said and totally ignored some of the things he should have talked about. Which means we are in a real hurt. Also I could have paid more attention to what he was saying if I hadn't had to fight stomach upset from having to look at Nancy Pelosi the whole time.

Interlocking , round edged concrete structures like regular playing jacks should be dropped randomly but close enough to each other into the ocean 100 yards from the low tide line . There will be no need to hire a dredging company to force feed the shoreline ever again. Beach goers may have to suffer for bit of tme but that's the price to be paid.

The roads that lead millions of Americans to the beaches each year require more maintenance; do we stop that "wasteful" spending, too?
The beaches are public treasures enjoyed by millions each year. The "luxury hotel" BS is a red herring. Do you like taking your family to the beach on vacation? Would you still like to take them ten years after the beaches weren't maintained? Of course not.

Patricia,

I certainly hope that you have never and will never come to any of our beautiful beaches here in SC. If you had, you would understand that it's not just the people who "live by the water" who use these beaches. We have people from all over the US who come to SC to enjoy the coastline. I will say though that I hope we don't get someone as ignorant as you coming to our state.

It's a trade off just like any other ... money is made from tourism on those sandy beaches, so is the cost of replenishing them worth the reward? I don't have those numbers so who knows.

Nope, don't take my family to the beaches they're talking about and certainly don't want my tax dollars to pay for another person's vacation or the increase in property value at some resort. Then again, I wasn't looking for a handout from a chinese backed government mortgage, because I was effective in managing my own finances, besides I have plenty of home improvement projects I can do at my own place. Again, leave my money alone so I can do what I think is best with it and stop stealing it to do what you libs think is best. If you're so right and I'm so wrong, double your own taxes and leave my money alone! I'm just saying . . .

I lived in a coastal area for 28 years and only the rich live on the beaches. Let them pay the price if they want to keep the sand. Why should I or any average American have to pay this price with our taxes? There are other things our tax dollars should be going to - OR - how about lowering our taxes and start using them wisely. Stop the waste.

How stupid can you get? Nature always wins. This is pork at its most obnoxious. If the cities and states think it is important to fight nature, let them pack their own sand.

Physical geography 101 from way back in 1979: Sand migrates. It goes away in winter and returns in summer. Alki beach in Seattle is all pebbles in winter and all sand in summer without intervention. Made made structures like levees disrupt the natural flow. Remove the man made structures and the problem disappears.

To not, is very short sighted. These beaches create thousands of jobs that create tax dollars. I'm sure much more than the 100 million. And as Brandy stated we have people from all over the US visit SC beaches. Myrtle Beach has over a million people here on any given summer weekend and we only have 50k permanent residents.

Denton and Brandy,
It's so easy for the people that benefit directly from beaches (in this case in SC) to make a case for national taxes to be spent on their local concern. If it is truly beautiful and worthwhile, wouldn't people that use these beaches be willing to pay higher taxes at restaurants and retail locations around the beaches to help keep them? Wouldn't they be willing to pay a toll to use the roads that take them to this fantastic beach? As usual, we are all to willing to spread our pleasures on the rest of the country, rather than actually having those that are using the beach pay to keep them up. Even to suggest that this be the case, gets the ever present personal attack of calling people "ignorant" for suggesting responsibility for your geographic choice of living on the coast. We haven't mentioned the possibility of a natural disaster like a hurricane that will flatten your home that you decided to buy. The rest of us need to step up and replace it for your benefit as well. Did you see the presidents speech to the children this week about personal responsibility? He should have given it again last night, instead of repeating the same old talking points about health care.

I live in FL, but on the beach, unfortunately. Why should any taxpayer have to foot the bill for these people who can afford to live on the beach, now about erosion, and expect other taxpayers to foot the bill?!? It's pathetic. And, I'm guessing most of them are liberal elites who contribute to Obama and his gang of thieving Democrats. Democrats always love it when somebody else picks up the bill. Having lived in Mass., they've been aware of this problem for DECADES, yet they continue to build on these lots. Let them factor that into the price they pay and continued maintenance on their properties, like the rest of us normal people have to do! NO to funding beach erosion!

Why isn't economic growth a state a function of California? Possibly because they're broke along with many other states facing Bankruptcy? And why on earth would we suggest that to not have this as a federal function is short sighted? Wouldn't having Americans continue to work, just to pay the interest on Chinese backed notes funding these programs be infinitely moreso short sighted? (You may have not noticed, but the national debt is at $12 trillion, and unfunded liabilities are sitting around $59 trillion - we're broke and you're suggesting we borrow money to build beaches that will wash away) I thought our goal was to boost our economy, not China's.

Our tax dollars already help beaches and sons of beaches!!! What more do you want!!!

Correction -- I don't live on the beach -- typing error. Let the wealthy people who want to live directly on the beach fund their own "sand replinishment" efforts. We need smaller gov't, more privacy, and gov't out of our lives!!! Vote Republican, except for the RINOS (Republicans in name only): Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Richard Lugar of Indiana (my former Senator), John McAmnesty McCain of AZ, Thad Cochran of MS, my senator, Mel Amnesty Martinez (who's thankfully resigned), my Gov., Charlie Crist, and a few others that I can't recall off hand. Enough of the RINO's that have allowed the GOP to go down the crapper! If the GOP doesn't get it by now, they're never going to get it. Bush had the chance over EIGHT years to build that border fence to keep out illegals, to deport illegals and he did NOTHING! Deport the illegals and it will help the economy tremendously -- less of a burden on taxpayers footing the bill for their anchor babies, food stamps, stealing jobs from the Americans "who won't do them" -- no, not at slave wages they won't! Pass E-VERFIY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again, it's really not that simple. Oceanography tells us that beaches erode and change over time which can have often severe consequences for many coastal areas. Some remedies to preserve beaches are building breakers, jetties, and also replenishing sand on the beach. Not to mention, beach resorts are economic powerhouses in this country especially during summer. Our taxes go towards a lot of conservation projects. Should we not maintain national parks as well, use the Grand Canyon as a landfill?

Why would the same people that are against fossil fuels and the environment want US tax dollars spent on beaches. The eroding of sand is a part of nature and we claim to know what happens if you fool with nature. This is a problem for local and state government and not Washington.

beach maintenance is no different than the money spent on national,state,and local park. Yosemite and yellowstone are not just for locals,nor are the beaches.

Why do the Feds have to get involved in EVERYTHING!! Let the locals and the States deal with it. I live in western Virginia and don't want my federal tax dollars spent in Virginia Beach and the Outer Banks as they have for years.

Any kind of Federal revenue sharing is a crime against the Constitution.

WHY IN HELL WOULD YOU WASTE MONEY ON A LIBERAL ELITIST BEACH,
WHEN THE MONEY COULD BE SPENT ON A BRIDGE . IS THIS ANOTHER
ACORN PLAN ? WILLIAM AYERS WOULD BE OUT THEIR WITH A SHOVEL .
A FOUR LANE BRIDGE INTO THE WONDERFUL TOWN OF KETCHIKAN
WOULD BE THE SENSIBLE THING TO DO . BUT, THE STUPID MAINSTREAM
LIBERAL MEDIA, WOULD TRY TO SQUASH THIS . SEE YA' ALL IN 2012
SARAH

In our area, Federal funds only cover a fraction of the cost. The state, county and the local gov't also have to pitch in. It is a public beach and there are no, I repeat no, resorts. Last year, the water was lapping at the dunes during high tide. Note: it is against the law to disturb the dunes and they started putting snow fencing up years ago to catch sand and create more dunes. It has worked and dunes now extend 70 yards or so from the existing sea wall. We did have renourishment last winter- our last was 7 or so years ago. Would rather preserve our public coastline than have my tax dollars go towards a speedy train between CA and NV or go toward the problem of swine smell in IA. That's what I call pork!

I don't have a problem per se in spending money to help out the erosion problem, but there should be a better fix we are investing in instead of literally dumping millions of dollars straight into the ocean.

Are there existing technologies that might make a fix be more permanent than just a few years? If there are and their implementation would be feasible, I have no problem in spending a similar amount to fix it. If we are just going to stick another band-aid on it, then no deal.

Shame on Fox for leading into this question saying that the sand goes in front of luxury hotels and rich estates. In California, the public has access to almost all of the beaches and millions of people go each year. The revenue that comes in to those communities is astounding. Oh and by the way, millions of dollars are generated in sales tax and income taxes on the people making money. Get back to fair and balanced and stop with the lousy lead ins. You know better than that and you don't need to attract readers with those ploys.

I voted yes because public beaches draw tourists and that means money and jobs. Hurricane Francis did a real number on the east coast of Florida a few years back and the communities affected have spent millions of their own money (residents and businesses) to pay contractors to dredge up sand out of the ocean and replenish the beaches so visitors will continue to return every year. It is shocking to see 15 feet of beach just...GONE, and I don't just mean 15 feet horizontally. Vertically too! Preserving our public beaches helps to preserve "America the Beautiful." (P.S. I don't live on the beach, but I do like to visit it!)

The Billions upon Billions of dollars that tourists bring to Florida each year because of our beaches tells me the obvious answer. OF COURSE WE SHOULD! You people need to see the bigger picture, this is a great investment that has a proven payoff for our society. When people stop going to the beach then I will agree with you...

It's a trade off. Tax $ spent on replenishment against $ lost from Property Tax's and Tourist Income.

If you are complaining that you're tax dollars are funding this then you had better look up where you live and ask yourself how much is your area receiving versus how much you pay. I can almost guarantee you that the people living near these beaches are paying much more - enough to pay for the beaches and a road or two where you live. Have some responsibility and common sense.

Possibly LOCAL taxes, or maybe even state taxes, could be used if it will benefit the local economy. Using federal tax dollars is just another huge waste of my money!

Let those who have the million dollar homes on the beach pay for it.....taxing the rich, right! Obama and Piglosi should love this idea.

If it is allowed to continue to erode, the folks in Kansas will soon have ocean front property.

If the sand is being removed (dredged) from a needed navigable waterway or channel and the sand can be placed on the beach, then yes it should be funded.

"HYPOCRISY" SAYS , LOOK HOW MUCH YOUR STATE PAYS IN TAXES AND
HOW MUCH IT GETS BACK ! FUCK HIM ! ALASKA REC'D $100 FOR EVERY
$10 DOLLARS PAID IN TAXES . I NEED TO LOOK GOOD FOR 2012 .
HE MUST WORK FOR THE ELITE LIBERAL MEDIA . FLORIDA IS TOO
HOT, ANYWAY, FOR A HOCKEY TEAM . CAN'T PLAY HOCKEY ON SAND .
LUV YA, SARAH
P.S. SCREW THAT ASSHOLE LEVI

You don't see Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio putting sand on their beaches do you? There is a reason.... WE in the Great Lake States understand what nature can do to a beach. WE accept the fact that mother nature will givith and mother nature will taketh away. This is another perfect example of someone not thinking outside the box. This is another example that those put in office should sign a contract that they will only spend our tax dollars on projects that are considered viable and not pork or done as a favor.
WAKE UP AMERICA or we will loose it all....

If the beaches that are receiving the sand are public beaches and by replenishing them the local economy is stimulated then fine. However in Florida the beaches are often private and the public is "not allowed" to use the beach. Private homeowners post no trespassing signs and claim it is "private property." Often there is no access or very limited access for the public to even reach the beaches. Those areas should not receive any sand paid for by the taxpayers. Would love to see a map showing every location where the sand has been replenished and if there is parking and access for the public.

From what I understand, the beaches here in SC must be "public" to be subject to renourishment. The renourishment has been done about every 10 years. As far as Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan etc being smarter than the rest of us by understanding Mother Nature and not putting sand on their beaches, I can't get thru traffic in the summertime here because of cars full of visitors from Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan,etc. who have driven for days just to come enjoy our beaches.