Tornado Alley (PROG)

[Alex G]

BULLSHIT... not only was it a waste of money as for stopping any oil it could actually screw up the ecosystem and FURTHER erode the coastline

you're nothing but a big fat liar


Worse than a waste
http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20101217/OPINION01/101219585?p=all&tc=pgall
Published: Friday, December 17, 2010 at 11:27 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, December 17, 2010 at 11:27 a.m.

Dubious science and a stubborn adherence to one’s beliefs — even in the face of contrary evidence — create a dangerous combination. If you want the proof, you don’t have to look too far off the coast of Louisiana.

Shortly after the Gulf oil spill began, Gov. Bobby Jindal hit on the idea of building flimsy sand berms in the Gulf with the putative purpose of protecting our coast from the waves of oil that would otherwise wash ashore.

The considered objections of coastal scientists and federal regulators weren’t enough to dissuade the governor from moving ahead with his chosen course of action, no matter how much of a waste of time and money it might be.

He was doing something, darnit!

That something, though, was probably worse than doing nothing.

A New York Times story in October said the Jindal administration estimates the berms have stopped about 1,000 barrels of oil. The administration objected, claiming that the Times piece was wrong and that the state has no official estimate of how much oil was stopped.

So even the most loyal defenders of the sand-berm project won’t hazard a guess as to whether they achieved their stated goal.

As a side effect of the state spending good money on a bad idea, Jindal was ruining Louisiana’s credibility in the debate over what we need in the way of coastal restoration and flood protection.

“We don’t need studies, we need projects,” is the chant of those who want action on the coast no matter the outcome.

But studies have their place.

For instance, if a study or an expert could predict that a government was about to waste $200 million that could much better be spent on projects that work, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

In the case of the sand berms, the state had as many scientists as it could ignore saying the project was at best a waste of money and at worst a dangerous bit of tampering with a fragile coast.

According to a new federal report, the scientists were right to be concerned.

The report says the presidential commission looking into the huge expense can “comfortably conclude that the decision to green-light the underwhelmingly effective, overwhelmingly expensive Louisiana berms project was flawed.”

The Jindal folks are undeterred.

In The New York Times story, Garret Graves, director of the Louisiana Office of Coastal Activities and leader of the sand berm project, defended the berms and hinted that the feds were really being critical of how much Louisiana accomplished.

“I don’t see a downside to continuing to do this,” Graves said. “Maybe we’re being too protective of our coast. OK, accuse me. I don’t have a problem with that.”

Actually, being too protective of the coast would probably involve consulting people who know about the coast and the kinds of unintended consequences monkeying with it might have.

Some coastal experts have concerns that these berms will alter the delicate tidal flows that feed and protect the coast. They could also have all sorts of effects on the wildlife that comes and goes from our shores.

To be fair, I should point out that the state didn’t spend its own money on this boondoggle. It didn’t spend the federal government’s money on it either. It spent BP money on the sand berms. Maybe that’s a bit of cover. Why should anyone care where BP’s money goes? We all should. The state’s spending on coastal matters, no matter who is writing the checks, speaks to its credibility. People in Kansas or Michigan or Oregon will learn that the state government is spending hundreds of millions on what the federal government says was a giant waste of time, money and effort. When they do, they will have good reason to question why they should help us pay for the coastal projects we actually do need.

How much embarrassment and waste might we have avoided by listening to the people who know?

Editorial Page Editor Michael Gorman can be reached at 448-7612 or by e-mail at [e-mail].