Dear SWCC Member,
The next county commissioner meeting will be October 10th, starting at 4 pm at the courthouse in South Walton on Hwy 331. **The full agenda for the meeting is not yet available but there is one item that was continued from the previous meeting.
Seawalls on public property. **
22 property owners constructed seawalls *and/or sand filled tubes (called ?Pro Tech Tubes?) on the public beach rather than on their own property. The state will not process their application for a permanent permit for the walls and tubes unless they receive permission from the owner of the property upon which the walls were built. The property owner is the county. The armoring structures range from 28? to 50? onto the public beach. I have attached a photo for your information.
SWCC sponsored a public forum on seawalls last year. There was a lot of information presented by a coastal engineer during that forum. We have also researched agency and private sector research on the impacts of armoring the coast. As a result, *we have serious concerns over (1) the potential adverse impact of these structures on the viability of the beach (2) the loss of public *use of a significant amount of beach, (3) the precedent of allowing private individuals to usurp public property for private benefit and *(4) the liability undertaken by the county for habitat loss under the
Federal Endangered Species Act.
The public beach belongs to all of the residents of Walton County. We strongly encourage you to participate in this decision making process. If you can come to the meeting, please make time to come. If you can?t come, please take the time to email your thoughts and questions to the commissioners. *I have listed their email address for your convenience. In addition, following the commissioner contacts, for those who want more information, *I have outlined the concerns and questions that SWCC will be presenting to the commissioners on this significant public issue.
County Commissioner Contacts
Commissioner Scott Brannon *****************Commissioner Cindy Meadows
District 1 ********************************************District 5
brascott@co.walton.fl.us ***********************meacindy@co.walton.fl.us
(850) 622-3081 ************************************(850) 622-3059
Commissioner Ken Pridgen ********************Commissioner Larry Jones
District 2 ********************************************District 3
prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us ********************jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us
(850) 834-6328 **************************************(850) 892-8474
NOTE: *I have omitted Commissioner Cuchens as a contact email as a company owned by him built many of the walls which are the subject of this meeting. As such, he will not be voting or participating in this issue.
Should the County Approve Seawalls Constructed on the Public Beach? SWCC Thoughts and Questions
Background Info. A representative for 10 property owners in the Seagrove Beach area has acknowledged that their seawalls were ?inadvertently? built seaward of their gulf front property line. **Seven other gulf front *property owners have indicated they have built both a seawall and placed large sand filled tubes (? tubes?) on the public beach. Five *property owners have indicated they have placed Tubes on public property. (the brand name of the tubes is ?Pro Tech Tubes?)
According to engineering plans, these structures were built from 28? to 50? seaward of the private property line. The distance between the structures and the houses they are supposed to protect is even greater.
The issue has surfaced because the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) required proof of ownership of the property on which the walls and/or Tubes are located as part of the application for a permit for a permanent armoring structure. *
In many areas of South Walton, deeds *on gulf front property do not convey ownership of the beach. *In building what was clearly intended to be a permanent structure on a gulf front property line, one would think there would have been verification of the property line, particularly in light of the fact that the physical appearance of the beach front property line may have changed due to natural and storm-related dune and bluff processes. *
In the Seagrove area it is particularly difficult to understand how the walls and tubes could have been built seaward of *the property boundary as the old sidewalk along the bluff that marked the end of private property is still there in many areas.
The owners of the upland property have now asked the county to help resolve this issue with DEP so the walls and tubes can stay on the public beach. DEP has indicated that it does not have the authority to issue permits for a structure which is not on the applicant?s property. *For the walls and tubes to remain, the county must *provide authorization for the structures to permanently remain on the public beach.
The Public Trust Considerations. County government is the custodian of the public?s property. As a general premise, public property cannot be used for private benefit any more than taxpayer money can be used to promote private enterprises. In the rare instance where private use of public land is allowed, there must be significant public benefit to counteract the taking of public property.
Seawalls *are intended to provide protection for upland structures. They do not protect the beach. To the contrary, documents published by both U.S. Fish & Wildlife and the DEP indicate that coastal armoring ?can result in accelerated erosion seaward of the hardened structure and adjacent to the structure, especially on the downdrift side (end scour)? (Document entitled ?The Liklihood of Take of Federally Protected Species on Private Lands from Beachfront Armoring Post Hurricanes 2004-2005 Season, Walton County, Florida? U.S. Fish & Wildlife. Jan. 18, 2006)
The ?DEP Report for the Governor?s Coastal High Hazard Study Commission? states on page 3, ?Armoring protects upland structures but it has the adverse effect of increasing the erosion in front of the armoring structures and adjacent properties as the system becomes sand starved? Dec. 2005.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers states in a document entitled ?Coastal Engineering Technical Note? *(CETN-III-8): ?Seawalls generally reflect wave energy which causes scour immediately in front of the wall. Wave runup and overtopping of the wall may scour the backfill. Vertically-faced impermeable sheet-pile or massive concrete walls create the most reflection and produce the most damage to the fronting beach.?
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) *cites the following ?potential drawbacks? for seawalls and other ?hardened structures that armor the shoreline?:
********. *Often exacerbates erosion seaward of hardened structure
********. *Leads to loss of beach and intertidal habitat
********. *Alters shoreline and water dynamics
********. *May have short life-span before structure failure
The ?potential benefits? of the walls are cited as: *?can slow erosion rates landward of hardened structure, particularly in high energy environments?. (NOAA Ocean & Coastal Resource Management Shoreline Management Definitions updated *July 11, 2006)
While there remains some controversy over the damage caused by seawalls under normal seasonal wave impacts, there seems to be little controversy over the potential beach erosion in high impact storms or high frequency wave occurrences.
The Seagrove walls were designed and built by professionals. Obviously, a very significant mistake was made in siting and constructing these walls. The fact that the structures encroach onto public rather than private property does not minimize the seriousness of the potential consequences of this mistake. *
It may be argued that the ?public benefit? is that the walls and tubes may help protect the upland structures thereby increasingly the likelihood of maintaining the gulf front residence tax base. *Is this a sufficient benefit to risk the potential damage to the viability of the beach itself? *
If these property owners needed access to the public beach in order to further stabilize their area the best approach would have been to approach the county directly to discuss the situation rather than build structures on public property and then ask for permission. There are other options to seawalls. Other communities and even some Walton County property owners chose *?soft? erosion control options in lieu of the vertical seawalls. Such an approach, funded fairly between the beneficiaries would have provided additional dune support and restoration without creating the inherent risk to the public beach caused by vertical seawalls.
State Siting Requirements. Aside from the property rights issue of a private landowner encroaching onto public land, state law requires that ?armoring shall be sited a sufficient distance inside the property boundaries to prevent destabilizing the beach and dune system on adjacent properties or increasing erosion of such properties during a storm event.? (F.A.C. 62B-33.0051 (2) (a) (3))
Depriving the Public of Use of Public Property. These walls and tubes are not even close to the property line. By placing them *on the public beach, the private property owners are usurping a considerable amount of beach property. *What is the precedent that will be established for future seawall requests? What precedent will this decision establish generally for private use of public property?
Federal Law Implications. If seawalls or other armoring structures are located more than 20? from the residence they are supposed to be protecting, U.S. Fish & Wildlife requires the owner of the property upon which the armoring structure is located to obtain an Incidental Take Permit under the Endangered Species Act. The property owner must also fund and maintain a Habitat Conservation Plan to mitigate destruction of endangered species or their habitat from the armoring structures.
Presumably, the county, if it authorizes the walls to remain on public property, must accept the responsibility and liability imposed by the Endangered Species Act.
Other Issues That Must Be Addressed If The Walls and Tubes Become Permanent Structures.
Who will pay to restore the beach (including damage to dunes or bluff face) if in fact it is demonstrated that the walls or tubes have caused accelerated erosion of public property? If the property owners are to pay, how will payment be ensured?
How can the county ensure that any obligations agreed to by the property owners will be accepted by subsequent purchasers or heirs of the property?
Who will pay for the removal of the debris from walls and tubes which have failed? Again, how will payment be ensured?
Who will bear the financial burden of keeping the walls and tubes covered with beach compatible white sand? What happens if the walls and tubes are not kept covered as required by state and federal law? Who bears the risk?
How long will the walls and tubes be allowed to remain on public property?
Conclusion.
There are many questions that must be answered at this meeting. *We encourage the public to become informed, ask questions and let your thoughts be known. We encourage the commissioners to take what time is needed to fully explore the issues so that their decision can be based upon solid information that best ensures that nothing is done that could ultimately undermine the health and viability of the beach and dune system. *
The South Walton Community Council
Anita Page
Executive Director
Note: *The bulk of our research has pertained to walls rather than the Pro Tech Tubes. We are aware that similar concerns have been expressed over the *impact of the tubes on the beaches. We hope to have more information on the impacts of the tubes at the meeting. In this case, however, only 5 of the structures are tubes. The rest are walls or a combination of walls and tubes.
SWCC has not objected to walls which were built on private property and are otherwise in compliance with state and county requirements.
