> I'll reread the article to see what you thought was suspicious.

Florida has been filling it's beaches longer than I've been alive.  Anything
that expresses alarm at this practice is at least 50 years out of date.
This part sounds like an attempt to place blame where blame does not belong.
The first reef has been dead for a long time.

One of the things mentioned is the issue of increased water temperatures.
This is a world problem, not a local one.  It may be true, but it's not
something that can be addressed locally.

He addresses things that may have come from sewage, but does not identify
any source or propose any solution.

> But off the top of my head I'd guess you thought it was written by an
environmental
> extremist, so therefore to be discredited.

More the reverse.  I conclude from the things I find suspicious about his
article that he may be an environmental extremest, but that's not a crime.
What does worry me are environmental extremists that use facts to try to
prompt action on something unrelated to the facts they provide.  This person
may be doing just hat.

> I realise the reef in question is not the reef that is drawing the crowds,
but if we bury one
> reef with so little regard, it's obvious that the priorities are wrong.
And all reefs are
> important links in the web which has already been weakened to the breaking
point. We keep
> shrinking the little pockets of intact habitat, and the web is unable to
sustain itself
> Besides, from what I read, dredging is not even nessescary or effective.
Perhaps, there
> would be less beach erosion if the reefs were thriving!

The reefs that are directly impacted by the sand filling are prehistoric.
They have been dead for longer than you have been alive and may have been
dead for longer than man has been around to damage them.  The reefs being
impacted by bleaching, blamed in the article on warm water, is hardly
related to the sand replenishment issue.  The reef being damaged by the
algae the writer suspects is sewage related are a very real problem, as well
as a fully recognized one.  The writer didn't identify the source of the
problem and did not propose a fix.  He only proposed stopping the beach
replenishment.

> Here is an excerpt from a link from the letter I sent:
> This proposed dredging project is completely unnecessary. There is little
> beach erosion taking place in the stretch still protected by the living
> reef.

Where are you talking about?  What living reef protects the shoreline that
will be damaged by the replenishment of our beaches?

> By contrast, in all the areas where reefs were killed by previous beach
dredge-filling projects, there is strong beach erosion.

Which reefs are you talking about that were killed by previous beach
dredging?  Which previous beach dredging?  Do you have some evidence
supporting your statement?

> Those beaches can be more cheaply re-nourished by bypassing sand blocked
by jetties from
> reaching them than by dredging the last available offshore sand supplies.
Dredge fill material will
> directly bury some 13.6 acres of near shore hard-bottom that are feeding
areas for endangered Green Turtles.

What do endangered Green Turtles eat?  Where is the food you refer to?  What
do you mean by "bypassing sand blocked by jetties from reaching them?"  Do
you understand that teh sand supplies that are normally dredged are the ones
that eroded from the beaches in the first place?

If you've got some facts and evidence to back this up, I suspect you'll get
a lot of support.  If you do, I'll be surprised, but am certainly willing to
review it to see if I can agree with your assessment of the problem.

> How far from shore? I suppose you know that coral requires nutrient
depleted
> water to survive, and sewage is full of nutrients that promote the algae
> that smothers coral. Less sewage = more reef = no need for dredge dump.
> ...Right?

Yes, I'm aware of that.  If you're so concerned, how does it happen that you
don't know where the sewage outfalls are?  Everybody else does?  The Broward
County outfalls are several miles from shore, in several hundred feet of
water, beyond the third reef line.  I don't know anybody that's particularly
happy about dumping even treated sewage in the ocean.  I'm certainly not,
but until you've got an alternative proposal, you're not going to get very
far in trying to get it stopped.

> > Miami to the south, however, seems to have a multi million gallong raw
> > sewage spill two or more times a year.  Some of us suspect that it's not
> > entirely accidental, that somebody is dumping raw sewage that exceeds
teh
> > city's capacity to treat it.

> This dumping probably follows heavy rainfall events? Are the storm sewers
> connected to the sewage treatment plant? They shouldn't be. On the othe
> hand, street runoff is deadly too. I've read that the equivalant to the
Exon
> Valdez is dumped into the oceans every 8 monthes, from street runoff.

Are you guessing or do you know?  I've not noticed an identifiable pattern.
If I had, I'd be saying a lot more than I am and to a lot more people.  I
don't know whether the storm sewers are connected to the treatment plant or
not.  I doubt it, but it could be.  What do you suggest be done with the
runnoff from the streets?

> > Since the prevailing currents are from the
> > south, this sewage, greatly diluted, flows right up the coast.  Ft.
> > Lauderdale is one of the first places it reaches.
> >
> So, the people come from miles around to swim in shit. Maybe the money
> should be spent to cure this problem, instead of dredging and dumping.

Maybe so.  Send your proposal and your check and we'll get right on it.  If
you don't have a proposal, then I suggest you study the issues before you
insist on action.  This state has done more damage to it's environment with
good intentions than it will ever do on purpose.

What does dredging and diggin have to do with swimming in shit?

> >Probably of even more
> > concern is sewage pollution coming out of our canal system, into the
> > Intracoastal and out the shipping channels.  There are thousands of live
> > aboard boats along these canals, many of which are illegally dumping
their
> > sewage into the water system.  About 100 miles north, water in the
> > Intracoastal is clean and clear.  Down here, you can't see more than
about
> a
> > foot.  When flying in during a falling tide, you can see the dark water
> > flowing into the Atlantic and spreading over just the reefs we're
talking
> > about.  It's a problem we don't seem to be able to control.  Budgets for
> > those that are charged with enforcing boat sewage dumping laws have been
> cut
> > back and duties have been expanded in the wake of 9/11 terrorist attacks
> on
> > the U.S.  Until something is done about that, there's no much chance
> things
> > will improve.

Where's your solution to this one?

> > Many of our richest and most influential people do not live here year
> round.
> > We have a substantial population of winter only people and most of them
> care
> > little about coral reefs.  They care a lot more about their annual
> property
> > taxes.  They fail to understand the relationship between clean water,
> > healthy reefs and the lifestyle they come here a few months out of the
> year
> > to enjoy.  Here, like most places, money talks and people with
liveaboard
> > boats and multimillion dollar homes along the Intracoastal have a lot of
> > money.

> I heard you loud and clear. Same old story, and we won't know what we have
> 'till it's gone. But don't go down without a fight.

It's not that these people want anything to go down or that they want to
fight.  There has to be a plan with some hope of succeeding and there has to
be a way to pay for it.  When you've got both, you've got somethng to fight
with.  Until you do, it's just so much wishful thinking.

> > *So, in answer to your question, no, there's no unified support for
> > addressing issues that are affecting the health of our reefs.  It's a
> shame,
> > but it's the truth.

> Thanx for crossing your fingers! I'm trying to think positive, and believe
> that it will come through for me. But the suspense is killing me!!! :-))

Florida needs more people that care.  We also need some who can and will
come up with solutions that have a chance of working and can be funded.
Personally, I don't think there's a lot of hope.  The best I expect is to
slow the progress of pollution and damage.  It would be nice if I'm wrong,
but since I have no children, I can afford to hold the opinion that future
generations are going to get what the current one deserves.

> And, there is little to like about the Bush family, but it was George Bush
> (not W.) who turned Dry Tortugas into a National Park. I thank him for
that!
> :-))

Every cloud has a sliver lining.

Lee