Waikiki to get more sand.

The state of Hawaii is looking for a private contractor to pump 10,000 cubic feet of sand from a site 2,000 feet offshore to replenish the beaches in Waikiki. It is going be the largest replenishment of Waikiki beaches in over 30 years. About a foot of the beach has eroded every year since 1985. The receding sand has filled the reefs creating shallow water and changing the way the surf breaks. The $700,000 project is expected to begin in March and will take a month and a half to be completed.

I'm excited to see the new and bigger beaches of Waikiki. In the paper someone was quoted as saying they couldn't stick an umbrella into the sand without hitting concrete after an inch. I thought that was an exageration, I've seen little kids burrow 3 foot manholes into the sand. The beaches were a lot smaller than I expected them to be when I first saw them. More sand means more room for more people and can only be a benefit to the tourism industry.

Comments

The sand on Waikiki beach has been replenished before, and it probably will always require sand be brought from elsewhere to maintain the "beach." It's the most artificial of all shorelines, and yet the most famous - kind of like Disneyland. I agree it's good for business, but for the environment? Probably not.

I don't think that beach will be looking or smelling its best for a few weeks after the project. So take your postcard photos now!

Can't expect the tourists to go all the way out to Makaha to get really big "white, sandy beaches of Hawaii".

Or worse, Albert, go to the neighbor islands! :)

Big beach on Maui has the best white sandy beaches and beautiful blue water. Watch out for the shorebreak though, it's almost as rough as Sandy's on a big day.

The 1951 Hawaii Superintendent of Public Works Annual Report outlined the first Waikiki Beach "Development" Project. A rocky shoreline that stretched from the Elks Club to Yacht Harbour Tower, often at a 45 degree incline, was widened and flattenedto 150 feet of white sand.

Among more capitalist and colonial impulses, people sometimes came to Waikiki in the 20th century to witness or experience its natural environment. One was the lengendary classic Waikiki ride – all the way from Steamers Lane to shore. Another was the wide coral reef that provided local people with an amazing fishing ground. The conjunction of sand and flat reef enabled squid, lobster, moi, papio, and a range of reef fish to flourish.

The artificial 'beach' drifted into the reef and filled in the squid and lobster habitat. It also sectioned off the surf so the classic Waikiki ride is gone, gone, gone. This drift was noted in the 1951 annual report after only five months after dumping in the sand. The exact language was "As we expected, there was some drift of sand, generally in the ewa direction, but the percentage is reported small."

It is interesting that James, who even seems to know a bit of this history, still is "excited to see the new and bigger beaches of Waikiki". The reason? He states,"More sand means more room for more people and can only be a benefit to the tourism industry."

So... let me see if I understand James properly. Benefitting the tourist industry is benefitting us? Like if I let the guy across the street pour concrete over my vegetable garden maybe he will pay me $3 an hours to be his parking lot attendant... say for the rest of my life. So that I can go to Safeway to buy the food that I once grew myself.

Boy, I have never been more excited to see the beach widened. There is nothing I love more than slicing off my limbs half an inch at a time.

WOW! Concrete over your vegetable garden?

More sand means more room for more people. Whether I'm living here or visiting I'd rather go to a beach with lots of sand than to one with very little. More room is what I would like to see on the Waikiki beaches so people have space to spread out.

I only heard good things about Waikiki beaches getting more sand. I never heard any opposition or arguments against the practice. But I'm always willing to listen if anyone knows of negative effects. What has already been done over the last 80 years can't be helped now. Are we to let the beaches in Waikiki shrink back and disappear?

There are a lot of big beautiful beaches all over Oahu and the other islands but do locals want busloads of tourists filling them up?

I prefer Ala Moana Beach for it's size and clean water. It seems to have a balanced mix of tourists and locals alike.
I like a lot of the beaches on Windward side but proximity is key for me, Waikiki and Ala Moana.

The damage to the reef fishing ground from 1951 is done. I don't think extending the beach now is going to make a differance either way.

And I hope the widening of Waikiki beaches does not result in the loss of any limbs.

Does tourism not benefit the state of Hawaii or the people living here? I thought it provided a lot of jobs and income for local families. I know it is not the only thing driving the economy here but I'm pretty sure they always make a big deal when Japanese or Mainland tourists drop a few percentage points.

The Honolulu Marathon, the town of Hale'iwa and all the surfing competitions on the North Shore. And the streams of tourists pouring into Waikiki every single day just to spend their money.

Do some people resent tourism and the whole scene here in Waikiki?

James -- "I prefer Ala Moana Beach for it's size and clean water." Excuse me, are we looking at the same beach? Maybe it's because you didn't grow up here, but Ala Moana Beach is nowhere near what I would call a good beach. Its only redeeming qualities are (1) easy access from town and (2) calm water for little kids to splash in. But the sand is low-quality imported stuff, the water quality is lousy, and the fish diversity is almost zero. I'll take Kailua Beach, or Waimea Beach, or Nanakuli Beach, any day over Ala Moana Beach.

James said, "The damage to the reef fishing ground from 1951 is done. I don't think extending the beach now is going to make a differance either way."

One must understand that beaches are part of the living environment. Things that are alive can always be damaged further. Conversely, they can always have the potential to revive themselves.

It is obvious what dumping sand on Waikiki beach in 1951 did. Dumping sand more now will increase the damage. The sand is NOT going to stay on the shore. It will drift into the reef. Everyone knows that. Only some folks seem not to care about anything beyond whether they can stick umbrellas (or heads) in the sand. Seeing sunbathing as the only way humans can engage with beaches only reveals our collective paucity of knowledge about nature, our relationship with nature, and our lack of imagination.

One idea articulated by George Downing (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/07/05/waikiki.sand.ap/), part of the original Save Our Save folks, is to pump the sand out of the reefs instead of bringing in more sand.

James also said, "And I hope the widening of Waikiki beaches does not result in the loss of any limbs."

James, it has already. And it certainly will again. How about visiting www.downwindproductions.com? It might provide you with some information about what has occurred, and why it occurred.

Remember that the beach, the land, the sea, the streams, the sky, the air.... are still alive. Nothing is a done deal. What we do today will determine what will happen tomorrow. Dumping sand on Waikiki Beach now will most definitely result in deaths to many many things -- perhaps even tourism.

“a better world is possible”
gaye

At least Waikik won't face the almost yearly loss of sand experienced in places on East Coast due to Hurricanes. The city of Virginia Beach, VA lost Millions of $$$ to Hurriane Isabel last year after undertaking a project just like this. Since moving from Hawaii, I've experienced more Hurricanes (even living 100 miles inland) than I did there (Iniki and Iwa while I was there).

Aloha,

J

maybe the message here is to stop trying to artificially widen beaches.

Gaye,

I do not disagree. Anyplace that positions itself to tourism as an economic engine (forced upon the locale or not, typically the taste of money sets in) usually ends up playing this goose chase with no practical end in sight.

I really can't say what a community like Honolulu would do if that engine failed. The problem with a place like Waikiki is it's romanticism with popular american (and local to an extent) culture. Being that Waikiki is a "name" of the same ilk as Golden Gate bridge, Hollywood, etc, things will be done to protect it's appeal and image.

I will look more into what someone like George Downing has said about the situation as I know long-time waterfolk have likely thought the problem through. I suppose dumping sand in the wee hours is "easier" than suctioning out sand emplanted on the reef. We will see time and time again that, in a culture which primarily values "cheap, productive, easy" that an enlightened approach suggested by the SOS foundation will usually be passed over.

Getting communities in balance with ecosystems will either happen or not. You already have countries like the US and Russia essentially turning a bling eye to the fact that, perhaps in as early as 30 years, Waikiki beach will need the sand to create a New Orleans-style levee to keep an elevated sea-level at bay. We all know that Waikiki is essentially a pumped out marsh/swamp as it is.

JB

filmiki erotyczne oferty ^2^ anal amatorki nimfomanki ^2^ lisa lipps ^2^ pizda sexy ^2^ mlodziutkie kayah ^2^ 17 letnie teen ^2^ kurwy prywatne ^2^ dupcie wyrywanie fetysz ^2^ szuczki foto cycate ^2^ hardcore full ^2^ lezbijki cipy nagie ^2^ 18 latki forsa ^2^ filmysex grupowy ^2^ sexlaski studentki nago ^2^ darmo wyjebane ^2^ ukryte kamery cipeczka ^2^ studentka modelki nagie ^2^ malutkie zdjecia ostry ^2^ latwe podryw 2pary ^2^ dziewice fetysze pijane ^2^ dziwki ruchana lezbijki ^2^ 18 latki pozowane ^2^ 18 latki przystojne ^2^ film trans ^2^ cipy ostra jazda ^2^ shemale filmy ^2^ lolidki igraszki ^2^ cycki nagie nastolatki ^2^ ogloszenia foki ^2^ wojskowe buty

Post a Comment