Letter: Fire Island dune project is protective

Aerial photo of the breach at the Otis

Aerial photo of the breach at the Otis Pike High Dunes Wildneress at the Fire Island National Seashore. (Jan. 6, 2013) (Credit: Handout, Stony Brook University)

Travel deals

There are several questionable points in your editorial "Surmounting shifting shores" [April 6].

One particular sentence stands out: "The bigger issue is how to really safeguard the South Shore mainland from flooding, which is caused primarily by water coming into Great South Bay through its inlets."

It seems clear to me that if left to nature, the Atlantic Ocean would eventually break down Fire Island into many islets, all separated by inlets that allow ocean water to pour into the Great South Bay -- further threatening the mainland that Newsday argues to protect. One safeguard is the continuous land mass that Fire Island represents; the Fire Island dune and beach project would restore and preserve this.

Newsday seems to believe that nature will work to Long Island's benefit by consistently and dutifully rolling sand into the middle of the barrier island and eventually allowing the dunes to reform on their own -- a debatable assertion.

Newsday does not appear to consider that nature will also work against mainland Long Island by opening up additional inlets throughout the Fire Island land mass. Superstorm Sandy created three such additional inlets of which two, located within state parks, were closed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

To paraphrase a saying, Newsday plans; nature laughs.

John Adams, Cherry Grove
 

advertisement | advertise on newsday

Facebook

Newsday Opinion on social media

advertisement | advertise on newsday