Sign In
or Create a new account
Financial Responsibilty For Coastal Protection
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Who do you think should be responsible for funding any coastal protection works at Lake Cathie? Should costs be met by Federal Government, NSW Government, Local Ratepayers (Council) or residents affected by coastal impacts?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Comment 1 15 Aug 2009, 5:48 PM
This has been brought about by councils lack of up keep in lake cathie it is a joke so many people are going to lose there houses just because council spent to much money on that glass monstrosity in Port Macquarie, local government should pay for this as this could have been avoided had appropriat actions been taken earlier in the peace
Comment 1.1 17 Aug 2009, 7:17 PM
I believe that the cost should be met jointly between local, State & Federal Governments. As a tax payer and rate payer we are all entitled to have our coastline protected. If there is a protective option available then all 3 levels of Govt should do everything in their power to protect the land for our generation and future generations.
Comment 1.1.1 6 Oct 2009, 10:59 PM
I dont think the coast needs protection mate. think its doing fine by itself. Its just that some peoples houses are getting in the way.
Comment 1.1.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 7:56 PM
You probably think that the people who built near the bush in Vic 'built their Frames with wood' and deserved to have their houses and lives destroyed too? Not much on humanity are you? What about the environmental benefits a Protective structure would have?
Comment 2 17 Aug 2009, 11:04 PM
Of course it would be great to get additional funding for state gov't, who wouldn't. At the end of the day this is a local problem that can be locally solved. I believe that the coastal erosion problems here are unique because of poor management of the Lake itself over the years. Now is the time to stop dicking about and fix it. The Beach and Lake at Cathie are for everyone in the entire region and should be protected as any other investment in the area. Imagine a Groyne and Revetment....... a beach we can swim at again, a deep lake all year round, tourism and business' return, fishermen could launch boats through past the breakwall........this can only be a winner for everyone. This is the councils responsibility in my view ...although any extra money from Nathan Reece would be great!
Comment 2.1 17 Aug 2009, 11:40 PM
I totally agree with you mate
Comment 3 17 Aug 2009, 11:39 PM
Of course the council should pay. just like if my road fell away they should come and fix it regardless of whether anyone else uses it or not. I find this and a couple of other questions very leading!!! Council should fund this projecte specially if its only going to cost as little as the study says. It does seem like it will have many benefits for the community as a whole
Comment 4 18 Aug 2009, 8:02 PM
This is a Council issue
Comment 5 19 Aug 2009, 2:06 PM
The coastal erosion is a natural process. If Council does decide to ruin the beach by building a seawall or revetment along it, then the cost should be borne by those who are benefitting (Illaroo Road residents) .... it certainly will not be the community benefitting as our coast becomes a rock walled wasteland.
Comment 5.1 19 Aug 2009, 11:05 PM
Lake Cathie is of benefit to the entire community and I'm suprised to you don't see it so. Sure the Illaroo and Chepana residents that won't be homeless get an obvious benefit but surely no-one would begrudge them that? Would you really want to see people in ur community (assuming you live somewhere close by) lose there homes and lively hoods. I Rent in Port and have a mortgage on a property in lorne and if that was taken from me I'd be destroyed!!! I love Cathie! Save the beach and the homes I say!!!!!
How would a groyne destroy more…
Comment 5.1.1 21 Aug 2009, 9:10 AM
The breakwall on the Hastings was not built to protect Town Beach, and similarly the breakwall on the Camden Haven was not built to protect pilot beach. These are old school engineering solutions to train a river for shipping purposes. I'm not sure if you noticed that the seawall at the rear of town beach collapsed recently during a storm event which pretty much eroded the whole beach - so yes that "groyne" is working just fine!!
Do you know what the entrance to the Hastings and the Camden Haven rivers looked like before the breakwalls? Or is that before your more…
Comment 5.1.1.1 21 Aug 2009, 4:11 PM
Ok round 3! Mate I agreed with you and gave you your 'thumbs up' vote you can see. I appreciate you love beaches a lot and the natural state of things as do I, but you have to concede a few things at some point.
So Town beach break wall, yep not built for erosion purposes. You could go swimming on that beach every single day for the past 30 years it has held the sand so well. So I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not ( I assume you are) but you'll have to explain again why it more…
Comment 5.1.1.2 26 Aug 2009, 5:15 PM
I am very interested to ascertain how "save the beach" considers allowing the beach to erode until it destroys homes, lives, livelihoods,and tourism is "preparing for the future"?
Boy scout you obviously were NOT!
The protective options outlined by SMEC are logical and necessary interventions required to save this gorgeous piece of coastline!
It is a distorted individual who believes that the only people to benefit from such action are the homeowners of Illaroo Road.
Comment 5.1.1.3 27 Aug 2009, 8:38 PM
In an ideal world it would be great that we could finally live in equilibrium with nature, but its a fact that anything we do is going to have some impact. Is a groyne going to have an impact? Yes it will. Will it open up lake Cathie? Yes it will. Will it create a bigger beach on the southern side of the mouth? Yes it will. Whats done is done, houses have been built here and now we have to deal with it. It’s up the community to decide whether they want a beach that is receding by the more…
Comment 5.1.2 6 Oct 2009, 11:02 PM
Fantasy Gaz
Comment 5.1.2.1 14 Oct 2009, 7:59 PM
You debate the benefits that your despised rockwall structures have given to the region? Any coincidence that your before mentioned 2 favorite areas aroune here are the ones with breakwall and thriving communities and beautiful beaches?
Once again..see if you can garner support for there removal
Comment 5.2 23 Aug 2009, 6:04 PM
No one is denying that coastal erosion is a natural process. Sand comes and sand goes. The beach level goes up and down, but the appallingly neglected storm water drains that have ripped through the dune and caused nodes of collapse that have spread and caused the massive retreat of the foredune ARE THE FAULT OF THE COUNCIL!!! We were promised funding was through to repair the storm water drain behind 38 Chepana Street in 2003. This has only been done this year. In that 5 year period, the amount of dunal loss directly attributable to the collapsing drain would more…
Comment 5.3 23 Aug 2009, 9:52 PM
Are you kidding us. You must be kidding us. So does that mean if the residents of Illaroo Road fix and pay for the cost of protecting the road they then have the right to charge a levy to all that use that section of road. After all they saved it. Does that also mean that the residents of Illaroo Road then have the right to charge people to use that section of the coastline. After all they saved and protected it. Cant actually see how the community would benefit from the whole area washing into the sea. Cant see more…
Comment 5.4 29 Aug 2009, 6:14 PM
Why do you make the assumption, in all of these forum sites that these remedy proposals will create a wasteland?. Revetment with beach nourishment will add to the beach & you will benefit from this with more beach not less.
I have personally witnessed revetment at Soldiers Point in Port Stephens that is 15 years old & by using pigface/native dune grasses on the nourished dune it has maintained & stabilised an eroded area very successfully.
Your portrayal of devastation & a wasteland is presumptive or fear mongering at worst & your lack of compassion for the affected residents is more…
Comment 5.5 10 Sep 2009, 6:53 PM
Dear "save the beach". I've already debunked this "natural process" garbage under the previous heading of which you may like to avail yourself. Maybe you could talk to a few more people in Cathie before reaching such an ill informed conclusion about what the majority of the community think.
Maybe you could use what little imagination you probably have to visualise Bitumen falling into the ocean. Of course you will pay for the demolition of our homes seing as you will be reaping the benefits of not having a revetment won't you ?
Or maybe you save the expense by just leaving the bitumen hanging over what's left of the dunes. That would be a much nicer wasteland wouldn't it ?
Comment 5.5.1 6 Oct 2009, 11:10 PM
Removing the houses is a much cheaper option than trying to stop the inevitable.
I tried to "avail" myself of this previous heading yet the little strumpet could not be found (perhaps she is playing hard to get). Where might this be republic???
Comment 5.6 30 Sep 2009, 9:48 PM
Well if they have to bear the cost, then maybe they should also get money from parking once thousands of people want to come and use the lake and beach which they fought so hard to save, for swimming, fishing and BBQ's.
Comment 6 21 Aug 2009, 8:32 PM
The issue of coastal erosion and climate change is a global issue. The financial responsibility should be shared between all spheres of government. It should not be the sole responsibility of Councils who are trying to fund local resources and infrastructure.The higher spheres of government need to provide a wholistic approach and guidance on this issue so coastal ratepayers aren't footing the bill for a global problem.
Comment 6.1 6 Oct 2009, 11:12 PM
I agree, all tiers of government have had their HEADS IN THE SAND, and should e made to pay..
Comment 7 22 Aug 2009, 3:04 PM
I wonder how 'save the beach' would feel if his house was in the firing line? It's pretty scary for us. We aren't rich and our house is virtually all we've got and we are certainly on the wrong size of 50! I think the onus is on all levels of government to help alleviate this problem. This is going to be an ongoing problem up and down all the coasts of Oz - should everyone lose their homes and futures???
Comment 7.1 24 Aug 2009, 11:10 PM
This is an easily missed point but really hits home. 'If it was anyone else's home about to be lost, what would they want to be done?'
Comment 7.2 6 Oct 2009, 11:21 PM
Many of you may think me cynical from many of my comments. And I do understand that it must be horrible for the people in the firing line. But it is a fact that erosion is a problem in the spot you are living. I am not an expert, but my opinion is that the proposed measures are nothing more than temporary. Some might think that you shove a groin and wall in and all your problems are solved. It very much depends on the local geology, and sand movement in particular. The council is going to have to take into account the ongoing costs. And they may just do what you want to make the issue go away for a few years (when they wont be there anymore). But in the long run it is a temporary measure that will buy you some time. But you also have to take into account that the council is broke from all the reports Ive heard.
Comment 7.2.1 14 Oct 2009, 8:01 PM
It night buy enough time for people to even live out there lives in their homes....but you 'DON'T GIVE A DAMN' about the people as you've already made it clear
Comment 8 27 Aug 2009, 10:06 PM
As a local rate payer I feel very strongly that this is a council issue. The council/administrator should not try to shirk from the responsibility here. We shouldn't be picking and choosing what beaches and what residential homes are worth saving. Save Our Beach with one of the protective measures from your management study in which you've invested so much time and 'rate payers' money.
Comment 9 28 Aug 2009, 1:57 PM
As well as properties in Illaroo Road being "lost" there has been little mention of houses in Chepana Street being "lost" or affected. While I appreciate that Illaroo Road properties are in imminent danger Chepana Street seems to be somewhat overlooked. However the main point I feel that has been overlooked is that along Chepana Street it is fronted by a "littoral rainforest". There have been great efforts over the last few months by Council and Landcare to re-establish this "rainforest". There has been a great deal of money spent on weeding and planting new plants. The residents have been more…
Comment 10 30 Sep 2009, 9:43 PM
The council should fund it....not just the Local Ratepayers.....but the council!!!
Is this Administration saying that their only source of income is from Rates?
Also...haven't they made it clear that it would be part funded by the NSW government? I thought that was the reason that they (the Local Ratepayers/Council) spent so much money on this study in the first place?
