Provencher to Holmberg: 'Shame on you'

 

Provencher to Holmberg: 'Shame on you'

 

Date: February 15, 2013
by: Megan Hoye | Staff Writer

 
 

 

(Click “Like” to become a fan of the Palm Coast Observer.)

When Dick Holmberg presented the feasibility study that outlined his plan to save Flagler Beach to city officials and residents Thursday, one word was used again and again to describe it: disappointing.

The $50,000 study, funded by Flagler County’s Tourist Development Council, concluded that Holmberg can use his technology to save Flagler’s eroding beach for $10 million by installing eight undercurrent stabilizers at two sites in the northern and southern parts of the city.

But it said little else. Much of the report consisted of  photos of beaches where Holmberg has installed his technology in the past — but those photos have been in the hands of city officials for about a decade. They are also available on Holmberg’s website. 

City Commissioners said they expected more from the study, whose approval and funding barely scraped an approval from the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners.

They said they expected a detailed, Flagler Beach-oriented explanation of how to install Holmberg’s technology in Flagler Beach. They expected a detailed shoreline analysis explaining why the undercurrent stabilizers, which have never been used on the east coast, would be successful here. They expected something they could take to state and federal governments to make a case for funding Holmberg’s technology, which is a nontraditional method of beach restoration.

“I wanted this to work so bad I would have sold my soul to have your company come here and do this for us,” said Linda Provencher, the city’s mayor. “I wanted so much to believe that you could do this for us. But shame on you, because you have wasted so much of our money and our time.”

Holmberg’s technology has been implemented successfully in beaches off Lake Michigan and the Persian Gulf. But the Atlantic Ocean is another animal. Commissioners said they hoped to see in the study why Holmberg’s technology would work for Flagler Beach and would address things like hurricanes.

Commissioners also asked how Holmberg came up with the $10 million cost he presented. Previously, Holmberg said his technology generally costs $1 million per mile of beach, and the Flagler Beach project would center on a six-mile stretch of shoreline. The study gives little financial breakdown of the $10 million Holmberg would charge.

“I’m embarrassed by this document, and you should be too,” Provencher said. “How could you do this to this city? We believed in you. We really, really believed in you.”

Holmberg said he gave the city all he could.

“It’s been scientifically proven again and again, and all that stuff you said isn’t in there — it’s there,” Holmberg said, his voice rising as he spoke. “I’m presenting the truth, and I don’t know what else to do here.”

Commissioner Kim Carney suggested the city should have been more specific about what it expected when it outlined its contract with Holmberg. Several residents who spoke during public comment said the same.

While no decisions were made at the workshop, commissioners made it clear that the study in its current form wouldn’t work.

“I think your system sounds like it would work,” Commissioner Marshall Shupe said. “I know you passionately believe in it, and I want to believe in it too, but I don’t think we can take this report and use it to get money or permits.”

Shupe criticized Holmberg’s depiction of where the stabilizers would be placed, which are shown by lines superimposed over a Google Earth satellite image. He said he expected an explanation of how the locations were chosen.

Holmberg’s study was conducted at the same time as a 10-year, $3.5 million feasibility study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is expected to conclude this year. Carney said she hoped that commissioners would be just as critical when those results are released.

Despite criticism, Holmberg remained faithful to his work.

“I’m not asking you to waste money,” he said. “I’m telling you how to get out of this mess. I’m your alternative to all of this.”

SHARE
Login Register now

Currently 2 Responses

  • 1.
  • Flagler should bite the bullet and install Holmberg's technology. Ten million dollars is a cheap price to pay for saving Flagler's beach. The technology is intuitively sound and, unlike other coastal solutions such as jetties and dredging can't do any harm. More importantly, in places like Bald Head Island, similar technology has successfully undone some of the damage caused by dredging the Cape Fear River.
  •  
  • Pete Hull
    Sat 16th Feb 2013
    at 9:05am
  • 2.
  • I read the report that was posted on the City website and thought that it looked and sounded like the proposal that was presented by Holmberg to the city with the addition of a cost of $10,000,000. I was hoping that somewhere there was more information on the how and why it would work for Flagler Beach, but apparently that was all there was to it. I am very disappointed as well - although in the back of my mind I wondered why, if this was such a remarkable method of preserving dunes and rebuilding beaches, it wasn't being used everywhere & the only information I could find about it was generated by Holmberg himself and mentioned only two or three actual applications of the technology many years ago... I was just looking at the dunes at S 18th Street today during whale watch with all those ugly boulders and black plastic marring the scenery & wonder now if we are going to be stuck with more of the same. Very discouraging.
  •  
  • sandra sites
    Fri 15th Feb 2013
    at 7:27pm
Login below to post a comment or click register.
Account E-Mail
Password
forgot password? click here
Speak Your Mind Below!