Shore Fund must be safeguarded from raids
In 1992, New Jersey passed a bipartisan measure establishing a shore protection fund to protect the state's beaches against the devastating impact of nor'easters and hurricanes and alleviate the effects of erosion. The $25 million in dedicated funding has been a valuable insurance policy in protecting the Jersey shore — the state's most important contributor to its tourism industry.

Unfortunately, this past budget season, the shore protection fund fell victim to politics, and as a result, millions of dollars are being diverted from this fund to pay for other operating expenses. In fact, next year, up to $9 million in 2009 Shore Protection Fund money will be diverted to pay for operations and maintenance at state parks.

This diversion could hurt critical projects such as beach replenishment and put our shore communities at greater risk from Atlantic storms. This is far from simple partisan disagreement over funding. The N.J. Department of Environmental Protection itself testified last December that the failure to provide shore protection monies for beach erosion could negatively affect tourism and the allaround economy of the state. Ironically enough, it could also place state tax revenue at risk.

According to the Division of Travel and Tourism, New Jersey tourism generated $2.2 billion in state tax revenue in 2007. Redirecting monies from the Shore Protection Fund could potentially lead to a drop in tourism-related tax revenue and perhaps to tax increases in order to maintain the current state and local tax receipts. In addition, it would increase the risk of flooding and damage to our beaches and shore communities, and ultimately raise insurance rates.

Moreover, the Shore Protection Fund allows New Jersey to receive tens of millions of dollars in matching funds from the federal government, which has allowed the state to obtain 50 percent of available federal shore protection monies, despite the fact that we have only 1 percent of the nation's coastline. Since there is no system in place to pay back the $9 million, redirecting the funds would put this free federal matching money at risk.

Most perplexing about the raid on shore protection funding is that efforts to protect our beaches have been a proven success. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers testified last year that completed beach replenishment projects have an 87 percent return on investment and provide net annual benefits of $52 million while preventing flooding. In fact, more than 40 million cubic yards of sand have been pumped onto New Jersey beaches since the fund's inception, protecting roadways, businesses, boardwalks and homes.

Despite assurances that this is a one-time funding shift, we need to take action to ensure that such shortsightedness is not repeated. Given the seriousness of the state's budget problems and the willingness of some to play politics with the state's tourism industry, there is no guarantee future shore protection funding would not be diverted as well. That is why I am proposing a constitutional amendment to protect the Shore Protection Fund from any future attempts to transfer money from this vital fund.

Playing politics with shore protection dollars has the potential to devastate our coast and economy. Sixteen years ago, Democrats and Republicans agreed to create the Shore Protection Fund to protect our most precious resource. Today, we need to come together once again to ensure it is used as intended — not as a general fund that can be raided as necessary, but as a constitutionally dedicated source to protect our environment and economic future.
Sen. Sean T. Kean
R-11th District
Wall Township