Seawalls

Also two weeks ago, the Walton Sun printed a front page article showing all the home owners who have built walls. What I would like to know is why didn't they list the greedy beach owners who have been blocking the county from starting the beach renurishment project! I think people should know their addresses also!

300-400 block of Blue Mountain Road.

While I'm not a "greedy beach owner", I certainly oppose renourishing the beaches. The sand is nothing like the original. Check out the pumped in sand in Panama City Beach. It's been many years and it's still unsightly compared to the sugar white sand it replaced, which is quartz.

While I don't think renourishment is the answer - I think the sand used in the Miramar Beach area looks great. I actually took sand from the beach months ago and put it in my garage and then took sand from the renourished beach last month and compared the two. Looks good to me.

Britain's own "Stern Review," a sweeping report about climate change, says unless action is taken, rising sea levels, heavier floods and more intense droughts could displace 200 million people worldwide by the middle of the century.

Maybe the DCA should allow those developers to build in big bend's wiregrass...

From www.WaltonSun.com



DEP orders homeowners to remove seawall

April 26, 2007
Gabriel Tynes
gtynes@link.freedom.com At least one South Walton County seawall will have to be pulled from the sand after the Department of Environmental Protection denied its state permit request.
The wall, located at 59 Pelican Circle in Seacrest Beach, has been under particular scrutiny since it was determined to be unauthorized in May 2006. The homeowners, Dr. James and Michelle Spires of Mobile, Ala., never obtained county permission for the wall.
Subsequently, Terry Anderson, a Walton County engineer, attempted to acquire an after-the-fact state permit on behalf of the homeowners. As a part of that process, former county commissioner Rosier Cuchens issued a letter of approval in the county?s name, bypassing normal planning department procedures, something he was not authorized to do.
In a letter dated April 17, Michael Barnett, chief of the DEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, concluded that the structures on the property were never eligible for shoreline protection. Even if it was, the letter said, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission guidelines would recommend its denial based on ?significant adverse impacts? to turtle nesting sites.
?Based on the forgoing facts and law, the DEP denies the request for a permit for the construction of a seawall and orders its removal after Oct. 31, 2007, and before May 1, 2008,? the letter states.
In a confusing bit of language, the letter does provide a manner for prolonging the seawall?s existence ?since [it] is presently covered with sand fill and native dune vegetation.?
On April 24, the wall did not appear to have changed since November 2006. There is as much as four feet of vertical exposure and it is barren of any vegetation, native or otherwise.
?We came to that conclusion upon our last inspection of the site,? said DEP Press Secretary Sarah Williams. ?Our inspector noted sand coverage and native vegetation.?
Williams said she did not know if the absence of either the sand fill or the vegetation would affect the special stipulation, which would allow the wall to stay until it is exposed or undermined.
?Everything we have on the case is current with that letter,? she said.
The homeowners were given 15 days from the receipt the letter to ask for the seawall to remain temporarily. They have 21 days from the receipt of the letter to file for an administrative hearing to dispute the denial.

We're not resolved on this issue yet. Does anyone have any updates as to what the state's and DEP's stance is on this. Hopefully someday the people who installed illegal walls and their contractors will held responsible. Is the (laughable)$500/yr going to go into some post hurricane cleanup superfund? $500/mo should be more like it.

Check the agenda for tomorrow's BCC meeting. The $500 lease agreements for those seawalls in Seagrove located on PUBLIC beaches are supposed to be decided upon. The county has a long and unfortunate history of controversial issues like these ending up on their agendas close to a holiday and at a meeting in DeFuniak. Probably protestors will be few and far between.

I wonder if I could get a beachfront property owner to lease me a strip of dry sand for my towel this summer for $500 a year?

As I understand it, the DEP will not look at the permit requests of the seawalls which are on the public's beach, until the County addresses the issue of the legalities of them being on County property. Only after the County works this out, could they go to the DEP to request a permit for the seawall. If the County says not to the licensing agreement (which is highly unlikely, IMO), the DEP will not look at the request for permits, and the walls would likely have to be removed at some point in time.

I wonder if I could get a beachfront property owner to lease me a strip of dry sand for my towel this summer for $500 a year?

I would definitely pay $500 a year for a strip of dry sand !!!

What an unrealistic price. Some of those seawalls encroach so far onto the beach that by extrapolation I could lease a 1/4 acre beachfront lot for $2-3K a year.

First of all, I love the idea of an "artificial reef" at Blue Mt. Beach. My wife and I were sitting on the walk over this mornining noticing and commenting on how the waves were breaking at the second sand bar. Consequently, there was little or no break at the seashore. Right now, we have more beach than we have had in a long, long time. I do think, strictly from personal observation, the idea of creating wave breakage further out from the shoreline definitely has some merit. But not being versed in oceanography, I don't know. Secondly, for some of us who have constructed walls, replaced sand and planted new plantlife, removing the walls is not an option. There are many reasons why this is not feasible but the main and overriding one is endangerment of the existing stuctures that have now been totally restabilized. Many of these walls were constructed using proper engineering, surveys and building techniques. Taking them out now would be tantamount to a criminal act. By the way, DEP sat in on at least three major meetings concerning the building of our wall. They offered little or no guidance at the time and have been totally silent regarding permanent approval of the wall, now in place for over two hurricane seasons.

and that is why you will never see the County tearing down the walls.

Many of these walls were constructed using proper engineering, surveys and building techniques.

Andy, we are not talking about your wall, or walls that were built as described above. We are talking about walls built on public beaches, some as far out as 80ft onto public beaches, much further than they needed to be. The "proper engineering and surveys" were in error, supposedly. But that old Seagrove plat never even deeded the entire bluff to the beachfront property owners, let alone the beach, and anyone who tells you they didn't know that probably has some swamp land in South Florida to sell you. And most of them were built by a sitting county commissioner's business. I'm not saying they should be torn down, or even that they never should have been built - that is a topic for another discussion - but I am saying they should have been sited as far landward as possible and since the beaches there are public, all this business about leases should have been settled before they were built. Before everyone and his brother started claiming "ownership' of the beach and the right to exclude people from the beach, it didn't matter so much. As far as I am concerned, every inch of public beach now matters.

NDY, agreed. Sometimes on this board its hard to understand to what a poster is referring.

Andy, we are not talking about your wall, or walls that were built as described above. We are talking about walls built on public beaches, some as far out as 80ft onto public beaches, much further than they needed to be. The "proper engineering and surveys" were in error, supposedly. But that old Seagrove plat never even deeded the entire bluff to the beachfront property owners, let alone the beach, and anyone who tells you they didn't know that probably has some swamp land in South Florida to sell you. And most of them were built by a sitting county commissioner's business. I'm not saying they should be torn down, or even that they never should have been built - that is a topic for another discussion - but I am saying they should have been sited as far landward as possible and since the beaches there are public, all this business about leases should have been settled before they were built. Before everyone and his brother started claiming "ownership' of the beach and the right to exclude people from the beach, it didn't matter so much. As far as I am concerned, every inch of public beach now matters.

THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION:
SECTION 11. Sovereignty lands.?The title to lands under navigable waters, within the boundaries of the state, which have not been alienated, including beaches below mean high water lines, is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people. Sale of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when in the public interest. Private use of portions of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when not contrary to the public interest.

I wonder if the County has considered hiring a good constitutional lawyer and getting an intrepretation of this Section of the Florida Constitution ...

THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION:
SECTION 11. Sovereignty lands.?The title to lands under navigable waters, within the boundaries of the state, which have not been alienated, including beaches below mean high water lines, is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people. Sale of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when in the public interest. Private use of portions of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when not contrary to the public interest.

I wonder if the County has considered hiring a good constitutional lawyer and getting an intrepretation of this Section of the Florida Constitution ...

Part of the current issue is determining where the mean high water lines are, but IMO don't need a lawyer to interpret the rest!

Photo taken today at Stallworth Lake.

This is known as a curtain seawall, whereby sections of a composite material are driven into the sand about the same depth as can be seen above the sand. They interlock with each other and are anchored by rods drilled back into the sand underneath the house about 50 feet.

This wall cost around $175,000. Around $125,000 worth of sand will be filled and mounded about 2 feet above the top of the wall and then sloped toward the beach at a 2 to 1 slope. Sea Oats will then be planted on the new sand.

This homeowner had already spent around $100,000 since Hurricane Ivan.

Wow.... the guys building this do not understand the power of water?
A wave/wall of water 7 feet high can have force up to 7500 psi.
A wave/wall of water 11 feet high can have force up to 29,530 psi.
With these compression forces it would take a concrete wall 1 to 3 FEET thick
of (10,000psi concrete) to maybe have any chance at being in place after
a major hurricane.........they think this wood and steel wall has a
chance?

i love this thread. i don't know of any seawalls that have been required to come down. anyone have any idea of the dispositions of the "applications"?

I thought there was one on Pelican Circle which was ordered to come down last year. It is still standing.

Wow.... the guys building this do not understand the power of water?
A wave/wall of water 7 feet high can have force up to 7500 psi.
A wave/wall of water 11 feet high can have force up to 29,530 psi.
With these compression forces it would take a concrete wall 1 to 3 FEET thick
of (10,000psi concrete) to maybe have any chance at being in place after
a major hurricane.........they think this wood and steel wall has a
chance?

A very strong "chance" of taking the neighbors lot out....

A very strong "chance" of taking the neighbors lot out....

Well, I have a feeling once that happens there will be a lot of lawyers and coastal engineers making money quantifying those damages.

They can fight Mother Nature all they want, but IMO my grandkids will have a VERY clear view of the ocean from 30A as the houses built too close keep getting eaten away.

Wow.... the guys building this do not understand the power of water?
A wave/wall of water 7 feet high can have force up to 7500 psi.
A wave/wall of water 11 feet high can have force up to 29,530 psi.
With these compression forces it would take a concrete wall 1 to 3 FEET thick
of (10,000psi concrete) to maybe have any chance at being in place after
a major hurricane.........they think this wood and steel wall has a
chance?

Peter, just curious...what motivated you to comment on and resurrect the seawalls thread over a year later? And, BTW, that wall is a high tech carbon fiber reinforced laminated fiberglass, not steel. I'm sure you wanted to know.

Well, I have a feeling once that happens there will be a lot of lawyers and coastal engineers making money quantifying those damages.

I doubt if anyone would prevail..."act of God" and all.

BTW, if most here on SoWal get their way, God and/or nature will take of the seawalls (to the detriment of many good people) from many of the posters in this thread. I'm not directing this comment at you, BeachSiO2.

I doubt if anyone would prevail..."act of God" and all.

BTW, if most here on SoWal get their way, God and/or nature will take of the seawalls (to the detriment of many good people) from many of the posters in this thread. I'm not directing this comment at you, BeachSiO2.

I am not sure folks are trying to get their way. They are just pointing out the obvious and confused why people continue to fight a battle they unfortunately can not win.
I can surely understand the fear that the beachfront homeowner must feel regarding this issue but it does not justify the illegal placement of many of these walls.

Hey BMBV words apparently are not working, so I'll try Video. Here is your link an you may recognize the local folk. http://www.cccturtle.org/higherground.php. Hey Bobby J. Should I mention the they can't estimate our numbers?