ecopal said:
surprised? if i was one of the owners who did not follow due process when installing a wall, i too would be screaming about the new 250k that i am now facing. i'm sure we'll be hearing, 'i didn't know'...the gun was loaded.
jr
Seawalls
- Thread starter Blake
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
surprised? if i was one of the owners who did not follow due process when installing a wall, i too would be screaming about the new 250k that i am now facing. i'm sure we'll be hearing, 'i didn't know'...the gun was loaded.
jr
Excerpt from an article written in the late 1990's: Army Corp of Engineering Destroys Another Beach:
"Most of the repair is futile: more hand-wrestling with God along the shore.
"The emblem of the United States Corps of Engineers," writes Graham [Wade Graham, author of New Yorker Article "Beachless], "is, fittingly enough, a fortified castle: what began for the purpose of national defense against human invaders has, over the years, become a military campaign against natural forces."
Graham traces the roots of the Corps' war against nature. They begin with construction of "battlefield fortificiations" in the Revolutionary War expanding in "subsequent conflicts...to include the construction of defense against naval threats and the management of navigable waterways. By the 1820s, the Corps was building jetties and seawalls...In this century, the Corps has spent billions of dollars to deploy and maintain its arsenal of engineered solutions to natural depredations on all the country's shorelines."
As to truly strengthening beaches, the Corps' taxpayer-supported efforts to strengthen the coastline does, in fact, the opposite, declares Graham. He cites the work of coastal geologists--including Pilkey [Duke University Geology Professor]--who have found that "while hardened structures may save buildings, it actually accelerates beach erosion, bringing about the gradual disappearance of the natural resource that inspired people to build there in the first place."
He quotes Pilkey as saying the work the Corps of Engineers has been doing along the coasts of the U.S. involves a "fundamental misunderstanding of the beach."
He relates Pilkey's findings that "far from needing protection...beaches are protection--the continent's defense against the sea. The beach performs a kind of judo: it absorbs storm assaults by changing its shape, then rebuilds itself during the periods when waves are relatively gentle. Pilkey notes that a beach's set of responses to changes in the sea are so subtle and effective, so seemingly intelligent, that geologists call it `beach behavior.'"
"During storms, the beach gives up to waves sand that has been stockpiled in dunes, and the waves then carry the sand seaward and drop it on the bottom. This additional sand makes the beach flatter, and thereby forces waves to shoal and break earlier, thus lessening erosion.When calm seas return, the sand that has been moved offshore is slowly carried landward again by the orbital motion of the gentler waves, allowing the beach's defense to rebuild."
"Once a beach becomes `engineered," writes Graham, "it is, in effect, prohibited from responding to storm waves by flattening and becoming progressively steeper, thus increasing wave energy instead of asborbing it."
But the Army Corps of Engineers and beach house owners don't want to know about the realities of beach dynamics. They'd rather just continue to use millions and billions of dollars of tax money to try to bail out houses built where structures have little long-term future: on the beach."
----------------------------
Read the last couple paragraphs of the link "Beachless," I couldn't have said it any better myself.
"Most of the repair is futile: more hand-wrestling with God along the shore.
"The emblem of the United States Corps of Engineers," writes Graham [Wade Graham, author of New Yorker Article "Beachless], "is, fittingly enough, a fortified castle: what began for the purpose of national defense against human invaders has, over the years, become a military campaign against natural forces."
Graham traces the roots of the Corps' war against nature. They begin with construction of "battlefield fortificiations" in the Revolutionary War expanding in "subsequent conflicts...to include the construction of defense against naval threats and the management of navigable waterways. By the 1820s, the Corps was building jetties and seawalls...In this century, the Corps has spent billions of dollars to deploy and maintain its arsenal of engineered solutions to natural depredations on all the country's shorelines."
As to truly strengthening beaches, the Corps' taxpayer-supported efforts to strengthen the coastline does, in fact, the opposite, declares Graham. He cites the work of coastal geologists--including Pilkey [Duke University Geology Professor]--who have found that "while hardened structures may save buildings, it actually accelerates beach erosion, bringing about the gradual disappearance of the natural resource that inspired people to build there in the first place."
He quotes Pilkey as saying the work the Corps of Engineers has been doing along the coasts of the U.S. involves a "fundamental misunderstanding of the beach."
He relates Pilkey's findings that "far from needing protection...beaches are protection--the continent's defense against the sea. The beach performs a kind of judo: it absorbs storm assaults by changing its shape, then rebuilds itself during the periods when waves are relatively gentle. Pilkey notes that a beach's set of responses to changes in the sea are so subtle and effective, so seemingly intelligent, that geologists call it `beach behavior.'"
"During storms, the beach gives up to waves sand that has been stockpiled in dunes, and the waves then carry the sand seaward and drop it on the bottom. This additional sand makes the beach flatter, and thereby forces waves to shoal and break earlier, thus lessening erosion.When calm seas return, the sand that has been moved offshore is slowly carried landward again by the orbital motion of the gentler waves, allowing the beach's defense to rebuild."
"Once a beach becomes `engineered," writes Graham, "it is, in effect, prohibited from responding to storm waves by flattening and becoming progressively steeper, thus increasing wave energy instead of asborbing it."
But the Army Corps of Engineers and beach house owners don't want to know about the realities of beach dynamics. They'd rather just continue to use millions and billions of dollars of tax money to try to bail out houses built where structures have little long-term future: on the beach."
----------------------------
Read the last couple paragraphs of the link "Beachless," I couldn't have said it any better myself.
WOW !!!
Where do I start??
1. We'll start with AMP22.
From your first post...
"So suck it up and resign yourself to possibly losing your house. Don't blame us or nature, but the county commissioners of today and yesterday." No one is blaming you for anything. No one is blaming nature. You have completely missed the purpose of my post. That is, all this unsubstantiated negative flow of so called infromation regarding why property owners should or should not be allowed to protect their property. It IS their property to protect (IF ALLOWED BY DEP RULES) and at the OWNER'S expense.
BMBV - I take it (pun intended) that anytime you replace natural habitat with artificial habitat or modified habitat it is considered "take". Possibly.
I believe that the knee jerk reactions were by county officials and gf homeowners to do wahtever they could as fast as they could whether they really knew what they were doing or not and whether knowing it would really help or not. It was panic and it was let's do whatever we want and ask forgiveness later. Acting in panic mode never brings good results. The argument about property rights, building on dunes, etc. shouldn't be a practical part of the argument at this point and has been covered pretty good on this board months ago.
Rather - is the right thing being done recently and now? If you walk along the beaches and see the travesty going on the answer is easily no. There was little planning and little oversight. Some seawalls may be done "right" but most are a mess. If they can be covered VERY well and deep and planted then they will look fine and not be dangerous. I'm not sure I see the same travesty you do. Again this is a matter of opinion. I'll be the first to admit there are some walls out there that I wouldn't spit on. So do you suggest that those of us who built a proper wall are not entitled to have done so? Also you use the term "dangerous" loosely. You provide no explanation as to how some or all of the walls are "dangerous". I can't imagine opening my finacial exposure to such liability if I thought the wall was "dangerous".
UNTIL they are destroyed some day in the future by a storm. And they WILL be destroyed. At that time we wll be neck deep on our beaches by the biggest mess of debris you've ever imagined. I don't want to see that or pay for removal which will never get completely done anyway as much of it will be half or completely buried. I'm growing a bit weary of those who think "ALL" walls will be "destroyed". I am confident that our particular wall will hold up under any category hurricane that's thrown at it. I've done too much research and performed my own calculations under worse case scenarios. Problem then is the building won't survive the wind damage (built long before current codes). On the OTHER HAND, I can guarantee that some walls will fail after the next Dennis. It is a shame that in today's world of standardization and enforcement, some bad walls were indeed constructed... some due to owners being cheap and others due to some contractors (and engineers) not truly understanding how to construct a solid wall and some due to just bad contractors. There are as many types of walls out there as there are a...oles, I mean opinions.
Take or leave my opinion, but it is the height of arrogance for gf owners to think they are "improving" or "repairing" the beaches for the rest of us. We may not be paying for your seawalls but we will PAY for your mistakes for generations. Hmmmm... "height of arrogance". First of all, no mention of "improving" or "repairing" the beach for "the reset of us" was made. Second, you suggest beach renourishment at the county level "would have made a lot more sense for all the gf owners and the county to put all the money and effort into a beach nourishment project for eastern Walton County." How is the fact that sand is trucked in to "renourish" the dunes any worse than what you suggest? Are you suggesting dune renourishment is a bad thing and beach renourishment is a good thing? Regarding "pay for your mistakes for generations"...You're reaching a little here. Make sure your slate in life is absolutely clean regarding this concept before pointing fingers.
It would have made a lot more sense for all the gf owners and the county to put all the money and effort into a beach nourishment project for eastern Walton County. You imply that gulf front owners have that kind of clout to tell the county and DEP and Fish and Wildlife what to do. Sorry, we don't.
In summary I believe your posts reflect a lot of personal frustration with your perception of the current beach situation.[/I]
2. From PMD8..
You ask why it matters if there's a wall behind the dune? http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-337/construction.html
Coastal Construction - Role of Human Activities - An Overview of Coastal Land Loss: With Emphasis on the Southeastern United States
I fully understand the concept of wave reflection and resulting increased erosion. Are you aware that during Dennis, that there were plenty of reflected waves bouncing off the near vertical bluff. I have actual video documenting this action. I'm not sure how this is much different from a retaining wall. Perhaps that's why we lost about 20 additional feet of land after Dennis. The study may not be applicable unless it applies to our high elevation and the near "vertical bluff" effect that is created after a hurricane. Again, don't overlook the fact that the elevation of our 20 or so miles of beach is UNIQUE to the entire Gulf of Mexico within the U.S. However I respect your post as it was at least a "factual" reference. Thank you.
BUT.....in a later post you said In regard to "all the opposition is from those who don't have beachfront property", the beach is public, so we all own beachfront property. That's news to me since we own to the mean high water line. But I'll let you slide on that one.
3. From Smiling Joe...
...To simply say, refrain from negative comments will never help to communicate and educate.
Most diplomatic. :clap_1:
4. From EcoPal...
The purpose of a seawall is only to protect a private house with no concern to what it does to the beach. Interesting point. The statement assumes that the wall will cause more erosion than if no wall existed. We'll have opportunity (I believe) to quantize this a little better after the next hurrincane IN OUR UNIQUE AREA.
Seawalls will just interfere with natural beach renourishing and contribute to erosion of the beaches and to neighboring beach front homes. I believe that those who did not install a wall was because one of 3 reasons: a) they were not entitled to one based on DEP rules or b) they could not afford it or c) they believed a wall would not hold up after the next storm. Yes there are situations where there may be accelerated erosion but again we'll have a chance soon enough to quantize this.
Some beach front owners who put in seawalls are having second thoughts now that they have found out that they have opened themselves up to litigation and penalties from federal and state environmental agencies not to mention their neighbors whose property could be damaged by the beach scouring caused by a seawall. There are very clear rules within DEP that specify who can and cannot have retaining walls. Those of us who followed the rules, should not be exposed to litigation. Regarding the incidental take issue, I found out today, that it really is not going to be that big a deal for each property owner in terms of expense. Yes, there are plenty of walls that were constructed that were done so without being allowed so by the DEP rules. That's a risk they are taking ("their back is against the wall").
Many beach front owners who put in seawalls have also permanently damaged the beach by digging into the solid subsurface which will destabilize the beaches and make them more prone to erosion in the next storm. This is a very interesting point and it may well be true. But my guess is that a particular propery owner is better off with a wall than without.
Some beach front owners, fortunately a minority, also brought in dark sand to save money. And also because the county approved the color (even though I don't necessarily agree with the county). The sand was originally intended to "shore up foundations" only, but things changed somewhat I guess. I also had a problem with some of the dark colored sand brought in.
Kudos to owners who have showed good judgment by using quasi natural means such as bringing in high grade white sand, planting it with sea oats, and installing sand fencing. I agree to an extent. We did the same thing after Ivan...all for nothing after Dennis. Lots of money and effort wasted.
We all need to call our County Commissioners to make sure the beach front owners who put in seawalls aren?t successful in their blitz of political pressure to make the county subsidize their seawall folly with tax money. Don't worry too much about this. It won't happen.
I was at the meeting Monday night where the county generously offered to act as facilitator for the seawall owners in their application process for permanent permits. Rather than thanking the county for their support some of them were complaining that the county was not going to pay for it and also protect them from litigation. As I said before, some people built walls knowing that they were not entitled to have a wall in the first place. They are the ones that should be worried regarding litigation. I agree with you that the county would be doing us gulf front retaining wall owners a favor by coordinating this effort and then "billing" the property owner based on, let's say, front footage. I would definitely be appreciative
Thanks for the post.
IN SUMMARY:
Yes there are a lot of walls that were built that technically should not have been built (again based on DEP rules). The idea is basically that if any "older" structure built on slab (pre 1985 or so) as opposed to pilings are allowed to construct a wall. A house on pilings will theoretically survive any undermining. This was somewhat apparent at Gulf Trace.
Are all of the walls going to fail? NO
Are some of the walls going to fail? Absolutely YES.
Are any of the gulf front property owners asking the county for monetary assitance? None that I know of.
Should ALL gulf front owners be blamed for the action of a few such as dark sand and shabby walls? Of course not. Should the county? Perhaps. Should DEP? Only if they approve non-qualified or sub-standard construction and design.
Should a gulf front owner do nothing to protect their property (when authorized to do so)? That makes no sense no matter how hard one would try to argue this otherwise.
Is our 20 mile stretch of beach unique as to elevation and what I see as the vertical cliff effect after a hurricane? Does this also increase erosion? I believe so based on video showing reflective waves and the fact that we lost 20 feet of property due to a storm that by all accounts was really not that strong. It just ate the bottom of the bluff and sand sloughed down.
Oh yea, like it or not, the beach in many areas is not public, period. Is this legally enforced? Mostly no but I have seen an occasional "private property" sign down on the beach. Would this change if beach renourishment were to take place? According to the lawsuit that took place, looks like a portion of the beach will then become legally public. I have no problem with this and actually support this. Now the question - should taxes pay for this? I believe so as the beach is the top of the food chain when it comes to the local economy (in case no one knew) ;-)
That's it for me regarding this debate unless someone has a specific question or if I have new specific info that I think might be interesting for everyone. Our wall is in, application applied for and I'm looking forward to hopefully a season where we can all can be just "beach lovers" again.
Thanks to everyone for reading and hopefully understanding "our" point of view!!!!
Where do I start??
1. We'll start with AMP22.
From your first post...
"So suck it up and resign yourself to possibly losing your house. Don't blame us or nature, but the county commissioners of today and yesterday." No one is blaming you for anything. No one is blaming nature. You have completely missed the purpose of my post. That is, all this unsubstantiated negative flow of so called infromation regarding why property owners should or should not be allowed to protect their property. It IS their property to protect (IF ALLOWED BY DEP RULES) and at the OWNER'S expense.
BMBV - I take it (pun intended) that anytime you replace natural habitat with artificial habitat or modified habitat it is considered "take". Possibly.
I believe that the knee jerk reactions were by county officials and gf homeowners to do wahtever they could as fast as they could whether they really knew what they were doing or not and whether knowing it would really help or not. It was panic and it was let's do whatever we want and ask forgiveness later. Acting in panic mode never brings good results. The argument about property rights, building on dunes, etc. shouldn't be a practical part of the argument at this point and has been covered pretty good on this board months ago.
Rather - is the right thing being done recently and now? If you walk along the beaches and see the travesty going on the answer is easily no. There was little planning and little oversight. Some seawalls may be done "right" but most are a mess. If they can be covered VERY well and deep and planted then they will look fine and not be dangerous. I'm not sure I see the same travesty you do. Again this is a matter of opinion. I'll be the first to admit there are some walls out there that I wouldn't spit on. So do you suggest that those of us who built a proper wall are not entitled to have done so? Also you use the term "dangerous" loosely. You provide no explanation as to how some or all of the walls are "dangerous". I can't imagine opening my finacial exposure to such liability if I thought the wall was "dangerous".
UNTIL they are destroyed some day in the future by a storm. And they WILL be destroyed. At that time we wll be neck deep on our beaches by the biggest mess of debris you've ever imagined. I don't want to see that or pay for removal which will never get completely done anyway as much of it will be half or completely buried. I'm growing a bit weary of those who think "ALL" walls will be "destroyed". I am confident that our particular wall will hold up under any category hurricane that's thrown at it. I've done too much research and performed my own calculations under worse case scenarios. Problem then is the building won't survive the wind damage (built long before current codes). On the OTHER HAND, I can guarantee that some walls will fail after the next Dennis. It is a shame that in today's world of standardization and enforcement, some bad walls were indeed constructed... some due to owners being cheap and others due to some contractors (and engineers) not truly understanding how to construct a solid wall and some due to just bad contractors. There are as many types of walls out there as there are a...oles, I mean opinions.
Take or leave my opinion, but it is the height of arrogance for gf owners to think they are "improving" or "repairing" the beaches for the rest of us. We may not be paying for your seawalls but we will PAY for your mistakes for generations. Hmmmm... "height of arrogance". First of all, no mention of "improving" or "repairing" the beach for "the reset of us" was made. Second, you suggest beach renourishment at the county level "would have made a lot more sense for all the gf owners and the county to put all the money and effort into a beach nourishment project for eastern Walton County." How is the fact that sand is trucked in to "renourish" the dunes any worse than what you suggest? Are you suggesting dune renourishment is a bad thing and beach renourishment is a good thing? Regarding "pay for your mistakes for generations"...You're reaching a little here. Make sure your slate in life is absolutely clean regarding this concept before pointing fingers.
It would have made a lot more sense for all the gf owners and the county to put all the money and effort into a beach nourishment project for eastern Walton County. You imply that gulf front owners have that kind of clout to tell the county and DEP and Fish and Wildlife what to do. Sorry, we don't.
In summary I believe your posts reflect a lot of personal frustration with your perception of the current beach situation.[/I]
2. From PMD8..
You ask why it matters if there's a wall behind the dune? http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-337/construction.html
Coastal Construction - Role of Human Activities - An Overview of Coastal Land Loss: With Emphasis on the Southeastern United States
I fully understand the concept of wave reflection and resulting increased erosion. Are you aware that during Dennis, that there were plenty of reflected waves bouncing off the near vertical bluff. I have actual video documenting this action. I'm not sure how this is much different from a retaining wall. Perhaps that's why we lost about 20 additional feet of land after Dennis. The study may not be applicable unless it applies to our high elevation and the near "vertical bluff" effect that is created after a hurricane. Again, don't overlook the fact that the elevation of our 20 or so miles of beach is UNIQUE to the entire Gulf of Mexico within the U.S. However I respect your post as it was at least a "factual" reference. Thank you.
BUT.....in a later post you said In regard to "all the opposition is from those who don't have beachfront property", the beach is public, so we all own beachfront property. That's news to me since we own to the mean high water line. But I'll let you slide on that one.
3. From Smiling Joe...
...To simply say, refrain from negative comments will never help to communicate and educate.
Most diplomatic. :clap_1:
4. From EcoPal...
The purpose of a seawall is only to protect a private house with no concern to what it does to the beach. Interesting point. The statement assumes that the wall will cause more erosion than if no wall existed. We'll have opportunity (I believe) to quantize this a little better after the next hurrincane IN OUR UNIQUE AREA.
Seawalls will just interfere with natural beach renourishing and contribute to erosion of the beaches and to neighboring beach front homes. I believe that those who did not install a wall was because one of 3 reasons: a) they were not entitled to one based on DEP rules or b) they could not afford it or c) they believed a wall would not hold up after the next storm. Yes there are situations where there may be accelerated erosion but again we'll have a chance soon enough to quantize this.
Some beach front owners who put in seawalls are having second thoughts now that they have found out that they have opened themselves up to litigation and penalties from federal and state environmental agencies not to mention their neighbors whose property could be damaged by the beach scouring caused by a seawall. There are very clear rules within DEP that specify who can and cannot have retaining walls. Those of us who followed the rules, should not be exposed to litigation. Regarding the incidental take issue, I found out today, that it really is not going to be that big a deal for each property owner in terms of expense. Yes, there are plenty of walls that were constructed that were done so without being allowed so by the DEP rules. That's a risk they are taking ("their back is against the wall").
Many beach front owners who put in seawalls have also permanently damaged the beach by digging into the solid subsurface which will destabilize the beaches and make them more prone to erosion in the next storm. This is a very interesting point and it may well be true. But my guess is that a particular propery owner is better off with a wall than without.
Some beach front owners, fortunately a minority, also brought in dark sand to save money. And also because the county approved the color (even though I don't necessarily agree with the county). The sand was originally intended to "shore up foundations" only, but things changed somewhat I guess. I also had a problem with some of the dark colored sand brought in.
Kudos to owners who have showed good judgment by using quasi natural means such as bringing in high grade white sand, planting it with sea oats, and installing sand fencing. I agree to an extent. We did the same thing after Ivan...all for nothing after Dennis. Lots of money and effort wasted.
We all need to call our County Commissioners to make sure the beach front owners who put in seawalls aren?t successful in their blitz of political pressure to make the county subsidize their seawall folly with tax money. Don't worry too much about this. It won't happen.
I was at the meeting Monday night where the county generously offered to act as facilitator for the seawall owners in their application process for permanent permits. Rather than thanking the county for their support some of them were complaining that the county was not going to pay for it and also protect them from litigation. As I said before, some people built walls knowing that they were not entitled to have a wall in the first place. They are the ones that should be worried regarding litigation. I agree with you that the county would be doing us gulf front retaining wall owners a favor by coordinating this effort and then "billing" the property owner based on, let's say, front footage. I would definitely be appreciative
Thanks for the post.
IN SUMMARY:
Yes there are a lot of walls that were built that technically should not have been built (again based on DEP rules). The idea is basically that if any "older" structure built on slab (pre 1985 or so) as opposed to pilings are allowed to construct a wall. A house on pilings will theoretically survive any undermining. This was somewhat apparent at Gulf Trace.
Are all of the walls going to fail? NO
Are some of the walls going to fail? Absolutely YES.
Are any of the gulf front property owners asking the county for monetary assitance? None that I know of.
Should ALL gulf front owners be blamed for the action of a few such as dark sand and shabby walls? Of course not. Should the county? Perhaps. Should DEP? Only if they approve non-qualified or sub-standard construction and design.
Should a gulf front owner do nothing to protect their property (when authorized to do so)? That makes no sense no matter how hard one would try to argue this otherwise.
Is our 20 mile stretch of beach unique as to elevation and what I see as the vertical cliff effect after a hurricane? Does this also increase erosion? I believe so based on video showing reflective waves and the fact that we lost 20 feet of property due to a storm that by all accounts was really not that strong. It just ate the bottom of the bluff and sand sloughed down.
Oh yea, like it or not, the beach in many areas is not public, period. Is this legally enforced? Mostly no but I have seen an occasional "private property" sign down on the beach. Would this change if beach renourishment were to take place? According to the lawsuit that took place, looks like a portion of the beach will then become legally public. I have no problem with this and actually support this. Now the question - should taxes pay for this? I believe so as the beach is the top of the food chain when it comes to the local economy (in case no one knew) ;-)
That's it for me regarding this debate unless someone has a specific question or if I have new specific info that I think might be interesting for everyone. Our wall is in, application applied for and I'm looking forward to hopefully a season where we can all can be just "beach lovers" again.
Thanks to everyone for reading and hopefully understanding "our" point of view!!!!
BluMtnBchVag,
You mention that you followed DEP rules while others did not. Will you not need to apply for a permenant permit for your seawall? Also, what about the take? Will that apply to you since you followed DEP rules?
BTW, for you to be a newbie at posting, you did a great job of seperating your comments from others with the use of bold. Good job! It was easy for me to follow.
You mention that you followed DEP rules while others did not. Will you not need to apply for a permenant permit for your seawall? Also, what about the take? Will that apply to you since you followed DEP rules?
BTW, for you to be a newbie at posting, you did a great job of seperating your comments from others with the use of bold. Good job! It was easy for me to follow.
excellent post beachvagrant. thanks for taking the time to post your view with a quite level head.
- i too am concerned about the take. done legally or not, any engineering being done is bound to affect the balance of things that have been happening long before we got here. imo, the seawalls are just compounding the issue.
- i am sure many walls poorly constructed will not survive, and will end up being strewn along the coast(it would be great if they were id'd to be able to locate their origin) for taxpayer pickup. of the others that will survive, what makes me nervous is what impact they'll have on surrounding land.
- with regards to future generations. who knows? if you sewall is constructed as well as you say it is, and your house as well as you say it isn't, maybe the only thing left standing someday will be your wall. shelly's excerpt regarding the corps regarding the cyclic nature of give and take, seems to be proven by history, to be true. it may not be as quick as a sewall, but it apparently works just fine. we as humans are too proud to worry about what we're leaving as a legacy.
- regarding the near vertical bluff. at least it has the ability to repair itself(re. shelly's post), i'm not sure how the sewall will assist in natural dune rebuilding, short of what will become natural; homeowners backfilling after each hurricane season. can we sit on your sand at lowtide? ;-)
- regarding wall 'entitlement'. aren't all gf owners starting with the same set of factors? this is the confusing part for me. are some more entitled than others due to certain things? i'm sure many are hampered by money, but all are facing erosion issues, no? is it just those who followed the rules the ones who are entitled?
- the dark sand issue. what a cluster. this argument will rage for years. 'shoring up foundations' apparently is in the eye of the interpreter. will it bleach itself? will it cloud the white forever? these people bought here when it was white, they realize what makes this place magical, and yet they are driven by their pocketbooks. this, for me, is where future generations will be paying for the selfishness of a few. if they have no concience about it now, they won't in the future either. the county yayo's share the resulting blame.
- reagrding wasting of money on sand. again we're too proud. the person who built further away from the shoreline probably didn't have that expense. purely conjecture here.
- isn't the deadline for the dep permits 4/1? then we'll see who followed the rules and who didn't. and, didn't county already state they won't be leading the charge with this(i'm fuzzy here)? this will be playing out longer than next hurricane season, i'm sure.
- i agree with you, all this will be played out within the next 6 months by the upcoming hurricane season, which i fear will be as active as last year's was. either way, there will be one group who will be able to say i told you so. and, the county will be forced into action, and stop sitting on their hands. i for one would welcome some state and federal intervention here. at least the law would be made clear.
thanks again for your level headed response to the rants. we just have a different opinion.
jr
- i too am concerned about the take. done legally or not, any engineering being done is bound to affect the balance of things that have been happening long before we got here. imo, the seawalls are just compounding the issue.
- i am sure many walls poorly constructed will not survive, and will end up being strewn along the coast(it would be great if they were id'd to be able to locate their origin) for taxpayer pickup. of the others that will survive, what makes me nervous is what impact they'll have on surrounding land.
- with regards to future generations. who knows? if you sewall is constructed as well as you say it is, and your house as well as you say it isn't, maybe the only thing left standing someday will be your wall. shelly's excerpt regarding the corps regarding the cyclic nature of give and take, seems to be proven by history, to be true. it may not be as quick as a sewall, but it apparently works just fine. we as humans are too proud to worry about what we're leaving as a legacy.
- regarding the near vertical bluff. at least it has the ability to repair itself(re. shelly's post), i'm not sure how the sewall will assist in natural dune rebuilding, short of what will become natural; homeowners backfilling after each hurricane season. can we sit on your sand at lowtide? ;-)
- regarding wall 'entitlement'. aren't all gf owners starting with the same set of factors? this is the confusing part for me. are some more entitled than others due to certain things? i'm sure many are hampered by money, but all are facing erosion issues, no? is it just those who followed the rules the ones who are entitled?
- the dark sand issue. what a cluster. this argument will rage for years. 'shoring up foundations' apparently is in the eye of the interpreter. will it bleach itself? will it cloud the white forever? these people bought here when it was white, they realize what makes this place magical, and yet they are driven by their pocketbooks. this, for me, is where future generations will be paying for the selfishness of a few. if they have no concience about it now, they won't in the future either. the county yayo's share the resulting blame.
- reagrding wasting of money on sand. again we're too proud. the person who built further away from the shoreline probably didn't have that expense. purely conjecture here.
- isn't the deadline for the dep permits 4/1? then we'll see who followed the rules and who didn't. and, didn't county already state they won't be leading the charge with this(i'm fuzzy here)? this will be playing out longer than next hurricane season, i'm sure.
- i agree with you, all this will be played out within the next 6 months by the upcoming hurricane season, which i fear will be as active as last year's was. either way, there will be one group who will be able to say i told you so. and, the county will be forced into action, and stop sitting on their hands. i for one would welcome some state and federal intervention here. at least the law would be made clear.
thanks again for your level headed response to the rants. we just have a different opinion.
jr
TooFarTampa
SoWal Insider
Wow, great discussion. I like the point-counterpoint. Everyone is making excellent statements here.
I have no horse in this race but in general I dislike seawalls and fear for what they are doing to the dunes (as ecopal pointed out) and what things will look like in the event of another Dennis. However, BMBV made a point that is truer than just about anything in here:
The problem is there is no solution here, other than perhaps moving these pre-1985 structures farther back when possible. That is of course impossible to do with the larger condo-type structures. If I were a gulf front owner of a smaller house, I would like to think that I would explore that possibility first. (And some homeowners do this in other areas prone to erosion.) But then I am not so I don't know. BMBV is right in pointing out that the zoning of the beach property by county officials way back then can be blamed for all of this, though at that point the building area was likely a significant distance from the dune line. Hindsight is 20/20.
BMBV, you are as well-reasoned a poster as I can imagine. Unfortunately I do not believe every gulf front homeowner has been as thorough as you have been in making your decisions. The bottom line is, many of these are absent homeowners, wanting to do the most expedient thing as Amp22 pointed out, and were willing to just drop their projects into the hands of someone not well-versed either just so things could get done, regulations be dam*ed. I frankly don't see a lot of people doing coastal research and calculations. It just doesn't happen. (But if you think that "most" are doing what you are doing, I would like to know.) I applaud your efforts and hope things work out for you in the long and short term.
I have no horse in this race but in general I dislike seawalls and fear for what they are doing to the dunes (as ecopal pointed out) and what things will look like in the event of another Dennis. However, BMBV made a point that is truer than just about anything in here:
BlueMtnBeachVagrant said:
The problem is there is no solution here, other than perhaps moving these pre-1985 structures farther back when possible. That is of course impossible to do with the larger condo-type structures. If I were a gulf front owner of a smaller house, I would like to think that I would explore that possibility first. (And some homeowners do this in other areas prone to erosion.) But then I am not so I don't know. BMBV is right in pointing out that the zoning of the beach property by county officials way back then can be blamed for all of this, though at that point the building area was likely a significant distance from the dune line. Hindsight is 20/20.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant said:
BMBV, you are as well-reasoned a poster as I can imagine. Unfortunately I do not believe every gulf front homeowner has been as thorough as you have been in making your decisions. The bottom line is, many of these are absent homeowners, wanting to do the most expedient thing as Amp22 pointed out, and were willing to just drop their projects into the hands of someone not well-versed either just so things could get done, regulations be dam*ed. I frankly don't see a lot of people doing coastal research and calculations. It just doesn't happen. (But if you think that "most" are doing what you are doing, I would like to know.) I applaud your efforts and hope things work out for you in the long and short term.
TooFarTampa
SoWal Insider
Another thought is that if the seawalls don't work out, and I don't believe they will -- most of them will make a mess eventually -- the county is going to have to explore the issue of eminent domain, and perhaps make plans to buy back certain properties from gulf front homeowners whose land is disappearing. I think that might be inevitable, and it is a shame that no one seems to be talking about it now, because it might be the only solution that actually makes sense in the long term. Not that I wouldn't feel bad for the affected gulf front owners, but owning along the gulf is a risk, and if the government is willing or able to buy people out as needed at a reasonable cost, or trade coastal for interior land (plus make a payment on top of that), that seems to me to be a good long-term plan for the greater good of the area we love. Just MHO.
I have mentioned this idea of eminent domain on this board in the past regarding GF properties. I think the State, rather than the County would be the ones that would be able to afford that much beach property.TooFarTampa said:
Smiling JOe said:
that begs the question 'why should the county invoke eminent domain'? condemn the property, charge the homeowner with clearing it, so it's safe, and leave it at that. now the property owner has a nice piece of property to visit that's unworthy to build on. many of them may end up unbuildable anyway. i don't want to pay for that.
jr
Maybe the govt officials who allowed the property to be built upon in the first place should have to pay?John R said:
Those sonsofbitc....