Ian Lind's blog today points out another major omission in the KHNL story last night (see post below) about Kahala homeowners claiming the naupaka in front of their property is actually preventing beach erosion:
"... The problem with the story is that it fails to credit the mass of scientific evidence and legal precedent that has identified artificial plantings along the shore as sources of erosion. Like seawalls, which are a last line of defense for oceanfront land but are generally banned because they cause serious long term erosion, property owners think they are protecting the beach by encouraging plants to grow onto the sand but in fact they are causing erosion by interfering with the natural circulation of sand.
In Kahala, the neighborhood board and community association have been pushing the state for years to enforce its coastal rules, which prohibit plantings seaward of the legal shoreline. Kahala homeowners have planted and watered in order to get naupaka and other plants to grow towards the water, in the process extending their own properties while damaging the beach.
This has been a problem statewide for years, a history ignored by the K5 report. It led to a landmark Hawaii Supreme Court decision in 2006, discussed here in Juan Wilsons Island Breath blog.
The Department of Land and Natural Resources should be getting credit for finally taking comprehensive enforcement action in a coastal area rather than simply responding to complaints about individual homeowners. Instead, K5 ignored history, law, and science with its homeowners rights approach to the issue..."
Here's the link to the complete blog entry.
No comments:
Post a Comment