http://www.saveflaglersbeach.com

The grassroots Save Flagler’s Beach group had been working for more than a year, bringing to their attention facts, figures, studies, reports, and piles of pictorial evidence showing that a project using Undercurrent Stabilizers would have by far the best chance of rebuilding Flagler’s Beach.

Even so, they hired a (in our opinion) biased coastal engineer with the faulty expectation of receiving an unbiased analysis, and they accepted this coastal engineer’s report based on phone calls and report-reading, and not a single piece of first-hand research. Nor did they look into the professional background of the firm itself, which might have led to a different conclusion about their ability to assess beach-building methods.

The result was that, based on two presentations in which the scientifically brilliant and many-times proven Undercurrent Stabilizers were given short shrift and polite dismissal, the commission decided by a vote of 3-2 to apply for DEP funds for a project using the outdated and much more vulnerable sand tubes instead. And they accepted and signed an incomplete application.

The letter highlights the way those opposed to scientifically better and repeatedly successful methods are at a distinct advantage—and why it’s more important than ever for every voice to be heard in favor of Undercurrent Stabilizers. To read it, please click HERE.