Study on Geotubes in Texas

geotubes and seawalls will have to stay in until fall after turtle season regardless

ran out of popcorn

if the renourshment was on a large enough scale, and the beaches made deep enough, wouldn't the walls be under so much sand to be rendered moot?

jr

I've been meaning to respond to this but all the action is on the "other thread". I just checked back here.

You have made a very valid point above. I have considered the very same idea.

Chew on this 😀 .........
What's the difference between a nice crisp green salad and a stinking pile of garbage?
.
.
timing.

Beach nourishment probably won't occur for a while in our area. Just one season is too long for us without protection at the rates hurricanes are hitting us lately.

But if the nourishment was eventually done, then do you think it wise to remove all retaining walls or just let them be (out of sight - out of mind)?

I think you probably could guess my position. 😀 We don't need more tractors, back hoes dump trucks, etc. just to dig out the walls. I sincerely believe they will cause very little, if any, problems with the environment assuming we have beach renourishment done (I guess I'm really speaking for my wall and similar ones).

By the way, I'm still trying to picture how effective beach nourishment will be when it comes to our high bluffs. I'm not sure they can pile enough sand that high to offer significant protection for the bluff. I'm guessing most of the sand will go to "beach renourishment" not "bluff renourishment". In that case, the walls still would serve a purpose.

I'd like to hear your take of the above.

Thanks,
BMBV

if i remember my materials science correctly, sand slurry can be shot (force pumped) up to about 32 feet high at a 2:1 slope (which means a minimum of 64' beach at about a 45 degree angle to the top) - just like making a sand castle with a 50/50 water-sand mixture and a pump and pipe delivery system - whether the sand sand would stay up there is another problem

By the way, I'm still trying to picture how effective beach nourishment will be when it comes to our high bluffs. I'm not sure they can pile enough sand that high to offer significant protection for the bluff. I'm guessing most of the sand will go to "beach renourishment" not "bluff renourishment". In that case, the walls still would serve a purpose.

I'd like to hear your take of the above.

Thanks,
BMBV

You are correct. The beach nourishment is not property nourishment for GF property owners, according to Brad Pickle. At the location of the existing beach nourishment operations, they are extending the beach about 100' out to sea and raising the existing height of the beach by about 8 verticle feet, maybe high enough to keep waves off of the cliff bases, but most likely it would be washed from the east west push of any storms coming into close proximity.

based on the only history i have with renourishment, cape may, i'm thinking that 100 feet won't do much. and based on aquaticbiology's math, it would leave quite an incline in some areas.

cape may's beach was extended at least 500' for it's entire length, and the sand is quite different. we will need to resign ourselves to the same. but, like our neighbors to the west, i'm sure some lawsuits would popup regarding who's beach it is, and who's paying for it, and who can walk on it. sidenote, my house in telluride is on the river. my property extended out under the water to half the width of the bottom. i never told someone they couldn't boat or fish there. 'private' beaches activate my reflux.

bmbv, if the county delivered enough sand that the walls were burried under many feet, no i wouln't want to see them removed. it would be throwing good money after bad, and more lawsuits would surely popup. i think erosion of steel and composite leeching into the ground would be a problem though.

i'm a little cloudy on your terminology, bluff=dune? bluff=dune sliced in half from last storms?

jr

http://www.fema.gov/library/prepandprev.shtm#hurricanes

There are several good publications free from FEMA at this site advising how and why and why not etc. for building in high hazard areas. The sum total of all of these documents is not to tell you where to build, but more to warn you about building in high hazard areas.

Dune or bluff are a little confusing to me as well, both are more concerned with aesthetics of the situation than the situation itself. From a construction stand point it is more of two names for a pile of sand, one, the dune, slightly more stable than the other. What amazes me on both this thread and the other is that someone buys a house on top of a big sand pile and never notices the living ocean in the backyard. We have all built small scale models of this also know as sand castles, and we are accepting of what happens to them when the big wave comes in. Houses and dunes, unfortunately are the same thing only on a much larger and more expensive scale. The other difference is that the wave of scale only comes with hurricanes. Buying beach front is a calculated risk. Trying to interrupt nature by throwing money in the ocean is another gamble.

Governments get in as much trouble telling people what they cannot do as they do for telling them what they can--and when was the last time we saw a politician with a backbone and a brain. Just because the government did not tell someone not to build a house on a big pile of sand, does not make it safe or the government's fault. Freedom to exercise our right of free speech is coupled with our freedom to do less than smart things. :idontno:

If you wish to view a "study" in contrast concerning beach erosion, take a good look at the renourishment of New Smyrna Beach,Fl vs. Kiawah Island SC. Having just spent a week oceanside at Kiawah, I observed most all the homes are built well back of the dune line. The beach is about 100 yards wide at low tide. The sand is hard packed and flat. Walkovers are contructed so as not to disturb the dunes. Contrast that scenario with New Smyrna Beach. Every part of the beach containing seawalls has been so severely eroded, that the current renourishment project was needed. Homes up and down the beach were built directly on the sand dunes, not behind them. Seawalls are everywhere. New Smyrna Beach has sustained no direct hurricane strikes, yet everywhere there are seawalls or dune-top homes, the beach was virtually gone. What was once a beach so wide and level that cars were allowed, now looks like, well what else but South Beach or Walton County. Everthing put up in Walton County to stop erosion{walls,tubes,rocks} just aggravates the problem. The state would better to spend it's money giving fair market value for all the homes perched on the dunes. I volunteer to be the appraiser!!!!!

If you wish to view a "study" in contrast concerning beach erosion, take a good look at the renourishment of New Smyrna Beach,Fl vs. Kiawah Island SC. Having just spent a week oceanside at Kiawah, I observed most all the homes are built well back of the dune line. The beach is about 100 yards wide at low tide. The sand is hard packed and flat. Walkovers are contructed so as not to disturb the dunes. Contrast that scenario with New Smyrna Beach. Every part of the beach containing seawalls has been so severely eroded, that the current renourishment project was needed. Homes up and down the beach were built directly on the sand dunes, not behind them. Seawalls are everywhere. New Smyrna Beach has sustained no direct hurricane strikes, yet everywhere there are seawalls or dune-top homes, the beach was virtually gone. What was once a beach so wide and level that cars were allowed, now looks like, well what else but South Beach or Walton County. Everthing put up in Walton County to stop erosion{walls,tubes,rocks} just aggravates the problem. The state would better to spend it's money giving fair market value for all the homes perched on the dunes. I volunteer to be the appraiser!!!!!

Thank you for sharing your observations.
They certainly paint a bleak picture for the future of Walton beaches.

If you are convinced that seawalls are so harmful what would you suggest Walton county do about the "temporary seawalls"?
Would make the owners remove them at their own expense?
Would you only require removal of certain ones that seemed to have the
greatest potential to do damage?

Your point about volunteering to be the appraiser begs the question: How do you value a property whose market value has been significantly diminished by storm damage and that is essentially unbuildable?

Thank you for sharing your observations.
They certainly paint a bleak picture for the future of Walton beaches.

If you are convinced that seawalls are so harmful what would you suggest Walton county do about the "temporary seawalls"?
Would make the owners remove them at their own expense?
Would you only require removal of certain ones that seemed to have the
greatest potential to do damage?

Your point about volunteering to be the appraiser begs the question: How do you value a property whose market value has been significantly diminished by storm damage and that is essentially unbuildable?

I don't mean to paint a bleak picture for SoWal, as the seawall situation is far less prevalent. The height of the dunes with the homes now perched on the edges would seem comical were it not all too real. I believe government to be the answer here, as the problem will only worsen until armoring of the dunes ceases. Barring some incredible luck, ultimately, many Gulf-front homes are going to be condemned. I think receiving compensation for loss to be fair, as many homeowners who built were only doing what the state allowed. Compensation should mostly be based on land value, as that value will most easily be determined. Logically, and in a perfect world, the state should renourish the beaches where it's needed and remove all the homes from the top of the dune lines. This is an expensive proposition, and it is what's best for all in the long run. I have no faith this will happen in our litigious society, as eminent domain vs. individual property rights should be well fought, being that those most able to afford legal defense to be Gulf-front owners. I would do nothing about current temporay seawalls, because it will cost the county/state greatly to fight the inevitable lawsuits. I propose to let the next storm or two illustrate the futlity of armoring a narrow beachline. When the twisted remains are lying on the beach, then the county can send the removal bill.

I don't mean to paint a bleak picture for SoWal, as the seawall situation is far less prevalent. The height of the dunes with the homes now perched on the edges would seem comical were it not all too real. I believe government to be the answer here, as the problem will only worsen until armoring of the dunes ceases. Barring some incredible luck, ultimately, many Gulf-front homes are going to be condemned. I think receiving compensation for loss to be fair, as many homeowners who built were only doing what the state allowed. Compensation should mostly be based on land value, as that value will most easily be determined. Logically, and in a perfect world, the state should renourish the beaches where it's needed and remove all the homes from the top of the dune lines. This is an expensive proposition, and it is what's best for all in the long run. I have no faith this will happen in our litigious society, as eminent domain vs. individual property rights should be well fought, being that those most able to afford legal defense to be Gulf-front owners. I would do nothing about current temporay seawalls, because it will cost the county/state greatly to fight the inevitable lawsuits. I propose to let the next storm or two illustrate the futlity of armoring a narrow beachline. When the twisted remains are lying on the beach, then the county can send the removal bill.

Excellent post Bob. I agree with all of it. I was thinking about the folly of building on these dunes the other day, while visiting a barrier island just north of Captiva. I was struck by the logic of the gulf-front structures -- built far back from the water, with walkovers leading the way over the small, low dune system. The homes are high on stilts, which would allow storm surge to theoretically run under the buildings. A major hurricane might rearrange the beach, yes, but the land where the buildings are is not going to disappear, since the surge would just run over the island, carve out new passes perhaps, and yes maybe knock over the buildings -- but one could rebuild.

In SoWal the high dunes/bluff system protects the vast majority of houses from storm surge or even needing flood insurance, but those waves have to go somewhere, and as we have seen they will just dig into chunks of the land and wash it away. I think in the building frenzy the county and state officials just didn't consider the unique nature of the coastline in SoWal and the ridiculousness of allowing these buildings to be perched so close to the dune line. It all starts with zoning, and yes the county and state are at fault here, and the only fair thing is to have the state buy out the people whose land may become unbuildable.

Blaming the individual gulf front owners for owning and building on the gulf is pointless. Most people who buy such homes have never given a thought to the nature of the coastline. They just want their slice of paradise. The people who need to have the understanding of the laws of nature are those who have allowed the development in the first place.

How do you value a property whose market value has been significantly diminished by storm damage and that is essentially unbuildable?

At a very low price? :idontno:

At a very low price? :idontno:

SJ,

I've finally figured it all out. No need for this thread or other threads to continue any longer.

I'm buying up all first tier property not already owned by ecopal, Bob, TooFarTampa and the like that I can afford.

Then I will join their crusade and have all GF properties demolished.

Then "our" first tier properties will obviously become VERY valuable. I'm sure nobody thought of that one!! ;-)

BUT......

Then in about 15 years (with all the supposedly heightened hurricane activity predictions), the bluffs will collapse back to the edge of these properties as well.

Then when all their children (ecopal junior, Bob junior, TooFarTampa junior, Bdarg junior, etc.) inherit the properties they will become the BMBV of tomorrow. Does anyone want their children to be me tomorrow? :lol:

Where does it stop?

The line in the sand has been drawn (by a bunch of surveyors directed by county, state and federal government agencies).

Retaining walls have deservedly received bad press as of a result of their installation in places where even I agree there are serious issues. Can anyone spell BARRIER ISLANDS? I'm certain there are other scenarios where they should not be applied.

BUT no one has shown me as of today how a retaining wall will impact OUR AREA of HIGH BLUFFS. Most are guessing. I still look at the video from Hurricane Dennis and just imagine how much of a non-event this hurricane would have been if the retaining wall was in place preventing the constant cutting of the bluff by relatively small wave after small wave. It was just the storm surge was just high enough that the waves were able to reach the base of our BLUFF and chop it down and chop it down and chop it down....

It reminds me of a small chain saw taking down a Great Oak by methodically cutting into the base.

But maybe the video and my eyes deceive me and just about everyone else who has seen it.

I have promised to get pgurney a copy (I don't know him personally). His very objective approach to the entire matter impressed me. I will ask him for his honest take of what he sees. I really don't want to publicly circulate the video quite yet however.

I will ask him if he sees the same reflected wave action occurred on natural BLUFFS that I do. I will ask him his opinion on the intensity and speed of the waves that were coming ashore. I will the ask him if he thinks a retaining wall would have caused more significnant energy reflection than what I see in the video of waves reflecting off the bluffs.

I don't and never will imply that retaining walls help the "repair" process of the beach.

So, the real question is will a retaining wall in OUR AREA of HIGH BLUFFS actually make the HIGH BLUFF erosion worse than what we've already seen?

There's probably going to be more documentary on this subject than Carter has liver pills.

As a few have said, time will tell.

PLEASE let me throw this out AGAIN.....
Beach armoring is not permanent. I've said it before... The Hoover Dam IS PERMANENT. If it is shown without a doubt that retaining walls are really screwing things up that not even nourishment can fix, well they can be taken out a heck of lot faster than they went in. Again, they are not permanent. Maybe the DEP permit is.

Let's give them (and us) a chance in OUR UNIQUE AREA OF HIGH BLUFFS (there's not much choice otherwise at least for the coming season).

The worse that can happen is they work!! 😀 Just kidding for some of you smilie challenged observers!! I'm also kidding about about "smilie challenged observers". Can't assume everyone has a sense of humor, some times!

PLEASE let me throw this out AGAIN.....
Beach armoring is not permanent. I've said it before... The Hoover Dam IS PERMANENT. If it is shown without a doubt that retaining walls are really screwing things up that not even nourishment can fix, well they can be taken out a heck of lot faster than they went in. Again, they are not permanent. Maybe the DEP permit is.

Just a quick question: If the structures are temporary, when will they be removed? Thanks.

SJ,

I've finally figured it all out. No need for this thread or other threads to continue any longer.

I'm buying up all first tier property not already owned by ecopal, Bob, TooFarTampa and the like that I can afford.

Then I will join their crusade and have all GF properties demolished.

Then "our" first tier properties will obviously become VERY valuable. I'm sure nobody thought of that one!! ;-)

That sounds really nice, but why would those properties be desirable if there is no beach to enjoy after the storms remove all of the sand?

BUT no one has shown me as of today how a retaining wall will impact OUR AREA of HIGH BLUFFS. Most are guessing. I still look at the video from Hurricane Dennis and just imagine how much of a non-event this hurricane would have been if the retaining wall was in place preventing the constant cutting of the bluff by relatively small wave after small wave. It was just the storm surge was just high enough that the waves were able to reach the base of our BLUFF and chop it down and chop it down and chop it down....
...
I have promised to get pgurney a copy (I don't know him personally). His very objective approach to the entire matter impressed me. I will ask him for his honest take of what he sees. I really don't want to publicly circulate the video quite yet however.

I will ask him if he sees the same reflected wave action occurred on natural BLUFFS that I do. I will ask him his opinion on the intensity and speed of the waves that were coming ashore. I will the ask him if he thinks a retaining wall would have caused more significnant energy reflection than what I see in the video of waves reflecting off the bluffs.

I don't need to see the video, I was watching it happen live in person. Sure, the dune system which you call bluffs reflect the waves washing out the sand with it. It is well documented. However, there is a big difference between having a flexible and changing natural sand wall reflecting the water and having a solid, inflexible barrier reflecting the waves. If a wall cannot give (flex), that water will be reflected at a much more forceful rate, taking much more sand with it.

Also, the natural shore line is not a straight line, which makes it more absorbant in some places, thereby not allowing as strong of one big solid reflection of a wave going back to sea. It is easy to test my thought of this. No different that the technology used to design the radar absorbing designs of the Stealth Bomber. The variations in the materials are designed to absorb the waves thereby diminishing the reflection of those waves. A solid straight-line wall will definitely take out more beach than a moving dune system. Unfortunately for GF property owners, there is that cost of potentially losing all of one's property if nature is allowed to exist uniterrupted by Man.

I don't and never will imply that retaining walls help the "repair" process of the beach....

If you are not implying that, are you implying that building the seawalls is detrimental to the beach?

PLEASE let me throw this out AGAIN.....
Beach armoring is not permanent. I've said it before... The Hoover Dam IS PERMANENT. If it is shown without a doubt that retaining walls are really screwing things up that not even nourishment can fix, well they can be taken out a heck of lot faster than they went in. Again, they are not permanent. Maybe the DEP permit is.

I disagree. The Hoover Dam is not permanent. You think too much in the short term. ;-)

Let's give them (and us) a chance in OUR UNIQUE AREA OF HIGH BLUFFS (there's not much choice otherwise at least for the coming season).

The worse that can happen is they work!! 😀 Just kidding for some of you smilie challenged observers!! I'm also kidding about about "smilie challenged observers". Can't assume everyone has a sense of humor, some times!

Do we have a choice in the matter? You don't see me lying in front of the track hoe, do you?

I see by your smilie that you are kidding, but I get the feeling that you are more serious than you disguise. Please share with me your thoughts of the worst case scenerio you can imagine could result from the construction of the seawalls in Blue Mtn Bch.

Smiling Joe gives a good description of what a lot of the literature says: hardened structures reflect more energy and increase beach erosion. On the other hand, the Corps of Engineers says that there is not sufficient data to support the idea that seawalls cause additional erosion. However, everyone in the literature seems to agree that seawalls prevent the dune systems from naturally nourishing the beaches and beaches disappear in front of seawalls without consistent artificial beach renourishment.

IMO If we're going to have seawalls and we want to keep the beaches, the state needs to approve an on-going beach renourishment program. Sources of quality sand should be identified and quantified on a regular programmatic basis so when the need arises it doesn't take 2 to 3 years to find the sand and get approval. I don't know about the affordability of this, but I personally don't see any other way if seawalls stay in our future.

The other option is to let the GF properties be expendable. I don't really see that happening, but who knows. It has in other states that prohibit seawalls.

I've continued to read up on the subject as time allows and am finding that there are no simple solutions. There are high costs attached to everything. Wow, earth shattering news right?

Hmmm, no time for further writing....I'm off for a new beach do and to Nordstrom's to pick up some Trish mascara and maybe some new sandals cuz I'm on my way down tomorrow!!! 😀

PLEASE let me throw this out AGAIN.....
BMBV said......Beach armoring is not permanent. I've said it before... The Hoover Dam IS PERMANENT. If it is shown without a doubt that retaining walls are really screwing things up that not even nourishment can fix, well they can be taken out a heck of lot faster than they went in. Again, they are not permanent. Maybe the DEP permit is.

Just a quick question: If the structures are temporary, when will they be removed? Thanks.

You know what? I don't know. Yep... I don't know. But at a minimum, they'll exist all through "turtle season" and if removed, will be done so next winter.

This subject came up before several times. All retaining walls are temporary until they receive approval from DEP (or are at least in the process of reviewing the applications that must be sent within 60 days after the completion of the wall). The problem is I don't know what's going to happen if and when some of the applications are denied.

I really would not want to be in the middle of that scenario. All this stuff has already taken a financial toll on any of us. Don't need anymore surprises (such as being ordered to remove my retaining wall).

Hope this helps.

That sounds really nice, but why would those properties be desirable if there is no beach to enjoy after the storms remove all of the sand?

I like the easy handouts 😀 .... So you're implying that even if there are no retaining walls erected, and nature takes its past and current course, that even after the bluff has receded 50 to 100 more feet, that current GF structures are destroyed and removed, that there may not be any beach left to make the newly 1st tier properties (turned gulf front) desirable?

If so, you're insinuating (maybe unintentionally) that bluffs are no worse than retaining walls as there will be no beach left either way.

If your statement is a sucker punch, I'm already whincing !! :lol:

I don't need to see the video, I was watching it happen live in person. Sure, the dune system which you call bluffs reflect the waves washing out the sand with it. It is well documented. However, there is a big difference between having a flexible and changing natural sand wall reflecting the water and having a solid, inflexible barrier reflecting the waves. If a wall cannot give (flex), that water will be reflected at a much more forceful rate, taking much more sand with it.

Saw it first hand? GF property owner? Hmmm. ;-) You crazy too? I thought only my video camera operator was the only nutty one to watch a hurricane approach. JUST KIDDING !!! Kind of wished I was here when it happened as well.

Perhaps (regarding reflecting wave intensity of a solid structure vs. bluff). But as I see it from the video, (IMHO) we're talking shades of grey not quantum differences regarding the amount of wave reflection with or without a wall.

Also, the natural shore line is not a straight line, which makes it more absorbant in some places, thereby not allowing as strong of one big solid reflection of a wave going back to sea. It is easy to test my thought of this. No different that the technology used to design the radar absorbing designs of the Stealth Bomber. The variations in the materials are designed to absorb the waves thereby diminishing the reflection of those waves. A solid straight-line wall will definitely take out more beach than a moving dune system. Unfortunately for GF property owners, there is that cost of potentially losing all of one's property if nature is allowed to exist uniterrupted by Man.

The shoreline may not be a straight line, BUT you could just about shoot a transit down the eroded bluff. It is a straight as any retaining wall. Actually straighter after some of the "lesser" walls were back filled :floor:

That's where the action is during a storm, not the normal water line on the beach.

If you are not implying that, are you implying that building the seawalls is detrimental to the beach?

Again, I'm not going to imply that because of what I saw on the video. What I am implying, is that the retaining wall may not do that much more damage to the beach than the vertical bluffs do when they are exposed.

If it's an incremental amount more erosion caused by the retaining wall, IMHO that's better than what we all experienced on the beach this past year and the year before regarding "recovery". I understand a non GF owner may not appreciate this observation.

This is not ABSOLUTE by any means but merely a logical deduction on my part based on the video. That's why we're here on the boards in the first place... to share ideas and debate / discuss them... not ram them down the throats of others.

I disagree. The Hoover Dam is not permanent. You think too much in the short term. ;-)

I do have my shortcomings !!! ;-) back at ya.

Do we have a choice in the matter? You don't see me lying in front of the track hoe, do you?

I truly don't believe I've tried to challenge anyone to do something about
"my right to build a retaining wall" to protect my non-conforming property which is in danger of collapsing from the next hurricane.

But if you do lay in front of a track hoe, I will pin up a picture of you along side of that BRAVE Chineese demonstrator who stood in front of the military tank. 😀

I see by your smilie that you are kidding, but I get the feeling that you are more serious than you disguise. Please share with me your thoughts of the worst case scenerio you can imagine could result from the construction of the seawalls in Blue Mtn Bch.

Worse case.... let's see.... i hear the Jeopardy tune.... and the answer is:
I take my beach ball home and play in the bay. 😀

Really, why are they renourishing the part of the beach that they are doing now? It's not due to retaining wall wave reflection damage because they didn't exist for the most part.

So let me answer your question with a question:

"What do you think the major cause of beach erosion is?"

SJ, I asked this very same question to another poster a few days ago. Their response (which totally surprised me) was something to the effect that it was off topic.

Wait a minute... am I crazy?... don't answer that yet.... did I miss something here?

Isn't the very reason all the retaining walls are going up and the current beach renourishment going on is due to EROSION?

I thought my question was very appropriate.

It would seem to me, that after the one poster said it was off-topic there would have been 100 others that would have jumped in and either asked "What is it?" OR provide an answer.

IT JUST DIED. UNBELIEVABLE!! Does everybody already know? What's up with the "no curiosity" factor?

SO.... Since you set up a worse case scenario type of question (and maybe I dodged it a little and joked about it in the past - i.e. gulf front marina... it's all in the marketing, etc.), I'll ask you (and others again):

"What do you think the major cause of beach erosion is (in Florida)?"

Please take a stab. I'm not setting you or anyone else up. Even I am a little taken back by DEP's answer, but it's there none the less (there! a hint!).

Thanks SJ !

I like the easy handouts 😀 .... So you're implying that even if there are no retaining walls erected, and nature takes its past and current course, that even after the bluff has receded 50 to 100 more feet, that current GF structures are destroyed and removed, that there may not be any beach left to make the newly 1st tier properties (turned gulf front) desirable?

If so, you're insinuating (maybe unintentionally) that bluffs are no worse than retaining walls as there will be no beach left either way.

If your statement is a sucker punch, I'm already whincing !! :lol:

Not at all. My reply to your post was refering to you buying up 1st tier properties. My point was that if the seawalls cause complete erosion of the beach, 1st tier property not be desirable. In fact, most of the local area would not be desirable. People would probably opt for BayFront property over the Gulf Front if no beach exists.

With the dune system (bluffs) are allowed to rebuild the beaches naturally, there will be beaches for a much longer period of time, ;-) although we all know it would be at Gulf Front owners' expense.

Now, I am beginning to sound like you two guys on reverb. Have I not made my point clear? Let's stop asking the same question to which the answers I have given. (speaking personally)

Saw it first hand? GF property owner? Hmmm. ;-) You crazy too? I thought only my video camera operator was the only nutty one to watch a hurricane approach. JUST KIDDING !!! Kind of wished I was here when it happened as well.

Perhaps (regarding reflecting wave intensity of a solid structure vs. bluff). But as I see it from the video, (IMHO) we're talking shades of grey not quantum differences regarding the amount of wave reflection with or without a wall.

Call me crazy.

While I don't have my own controlled lab, I may video tape my own little experiment and show you the difference.

Worse case.... let's see.... i hear the Jeopardy tune.... and the answer is:
I take my beach ball home and play in the bay. 😀

Really, why are they renourishing the part of the beach that they are doing now? It's not due to retaining wall wave reflection damage because they didn't exist for the most part.

So let me answer your question with a question:

"What do you think the major cause of beach erosion is?"

SJ, I asked this very same question to another poster a few days ago. Their response (which totally surprised me) was something to the effect that it was off topic.

Wait a minute... am I crazy?... don't answer that yet.... did I miss something here?

Isn't the very reason all the retaining walls are going up and the current beach renourishment going on is due to EROSION?

I thought my question was very appropriate.

It would seem to me, that after the one poster said it was off-topic there would have been 100 others that would have jumped in and either asked "What is it?" OR provide an answer.

IT JUST DIED. UNBELIEVABLE!! Does everybody already know? What's up with the "no curiosity" factor?

SO.... Since you set up a worse case scenario type of question (and maybe I dodged it a little and joked about it in the past - i.e. gulf front marina... it's all in the marketing, etc.), I'll ask you (and others again):

"What do you think the major cause of beach erosion is (in Florida)?"

Please take a stab. I'm not setting you or anyone else up. Even I am a little taken back by DEP's answer, but it's there none the less (there! a hint!).

Thanks SJ !

Yes, you dodged a real question. Forget that I asked. I thought we were here to seriously discuss things, but I guess you don't want to play fairly in your own sandbox. I am disappointed in you.

ok, i'm in. i went to dep's site, and i think i found what you're leading question is leading up to.

... While some of this erosion is due to natural forces and imprudent coastal development, a significant amount of coastal erosion in Florida is directly attributable to the construction and maintenance of navigation inlets. Florida has over 60 inlets around the state, many have been artificially deepened to accommodate commercial and recreational vessels and employ jetties to prevent sand from filling in the channels. A by-product of this practice is that the jetties and the inlet channels have interrupted the natural flow of sand along the beach causing an accumulation of sand in the inlet channel and at the jetty on one side of the inlet, and a loss of sand to the beaches on the other side of the inlet.


is this what you were looking for? crazy that it paralells my statement above regarding cape may. if this is indeed what you're referring to, are you implying that the panama city and destin inlets are responsible for our erosion?

i too saw dennis' and katrina's work first hand, and had the tupelo crossover torn out from under me while running back toward land. awesome power, it was like a parade of steps. every 20-30 seconds anothe set of stairs would pass by. i wonder where they all ended up?

during dennis, giving up some of my secret identity bmbv :cool:


after dennis