Financial Responsibilty For Coastal Protection
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 discussion topic is closed. You can still review the discussion but it will no longer accept comments or votes.
jellis Comment 1
5:48pm, 15 August 2009
27This 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
shunt Comment 1.1
7:17pm, 17 August 2009
26I 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.
Headinthesand Comment 1.1.1
10:59pm, 6 October 2009
0I dont think the coast needs protection mate. think its doing fine by itself. Its just that some peoples houses are getting in the way.
Gaz Comment 1.1.1.1
7:56pm, 14 October 2009
0You 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?
Gaz Comment 2
11:04pm, 17 August 2009
27Of 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!
Darren F Comment 2.1
11:40pm, 17 August 2009
13I totally agree with you mate
Darren F Comment 3
11:39pm, 17 August 2009
22Of 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
Damain Comment 4
8:02pm, 18 August 2009
19This is a Council issue
save the beach Comment 5
2:06pm, 19 August 2009
3The 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.
Gaz Comment 5.1
11:05pm, 19 August 2009
23Lake 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 the beach? is town beach destroyed? is Bonny hills destoyed by Middle rock? is washhouse destoyed by pilot beach? People want the groyne to protect the beach. I also think it would provide us with a lake again. I know you know how much a functioning lake means to the area financially!
So if your name really is 'save the beach' I suggest you start pushing hard for one of the options the council has outlines as a protective measure. Otherwise you may get your wish and not have a beach at all!
Groyne + Revetment + Nourishment = Good beach, Good Lake, No homes lost, no lives destoyed, increased tourism, increased business, should I keep going?
save the beach Comment 5.1.1
9:10am, 21 August 2009
2The 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 time? I'm sure they were absolutely beautiful places, and if they were in their natural state today and someone proposed to build such a structure, the whole community would be jumping up and down to stop it. The fact is that we don't do that sort of thing to rivers anymore because of the destructive and unknown environmental effects.
You should start thinking outside the relatively small timeframe that is your lifetime - the lifetime of the coast is far greater than the last few years that you have been hanging out at town beach!!
We need to prepare for the future - try and think further than the next 20 to 50 years.
Gaz Comment 5.1.1.1
4:11pm, 21 August 2009
21Ok 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 is not working. They just had the Surf Australia tournament there last week Sand everywhere? Once again those storms ripped the sand entirely of sand yet the sand is back within weeks? what the point? Sure there are a few rocks loose. I presume putting these back in place is a lot easier and cheaper than rebuilding the road?
Why does town beach get the protective rocks and not Cathie? they have a road to protect as well.
Camden haven....Yep I'm not that old and can't remember them not being there. They have definitely been there since '86 when I moved here so I can't comment pre-wall. Now surely you must admit the benefits to that community the breakwalls have done? 3 of the beast beaches around, Pilot beach is amazing in any weather! People launching boats in and out of the riverr. Now by your logic you would prefer if they were never built. So do you think anyone in that community agrees with you and wishes they weren't there? Maybe you should try and get a group together supporting the removal of all these structures which are supposedly causing so much damage. I put it to you that you would find less than 1% support from the community in your view that such structures bring anything but benefits to everyone in the community.
So once again I ask you to indulge me and tell me why the people of Cathie don't deserve the same benefits from such structures that Port Macquarie and Nth Haven/Camden Head/Dunbogan benefit from. Why should these people have to watch their homes go?
How is it you know the council is broke? My calcs have the Groyne/Revetment/Nousishment option at about $2.4 million to install, and the "Do nothing' option about $1.7 million (these are council figures so pls no debating this). Now i can get a mortgage together of $300,000 for my place at Lorne, you seriously think that $700,000 is out of the realms of 'completely reasonable' for the council to spend on this?
I'm am very socialist on this whole argument and I am looking 100 - 200 years into the future. How many rate payers would we lose over the next 200 years? (these guys pay $2.500 a year). How much tourism and business opportunties would go unrealised over that period? Even if it only slows it down by 100 years it is still worth it.
kouttrim Comment 5.1.1.2
5:15pm, 26 August 2009
20I 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.
Nacho Comment 5.1.1.3
8:38pm, 27 August 2009
20In 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 minute with a closed brown lake next to it and derelict houses falling onto the beach, or a rock groyne with a large accessible beach to the south and a beautiful blue/green lake that everyone enjoys. I know i would swim at lake Cathie more if it was open.
I don’t believe the houses have been built too close to sea in the first place otherwise there wouldn’t be a road there and besides I’m sure they made the best decision they could at the time. To let these houses become derelict and the road and infrastructure be destroyed would defiantly not preserve the “nature” of the existing beach. Evidence of coastal erosion can be seen all along the coast and there is definite evidence of houses being built WAY too close to the sea, but these sites don’t have a whopping great lake next to them, THAT, along with middle rock is what is causing the accelerated erosion.
I am a rate payer and i don’t live in Cathie, but i expect that when the time comes, i want to know that the council is on my side. I don’t really care what solution the council chooses as long as it 1 the most environmentally sound option and 2 that it is not to “do nothing”.
What a loaded question to begin with “local rate payers”. Since when do we ever get a choice as to where our money goes? I didn’t have a say in the glasshouse, or town beach dune replenishment or how much the council members get paid, or what car they can afford to drive, what a load of sh.. This is a local issue (which will be half funded by the state) and should be resolved by the council, it doesn’t sound like the council to be all of sudden concerned about costs when they have just spent 50 mil on a small entertainment centre.
Who are you “save the beach” anyway? Are you sure you should be writing on this forum during work hours? That’s right, this is your work, I’m glad my rates pay your council salary.
Headinthesand Comment 5.1.2
11:02pm, 6 October 2009
0Fantasy Gaz
Gaz Comment 5.1.2.1
7:59pm, 14 October 2009
0You 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
smally Comment 5.2
6:04pm, 23 August 2009
21No 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 be in the vicinity of at least 8 to 10 metres. This is only one drain of multiple along the beach all of these are tearing the dune apart. In particular the one on the corner of Illaroo and Kywong St. Lets stop arguing about sea level rises, global warming and coastal erosion and get the message out that council has neglected the drains along this beach and THAT is what has destroyed the dune. In my opinion the drains should be removed. (Correct me if I'm wrong but there is no storm water drains onto LIghthouse or Town Beach is there?)
shunt Comment 5.3
9:52pm, 23 August 2009
21Are 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 how tourism would be enhanced, cant see how the local pie shop, newspaper shop, pizza shop, takeaway shop, pub, video shop would all benefit if the whole area was washed into the ocean. How about the local plumbers, carpenters, cleaners, and electricians would they all benefit if the whole area was washed into the ocean. You seriously must be kidding us. There will be not one benefit to Lake Cathie if this whole area was allowed to wash into ocean.
It is now time that the 3 tiers of Govt step up and devise a strategy on how they are going to fix these problems. The do nothing option is not an option
Mally Comment 5.4
6:14pm, 29 August 2009
19Why 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 sad.
All the community benefits from Illaroo Road being maintained not only the Illaroo residents, we all drive, walk & have access to the Lake from Illaroo Road + it will give the community confidence that their council will not just be walking away from their responsibilities.
This predicament would have been reduced greatly if PMHC had maintained their stormwater drains properly over the last 30years, the increased erosion from this negligence has allowed the dune to be separated into sections.
To ease your mind as a resident of Chepana Street (40yrs+), i & the Illaroo Rd residents have been paying some of the highest rates in the PMHC area, so why don't you just think of it as if we have already been contributing for these works to be done. Lets enjoy the beach & the road as a community.
republic Comment 5.5
6:53pm, 10 September 2009
9Dear "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 ?
Headinthesand Comment 5.5.1
11:10pm, 6 October 2009
0Removing 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???
Urthgirl Comment 5.6
9:48pm, 30 September 2009
1Well 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.
lincoln Comment 6
8:32pm, 21 August 2009
16The 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.
Headinthesand Comment 6.1
11:12pm, 6 October 2009
1I agree, all tiers of government have had their HEADS IN THE SAND, and should e made to pay..
mothmanwife Comment 7
3:04pm, 22 August 2009
21I 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???
Gaz Comment 7.1
11:10pm, 24 August 2009
19This 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?'
Headinthesand Comment 7.2
11:21pm, 6 October 2009
0Many 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.
Gaz Comment 7.2.1
8:01pm, 14 October 2009
0It 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
beach lover Comment 8
10:06pm, 27 August 2009
18As 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.
carg Comment 9
1:57pm, 28 August 2009
20As 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 forced by Council to move fences,and anything that has encroached on this reserve at their own expense (even though Council have stated on 149 Certificates at the time of purchase that there were no encroachments or outstanding orders)!! But my main point is who owns this "littoral rainforest" which is Crown Land?? The State Government do! and that is why there has been funding for weeding and planting to supposedly protect this "exceptional and rare rainforest" area. IF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OWN IT SHOULD THEY NOT PAY TO PROTECT THEIR OWN LAND. The houses on the seaward side of Chepana Street will not be the first to go if there is beach erosion - the rainforest will. So if it is so important (as believe it is) to replenish this rainforst now, surely it is of significant importance to the State Government to put up funds to protect it.
Urthgirl Comment 10
9:43pm, 30 September 2009
2The 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?
