Beach erosion meeting tonight-Thursday7pm

[ecopal]

Public Forum. *Please be reminded of public SWCC forum this Thursday (Oct. 20th) at the South Walton library from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. *The topic will be “Beaches, Dunes and Wetlands, Nature’s Storm Surge Defenses”. *

Speakers will be two scientists and one coastal engineer.

We’ll be discussing how beaches, dunes and wetlands perform significant storm dissipation functions, how they recover naturally from a storm event, coastal armoring, beach renourishment and other topics relating to erosion and restoration of nature’s defense systems.

[Landlocked]

I'd give anything to be a fly on the wall in that room. Do you know if there is ever a conference call involved with these meetings?

[ecopal]

you can check the SWCC website at
http://www.southwaltoncc.org
and check under "updates" for a meeting summary that maybe posted later

[Miss Kitty]

So disappointed...have to do a pickup at the airport tonight. Please fill us in ecopal!

[ecopal]

I commend the 2 scientists and the engineer who gave wonderful presentations and many thanks to the SWCC staff and volunteers for doing such a tremendous job making it happen. The Sun and the Beach Breeze newspapers both had reporters there, so watch the newstands.

I will briefly give you some highlights.

Wetlands were described as the "Rodney Dangerfields" of the natural world; they are often given no respect and are vastly under valued. They are a "speed" bump to buffer storms. Not only do they assist in attenuating flooding but they provide water storage and improve water quality. They also provide a "sink" for greenhouse gases and amelioration of climate change.

New Orlean's damage was exacerbated by massive loss of wetlands. Just in the Mississippi delta there is a loss of 24 sq. miles of wetlands each year. Over 1,900 sq. miles of wetlands have been lost in the last 100 years. Storm surge is reduced by one foot for every 2.7 sq. mile of wetlands.

Seawalls were described as a crude last century undependable and "ugly" solution that interferes with beach self renourishment and habitat. They were further labled as being a "selfish choice" of those attempting to protect their own properties. In some applications they can actually contribute to erosion. Pictures of seawalls after storms just showed a remnance of pilings standing alone on the beach.

Geotubes were briefly mentioned. The short comings of Geotubes in a storm is that the sand around them gets scoured away and the sand under them becomes liquified causing them to slide around on the beach. After a storm they can end up scattered around and sideways.

Over 200 seawalls have reportedly been approved for construction on Walton beaches. Although they are intended to be only temporary there supposedly is an outspoken constituency that are lobbying to make many of them permanent.

Beach renourishment was shown to be ineffective in offering storm surge protection. As an example: Pensacola Beach was renourished and Perdido Beach wasn't but there was no difference in erosion post hurricane. Beach scraping was also described as unhelpful in storm surge protection.

Seaside is considering a modern engineered system to protect their beaches. Sand apparently would be brought in (possibly from a few miles out in Gulf or trucked in) and put in front of dunes. Then a water permeable reinforced membrane (anchored with spikes driven down deep into the beach) would be wrapped up over the top of the sand dune and bluff by cables well anchored to landward. More sand would be added on top and sea oats planted.

The good news is that Walton beaches have not shown a lot of chronic erosion over the years. However, the bad news is that we are suffering from episodic erosion by storms. Our beaches would be expected to self renourish but this can take decades and can not fully recover until the frequency of storms decreases. Also to be considered is the interference of man made structures and destruction of wetlands on nature's renourishment process.

I would like to hear the reports of others who attended.

[Miss Kitty]

Thank you for the excellent report, ecopal.

[Smiling JOe]

I commend the 2 scientists and the engineer who gave wonderful presentations and many thanks to the SWCC staff and volunteers for doing such a tremendous job making it happen. The Sun and the Beach Breeze newspapers both had reporters there, so watch the newstands.

I will briefly give you some highlights.

Wetlands were described as the "Rodney Dangerfields" of the natural world; they are often given no respect and are vastly under valued. They are a "speed" bump to buffer storms. Not only do they assist in attenuating flooding but they provide water storage and improve water quality. They also provide a "sink" for greenhouse gases and amelioration of climate change.

New Orlean's damage was exacerbated by massive loss of wetlands. Just in the Mississippi delta there is a loss of 24 sq. miles of wetlands each year. Over 1,900 sq. miles of wetlands have been lost in the last 100 years. Storm surge is reduced by one foot for every 2.7 sq. mile of wetlands.

Seawalls were described as a crude last century undependable and "ugly" solution that interferes with beach self renourishment and habitat. They were further labled as being a "selfish choice" of those attempting to protect their own properties. In some applications they can actually contribute to erosion. Pictures of seawalls after storms just showed a remnance of pilings standing alone on the beach.

Geotubes were briefly mentioned. The short comings of Geotubes in a storm is that the sand around them gets scoured away and the sand under them becomes liquified causing them to slide around on the beach. After a storm they can end up scattered around and sideways.

Over 200 seawalls have reportedly been approved for construction on Walton beaches. Although they are intended to be only temporary there supposedly is an outspoken constituency that are lobbying to make many of them permanent.

Beach renourishment was shown to be ineffective in offering storm surge protection. As an example: Pensacola Beach was renourished and Perdido Beach wasn't but there was no difference in erosion post hurricane. Beach scraping was also described as unhelpful in storm surge protection.

Seaside is considering a modern engineered system to protect their beaches. Sand apparently would be brought in (possibly from a few miles out in Gulf or trucked in) and put in front of dunes. Then a water permeable reinforced membrane (anchored with spikes driven down deep into the beach) would be wrapped up over the top of the sand dune and bluff by cables well anchored to landward. More sand would be added on top and sea oats planted.

The good news is that Walton beaches have not shown a lot of chronic erosion over the years. However, the bad news is that we are suffering from episodic erosion by storms. Our beaches would be expected to self renourish but this can take decades and can not fully recover until the frequency of storms decreases. Also to be considered is the interference of man made structures and destruction of wetlands on nature's renourishment process.

I would like to hear the reports of others who attended.

Maybe I was catnapping in certain parts you mention, or perhaps you talked to the beach guy after the meeting. :idontno: I think you give a fair summary of the meeting. In my opinion, I think the audience was mostly focused on the beach erosion/solution, so I am disappointed that the topic held only 1/3 of the time for the evening.

Ecopal was hinting at it, but I will state it directly. The beach guy, engineer, stated that Walton County does have eposodic erosion as opposed to chronic. Eposodic is due to storms. I did find it interesting that to the east of Seaside, the beach has withered while the beach to the west, in SoWal, has grown. Seaside has remained mostly unchanged as for gain or loss since ...? I cannot remember the date, maybe 1971? Anyway, the engineer stated that Seawalls stop the movement of the beach and dunes. The whole thing is a system and extends and includes the sandbars some 800' out into the Gulf. Seawalls prevent the back and forth movement. The biologist says that seawall prevent wildlife from being able to survive. The engineer says that renourishment of beaches is like paint on a building. The storms will remove the sand, and will not protect the property from storms. You will need to "repaint" after each storm. Another option that can work to save beaches is retreat, but he did not talk about it too much, because he knows that too much money is on the Gulf front, and it will not be considered. It is too late, perhaps. He was a very informative, but he still does not have the answers as to what to do. He hates seawalls. He mentioned "jersification" that takes place when you have chronic erosion, which he states that we don't, and seawalls. The seawalls are eventually undermined and the sand is washed out to sea, leaving no beach. In some cases, seawalls can be shown to help a particular property, but he states that there is not enough money in Walton County to build a seawall that will work along the entire beach front. Blah, blah, blah. meeting adjourned. :( I don't know that I picked up much new info.

Good to see Commissioner Cindy Meadows attend the meeting. Clarification was made regarding temporary seawalls. The 60 day period was to apply for a permit. The temporary seawall permit would expire in June next year just in time for hurricane season. I have ten dollars that says that every temporary permit will become permanent, without exception. These people are spending around $1M to install a "temporary" seawall. Get for real. What makes anyone think that they will also pay another $750+ to have them removed in June. "What will they do, fine me $5,000?" I hope all of you are smart enough to know that the seawalls you see today, will become permanent eye sores.

[Rita]

Thanks for the update ecopal & SJ.

Was Cindy Meadows the only commissioner there? I hope the info shared doesn't fall on deaf ears!

[Smiling JOe]

Thanks for the update ecopal & SJ.

Was Cindy Meadows the only commissioner there? I hope the info shared doesn't fall on deaf ears!
Yes, she was the only commissioner in attendance. Do you really think the other schmucks give a hoot? Comm. Cuchens who is building some of the seawalls along the beach, was probably practicing for his role in the upcoming play, "Mousetrap," where he plays the cop. :shock: Sounds to real to me. It has been way too long since I read the play. Who was the killer?

I just remembered something else from the meeting. The engineer stated that the seawall's job was not to protect the property. It will not do that well with a direct hit. Rather, the job of the seawall is to protect the beach from the people and their property.

Also, he stated that if this colored dirt, like that which was illegally dumped at the Hwy 83 access a while back, will ruin the white sandy beaches forever.

[Rita]

The engineer stated that the seawall's job was not to protect the property. It will not do that well with a direct hit. Rather, the job of the seawall is to protect the beach from the people and their property.


Could you clarify this. I don't understand. :confused:

[Smiling JOe]

Could you clarify this. I don't understand. :confused:

I interpreted it to mean that the seawalls will not protect the Gulf front properties with a direct hit from a big storm. I guess the other half means that with a seawall in place, people land will not fall onto the beach under normal conditions, thereby "protecting" the beach from intrusion. :idontno: He was a bit vague in that statement.

[Beach Runner]

So, SJ, what do the people who want to protect the beach in the long term do since the politicians don't want to tick off the beachfront owners? Hire a hitman to destroy the seawalls?

Seawalls don't work from what I've seen on the Atlantic coast. Another alternative used on the Atlantic and not mentioned here is to have a concrete beach covered with sand like at The Cloister at Sea Island. This alternative needs soaker hoses to cool off the beach so beachgoers don't get blisters on their feet just walking to the beach. You don't get the natural cooling effect from the water below the sand if there's a concrete barrier in-between. It's really a hot surface. BTW it's not an acceptable alternative because of this.

[aquaticbiology]

>>>Beach renourishment was shown to be ineffective in offering storm surge protection. As an example: Pensacola Beach was renourished and Perdido Beach wasn't but there was no difference in erosion post hurricane.

But the sand lies offshore now - in pensacola, the sand that is now just off the beach is the extra, pumped-in sand, while the sand from perdido beach is the beach sand itself. - yes, you have to renourish the beach after every storm (duuh!), that's the whole point of renourishment - to give it sand to lose and not eat the real beach!

>>>Seaside is considering a modern engineered system to protect their beaches.

see above for blisters, and pocketbooks will be blistered too

no real solutions were presented? - I got as much from the unesco thing and it was for the carribean islands!

my conclusion is that I bet they don't even have property or friends in sowal - their opinion seems to be to just let all the houses fall down, then the retreat problem will solve itself! :pout: :(

[Smiling JOe]

no real solutions were presented? - I got as much from the unesco thing and it was for the carribean islands!

my conclusion is that I bet they don't even have property or friends in sowal - their opinion seems to be to just let all the houses fall down, then the retreat problem will solve itself! :pout: :(

You are correct. They do not seem to have a solution. I have been thinking of some inventions that may work to some degree, but my ideas are a dime a dozen. One of my ideas apparently has also been thought of already by the engineer that spoke at this meeting, and he is proposing it to Seaside. Sounds like they will give it a shot, but he is still in the design process.

[kurt]

Thanks for the reports guys. This is great for those of us that can't make it to all the meetings, or live out of town!

[aquaticbiology]

he is proposing it to Seaside

a'la, a tarp, covering the beach area with sand and sea oats on top - storm comes in and washes off the trucked in sand and it gets replaced and replanted, but the original beach is still there under the tarp - sounds like the land version of renourishment

permeable membrane means all water (including rain) can go right through it - and then the rain water will liquefy the sand underneath and it will slump anyway

non-permeable membrane stops all the water from going through it and the water then consequently puddles and the sand just washes off like dirt off a tarp once it rains hard

semi-permeable (hole size in microns to allow some water through but slowly) may be the way to go since the sand needs some water to hold up, but not too much that it liquefies and slumps, and heavy rain needs a way to drain off the tarp, hopefully without taking the sand with it

of course, if this were easy then there would be a solution already

[aquaticbiology]

>>>I did find it interesting that to the east of Seaside, the beach has withered while the beach to the west, in SoWal, has grown.

something there is functioning as a 'groyne':

http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/source/ero59.gif

http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/source/ero18.htm

[aquaticbiology]

I think I have the answer! I was reading the erosion thingy above and I saw it! Put the geotubes in the sea to create an artificial breakwater - sortof a artifical sand bar - the sand fills in behind it and there you go! I even remember Kurt commenting on the filling in behind a sand bar!

http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/source/ero60.gif

and

http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/source/ero61.gif

neat and simple - and the next storm may do the moving them into the sea to start the process!

[ecopal]

to SJ:
thanks for your report. You are correct about some of what I provided was from an after meeting side Q&A that I listened to.
I am glad you brought up the sand issue-it is very important because it could result in permant destructon of our famous sugar sand baches.to elaborate: the reddish sand that has been illegally put on the beach is impossible to remove once it has mixed with the pure white sand. We must all be vigilant in reporting any sand that we see being placed on the beach which is not pure white.

to Aquatic....:
In regards to what Seaside is going to do. What I provided is just a outline of an engineeering project in process so it would be inappropriate to criticize it. Also, the presenters only said it would not protect against storm surge-the coastal engineer is recommending dune renourishment.

[WLD]

For those who want to learn more, I recommend this book: "Living on the Edge of the Gulf: The West Florida and Alabama Coast" by David M. Bush, et. al. Published in 2001 by Duke University Press. It is packed with practical information from experts like the folks who spoke at this meeting.

I'm no expert, but I try to learn as much as I can. From what I can tell, the experts (who don't have a product to sell) say there is no man-made solution for storm protection. Sounds like the speakers at this session confirmed this.

The dunes protect the inland areas from storms. The dunes have been damaged in recent storms. They will heal themselves, but it takes time and they are not 'pretty' in the meantime. Dumping sand on them creates a sandpile, not a dune. When humans try to 'beautify' the dunes or stablize them with tubes, tarps, sandpiles, or whatever, we only harm Mother Nature's healing process. Putting up proper wind fencing, planting the dunes as they grow naturally, and keeping people, vehicles, and buildings off them are the only proven ways for humans to conserve dunes.

Beaches are another story. They don't protect inland areas from storms the way the dunes do, but they certainly add to the appeal of 30-A. Scraping and renourishment make them more attractive, but once we start nourishment, we'll have to keep doing it. There is justified concern that nourishment hurts the biology of the shoreline. And it's a given that sea walls destroy natural beaches.

My opinion: The beach and dune 'solutions' proposed are positioned as storm protection, but they're really about improving aesthetics quickly. We'll spend a lot of money and the next storm will wash away all the 'pretty' in minutes. Up to now, 30-A has not done much to mess with Mother Nature--unlike other Gulf Coast vacation areas that are largely man-made. We also have the special advantage of the coastal lakes, wetlands and so much parkland. Right now, we have an opportunity to keep things natural and market the area this way--or to become just another man-made resort area. Why not spend our money to be unique?

A hodgepodge assortment of dune and beach 'solutions' beach-by-beach seems like a recipe for disaster. Any ideas about how to make this a county or 30-A issue?

[Miss Kitty]

I can certainly agree with WLD on one thing here....everyone I have spoken to here (WC) has spoken of the need to make things "pretty" and stablize the dunes. I have called them on the "pretty" since I am more concerned with long term effects than aesthetics (sp?). I am sure they have property owners here that only look at the immediate "eyesore" and are trying to appease them. That said, there are probably a thousand stories up and down the beach of people and developers trying to "save" the dunes and their homes...and no clear cut answer.

[gotothebeachmom]

I can certainly agree with WLD on one thing here....everyone I have spoken to here (WC) has spoken of the need to make things "pretty" and stablize the dunes. I have called them on the "pretty" since I am more concerned with long term effects than aesthetics (sp?). I am sure they have property owners here that only look at the immediate "eyesore" and are trying to appease them. That said, there are probably a thousand stories up and down the beach of people and developers trying to "save" the dunes and their homes...and no clear cut answer.

We heard the same at our HOA meeting today. We are all in agreement here. We want to do the right thong for the long term. That was amazing that we had one issue we all agreed on.

[Miss Kitty]

We heard the same at our HOA meeting today. We are all in agreement here. We want to do the right thong for the long term. That was amazing that we had one issue we all agreed on.

That's great to hear! I had forgotten this was your HOA weekend! Your avatar is spicy!

[Smiling JOe]

to Aquatic....:
In regards to what Seaside is going to do. What I provided is just a outline of an engineeering project in process so it would be inappropriate to criticize it. Also, the presenters only said it would not protect against storm surge-the coastal engineer is recommending dune renourishment.

Yes, he did recommend dune renourishment, but he was also quick to mention that it was like painting a house - it needs to be done often, after major storms, in order to be effective at keeping the homes, and beach. The renourished dunes will wash away with the next big storm, unless much time goes by before then, giving the plants plenty of time to take deep roots. The engineer knows that dune renourishment will not "protect" against a big storm, thought it will act as a sacrificial offering against smaller storms.

[Smiling JOe]

I can certainly agree with WLD on one thing here....everyone I have spoken to here (WC) has spoken of the need to make things "pretty" and stablize the dunes. I have called them on the "pretty" since I am more concerned with long term effects than aesthetics (sp?). I am sure they have property owners here that only look at the immediate "eyesore" and are trying to appease them. That said, there are probably a thousand stories up and down the beach of people and developers trying to "save" the dunes and their homes...and no clear cut answer.

I think most are trying to save the homes. If they were trying to save the dunes, they would not have built directly on top of them.

[ecopal]

I just heard today that Geotubes are being considered by many Gulf front developments. I was also told that in order to install them they dig a 5 foot hole in the beach to put them in. Yikes! Can anyone confirm that?

Regarding beach renourishment: At least one of the presenters said that it would not help provide meaningful protecton from storm surge. However, the coastal engineer did plan to bring in sand to build the dune as one component of a complex multi ply layering and wrapping project to protect the bluffs at Seaside.

That "Seaside Layering Proposal"or "Multi Layer Wrapping Proposal" seems the best of a lot of bad options. I hope they do it just to see if it works! Even if it doesn't hold up to a storm at least it would probably have minimal negative consequences such as contibuting less to the after storm beach debris.

It could also be said of the 'Geotubes' is that they also may not be as harmful -except digging a hole to put them in-or as ugly as the massive seawalls now being built.

Ideally I agree with WLD-let nature renourish the beaches-but then we would have to adopt a "retreat" strategy which would amount to removing buildings that are too close to the Gulf ( and in immediate danger of being washed away) inorder to facilitate natural renourishment. I will let WLD propose that at the next County Commssion meeting, and I may clap in support if I feel especially brave at the moment.

[Miss Kitty]

If I remember correctly, the pitch at WC was to dig 2 ft. below sea level to place the Protectube.

[Miss Kitty]

Dam*, people....high tide is a biatch! We need some beach and quick! One time the water came in so fast...and only 8-10 feet from the toe of the dune!!!! Other than that, it was a beautiful sunset. HMM saw Molly on the beach for the first time! Yes, we DO follow the rules on that! I played dune nazi and I must say I am SOOOO tired of irresponsible ADULTS! They looked at me like I had on a PURPLE WIG OR SOMETHING!!! I took some pics of the most beautiful sky...this place is heaven on earth!

[Smiling JOe]

I just heard today that Geotubes are being considered by many Gulf front developments. I was also told that in order to install them they dig a 5 foot hole in the beach to put them in. Yikes! Can anyone confirm that?...
That "Seaside Layering Proposal"or "Multi Layer Wrapping Proposal" seems the best of a lot of bad options. I hope they do it just to see if it works! Even if it doesn't hold up to a storm at least it would probably have minimal negative consequences such as contibuting less to the after storm beach debris. ...

From the photos which I have seen (Kurt posted), it does appear that a large trough is dug prior to placing the geotubes.


Maybe you are comparing the netting to the number of boards. The engineer says that the layers of material that he would use would be about one inch thick. I wonder if you have ever tried to pull a leftover tent out of the sand? :idontno: If this stuff washes onto the beach, we will never get it removed. Less debris? - I could debate that. If you want to see if something works, test it in small sections on a research beach.

[aquaticbiology]

Ideally I agree with WLD-let nature renourish the beaches-but then we would have to adopt a "retreat" strategy which would amount to removing buildings that are too close to the Gulf ( and in immediate danger of being washed away) inorder to facilitate natural renourishment. I will let WLD propose that at the next County Commssion meeting, and I may clap in support if I feel especially brave at the moment.

:clap_1: I wasn't even brave enough to say it! But now that you've opened the can...The real answer for the county, of course, is to let the houses fall into the gulf, after the homeowners expend great expense to prevent it (and keep raising their taxes the longer they hang on to the edge), and then charge the homeowner heavily for debris removal once the house dies fall in, then the impoverished homeowner will lose all their money, and thus lose their clout within the county and will humbly accept rebuilding away from the gulffront. Oh, yeah, and cancel all their insurance in the meantime. Seriously, I feel for you guys that are on the brink of disaster, but, like an old comedian once said about the starving millions in Bangladesh, we really should be sending them U-hauls instead of bags of rice.

[ecopal]

Aquatic..: I essentially agree-- all of us 'sowallers" should show up at the up coming county commision meeting and demonstrate solidarity on this issue and stop this seawall/geotube maddness.

SJ says>>>>>" I wonder if you have ever tried to pull a leftover tent out of the sand? If this stuff washes onto the beach, we will never get it removed."<<<<
That is a great argument IN FAVOR of the effectiveness on the Seaside Layering/wrapping proposal: "never be removed " is something you could not say about any of the other options. And it is doubtful that the remnants of the Seaside intervention would wash up on someone elses beach.

I really don't want you to think I am an adament proponent of the Seaside proposal, but if beach restoration is not going to be left up to nature then I am just looking for better options than seawalls and geotubes.

I admire your idealism, but in our current politcal-economic climate I don't feel it is realistic--but I do share and support your concerns.

Where did you hear the Seaside covering was going to be one inch thick? Please elaborate.

[Smiling JOe]

Aquatic..: I essentially agree-- all of us 'sowallers" should show up at the up coming county commision meeting and demonstrate solidarity on this issue and stop this seawall/geotube maddness.

SJ says>>>>>" I wonder if you have ever tried to pull a leftover tent out of the sand? If this stuff washes onto the beach, we will never get it removed."<<<<
That is a great argument IN FAVOR of the effectiveness on the Seaside Layering/wrapping proposal: "never be removed " is something you could not say about any of the other options. And it is doubtful that the remnants of the Seaside intervention would wash up on someone elses beach.

I really don't want you to think I am an adament proponent of the Seaside proposal, but if beach restoration is not going to be left up to nature then I am just looking for better options than seawalls and geotubes.

I admire your idealism, but in our current politcal-economic climate I don't feel it is realistic--but I do share and support your concerns.

Where did you hear the Seaside covering was going to be one inch thick? Please elaborate.

Yes, I know my thoughts are more idealistic rather than possible giving personal ownership of expensive property along the Gulf. I, too, am trying to think of reasonable solutions for all parties, but I keep coming back to zero. I am not an engineer, but I keep my scientific wheels turning all the time.

Regarding the approx. 1" Seaside covering, it was not stated with words, but at the meeting held at the Library, Celeste Cobena asked the engineer how thick the material would be and the engineer held up his fingers and showed a distance of space of about 1" between his index finger and his thumb. He never mentioned the thickness verbally. He did say it would be done in layers, so I don't know if he was refering to total thickness of all the layers or the thickness of each layer. The meeting was way too short for me.

I think Kurt once mentioned on this board that since the gov't allowed the property owners to build directly on top of the dunes, the gov't now has responsibility to try and help those people. There is much truth in that, but I am p.o.'d that they were allowed to build there in the first place. I will keep trying to think of new ways to help both the dune and beach systems as well as the property owners. This board is about the only forum of which I know to discuss ideas of the such. Keep the ideas coming. I know there is something better than geotubes and seawalls, we just have not thought of it yet.

[Miss Kitty]

SJ...so exactly what responsibility lies with the beach front homeowner? Ignorance is not an excuse, is it?

[Smiling JOe]

SJ...so exactly what responsibility lies with the beach front homeowner? Ignorance is not an excuse, is it?Full responsibility of the property and the surrounding property lies with the homeowners. For example, even if I don't give a crap about my property and decide to go to the edge of my yard, away from my house, and pour out a gallon or two of battery acid, I have the ability to affect the property surrounding that which I own. Also, I could be contaminating the water table which lies beneath the soil. As a property owner, I should be nurturing not only my property, but also the property surrounding me, if not directly, then indirectly. Ownership means nothing without stewardship. One the big-picture scale, we are niave to think like we often do -- I "own" this lot or that lot. The Earth was around long before man, and mankind's money is so new, that the Earth does not recognize it. The Earth needs to be the Earth sometimes. Maybe this is the case here. :idontno:

[WLD]

Y'all are cooking.

On another thread on this board, I read about the unexpected (and apparently unbudgeted) millions of new property tax dollars flowing into the Walton Co. coffers from all the pricey new real estate. And, while some of it was budgeted for infrastructure, schools, etc. it sounds like there's a lot left over.

Why not a fund to reimburse or incent owners with eroding Gulf-edge land to vacate?

Compensation would have to be fair--given that the dunes and beaches of Walton Co. have been moving landward for 100 years and hurricanes are not a new phenonmenon. If you own Gulf-front real estate, you must assume some of the risk of loss.

A buy-back wouldn't have to be completely funded by the County. FEMA and other federal and state agencies also have reimbursement programs.

Compared to most other beach communities, SoWal is still relatively undeveloped. Would building retreat be extremely painful? No doubt about it, but certainly a lot less than in Destin or Panama City Beach. Is it worth it? Guess we need to decide.

Quoting the book I mentioned earlier, "Gulf coast residents must make a choice. In the long run, in a time of rising sea level, decreasing sand supplies, and decreasing funding, they can have beaches, or they can have shorefront buildings on beachless armored shores or shorter-lived artificial beaches. Having both buildings and beaches will be difficult and very costly. If we opt in favor of buildings, the beaches will be lost--as, ultimately, will be the buildings."

[Smiling JOe]

WLD, :clap_1:

[aquaticbiology]

Amen! :clap_1:

All the old adages - The earth dosen't recognise borders. There's no such thing as a natural fence. Ingnorance is no excuse from responsibility under the law.

or -

Give them 10 cents on the dollar under emminent domain, or even worse, make the dune-built houses illegal by law, then raze 'em and charge the owners to do it!

[Miss Kitty]

In order to gain more info concerning the matter of beach front property, erosion and what the heck to do about it, I would really like to hear from some of those property owners. I hope someone in that category could speak of their situation and how they are handling the stress and what they consider the prudent thing to do.

[aquaticbiology]

Why not a fund to reimburse or incent owners with eroding Gulf-edge land to vacate?
...
Would building retreat be extremely painful?
...


would those who built on top of the dunes continue to live in walton county? or would it become a 'regulation relaxation' war between the counties like the Hundai plant became between the states.

I think the county has a plan to appear to go along with the homeowners, meanwhile letting nature run its course and then (oops!) when they fall in anyway give 'em a bailout to build on top of some other dune and repeat the process indefinately and collect as much tax money from them as their deep pockets can hold. :(