DarkSkies
11-17-2009, 11:50 AM
I was told the EPA will not allow the sand to go back on the beach yet because, in one example, Seaside's permit has expired. :huh:
So the way it was related to me, the sand will sit there off the beach until the EPA inspects it for possible contaminants. :kooky:
We need to protect the environment, I get that. However, the sand came directly from the beach, and now the way I understand it, cannot be placed back on the beach. Granted, this is only in a few specific areas. It seems inefficient, short-sighted, and mind boggling to me that a bureaucracy could have such a reach into emergency management after a natural calamity such as last weekend's storm.
I'm aware of the layers of red tape. In rehabbing houses, there was always a concern about the oil tank when I did the conversion. There was such apprehension about them finding a spoonful of "oil contaminated" dirt that I always opted for the fill-in procedure rather than pulling the oil tank out.
It just seems to me when the EPA or similar agencies get involved, the costs are jacked way up into the stratosphere. In cases like brownfield and chemical dump cleanups, I'm glad those guys are involved.
However, IMO sometimes they take things too far and complicate the hell out of them. The simple solution is to put the sand back where it came from, and pronto.
From my personal experience with Laurence Harbor/ Sayreville and the lead slag there, they would be better, even in that terrible situation, of capping it off, and bulkheading over the contaminated areas.
Instead, they'll study it for 5 years and spend untold finite resource tax dollars before they even begin to address the problem. :rolleyes:
These inefficiencies in gov't make no sense to me, and as I get older I seem to notice them more and more. Where is the common-sense leadership in gov't that would tell some of these people that the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line? :kooky:
I would appreciate hearing the thoughts of others on this topic.
So the way it was related to me, the sand will sit there off the beach until the EPA inspects it for possible contaminants. :kooky:
We need to protect the environment, I get that. However, the sand came directly from the beach, and now the way I understand it, cannot be placed back on the beach. Granted, this is only in a few specific areas. It seems inefficient, short-sighted, and mind boggling to me that a bureaucracy could have such a reach into emergency management after a natural calamity such as last weekend's storm.
I'm aware of the layers of red tape. In rehabbing houses, there was always a concern about the oil tank when I did the conversion. There was such apprehension about them finding a spoonful of "oil contaminated" dirt that I always opted for the fill-in procedure rather than pulling the oil tank out.
It just seems to me when the EPA or similar agencies get involved, the costs are jacked way up into the stratosphere. In cases like brownfield and chemical dump cleanups, I'm glad those guys are involved.
However, IMO sometimes they take things too far and complicate the hell out of them. The simple solution is to put the sand back where it came from, and pronto.
From my personal experience with Laurence Harbor/ Sayreville and the lead slag there, they would be better, even in that terrible situation, of capping it off, and bulkheading over the contaminated areas.
Instead, they'll study it for 5 years and spend untold finite resource tax dollars before they even begin to address the problem. :rolleyes:
These inefficiencies in gov't make no sense to me, and as I get older I seem to notice them more and more. Where is the common-sense leadership in gov't that would tell some of these people that the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line? :kooky:
I would appreciate hearing the thoughts of others on this topic.