Study on Geotubes in Texas

[Beach Runner]

Funny what a lot of people fail to understand is there will be no beach behind these seawalls. We won't be able to walk down the beach anymore; just swim along the walls.

Exactly. Just like at Fripp where some of our friends live. At high tide, you have to scurry for the nearest beach walkover or drown. Once when we were visiting our friends, my husband had his watch torn off his wrist while trying to escape the high-tide surge. He could have drowned.

 

[aquaticbiology]

geotubes and seawalls will have to stay in until fall after turtle season regardless

ran out of popcorn

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

if the renourshment was on a large enough scale, and the beaches made deep enough, wouldn't the walls be under so much sand to be rendered moot?

jr

I've been meaning to respond to this but all the action is on the "other thread". I just checked back here.

You have made a very valid point above. I have considered the very same idea.

Chew on this .........
What's the difference between a nice crisp green salad and a stinking pile of garbage?
.
.
timing.

Beach nourishment probably won't occur for a while in our area. Just one season is too long for us without protection at the rates hurricanes are hitting us lately.

But if the nourishment was eventually done, then do you think it wise to remove all retaining walls or just let them be (out of sight - out of mind)?

I think you probably could guess my position. We don't need more tractors, back hoes dump trucks, etc. just to dig out the walls. I sincerely believe they will cause very little, if any, problems with the environment assuming we have beach renourishment done (I guess I'm really speaking for my wall and similar ones).

By the way, I'm still trying to picture how effective beach nourishment will be when it comes to our high bluffs. I'm not sure they can pile enough sand that high to offer significant protection for the bluff. I'm guessing most of the sand will go to "beach renourishment" not "bluff renourishment". In that case, the walls still would serve a purpose.

I'd like to hear your take of the above.

Thanks,
BMBV

 

[aquaticbiology]

if i remember my materials science correctly, sand slurry can be shot (force pumped) up to about 32 feet high at a 2:1 slope (which means a minimum of 64' beach at about a 45 degree angle to the top) - just like making a sand castle with a 50/50 water-sand mixture and a pump and pipe delivery system - whether the sand sand would stay up there is another problem

 

[Smiling JOe]

By the way, I'm still trying to picture how effective beach nourishment will be when it comes to our high bluffs. I'm not sure they can pile enough sand that high to offer significant protection for the bluff. I'm guessing most of the sand will go to "beach renourishment" not "bluff renourishment". In that case, the walls still would serve a purpose.

I'd like to hear your take of the above.

Thanks,
BMBV

You are correct. The beach nourishment is not property nourishment for GF property owners, according to Brad Pickle. At the location of the existing beach nourishment operations, they are extending the beach about 100' out to sea and raising the existing height of the beach by about 8 verticle feet, maybe high enough to keep waves off of the cliff bases, but most likely it would be washed from the east west push of any storms coming into close proximity.

 

[John R]

based on the only history i have with renourishment, cape may, i'm thinking that 100 feet won't do much. and based on aquaticbiology's math, it would leave quite an incline in some areas.

cape may's beach was extended at least 500' for it's entire length, and the sand is quite different. we will need to resign ourselves to the same. but, like our neighbors to the west, i'm sure some lawsuits would popup regarding who's beach it is, and who's paying for it, and who can walk on it. sidenote, my house in telluride is on the river. my property extended out under the water to half the width of the bottom. i never told someone they couldn't boat or fish there. 'private' beaches activate my reflux.

bmbv, if the county delivered enough sand that the walls were burried under many feet, no i wouln't want to see them removed. it would be throwing good money after bad, and more lawsuits would surely popup. i think erosion of steel and composite leeching into the ground would be a problem though.

i'm a little cloudy on your terminology, bluff=dune? bluff=dune sliced in half from last storms?

jr

 

[Bdarg]

http://www.fema.gov/library/prepandprev.shtm#hurricanes

There are several good publications free from FEMA at this site advising how and why and why not etc. for building in high hazard areas. The sum total of all of these documents is not to tell you where to build, but more to warn you about building in high hazard areas.

Dune or bluff are a little confusing to me as well, both are more concerned with aesthetics of the situation than the situation itself. From a construction stand point it is more of two names for a pile of sand, one, the dune, slightly more stable than the other. What amazes me on both this thread and the other is that someone buys a house on top of a big sand pile and never notices the living ocean in the backyard. We have all built small scale models of this also know as sand castles, and we are accepting of what happens to them when the big wave comes in. Houses and dunes, unfortunately are the same thing only on a much larger and more expensive scale. The other difference is that the wave of scale only comes with hurricanes. Buying beach front is a calculated risk. Trying to interrupt nature by throwing money in the ocean is another gamble.

Governments get in as much trouble telling people what they cannot do as they do for telling them what they can--and when was the last time we saw a politician with a backbone and a brain. Just because the government did not tell someone not to build a house on a big pile of sand, does not make it safe or the government's fault. Freedom to exercise our right of free speech is coupled with our freedom to do less than smart things.

 

[Bob]

If you wish to view a "study" in contrast concerning beach erosion, take a good look at the renourishment of New Smyrna Beach,Fl vs. Kiawah Island SC. Having just spent a week oceanside at Kiawah, I observed most all the homes are built well back of the dune line. The beach is about 100 yards wide at low tide. The sand is hard packed and flat. Walkovers are contructed so as not to disturb the dunes. Contrast that scenario with New Smyrna Beach. Every part of the beach containing seawalls has been so severely eroded, that the current renourishment project was needed. Homes up and down the beach were built directly on the sand dunes, not behind them. Seawalls are everywhere. New Smyrna Beach has sustained no direct hurricane strikes, yet everywhere there are seawalls or dune-top homes, the beach was virtually gone. What was once a beach so wide and level that cars were allowed, now looks like, well what else but South Beach or Walton County. Everthing put up in Walton County to stop erosion{walls,tubes,rocks} just aggravates the problem. The state would better to spend it's money giving fair market value for all the homes perched on the dunes. I volunteer to be the appraiser!!!!!

 

[ecopal]

If you wish to view a "study" in contrast concerning beach erosion, take a good look at the renourishment of New Smyrna Beach,Fl vs. Kiawah Island SC. Having just spent a week oceanside at Kiawah, I observed most all the homes are built well back of the dune line. The beach is about 100 yards wide at low tide. The sand is hard packed and flat. Walkovers are contructed so as not to disturb the dunes. Contrast that scenario with New Smyrna Beach. Every part of the beach containing seawalls has been so severely eroded, that the current renourishment project was needed. Homes up and down the beach were built directly on the sand dunes, not behind them. Seawalls are everywhere. New Smyrna Beach has sustained no direct hurricane strikes, yet everywhere there are seawalls or dune-top homes, the beach was virtually gone. What was once a beach so wide and level that cars were allowed, now looks like, well what else but South Beach or Walton County. Everthing put up in Walton County to stop erosion{walls,tubes,rocks} just aggravates the problem. The state would better to spend it's money giving fair market value for all the homes perched on the dunes. I volunteer to be the appraiser!!!!!

Thank you for sharing your observations.
They certainly paint a bleak picture for the future of Walton beaches.

If you are convinced that seawalls are so harmful what would you suggest Walton county do about the "temporary seawalls"?
Would make the owners remove them at their own expense?
Would you only require removal of certain ones that seemed to have the
greatest potential to do damage?

Your point about volunteering to be the appraiser begs the question: How do you value a property whose market value has been significantly diminished by storm damage and that is essentially unbuildable?

 

[Bob]

Thank you for sharing your observations.
They certainly paint a bleak picture for the future of Walton beaches.

If you are convinced that seawalls are so harmful what would you suggest Walton county do about the "temporary seawalls"?
Would make the owners remove them at their own expense?
Would you only require removal of certain ones that seemed to have the
greatest potential to do damage?

Your point about volunteering to be the appraiser begs the question: How do you value a property whose market value has been significantly diminished by storm damage and that is essentially unbuildable?

I don't mean to paint a bleak picture for SoWal, as the seawall situation is far less prevalent. The height of the dunes with the homes now perched on the edges would seem comical were it not all too real. I believe government to be the answer here, as the problem will only worsen until armoring of the dunes ceases. Barring some incredible luck, ultimately, many Gulf-front homes are going to be condemned. I think receiving compensation for loss to be fair, as many homeowners who built were only doing what the state allowed. Compensation should mostly be based on land value, as that value will most easily be determined. Logically, and in a perfect world, the state should renourish the beaches where it's needed and remove all the homes from the top of the dune lines. This is an expensive proposition, and it is what's best for all in the long run. I have no faith this will happen in our litigious society, as eminent domain vs. individual property rights should be well fought, being that those most able to afford legal defense to be Gulf-front owners. I would do nothing about current temporay seawalls, because it will cost the county/state greatly to fight the inevitable lawsuits. I propose to let the next storm or two illustrate the futlity of armoring a narrow beachline. When the twisted remains are lying on the beach, then the county can send the removal bill.