Legalizing seawalls

I believe part of the problem is that (even IF properly done and uncompromised) armoring amplifies the effect of the water on other properties.

The seawalls and geotubes I examined as they were constructed will stand against erosion from the small storms, but not the big ones.

IMO, once again the issue is building things where one really shouldn't be building them. Ma Nature will win every time.

I believe part of the problem is that (even IF properly done and uncompromised) armoring amplifies the effect of the water on other properties.

The seawalls and geotubes I examined as they were constructed will stand against erosion from the small storms, but not the big ones.

IMO, once again the issue is building things where one really shouldn't be building them. Ma Nature will win every time.

Yes, Ma Nature will win every time. And with this type of attitude, man would never have gone to the moon. In this case, it may not be a battle with Mother Nature but that doesn't enter one's head does it? I've now gotten as ridiculous as possible so its my last post on the subject.

...common sense? seems to say where the water isn't lapping the armoring, and the armoring can't even be seen, little damage is occurring...

Today. This summer? Next?

Murray, do you really believe that over 400 people are totally stupid? What people were told they could do in 2005 and what they are being told they can do today are two entirely different situations. We can't rewind 50 years and, yes, it would solve a lot of issues if we could.

Andy, rather than thinking that 400+ people were stupid, I tend to lean toward the thought that the County leaders at the time didn't know how to handle the situation. They had no experience of such things in the past and didn't have any leadership, so they winged it. The individuals who wanted to protect their property acted in their own best interest and hoped for the best. Some truly attempted to follow the rules while others looked to their neighbors who were setting examples (following the masses). At the time, there didn't seem to be much time for research to see the potential damage of building seawalls. Rather, people put more emphasis on not losing their homes and upland property. (IMO, that doesn't make someone stupid.) If you remember, we had erosion from storms in 2004 and 2005, and even more damage was predicted in 2006, so people were operating in panic mode.

I did attend all of the county meetings about armaments and beach sand, and from what I could tell, there were many people erecting seawalls which wouldn't be allowed to stay according to the DEP. That has not changed, and may be the reason why many seawalls still don't have the permits. It made no sense to me that someone would spend that much money on something that at the time was only temporary at best. I watched the walls being built and asked myself, how much is it going to cost them to have the walls removed when their temporary walls have to come down? Also, what contractor is going to risk damaging a home by trying to pulll those deep seawalls out of the earth? Pulling them out will surely make the homes unstabile.

I don't see how the rules have changed since then. What the DEP was requiring seemed to be ignored by people erecting seawalls. It certainly didn't help that many people were listening to a county commissioner who was building the seawalls, and may not have fully understood the requirements.

Partly right and partly wrong. There were many who ask what they could do and were misinformed or misled on every level. There were some who didn't ask or went on the "forgiveness" assumption.
Now, no one wants to really address the issue sensibly, IMO. There has never been this type of armoring constructed in the U.S. or elsewhere that I am aware of. It is strictly for structure protection, not even close to the water and buried under tons of sand. Where is the erosion factor? I am not a marine scientist but common sense seems to say where the water isn't lapping the armoring, and the armoring can't even be seen, little damage is occurring, but of course I could be wrong.

Andy, you know I love you man, but I must disagree. You only need to walk down half those 69 steps and look either direction to note how much of that bank is already gone. What is that drop off like right now? 15 feet! More? How much more will come down this year in the storms coming before that seawall is exposed?

I don't understand all the wording going on in the proposed bill, but aren't there some questions about costs incurred being shifted to taxpayers who may not have agreed with the armoring in the first place.

I don't hide my opinion regarding turtles and I haven't completely made my decision regarding homes being so close to the gulf, but I do have an opinion when it's my tax dollars.

Who understands and can speak to the money shift to tax payers this bill might cause?

Andy, you know I love you man, but I must disagree. You only need to walk down half those 69 steps and look either direction to note how much of that bank is already gone. What is that drop off like right now? 15 feet! More? How much more will come down this year in the storms coming before that seawall is exposed?

I don't understand all the wording going on in the proposed bill, but aren't there some questions about costs incurred being shifted to taxpayers who may not have agreed with the armoring in the first place.

I don't hide my opinion regarding turtles and I haven't completely made my decision regarding homes being so close to the gulf, but I do have an opinion when it's my tax dollars.

Who understands and can speak to the money shift to tax payers this bill might cause?

I have no idea what the proposed language in the bill would be, Ash. I haven't seen the bill or any of the proposed wording. I understand there is some tweaking of the language in the bill before it is introduced, if it is introduced at all.
As for the drop off. You walk the beach often enough to know that not only does the shoreline change constantly, so does the slope of the dunes, even those created by the replacement of the sand lost during Dennis. It is true our cliff will never look the same as it did before Dennis but it is a lot better than if we had done nothing at all.
As for your tax dollars. I completely agree. The only cost of which I am aware, are the ones incurred by the beachfront property owners and mine and all others was substantial. I certainly don't expect anything back from the state or county, and to the best of my knowledge, none have been requested by our group.
One more thing. We were told by our engineer that over time the slope of the replaced sand would reach a degree of about 2:1. It would appear that is what has happened. I see no great degree of deterioration in the amount of sand covering the wall, only an increase in the slope of the dune. But the degree of slope at this point is in the eye of the beholder.

The angle of repose for dry sand is around 30 degrees so odds are quite good that is the slope.

P.S. Hitting a 1:2 slope (26.5 degrees) with massive underpinnings and hundreds of thousands of dollars isn't exactly a marvel of engineering. The laws of physics dictate a max 30 degree slope every time. ;-)

I certainly don't expect anything back from the state or county, and to the best of my knowledge, none have been requested by our group.

This is the part I find astonishing; that anyone who built on sand, next to the sea, would expect any amount of money from the govt. What justification could there possibly be?

a direct cat 3 hurricane will silence both sides and show the folly of seawalls

Won't even take a direct cat 3 - I've seen some great scour from 2s and below.