• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
So there is a new Florida Bill that went into effect, ironically on July 1st, 2019. As I understand it beach nourishment in Walton County was put off and stopped but not indefinitely. If and when it happens the mean high water mark moves out to a new place and beach front owners will only own to the old mean high water mark, effectively making the new mark public use according to the United States Supreme Court. Just asking.....because it could happen in Walton County. Can anyone tell me that Beach nourishment is dead and dusted forever in our County?

Looks like both the House and the Senate voted unanimously for this. Looks like the Florida Legislature is very supportive of Beach Nourishment.

2019 Bill Summaries - The Florida Senate

upload_2019-7-2_7-15-21.png
 

James Bentwood

Beach Fanatic
Feb 24, 2005
1,495
606
What I read last is that Walton County left a crack open to revisit the issue in the future. But without beachfront owners changing their tune, or being forced to accept the process, it ain't gonna happen.

What I know is that without dredge and fill we will lose our beaches because of the very development that it is needed to save. Just look at google satellite views that show wide beaches at state parks versus areas where there is development. A serious storm is going to destroy most of the structures on our beaches because we stupidly replaced dunes with man-mande structures. Beachfront owners are scared of filling the beaches because they lose the private beach issues. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Our sand moves west in Walton County because of currents. Ironically, dredge and fill in Bay County is probably helping our beach depth a bit.

Of course sea level rise will make all of this squabbling moot. Take the long view and not the greedy view beachfront owners and enjoy the beach whil eyou can.
 

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
What I read last is that Walton County left a crack open to revisit the issue in the future. But without beachfront owners changing their tune, or being forced to accept the process, it ain't gonna happen.

What I know is that without dredge and fill we will lose our beaches because of the very development that it is needed to save. Just look at google satellite views that show wide beaches at state parks versus areas where there is development. A serious storm is going to destroy most of the structures on our beaches because we stupidly replaced dunes with man-mande structures. Beachfront owners are scared of filling the beaches because they lose the private beach issues. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Our sand moves west in Walton County because of currents. Ironically, dredge and fill in Bay County is probably helping our beach depth a bit.

Of course sea level rise will make all of this squabbling moot. Take the long view and not the greedy view beachfront owners and enjoy the beach whil eyou can.

"Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face." Exactly what I was thinking James. That's the way I felt when the lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court played out. Shocked, because that was after so many storms battered our coast. That private beach ownership and the right to exclude people from the sand overpowered the need to protect property. Odd isn't it? I do disagree with the "greedy" word often labeling beachfront owners. I don't believe it is always about greed; it is often about a fierce belief that they have the unalienable right to exclude people from the dry sand based on deep seated private property rights views. It can't be denied; however, the inherent right to exclude will invariably result in higher property values because of that exclusion.
 
Last edited:

James Bentwood

Beach Fanatic
Feb 24, 2005
1,495
606
"Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face." Exactly what I was thinking James. That's the way I felt when the lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court played out. Shocked, because that was after so many storms battered our coast. That private beach ownership and the right to exclude people from the sand overpowered the need to protect property. Odd isn't it? I do disagree with the "greedy" word often labeling beachfront owners. I don't believe it is always about greed; it is often about a fierce belief that they have the unalienable right to exclude people from the dry sand based on deep seated private property rights views. It can't be denied; however, the inherent right to exclude will invariably result in higher property values because of that exclusion.
Ok I will stop using the word greedy. Or moronic.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter