Private Beaches in South Walton - Customary Use Updates & SB1622

[mputnal]

News flash! Walton County good Ole boys ain't so smart. I miss the days when we had a few who weren't bought by developers.

Both sides cut off their own noses. Nobody wins.

Walton County "good ole boys ain't so smart" has no relevance to anything. We have never lived in a time where developers had less power than the people. We the people only have power when we realize that we have more in common than not. Being divided allows developers to gain even more power. You know this but can't help blaming all our problems on government. Not saying that government is perfect or even close to perfect but we should blame ourselves as much as government. I believe there is good in all of us including the people we don't agree with. Trust me it is hard work to do this and I fail at it every day. The hope is in that we don't lose the ability to see the good. The only way to do this is to control our emotions. Easier said than done, right

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

The "public easement" requirement removed by the repeal bill does not appear to be the same as the construction easement requirement. Also the removal of the public easement requirement does not seem to affect public recreational use being allowed seaward of the ECL in beach renourishment project areas.

From the analysis of SB1622 (PDF download):

• Authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection to proceed with beach restoration projects for areas it has designated as critically eroded, and provides that notwithstanding existing law, such projects do not require public easements

My interpretation of the above is that "public easements" = construction easements. The bill states that DEP does not have to get "public" (construction) easements to perform restoration projects.

Assuming the above is correct, and per my previous post, I believe the next legal battle will be whether or not the DEP can come on private property to perform "beach restoration" without permission and against the wishes of the private property owner for the sole benefit of the upland private property owner, again, who does not want "beach restoration" in the first place.

 

[bob1]

From the analysis of SB1622 (PDF download):

• Authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection to proceed with beach restoration projects for areas it has designated as critically eroded, and provides that notwithstanding existing law, such projects do not require public easements

My interpretation of the above is that "public easements" = construction easements. The bill states that DEP does not have to get "public" (construction) easements to perform restoration projects.

Assuming the above is correct, and per my previous post, I believe the next legal battle will be whether or not the DEP can come on private property to perform "beach restoration" without permission and against the wishes of the private property owner for the sole benefit of the upland private property owner, again, who does not want "beach restoration" in the first place.

DeSantis will do what he wants to do.

 

[mputnal]

From the analysis of SB1622 (PDF download):

• Authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection to proceed with beach restoration projects for areas it has designated as critically eroded, and provides that notwithstanding existing law, such projects do not require public easements

My interpretation of the above is that "public easements" = construction easements. The bill states that DEP does not have to get "public" (construction) easements to perform restoration projects.

Assuming the above is correct, and per my previous post, I believe the next legal battle will be whether or not the DEP can come on private property to perform "beach restoration" without permission and against the wishes of the private property owner for the sole benefit of the upland private property owner, again, who does not want "beach restoration" in the first place.

I am curious to know why you believe there will be a "next battle" and why a beach front owner would ever be against beach restoration. Are you against beach restoration? Let's say that there is one beach front owner for every few miles of beach that would rather go to "battle" rather than all for beach restoration. What would be the reasoning? Lawsuits cost money for both sides. Would it not be more reasonable and cost efficient to restore the beach? I fail to understand what your believe you are losing. You lose nothing but gain everything.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

"Lawsuits cost money for both sides."

Yes, they do. The mainstream public didn't seem to have an issue with that when the county sued the private property owners for customary use - which failed miserably and was more anti-property rights oriented than the topic of beach restoration.


"Would it not be more reasonable and cost efficient to restore the beach?"

Cost efficiency may be a valid way to look at the county's desire to acquire public beach via nourishment - as opposed to outright purchasing of the beach via eminent domain and the expenses associated it. But so called "critical erosion" is not a justification in itself for acquiring beach front for public use. And therein lies the root of this issue.

On the other hand, as I stated many moons ago on SoWal, the county should first focus on eminent domain efforts only on parcels where the public has relatively easy access to and obviously not the whole beach. Even if the beach is nourished years out, the ECL (private property boundary) would then be all the way to the dune line. This would still allow the public access to the beach even if some catastrophic hurricane wiped out all the sand north of the ECL. Otherwise, the public could still easily be locked out of the "nourished" beach after a direct hit.


"You lose nothing but gain everything."

There are almost 1200 parcels of private beach front property in Walton County in the possession of many thousands of owners. In case you missed my earlier post, well over 90% of these parcels refused to provide a construction easement for beach nourishment in 2015. The vast majority of beach front owners did not want it. And I'm just making an educated guess that it's still true today.

That's why they are trying to force beach nourishment upon private property owners with this new legislation, effectively not having to get permission (construction easements) from the owners. If beach front owners "lose nothing but gain everything" as you suggest, then there wouldn't be any resistance to beach nourishment as evidenced in 2015.

And I'll say it again, if the county simply waits for the next major hurricane, then maybe the beach front owners will whistle a different tune.

 

[mputnal]

"Lawsuits cost money for both sides."

Yes, they do. The mainstream public didn't seem to have an issue with that when the county sued the private property owners for customary use - which failed miserably and was more anti-property rights oriented than the topic of beach restoration.


"Would it not be more reasonable and cost efficient to restore the beach?"

Cost efficiency may be a valid way to look at the county's desire to acquire public beach via nourishment - as opposed to outright purchasing of the beach via eminent domain and the expenses associated it. But so called "critical erosion" is not a justification in itself for acquiring beach front for public use. And therein lies the root of this issue.

On the other hand, as I stated many moons ago on SoWal, the county should first focus on eminent domain efforts only on parcels where the public has relatively easy access to and obviously not the whole beach. Even if the beach is nourished years out, the ECL (private property boundary) would then be all the way to the dune line. This would still allow the public access to the beach even if some catastrophic hurricane wiped out all the sand north of the ECL. Otherwise, the public could still easily be locked out of the "nourished" beach after a direct hit.


"You lose nothing but gain everything."

There are almost 1200 parcels of private beach front property in Walton County in the possession of many thousands of owners. In case you missed my earlier post, well over 90% of these parcels refused to provide a construction easement for beach nourishment in 2015. The vast majority of beach front owners did not want it. And I'm just making an educated guess that it's still true today.

That's why they are trying to force beach nourishment upon private property owners with this new legislation, effectively not having to get permission (construction easements) from the owners. If beach front owners "lose nothing but gain everything" as you suggest, then there wouldn't be any resistance to beach nourishment as evidenced in 2015.

And I'll say it again, if the county simply waits for the next major hurricane, then maybe the beach front owners will whistle a different tune.

The resistance to beach nourishment just makes no sense to me. If you do not have a sustainable "beach" because of climate change or development on the sand dunes or both then what am I missing? Beach nourishment helps you keep your beach! Something is not adding up if we are using logic.

 

[SUP View]

The resistance to beach nourishment just makes no sense to me. If you do not have a sustainable "beach" because of climate change or development on the sand dunes or both then what am I missing? Beach nourishment helps you keep your beach! Something is not adding up if we are using logic.

Beach nourishment should be done when it is needed. But carefully. The sand that is pumped in from offshore is not linen napkin white. Some beach areas east of PC that had nourishment done look like Jersey beaches on the Atlantic. Not ideal at all. A little research will confirm the end result of implementing nourishment - helps when a storm pulls sand back to the sea, hurts when more beach is available and crowd level increases.

The folks pushing beach nourishment are only interested in more development and attracting more visitors. Really very little to do with "helping" the beach. Raise your hand if you want 30A to become an overrun Gulf Shores or Destin. Taking 35 minutes to go from Gulf Place to Grayton Beach will become the norm.

 

[James Bentwood]

The resistance to beach nourishment just makes no sense to me. If you do not have a sustainable "beach" because of climate change or development on the sand dunes or both then what am I missing? Beach nourishment helps you keep your beach! Something is not adding up if we are using logic.

In mid 200s when all the illegal seawalls and geotubes went in the owners said they didn't want government doing it they'd do it themselves. It's going to be a huge mess the government is going to have to pay 10 times to clean up and owners will sit back and watch.

 

[James Bentwood]

Beach nourishment should be done when it is needed. But carefully. The sand that is pumped in from offshore is not linen napkin white. Some beach areas east of PC that had nourishment done look like Jersey beaches on the Atlantic. Not ideal at all. A little research will confirm the end result of implementing nourishment - helps when a storm pulls sand back to the sea, hurts when more beach is available and crowd level increases.

The folks pushing beach nourishment are only interested in more development and attracting more visitors. Really very little to do with "helping" the beach. Raise your hand if you want 30A to become an overrun Gulf Shores or Destin. Taking 35 minutes to go from Gulf Place to Grayton Beach will become the norm.

The 1st Panama city beach nourishment had excellent white sand. The 2nd wasn't as good. But it's a very nice beach and very wide and very public the way it should be.

 

[mputnal]

Beach nourishment should be done when it is needed. But carefully. The sand that is pumped in from offshore is not linen napkin white. Some beach areas east of PC that had nourishment done look like Jersey beaches on the Atlantic. Not ideal at all. A little research will confirm the end result of implementing nourishment - helps when a storm pulls sand back to the sea, hurts when more beach is available and crowd level increases.

The folks pushing beach nourishment are only interested in more development and attracting more visitors. Really very little to do with "helping" the beach. Raise your hand if you want 30A to become an overrun Gulf Shores or Destin. Taking 35 minutes to go from Gulf Place to Grayton Beach will become the norm.

Helping the beach would be to not own and build on Mother Nature's sand dunes. Yet we all know that human nature wants what it wants. You got your development on a beautiful resource but you are still not satisfied so now you want people to go away. I just do not understand why you try so hard to blame everyone else except you. We all got to take the bad with the good in this life. No matter how wealthy or powerful you are we are all going to die and you can't take it with you...