Seawalls

[BeachSiO2]

The walls will fail, that is a given, and the walls will cause erosion, that too is a given.

Not picking on you JR, but as a coastal practitioner I wanted to clarify one thing I often read on sowal posts. The walls will fail IF Sowal is impacted by a storm of great enough size, speed, and duration that it exceeds the design criteria of the structure. This assumes that the walls are properly designed and constructed. There are numerous occasions around the world where seawalls were constructed that withstand extremely large wave forces with no damage to the wall or upland property. The impacts to the adjacent properties did occur however.

All this being said, I am not sure how many people paid the amount of money it would cost to construct the properly engineered structures that would survive some of the larger storms.

 

[DuneLaker]

Bet those seawalls large and strong enough to withstand catastrophic disaster are attractive. The public will eventually be stuck with this bill. Current homeowners will have moved on - up, down or sideways. Commissioners who allowed this will also be long gone or collecting public retirement checks.

 

[John R]

Not picking on you JR, but as a coastal practitioner I wanted to clarify one thing I often read on sowal posts. The walls will fail IF Sowal is impacted by a storm of great enough size, speed, and duration that it exceeds the design criteria of the structure. This assumes that the walls are properly designed and constructed. There are numerous occasions around the world where seawalls were constructed that withstand extremely large wave forces with no damage to the wall or upland property. The impacts to the adjacent properties did occur however.

All this being said, I am not sure how many people paid the amount of money it would cost to construct the properly engineered structures that would survive some of the larger storms.

B, not picking back, but the walls will eventually fail. The proper strength, direct hit, weak link, etc. everything is temporary. If I built a wall at my house, or your old house, it would be there a lot longer than the one in front of BMBV's house. Someone will pay.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Not picking on you JR, but as a coastal practitioner I wanted to clarify one thing I often read on sowal posts. The walls will fail IF Sowal is impacted by a storm of great enough size, speed, and duration that it exceeds the design criteria of the structure. This assumes that the walls are properly designed and constructed. There are numerous occasions around the world where seawalls were constructed that withstand extremely large wave forces with no damage to the wall or upland property. The impacts to the adjacent properties did occur however.

All this being said, I am not sure how many people paid the amount of money it would cost to construct the properly engineered structures that would survive some of the larger storms.

If the company erecting the seawalls didn't even take the time to put the walls on the right property, I cannot see them taking the time to construct the walls as they are designed to be constructed. I can show you examples of several points of potential failure of seawalls in SoWal. At the time they were being constructed, it was under rush, rush, rush circumstances.

 

[John R]

BMBV, I think this topic should have a sticky so it always stays in the forefront of people's minds. It seems(to me) that you would have it just fade away, akin to whatever our persident doesn't want to discuss anymore, and move on. In my opinion it is still a relevant topic since it is still unresolved.

What's the news with the RFV beach access? Are they behaving themselves over there?

Did your friend BMBW ever resolve the Surfrider conspiracy?

The last one was a cheap dig, I know, but topics such as these affect us all and will be current as long as there's a difference of opinion.

 

[BeachSiO2]

B, not picking back, but the walls will eventually fail. The proper strength, direct hit, weak link, etc. everything is temporary. If I built a wall at my house, or your old house, it would be there a lot longer than the one in front of BMBV's house. Someone will pay.

I understand and I agree. I am just saying that ones that were designed by a qualified professional and constructed as designed should survive their design storm. However, like everything else they will have to maintained just like painting a house, replacing a roof, paving a road, etc. Not to mention when some people heard what a bigger wall would cost, often they allowed price to dictate which level of protection they sought.

If the company erecting the seawalls didn't even take the time to put the walls on the right property, I cannot see them taking the time to construct the walls as they are designed to be constructed. I can show you examples of several points of potential failure of seawalls in SoWal. At the time they were being constructed, it was under rush, rush, rush circumstances.

Actually, there were less than a handful that I am aware of that were designed and construction was overseen by a true coastal engineer. I will be watching those to see the difference in construction methods and quality if/when they are directly impacted.

 

[Smiling JOe]

pressure treated lumber will rot. I can show you photos of my dock, if you don't believe me. There are plenty of pressure treated wooden seawalls in SoWal. The County cannot even get the owners to cover the seawalls with sand as required, or keep the 2:1 slope, so I have no idea how the owners will pay money to upkeep the actual walls.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Dune erosion and seawall failure, Melbourne Shores, FL:
Melbourne Shores, FL (upper photo: post-Frances, 9/8/04; bottom: post-Jeanne, 9/29/04): The seawall on the right survived Hurricane Frances, but failed during Jeanne. Note the extreme dune erosion where the front face of the dune retreated landward to the pool. (U.S. Geological Survey photos.) [larger version]

In the before and after photos above, it is interesting to see that the properties without seawalls, didn't lose much land at all, where as the properties with seawalls lost much land, at great expense.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I found the post applicable - if the beaches from the CCL to the water are public, obviously no private seawalls can be built on them!

Not that the fact that they were constructing a seawall on public beach stopped anyone lately.

Scooterbug, I generally gloss over your posts because they are very predictable (and consistent - which is a good trait!).

BUT, I have to admit you have a good eye!!

You saw the "CCL" reference in the article where noone else made any mention of. It initially jumped out at me like a 15 foot alligator but I just waited to see if anyone else would say something about it.

Somebody's got things all screwed up....
1. Either Mr. David Sell from TDC meant to say ECL;
2. Mr. David Sell said ECL and Sean Boone transcribed it as CCL;
3. OR the bloody county has truly gone mad and it's time to give SJ all my property.

My bet is either 1 or 2.

So please rest well tonight knowing that the wall is entirely on my property.

You can't believe everything that's in print.

 

[NotDeadYet]

Probably this belongs in another thread, but the "CCL" from The Sun article is discussed here so I will post here. I think they must mean "ECL" - that is the line established for beach renourishment. In some places the CCL runs right through buildings or is across the street (inland) from the beach. They can't possibly mean CCL. But it raises a point that I keep harping on, and I wish the reporter had more clearly noted that the Costa del Sol sign is on a renourished beach, as is the Surfside private beach sign. Where is the ECL, anyway? Anyone know?? There is no physical marker that I know of. I find it fascinating that these Miramar owners are trying to claim a renourished beach as a private beach. It is as if they have gotten tired of waiting for the court decision and just decided, oh well, hey, let's just make our own ruling and claim it for ourselves. The county said they can't remove the Surfside sign because it references a state statute (bogus) so I wonder what will be their excuse for allowing the Costa del Sol sign to stay up?