Study on Geotubes in Texas

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Here is an in depth study of geotubes in Texas. I typed in "Failed Geotubes" in Google and this was the first article to come up. It is technical and in depth but basically you can jump to the end and read the list of conculsions but if you have the time it is an interesting read. Some of the photos show how horrible the beach can look with these "worms". Basically they are expensive, have to be re-covered with sand and holes repaired after every storm. And in some areas, look at the photo on page 24 there is no beach left where they were installed; same affect as seawalls.

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/coastal/2001%20final%20report.pdf

[Beach Runner]

Some key points from the article mentioned by David:

The geotubes will fail when exposed to direct wave attack making them useful only for short-term erosion control.
To prevent failure it is critical to keep the geotubes covered with sand, to maintain a beach in front of them, and to repair holes in the fabric as soon as possible.
The shoreline is currently in a retreat phase and the geotubes cannot stop the movement.
Keeping the geotubes repaired, sand covered, and vegetated requires a significant effort.
Beaches in front of the geotubes are narrower than adjacent beaches. These areas create particularly narrow beach segments that are not passable during times of moderately elevated water levels.
:bang:

[JT]

Here is an in depth study of geotubes in Texas. I typed in "Failed Geotubes" in Google and this was the first article to come up. It is technical and in depth but basically you can jump to the end and read the list of conculsions but if you have the time it is an interesting read. Some of the photos show how horrible the beach can look with these "worms". Basically they are expensive, have to be re-covered with sand and holes repaired after every storm. And in some areas, look at the photo on page 24 there is no beach left where they were installed; same affect as seawalls.

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/coastal/2001%20final%20report.pdf
Great article. Thank you

[ecopal]

Dear Dave R,
Thank you.
It is horrible to see so graphically how the seawalls and geotubes that private BF owners have put up will destroy our beautiful beaches.

What is predictable and also disturbing is that the seawall owners are pressuring the county to use tax dollars to assist them pay for their seawall environmental ”take” and the mitigation plan.

The county is already helping the beach front owners by facilitating the writing of a grant to help pay for the take and mitigation plans and currently plans to charge the seawall owners a fee. I support this facilitation.

But the seawall owners want more. Seawall owners are lobbying for a county wide “blanket plan”. This indeed would be a nice “cozy security blanket” for the seawall owners.

The “blanket plan” that the seawall owners are seeking is ”code” for placing costs for the seawall take and mitigation plan on the taxpayers .


Do we really want the county subsidizing or encouraging seawalls which are notorious for destroying beaches?

This is to be discussed at the next BCC meeting. We should all call the county commissioners to tell them what we think. You can bet many seawall owners are.

[kurt]

Does anyone know if there are requirements by the county or state to maintain sand and vegetation covering seawalls or geotubes? I have already seen edges exposed as well as bolts. What about after a storm? Is there an obligation by the property owner to clean debris, re-cover exposed portions with sand, etc. ?

What about if the property changes hands and the new property owner isn't even aware there is a buried structure? Would this need to be disclosed by the previous owner? Would possible liability be with the previous owner or the current owner?

[Smiling JOe]

Does anyone know if there are requirements by the county or state to maintain sand and vegetation covering seawalls or geotubes? I have already seen edges exposed as well as bolts. What about after a storm? Is there an obligation by the property owner to clean debris, re-cover exposed portions with sand, etc. ?

What about if the property changes hands and the new property owner isn't even aware there is a buried structure? Would this need to be disclosed by the previous owner? Would possible liability be with the previous owner or the current owner?Possibly both. I am not an attorney! If the current homeowner did no DD as part of a feasibility study, he may be liable too, even if the previous owner did not disclose. That is the case with environmental issues often times. Also included in the liability could be the engineer who designed the wall, the construction company who erected the wall, and the manufactorer of a manufactored wall.

As I mentioned last year, once a tube is exposed after a few hours of the sand washing away, the debris from the walkovers, which will be floating around, will very likely be able to rip the tubes, causing extreme damage to the tubes and thereby causing them to fail when the storm actually arrives.

Again, I'm just using a little common sense. No geotube expert here.

[SHELLY]

I suspect the county will be saddled with the tab to maintain and repair seawalls and geotubes.

The argument from the GF owners will be: (1) You (the county)"allowed" them to be built in the first place (same argument for allowing seawall protection of the GF homes that were "allowed" to be built); and (2) The beach is the cash cow of the community, without it this resort is nothing.

The dye has been cast, the seawalls and geotubes are here...this is now SoWal's future. The county needs to start assessing higher taxes (homeowners & bed) in preparation for this inevitable expense.

[Bdarg]

As a Civil Engineer I have done numerous erosion projects albeit none on the beach, but all with similarities to the one mentioned in the study. There are a few different ways to design a solution and even more ways to interpret the intent of those solutions once they are in place. Most people want hard solutions, i.e. concrete and steel, when their property is threatened by erosion, be it on the bank of a stream, or abutting the beach. They want to see something physically protecting their investment. Structures such as seawalls or lined channels are always very strongly stated short term solutions. They almost always cause more problems then they solve; just look at New Orleans. Nature has a way of reclaiming its property. Erosion occurs for basically two reasons, one is just the natural process of time as you can see in the grand canyon and the other is caused human intrusion. Nature tends to take millions of years while human caused erosion can take a very short time. Concrete and steel can be thought of as just adding more human intrusion in the mix and thus causing more long term problems. Letting nature take its course will inevitably remove the offending human intrusion of houses on dunes or paving over fields, and the end results are usually not acceptable to the property owners. Correct usage of soft structures such as geotube, geofabrics etc. is an attempt to help nature mend with the results that are desired by the community. They are generally put in as temporary measures with a long term goal of helping naturally occurring plants reestablish and secure the eroding soils. The plants and accompanying root structure armor the dunes, stream banks etc. These type projects are long term solutions, but also require a longer time for the plants to reestablish to the point of fully stabilizing the repair. There are also plenty of people out there that will put in a soft structure as if it were a piece of concrete, that is, without the long term goal of restoration in mind—only the short term protection in mind. If you go back through the report and look at the photographs you will notice that the geotubes in the study did help to prevent a lot of undercutting of the dunes, and probably have helped to keep the area in a better position for a quicker recovery and to continue to build back the dunes.

I am not about to say that geotubes are the only way to accomplish beach restoration. Grayton had good results with the sand fence and sea oats program. Ultimately that would provide a more or less all natural solution, but it takes a long time. Not building houses on the beach or dunes would be a good step too, but probably not one that property owners, nor vacationers, would like. Generally speaking if the funds can be devoted to developing a good solution rather than funding legal fights everyone wins. Regional solutions that allow a comprehensive approach are often better than a confederacy of projects where one undermines the other.

[Beach Runner]

The dye has been cast, the seawalls and geotubes are here...this is now SoWal's future. The county needs to start assessing higher taxes (homeowners & bed) in preparation for this inevitable expense.
I guess this is a stupid and naïve question, but why couldn't the county (or some official agency or administrative unit) just order the seawalls torn down and the geotubes removed?

[Mermaid]

I guess this is a stupid and naïve question, but why couldn't the county (or some official agency or administrative unit) just order the seawalls torn down and the geotubes removed?


I equally out of my league here, but I'd venture to say that the whole seawall/geotube thing will not die quietly. Not when there's so much $$ involved. Money does strange things to people. And then there's always that rare commodity that Smiling JOe mentioned: common sense. Seems to be a dearth of that, too. :bang:

[SHELLY]

I guess this is a stupid and naïve question, but why couldn't the county (or some official agency or administrative unit) just order the seawalls torn down and the geotubes removed?

They can...but they won't. REASON: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The 2 biggest motivators (as always): Fear and Greed.

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Impacts of Seawalls

copied from Surfrider site



1) Passive erosion -"Wherever a hard structure is built along a shoreline undergoing long-term net erosion, the shoreline will eventually migrate landward beyond the structure. The effect of this migration will be the gradual loss of beach in front of the seawall or revetment as the water deepens and the shoreface moves landward.... While private structures may be temporarily saved, the public beach is lost. This process of passive erosion appears to be a generally agreed upon result of fixing the position of the shoreline on an otherwise eroding stretch of coast, and is independent of the type of seawall constructed." It is evident that passive erosion will eventually destroy the recreational beach area unless this area is continually replenished. Excessive passive erosion may impact the beach profile such that shallow areas required to create breaking waves for surfing are lost (Seaside Reef).

2) Placement loss - Seawalls are placed on the beach. In many cases, construction of seawalls is on public property (beach). In Solana Beach for example most land for seawalls is leased free of charge to the property owners. This is a taking of extremely valuable public property.

3) Active Erosion - Refers to the interrelationship between wall and beach whereby due to wave reflection, storm surf zone narrowing and a thousand other processes the wall may actually increase the rate of loss of beach. This is site specific and dependent on sand input. There are varying opinions on if this effect actually exists. However, as watchdogs of the coast, until there is overwhelming evidence that this effect is not significant, many of us have opposed seawalls on this basis.

4) Public access impacts - these can be a result of passive erosion, placement loss or active erosion. Seawalls built on eroding beaches, will lead to the loss of access. Solana Beach and North County beaches are eroding.

5) Visual/aesthetic impacts - Seawalls are ugly and detract from simple pleasures as a walk on the beach.

6) Economic issues - local, state or federal subsidies or construction to protect private property, or insurance coverage. Construction is performed on State or Municipal land. The public has never been compensated for this loss of valuable property.

7) Loss of sand supplied by eroding bluffs that are armored. A minimal fee for this sand is collected from property owners for the sand that would provide beach material. Additionally, the eroded area would create a beach. We do not feel the public is sufficiently mitigated for the loss of sand and beach.

8) The most important thing to remember is that a seawall is never built to protect the beach. Rather, it is built to protect property, structures or a cliff from erosion.

[Rita]

As a Civil Engineer I have done numerous erosion projects albeit none on the beach, but all with similarities to the one mentioned in the study. There are a few different ways to design a solution and even more ways to interpret the intent of those solutions once they are in place. Most people want hard solutions, i.e. concrete and steel, when their property is threatened by erosion, be it on the bank of a stream, or abutting the beach. They want to see something physically protecting their investment. Structures such as seawalls or lined channels are always very strongly stated short term solutions. They almost always cause more problems then they solve; just look at New Orleans. Nature has a way of reclaiming its property. Erosion occurs for basically two reasons, one is just the natural process of time as you can see in the grand canyon and the other is caused human intrusion. Nature tends to take millions of years while human caused erosion can take a very short time. Concrete and steel can be thought of as just adding more human intrusion in the mix and thus causing more long term problems. Letting nature take its course will inevitably remove the offending human intrusion of houses on dunes or paving over fields, and the end results are usually not acceptable to the property owners. Correct usage of soft structures such as geotube, geofabrics etc. is an attempt to help nature mend with the results that are desired by the community. They are generally put in as temporary measures with a long term goal of helping naturally occurring plants reestablish and secure the eroding soils. The plants and accompanying root structure armor the dunes, stream banks etc. These type projects are long term solutions, but also require a longer time for the plants to reestablish to the point of fully stabilizing the repair. There are also plenty of people out there that will put in a soft structure as if it were a piece of concrete, that is, without the long term goal of restoration in mind—only the short term protection in mind. If you go back through the report and look at the photographs you will notice that the geotubes in the study did help to prevent a lot of undercutting of the dunes, and probably have helped to keep the area in a better position for a quicker recovery and to continue to build back the dunes.

I am not about to say that geotubes are the only way to accomplish beach restoration. Grayton had good results with the sand fence and sea oats program. Ultimately that would provide a more or less all natural solution, but it takes a long time. Not building houses on the beach or dunes would be a good step too, but probably not one that property owners, nor vacationers, would like. Generally speaking if the funds can be devoted to developing a good solution rather than funding legal fights everyone wins. Regional solutions that allow a comprehensive approach are often better than a confederacy of projects where one undermines the other.

Thanks for the good post Bdarg! How 'bout contributing more often?

"Mr. Rita" also works with erosion on nearly a daily basis, but not beachside.

[jdarg]

Thanks for the good post Bdarg! How 'bout contributing more often?

"Mr. Rita" also works with erosion on nearly a daily basis, but not beachside.


He can't because I am always talking.:roll: That's what he tells everybody.

[Rita]

He can't because I am always talking.:roll: That's what he tells everybody.
:rolling: Excuses, excuses!

[ecopal]

Thanks to Dave R. for the additional info on how seawalls destroy beaches.
This is very upsetting.

What is even more appalling is that our county government let BF owners put up these monstrosities.

Even worse is the county is even considering subsidizing the mitigation plan that is now required as a result of the environmental damage of the seawalls.

Below is the list of our County Commissioners to call:

Commissioner Scott Brannon
Tel: (850) 835-4860
Fax: (850) 835-4836
E-mail:* brascott@co.walton.fl.us


Commissioner Kenneth Pridgen *
Phone: (850) 834-6328
Fax: (850) 834-6385
Email: prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us

Commmissioner Larry Jones
Donna Walsinkham, District 3*Executive Assistant
Phone: (850) 892-8474
Fax: (850)892-8475
e-mail: jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us

Commissioner Ro Cuchens
(850) 835-4834.

Commissioner Cindy Meadows
Santa Rosa Beach, FL. 32459
Phone: (850) 622-3059
Fax: (850) 622-3067
e-mail:* meacindy@co.walton.fl.us

[Smiling JOe]

...
This is very upsetting.

What is even more appalling is that our county government let BF owners put up these monstrosities.
...
more upsetting to me is the looks of the beach at Blue Mtn Beach. This afternoon, the Gulf's waves were touching the base of the sand placed in front ot the seawalls. I don't rememeber there being a hurricane anywhere close to us today. :idontno: In some places east of the main access, the beach is very narrow, other places, it is fairly wide. Some trash litters the beach, but the trash from contractors of the seawalls is much, much worse. The seawall which I saw being constructed today will not hold up during a storm -- I am not a betting man, but I bet you money that it wont hold. I noticed other wooden seawalls, before being covered with sand, which had holes in them which waves will surely penetrate if the water gets high enough, and when it escapes from behind the seawall, it will take all of the sand with it. Also, I noticed a pile of concrete at the water's edge, many boards with protruding nails scattered in front of seawalls, metal banding rusting on the beach, numerous ropes, pieces of scrap wood everywhere, a broken down crane, footprints going up the sand which GF owners placed at high costs as dunes, etc, etc. One of the public accesses located adjacent to a seawalled property has the seawall coming back onto the property at the end of the wall (making a u-shaped seawall). This is because the access is not protected. Make sense to me. HOWEVER, what the phuck were they thinking not bringing it back at least as far as the cliffs which were exposed in the previous storms? That will be the first one to wash out after the first decent sized storm. I got more money to bet on that one. Blue Mtn not too long ago one of my favorite stretches of beach. Big Redfish Lake was right there with it. Now :idontno: it makes me cry to see all of the poop, and I am not talking about dog poop, nor Gulf Trace poop, but the crap left on the beach for the water to scatter down the beaches. Currently some of the view from that beach remind me of what the beach must look like in Cuba or some other third world place where people cannot afford to clean up after themselves. I don't give a crap if the dump truck is coming tomorrow -- "that sh_t ain't right," as my friend says. I took some photos, but no one on this board would want to see the crap I saw today. I feel as hestitant to share those as I did wanting to share the damage after the hurricanes.

[Beach Runner]

They can...but they won't. REASON: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The 2 biggest motivators (as always): Fear and Greed.
Well, that just stinks!

[ecopal]

Much of the sand placed in front of this newly installed seawall behind a condo just west of the regional beach access in Blue Mountain Beach has already begun to wash away. Will homeowners be able to keep sand in front of these walls or will we be left with a narrow beach bordered by a stark seawall? Will we have any beach at all?"

[Bdarg]

more upsetting to me is the looks of the beach at Blue Mtn Beach. This afternoon, the Gulf's waves were touching the base of the sand placed in front ot the seawalls. I don't rememeber there being a hurricane anywhere close to us today. :idontno: In some places east of the main access, the beach is very narrow, other places, it is fairly wide. Some trash litters the beach, but the trash from contractors of the seawalls is much, much worse. The seawall which I saw being constructed today will not hold up during a storm -- I am not a betting man, but I bet you money that it wont hold. I noticed other wooden seawalls, before being covered with sand, which had holes in them which waves will surely penetrate if the water gets high enough, and when it escapes from behind the seawall, it will take all of the sand with it. Also, I noticed a pile of concrete at the water's edge, many boards with protruding nails scattered in front of seawalls, metal banding rusting on the beach, numerous ropes, pieces of scrap wood everywhere, a broken down crane, footprints going up the sand which GF owners placed at high costs as dunes, etc, etc. One of the public accesses located adjacent to a seawalled property has the seawall coming back onto the property at the end of the wall (making a u-shaped seawall). This is because the access is not protected. Make sense to me. HOWEVER, what the phuck were they thinking not bringing it back at least as far as the cliffs which were exposed in the previous storms? That will be the first one to wash out after the first decent sized storm. I got more money to bet on that one. Blue Mtn not too long ago one of my favorite stretches of beach. Big Redfish Lake was right there with it. Now :idontno: it makes me cry to see all of the poop, and I am not talking about dog poop, nor Gulf Trace poop, but the crap left on the beach for the water to scatter down the beaches. Currently some of the view from that beach remind me of what the beach must look like in Cuba or some other third world place where people cannot afford to clean up after themselves. I don't give a crap if the dump truck is coming tomorrow -- "that sh_t ain't right," as my friend says. I took some photos, but no one on this board would want to see the crap I saw today. I feel as hestitant to share those as I did wanting to share the damage after the hurricanes.



Great signature quote S.J.
i.e.
"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience?" -- G B Shaw

If the attempts to save the Cape Hatteras Light House are any example, then both the dumped sand and the sea wall will illustrate Mr. Shaw's observation once again. Those that learned from the Hatteras lesson, or the more patient investors, will buy property a street or two back and wait for the gulf front to come to them.

[Pirate]

That is truly disturbing. How is it that these projects are allowed to slope the beach on an unuseable grade right to the waters edge? This isn't a personal sand dune, its a beach. Who in the he)) is approving these things or is it just a free for all? I sure don't want to give up the beach so someone can save a house instead of rebuilding it like it should have been done in the first place. The beach is what makes this place great, not the beach front houses. The houses can be replaced easily, the beach :idontno: Is there truly a commissioner doing these projects?

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Here is an in depth study of geotubes in Texas. I typed in "Failed Geotubes" in Google and this was the first article to come up. It is technical and in depth but basically you can jump to the end and read the list of conculsions but if you have the time it is an interesting read. Some of the photos show how horrible the beach can look with these "worms". Basically they are expensive, have to be re-covered with sand and holes repaired after every storm. And in some areas, look at the photo on page 24 there is no beach left where they were installed; same affect as seawalls.

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/coastal/2001%20final%20report.pdf

Hi Dave,

I had thorughly researched the various types of retaining walls before making my decision and influencing others to choose what I still see as the right choice.

Florida DEP paid PBS&J (engineering firm), to perform a study of ProTecTube III that was installed at Cape San Blas in 2003 and was eventually hit by Frances and Ivan.

Their conclusions were that ....

"The ProTecTube III system is not designed to protect against hurricanes and did not prevent erosion losses during Hurricane Ivan."

"Both ends of the ProTecTube III were flanked resulting in increased erosion and scalloping as a result of Hurricane Ivan. Outside the vicinity of these flanked zones, the dunes returned to a position consistent with that of the adjacent shoreline. Based on available data for the study, the beach in the area of the ProTecTube III system did not fair any better than properties adjacent to the project site."

"The ProTecTube III system did not sustain any physical damage resulting from Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricanes Frances and Ivan. The system did not appear to be twisted, ripped or deformed in any way following the storm events. Evidence of damage to other coastal armoring structures in the project region was observed, while the ProTecTube III system remained intact and undamaged."


I believe my choice for a composite (or even a properly installed vinyl) wall is superior to the ProTecTube III and similar products.

BUT, the report also says the ProTecTube survived whereas other structures fail. I believe most of these other structures that failed were mostly marginally designed and installed wood retaining walls, possibly other materials.

These tubes may sound more environmentally friendly....maybe in certain situations. But I don't believe high elevations are adequately protected by ProTecTube or similiar product unless they are stacked higher. The problem with that is that the higher they are, they further out the base has to stick out in order to provide stability.

[CastlesOfSand]

http://www.sowal.com/bb/attachment.php?attachmentid=1562&stc=1&thumb=1Pic posted by ecopal

This pic makes me really sad. :(

[Smiling JOe]

http://www.sowal.com/bb/attachment.php?attachmentid=1562&stc=1&thumb=1Pic posted by ecopal

This pic makes me really sad. :(
As sad as this one taken of the beach at Blue Mtn Beach recently?

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

http://www.sowal.com/bb/attachment.php?attachmentid=1562&stc=1&thumb=1Pic posted by ecopal

This pic makes me really sad. :(

What about the picture makes you "really sad"?

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Thanks to Dave R. for the additional info on how seawalls destroy beaches.
This is very upsetting.

What is even more appalling is that our county government let BF owners put up these monstrosities.

Even worse is the county is even considering subsidizing the mitigation plan that is now required as a result of the environmental damage of the seawalls.

Below is the list of our County Commissioners to call:

Commissioner Scott Brannon
Tel: (850) 835-4860
Fax: (850) 835-4836
E-mail:* brascott@co.walton.fl.us


Commissioner Kenneth Pridgen *
Phone: (850) 834-6328
Fax: (850) 834-6385
Email: prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us

Commmissioner Larry Jones
Donna Walsinkham, District 3*Executive Assistant
Phone: (850) 892-8474
Fax: (850)892-8475
e-mail: jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us

Commissioner Ro Cuchens
(850) 835-4834.

Commissioner Cindy Meadows
Santa Rosa Beach, FL. 32459
Phone: (850) 622-3059
Fax: (850) 622-3067
e-mail:* meacindy@co.walton.fl.us



Hey Ecopal,

Why isn't the fax or email for Ro Cuchens? All the other commissioners have fax or email. Just curious.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

As sad as this one taken of the beach at Blue Mtn Beach recently?


OK, I'll bite (not I bite for the benefit of my detractors) ;-) . What's the significance of this picture?

TIA

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Dear Dave R,
Thank you.
It is horrible to see so graphically how the seawalls and geotubes that private BF owners have put up will destroy our beautiful beaches.

What is predictable and also disturbing is that the seawall owners are pressuring the county to use tax dollars to assist them pay for their seawall environmental ”take” and the mitigation plan.

The county is already helping the beach front owners by facilitating the writing of a grant to help pay for the take and mitigation plans and currently plans to charge the seawall owners a fee. I support this facilitation.

But the seawall owners want more. Seawall owners are lobbying for a county wide “blanket plan”. This indeed would be a nice “cozy security blanket” for the seawall owners.

The “blanket plan” that the seawall owners are seeking is ”code” for placing costs for the seawall take and mitigation plan on the taxpayers .


Do we really want the county subsidizing or encouraging seawalls which are notorious for destroying beaches?

This is to be discussed at the next BCC meeting. We should all call the county commissioners to tell them what we think. You can bet many seawall owners are.

There you go again, ecopal. This thread is titled "Re: Study on Geotubes in Texas". Your post was the first to go significantly off topic. Dave R started the thread with factual report regarding geotubes in Texas. Heck, I even provided some additional information backing his observation created by an engineering company for Florida DEP regarding the Cape San Blas area. I thought this was appropriate for this post.

I appologize to Dave R for jumping on his thread to call you down on the mis-information you continue to spout in such a manner as to do nothing but create antagonism.....remember that word?

"What antagonism is that SOB BMBV talking about now??" I'll tell ya....

You said "What is predictable and also disturbing is that the seawall owners are pressuring the county to use tax dollars to assist them pay for their seawall environmental ”take” and the mitigation plan. " You have a tendancy of using absolute terms. "...the seawall owners" implies ALL seawall owners in my mind. I don't, nor my neighbors to the east, nor my neighbors to the west don't have a clue of what you're talking about. But you must be factually correct because you're everyone's ecopal.

In just your first (one sentence) paragraph, you use, questionable at least, image inducing words such as horrible, graphically, destroy. The only part I agree with in your first paragraph is "beautiful beaches".

Ecopal, I, yes me, will not not allow you continually post facts that are unchallenged and for the most part unsubstantiated. Even worse, you are accomplishing very little except for alienating me and a lot of my good BMB neighbors. Do you somehow take comfort in that? Your vendetta seems as if it's more personal than ECO-logical.

It just seems, for whatever reason, nobody really wants to "reach out and touch you". So I've appointed myself to provide some fair and balance response to your postings.

We, GF property owners, (I believe) are willing to pay for our fair share of the the take and mitigation permit. Who is telling you otherwise? Maybe I can drop them a post :D .

Ecopal, you do not know all the causes for the erosion problems, nor do you have all the answers, nor do you have the inside scoop on conspiracy theories regarding retaining wall owners and the county. OR DO YOU? If so, please share your sources.

One other statement you made above NEEDS SERIOUS ATTENTION...
You said, "Do we really want the county subsidizing or encouraging seawalls which are notorious for destroying beaches?"

Not that I agree that my retaining wall is destroying beaches, why do you insist that the county is subsidizing our retaining wall? Of course you had to throw in your aggenda "notorious for destroying beaches" in the same sentence.

Serious dialog is something I see lacking in your posts. Your posts are typically one way soapbox grandstands. OTOH, I TRY to induce dialog. I want to EXCHANGE ideas. I will not try to pass off "self perceived facts" as absolute and factual without some kind of back up.

It's very tough to tolerate some of your posts (without responding as I have) when you verbally pedal your agenda (with an alarmist flair) against "all" GF owners such as you have above without recourse.

Respectfully,
BMBV

[Miss Kitty]

As sad as this one taken of the beach at Blue Mtn Beach recently?

What is that? :confused:

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

more upsetting to me is the looks of the beach at Blue Mtn Beach. .......



Smiling Joe,

I agree with most of your assessment.

Here's how I see "it". BMB has a lot of older beach style houses. Many were built before a CCCL even existed (from what I understand). The cost basis that some of these owners have in these homes is very low. Some of those owners may not have the financial means to just throw in up to $200,000 for a decent retaining wall and sand. And don't forget, some people are just "financially imprudent" = cheap.

So.. an owner asks him or herself, why should they put in a lot of money to protect this old structure. So they don't. They look for the lowest bid for the type of wall they want.

So what happens... contractors with experience mainly in bay or land based construction now solicit jobs on the beach which require more expertise (in my opinion) that it does on the bay or land.

The contractors started off with a low bids because of (I believe) inexperience. Some owners managed to lock in these bids with a contract. What I notice is that some of these contractors became stretched out as they executed, with the large amount of work they received and also, because of inefficiency.

The speed, efficiency and professionalism of our contractor completely dwarfed (in my opinion) the majority of contractors out there. This is not just my opinion by the way.

What's the point of the above you ask?.................
I too see the same craziness in regards to material, equipment (both functioning and non-functioning) and so on.

Located east of the 83 access, I once mentioned on a post that a composite wall that was going in. The driven sheet piles looked like crooked teeth on a red neck who can't spell the word dentist (sorry if I offended anyone :lol: ). Now they have been yanked back out like bad teeth, the last I saw. Are they starting over? I'm not sure. Maybe you saw, SJ? But now the April 30th deadline is bearing down on everyone. Talking about pressure for some. If they don't finish by then, the wall may be open to destruction if we get hit during the summer before they can come back during the winter to finish.

There are good contractors and there are bad contractors. I believe a few local contractors got in over their head and simply can't perform to the level needed for a good retaining wall that is built to withstand forces of a seawall.

About your statement....
"HOWEVER, what the phuck were they thinking not bringing it back at least as far as the cliffs which were exposed in the previous storms? That will be the first one to wash out after the first decent sized storm."

Now you're sounding like me with my concern for one of my neighbor's inferior wall. In addition, because of that, I asked our contractor to "extend" the end curtain wall adjacent to the inferior wall a few more feet up to the bluff.

You'll also notice (probably buried now), that the return wall for the house just west of the 83 access went back quite a ways for the same reason you're discussing.

SUMMARY:
I believe BMB will clean up nicely, no real worries here. Just hang in there. I and my neighbors certainly have. I bought in to this area for its beauty. I still believe it's there. I will personally try to do anything I can to preserve it (believe it or not).

Today's weather was gorgeous. The beach looked gorgeous (other than the above). The tourists are upon us. Restaurants are packed again. Our retaining wall is finished. Our walkover is in. Things are looking up from my perspective.

Let's take it one hurricane season at a time. We're getting good at that. :lol:

[Smiling JOe]

Ro does not have a fax machine (seriously) and while he has an email address, Email: cucro@co.walton.fl.us, he has no idea how to use a computer, ;-) so unless someone retrieves his mail and prints it for him, he will not see it. Also, forget about Ro doing anything outside of his own interests.

[Smiling JOe]

OK, I'll bite (not I bite for the benefit of my detractors) ;-) . What's the significance of this picture?

TIAThe significance is that you will think the sand in this photo looks bright white when those geotubes get ripped open and leak all of the dirt (not to be confused with sand) onto the beaches. The sand in the photo is a far cry from the white powder which used to be on the beach. This new sand is a mixutre and includes some of the brown sand, probably not meeting the Munsel scale requirement prescribed by local Walton County Law, which was imported onto the beach.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Much of the sand placed in front of this newly installed seawall behind a condo just west of the regional beach access in Blue Mountain Beach has already begun to wash away. Will homeowners be able to keep sand in front of these walls or will we be left with a narrow beach bordered by a stark seawall? Will we have any beach at all?"


Here's just another example of the slanted view and spin you put on things. You are your own worst enemy.

Since you like to document all the gloom and doom and be an alarmist while you're at it....

1. Why didn't you photograph the beach a couple of hundred feet east of there and couple of hundred feet west of there at the same instant? If you did, your "other" pictures would have shown how unusually wide the beach was in both of those of those places compared to the one place you photographed. You know how the waterline changes shapes.

2. Why didn't you, at least, qualify the current conditions of the weather when you shot these pictures. You know damn well how unusual the conditions were that day. Without any clarification, one just assumes just another normal sunny day. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE BEACH BALLS TO MENTION IT WHATSOVER IN YOUR POSTS. It just might not be in the interest of supporting and continuing your propaganda. Imagine that.

3. You use words "Much of the sand .... has already begun to wash away." What is your definition of "Much"? Is it 50%? Is it 40%? Is it 30%? Is it 20%? Is it 10%? Please tell me. Once you do, I'll give you my estimate.

What really really really pisses me off about your post, is that you've upset CastlesofSand.....
This pic makes me really sad.


Feel better? Sleep tight. :razz:

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Ro does not have a fax machine (seriously) and while he has an email address, Email: cucro@co.walton.fl.us, he has no idea how to use a computer, ;-) so unless someone retrieves his mail and prints it for him, he will not see it. Also, forget about Ro doing anything outside of his own interests.
:floor: :lolabove:


I admit it was more of rhetorical smart-@ss type of question. No disagreement. :-)

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I suspect the county will be saddled with the tab to maintain and repair seawalls and geotubes.

The argument from the GF owners will be: (1) You (the county)"allowed" them to be built in the first place (same argument for allowing seawall protection of the GF homes that were "allowed" to be built); and (2) The beach is the cash cow of the community, without it this resort is nothing.

The dye has been cast, the seawalls and geotubes are here...this is now SoWal's future. The county needs to start assessing higher taxes (homeowners & bed) in preparation for this inevitable expense.


Shelly,

Don't worry, I'm maintaining my "maintenance free" retaining wall. :D

However, most of the walls are built on private property and are private property themselves. I would imagine if a wall weakened to the point of being a danger, the county could force the homeowner to remove it or repair it at the homeowner's expense.

If a wall failed and disappeared, the county should come up with a "standardized" cleanup fee based on footage and type of material that will be assessed back to the owner. I support that. It's another expense that forces owners to "put their money where their retaining wall is".

I don't know about the private retaining walls on public property thing. It would make sense that they would be handled to the same.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Shelly,

Now that I know what SJ's dark sand picture was all about, I realize I didn't provide a complete response. That is...

What happen's when a geotube fails? Again, it's the responsibility of the homeowner to repair.

But... if it fails in a major way, I guess SJ is inferring the darker color will "pollute" our beach. This is a problem that's not easily cleaned up (regarding the dark sand itself).

Anyone else with an idea?

[Dave Rauschkolb]

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.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

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.

Dave,

Do you think anybody here truly fails to understand that possibiliy?

I've expressed your concern in several one on one conversations as the worse case scenario...not a great image, I admit.

Since you started this thread, I had suggested to others (this thread or the other?) that renourishment is the only real practical solution. I acknowledge that a few others did say they supported beach renourishment but the "intensity" of the discussion of this VERY important soultion is a little wanting.

Did anyone read the front page article in the mid-week Destin Log regarding the partially completed beach renourishment project? Seems to be a success all the way around (so far).

I would like to hear some discussion on where we go from here. We might be beating the retaining wall issue to death.

Can we all agree on this?... Some walls will survive. Some walls will fail. Geotubes will help somewhat. Some geotubes will survive. Some geotubes will fail.

Now, Dave, do you believe in renourishment? I think this will prevent the "worse case scenario" that you and I fear.

Somehow, I wonder if some people are really not addressing the renourishment issue in a significant way because if it is successful, it makes the whole retaining wall issue a moot point. Then these threads would not be quite as fun ! ;-)

Respectfully,
BMBV

[kurt]

Dave,

Do you think anybody here truly fails to understand that possibiliy?

I've expressed your concern in several one on one conversations as the worse case scenario...not a great image, I admit.

Since you started this thread, I had suggested to others (this thread or the other?) that renourishment is the only real practical solution. I acknowledge that a few others did say they supported beach renourishment but the "intensity" of the discussion of this VERY important soultion is a little wanting.

Did anyone read the front page article in the mid-week Destin Log regarding the partially completed beach renourishment project? Seems to be a success all the way around (so far).

I would like to hear some discussion on where we go from here. We might be beating the retaining wall issue to death.

Can we all agree on this?... Some walls will survive. Some walls will fail. Geotubes will help somewhat. Some geotubes will survive. Some geotubes will fail.

Now, Dave, do you believe in renourishment? I think this will prevent the "worse case scenario" that you and I fear.

Somehow, I wonder if some people are really not addressing the renourishment issue in a significant way because if it is successful, it makes the whole retaining wall issue a moot point. Then these threads would not be quite as fun ! ;-)

Respectfully,
BMBV

I do recall DR supporting dredge and fill of all the beaches. Maybe not the best solution but a compromise which seems to be moving forward and funds will be provided for, at least for the first few times it happens.

[kurt]

Here's just another example of the slanted view and spin you put on things. You are your own worst enemy.

Since you like to document all the gloom and doom and be an alarmist while you're at it....

1. Why didn't you photograph the beach a couple of hundred feet east of there and couple of hundred feet west of there at the same instant? If you did, your "other" pictures would have shown how unusually wide the beach was in both of those of those places compared to the one place you photographed. You know how the waterline changes shapes.

2. Why didn't you, at least, qualify the current conditions of the weather when you shot these pictures. You know damn well how unusual the conditions were that day. Without any clarification, one just assumes just another normal sunny day. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE BEACH BALLS TO MENTION IT WHATSOVER IN YOUR POSTS. It just might not be in the interest of supporting and continuing your propaganda. Imagine that.

3. You use words "Much of the sand .... has already begun to wash away." What is your definition of "Much"? Is it 50%? Is it 40%? Is it 30%? Is it 20%? Is it 10%? Please tell me. Once you do, I'll give you my estimate.

What really really really pisses me off about your post, is that you've upset CastlesofSand.....


Feel better? Sleep tight. :razz:

I also find myself fighting the urge to post pictures of the worst cases. But that is what interests people and the worst photos are nonetheless valid and are pictures of reality.

The conditions of that day, while rough, are not all that uncommon. Just high surf which we have many days of they year, nowhere near the storm conditions which we have seen too much of. If nothing else the pic is an example of what we will see a lot of in the coming days. Very minor storm event in the near furure will cause boardwalks to be damaged and seawalls to be uncovered in narrow or normal stretches of beach. Not only because of natural erosion but of what is proving to be unwise lowering of beach levels by "scraping".

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I also find myself fighting the urge to post pictures of the worst cases. But that is what interests people and the worst photos are nonetheless valid and are pictures of reality.

Kurt,

The urge "to post worst pictures of the worst cases" because "that is what interests people" is COMPLETELY understood by me coming from a person like you. You operate a "for profit" business. No problem... I believe in capitalism. The more readership, the more business... plain and simple. I have no problem with anything that you post yourself personally.


The conditions of that day, while rough, are not all that uncommon. Just high surf which we have many days of they year, nowhere near the storm conditions which we have seen too much of. If nothing else the pic is an example of what we will see a lot of in the coming days. Very minor storm event in the near furure will cause boardwalks to be damaged and seawalls to be uncovered in narrow or normal stretches of beach. Not only because of natural erosion but of what is proving to be unwise lowering of beach levels by "scraping".

I beg to differ about that particular day. It was somewhat unusual. But that's more academic than the meat of the current matter. BTW very little beach scraping was done after Dennis as I think you're aware...a lot of scraping after Opal (which recovered nicely) and some after Ivan.

Ecopal is a self serving alarmist. Sorry, I know I'm not suppose to call anyone names, but if the shoe fits.....

His post (#19) on this thread was a VERY slanted attempt to support is ill conceived perception that all gulf front owners are at fault for every problem that (HE perceives) exists on the beach.

You know, although Smiling Joe and I disagree on some of these issues, he does appear to possess a sense of reasoning. On one of his previous posts he said something to the effect about "looking in the mirror" when generating his thoughts on these message boards. I applaud him for that as it certainly appears there are others who think that their sh-t doesn't stink.

Kurt, ecopal picks his own battles. Let him fight them assuming you think he is incapable of defending anything he does. If so, I understand why you jumped in the middle with the post you created above.

Kurt, for what it's worth, you have a great web site. I have web site envy. :D But I won't slam you just because of that as opposed to some others regarding gulf front porperty owners as it would seem.

[John R]

bmbv, i believe you're right with regards to the renourishment issue. it has been sidelined here due to all the discussion regarding the walls and the geotubes. i hope that the renourishment to the west will hang around through sept-nov.

i spent my summers in cape may nj, where the original(kneejerk, maybe) response to erosion was the fabrication of extremely long boulder jetty's. history has shown that jetty's will create eddies and move the sand entirely from where is was supposed to be captured. in cape may's case, to wildwood crest.

cape may has since utilized the dredge and fill method. while creating awesomely deep beaches, the sand is completely different from what we all grew up with. i think in the seawall thread, kurt(or someone) mentioned that the only suitable replacement sand is from the cut. as i'm sure we've all figured out, there's only so much down there. i'm thinking we should resign ourself to the possibility that if/when we renouresh, the sand will not be the same. could we lose our 'emerald coast' status if the new sand does not reflect the same below the water, as the current sand does?

no science here, just personal knowledge ;-)

thoughts?

[katie blue]

BMBV, with all due respect, I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not envious of gulf front owners-- we are simply concerned for the future of our beach, as I wrote in the Seawalls thread. That's all. It's our common commodity. We want to be assured that the decision to build these walls will not drastically accelerate the loss of the beach, as some evidence seems to show. If you can allay our fears, by all means do. I for one could use some peace of mind, and I'm open to hearing all sides.

And yes, I will admit I do envy your incredible gulf view. ;-) However I'll never envy the maintenance involved in keeping up a GF property. My little one story cottage across the street is very close, low stress, and easy to replace if blown away. That's my idea of beachin' it, but to each his own. Let's keep the positive dialogue flowing, it's all educational.

[pgurney]

It looks like we might know about the quantities of good sand available soon...and the areas the state is looking to approve.
A workshop will be held in late March or early April to discuss sand availability, state-designated “critically eroded” areas, and recommended project areas.
Protect Walton County Beaches (http://www.protectwaltoncountybeaches.com/Future_Initiatives.asp)

[Rita]

.........................
Since you started this thread, I had suggested to others (this thread or the other?) that renourishment is the only real practical solution. I acknowledge that a few others did say they supported beach renourishment but the "intensity" of the discussion of this VERY important soultion is a little wanting..........................
Respectfully,
BMBV

If there is $$$ and agreement to continue east with beach renourishment, what are the chances of homeowners removing their temporary "seawall" structures and letting the renourishment protect their properties?

If the beaches were to be renourished in front of the walls, would that be a waste? By this, I am asking if the renourished area might wash and erode away in front of the walls ..... what would be the benefit then? :idontno:

[kurt]

If there is $$$ and agreement to continue east with beach renourishment, what are the chances of homeowners removing their temporary "seawall" structures and letting the renourishment protect their properties?

If the beaches were to be renourished in front of the walls, would that be a waste? By this, I am asking if the renourished area might wash and erode away in front of the walls ..... what would be the benefit then? :idontno:

I don't know the answers but there is a a fear that some homeowners will sue the county to prevent dredge and fill (nourishment) as they did in the west end project going on now. This delayed the project many years. This is another reason that a free-for-all rush to armor might prove harmful, rather than a concerted and unified effort to do what is best for all.

I can't imagine any wall being removed voluntarily.

[John R]

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

[Smiling JOe]

I recently asked Brad Pickle what is next if we do renourish all of Walton Co beaches, or even just the critically eroded beaches in Walton County. He said that they would look for more sand.

Right now, they are looking for more sand. If renourishment takes place even as soon as next year, and we have storms which wash it away the following year, what next. Renourishment sounds like a decent short-term plan, but it is pointless unless done on a regular basis.

Currently, there is sand north of the Bay, but at today's costs, it is too expensive to renourish the "critically eroded" beaches. I don't think the prices will go down in the future. If renourishment continues, the County will have to lower the color standards for sand being placed on the beach, or, the TDC will have to impose greater bed taxes, or, heaven forbid, we the property owners of Walton County will be taxed for the temporary solution.

There is a long-term problem with seawalls as well as the cost of renourishment. Just my opinion. Feedback?

[kurt]

Trucking in sand only happens in relatively small amounts and is very expensive. The large dredge and fill (nourishment) is massive in scale compared to trucking in sand. It is a process that presumably would have to be repeated again and again to protect gulf front homes. No matter how much sand is added to the beaches it can be washed away to reveal walls and/or destroy structures.

[Smiling JOe]

Trucking in sand only happens in relatively small amounts and is very expensive. The large dredge and fill (nourishment) is massive in scale compared to trucking in sand. It is a process that presumably would have to be repeated again and again to protect gulf front homes. No matter how much sand is added to the beaches it can be washed away to reveal walls and/or destroy structures.It should also be noted that much of the sand under the water is not the white color that we use to see on the beach. They have yet to locate enough supply, matching the color specs, in close proximity to make it feasible

[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 :D .........
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. :D 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,
BMBVYou 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. :idontno:

[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.

[TooFarTampa]

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.

Excellent post Bob. I agree with all of it. I was thinking about the folly of building on these dunes the other day, while visiting a barrier island just north of Captiva. I was struck by the logic of the gulf-front structures -- built far back from the water, with walkovers leading the way over the small, low dune system. The homes are high on stilts, which would allow storm surge to theoretically run under the buildings. A major hurricane might rearrange the beach, yes, but the land where the buildings are is not going to disappear, since the surge would just run over the island, carve out new passes perhaps, and yes maybe knock over the buildings -- but one could rebuild.

In SoWal the high dunes/bluff system protects the vast majority of houses from storm surge or even needing flood insurance, but those waves have to go somewhere, and as we have seen they will just dig into chunks of the land and wash it away. I think in the building frenzy the county and state officials just didn't consider the unique nature of the coastline in SoWal and the ridiculousness of allowing these buildings to be perched so close to the dune line. It all starts with zoning, and yes the county and state are at fault here, and the only fair thing is to have the state buy out the people whose land may become unbuildable.

Blaming the individual gulf front owners for owning and building on the gulf is pointless. Most people who buy such homes have never given a thought to the nature of the coastline. They just want their slice of paradise. The people who need to have the understanding of the laws of nature are those who have allowed the development in the first place.

[Smiling JOe]

How do you value a property whose market value has been significantly diminished by storm damage and that is essentially unbuildable? At a very low price? :idontno:

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

At a very low price? :idontno:

SJ,

I've finally figured it all out. No need for this thread or other threads to continue any longer.

I'm buying up all first tier property not already owned by ecopal, Bob, TooFarTampa and the like that I can afford.

Then I will join their crusade and have all GF properties demolished.

Then "our" first tier properties will obviously become VERY valuable. I'm sure nobody thought of that one!! ;-)

BUT......

Then in about 15 years (with all the supposedly heightened hurricane activity predictions), the bluffs will collapse back to the edge of these properties as well.

Then when all their children (ecopal junior, Bob junior, TooFarTampa junior, Bdarg junior, etc.) inherit the properties they will become the BMBV of tomorrow. Does anyone want their children to be me tomorrow? :lol:

Where does it stop?

The line in the sand has been drawn (by a bunch of surveyors directed by county, state and federal government agencies).

Retaining walls have deservedly received bad press as of a result of their installation in places where even I agree there are serious issues. Can anyone spell BARRIER ISLANDS? I'm certain there are other scenarios where they should not be applied.

BUT no one has shown me as of today how a retaining wall will impact OUR AREA of HIGH BLUFFS. Most are guessing. I still look at the video from Hurricane Dennis and just imagine how much of a non-event this hurricane would have been if the retaining wall was in place preventing the constant cutting of the bluff by relatively small wave after small wave. It was just the storm surge was just high enough that the waves were able to reach the base of our BLUFF and chop it down and chop it down and chop it down....

It reminds me of a small chain saw taking down a Great Oak by methodically cutting into the base.

But maybe the video and my eyes deceive me and just about everyone else who has seen it.

I have promised to get pgurney a copy (I don't know him personally). His very objective approach to the entire matter impressed me. I will ask him for his honest take of what he sees. I really don't want to publicly circulate the video quite yet however.

I will ask him if he sees the same reflected wave action occurred on natural BLUFFS that I do. I will ask him his opinion on the intensity and speed of the waves that were coming ashore. I will the ask him if he thinks a retaining wall would have caused more significnant energy reflection than what I see in the video of waves reflecting off the bluffs.

I don't and never will imply that retaining walls help the "repair" process of the beach.

So, the real question is will a retaining wall in OUR AREA of HIGH BLUFFS actually make the HIGH BLUFF erosion worse than what we've already seen?

There's probably going to be more documentary on this subject than Carter has liver pills.

As a few have said, time will tell.

PLEASE let me throw this out AGAIN.....
Beach armoring is not permanent. I've said it before... The Hoover Dam IS PERMANENT. If it is shown without a doubt that retaining walls are really screwing things up that not even nourishment can fix, well they can be taken out a heck of lot faster than they went in. Again, they are not permanent. Maybe the DEP permit is.

Let's give them (and us) a chance in OUR UNIQUE AREA OF HIGH BLUFFS (there's not much choice otherwise at least for the coming season).

The worse that can happen is they work!! :D Just kidding for some of you smilie challenged observers!! I'm also kidding about about "smilie challenged observers". Can't assume everyone has a sense of humor, some times!

[GVM]

PLEASE let me throw this out AGAIN.....
Beach armoring is not permanent. I've said it before... The Hoover Dam IS PERMANENT. If it is shown without a doubt that retaining walls are really screwing things up that not even nourishment can fix, well they can be taken out a heck of lot faster than they went in. Again, they are not permanent. Maybe the DEP permit is.

Just a quick question: If the structures are temporary, when will they be removed? Thanks.

[Smiling JOe]

SJ,

I've finally figured it all out. No need for this thread or other threads to continue any longer.

I'm buying up all first tier property not already owned by ecopal, Bob, TooFarTampa and the like that I can afford.

Then I will join their crusade and have all GF properties demolished.

Then "our" first tier properties will obviously become VERY valuable. I'm sure nobody thought of that one!! ;-)


That sounds really nice, but why would those properties be desirable if there is no beach to enjoy after the storms remove all of the sand?


BUT no one has shown me as of today how a retaining wall will impact OUR AREA of HIGH BLUFFS. Most are guessing. I still look at the video from Hurricane Dennis and just imagine how much of a non-event this hurricane would have been if the retaining wall was in place preventing the constant cutting of the bluff by relatively small wave after small wave. It was just the storm surge was just high enough that the waves were able to reach the base of our BLUFF and chop it down and chop it down and chop it down....
...
I have promised to get pgurney a copy (I don't know him personally). His very objective approach to the entire matter impressed me. I will ask him for his honest take of what he sees. I really don't want to publicly circulate the video quite yet however.

I will ask him if he sees the same reflected wave action occurred on natural BLUFFS that I do. I will ask him his opinion on the intensity and speed of the waves that were coming ashore. I will the ask him if he thinks a retaining wall would have caused more significnant energy reflection than what I see in the video of waves reflecting off the bluffs.


I don't need to see the video, I was watching it happen live in person. Sure, the dune system which you call bluffs reflect the waves washing out the sand with it. It is well documented. However, there is a big difference between having a flexible and changing natural sand wall reflecting the water and having a solid, inflexible barrier reflecting the waves. If a wall cannot give (flex), that water will be reflected at a much more forceful rate, taking much more sand with it.

Also, the natural shore line is not a straight line, which makes it more absorbant in some places, thereby not allowing as strong of one big solid reflection of a wave going back to sea. It is easy to test my thought of this. No different that the technology used to design the radar absorbing designs of the Stealth Bomber. The variations in the materials are designed to absorb the waves thereby diminishing the reflection of those waves. A solid straight-line wall will definitely take out more beach than a moving dune system. Unfortunately for GF property owners, there is that cost of potentially losing all of one's property if nature is allowed to exist uniterrupted by Man.


I don't and never will imply that retaining walls help the "repair" process of the beach....


If you are not implying that, are you implying that building the seawalls is detrimental to the beach?


PLEASE let me throw this out AGAIN.....
Beach armoring is not permanent. I've said it before... The Hoover Dam IS PERMANENT. If it is shown without a doubt that retaining walls are really screwing things up that not even nourishment can fix, well they can be taken out a heck of lot faster than they went in. Again, they are not permanent. Maybe the DEP permit is.


I disagree. The Hoover Dam is not permanent. You think too much in the short term. ;-)


Let's give them (and us) a chance in OUR UNIQUE AREA OF HIGH BLUFFS (there's not much choice otherwise at least for the coming season).

The worse that can happen is they work!! :D Just kidding for some of you smilie challenged observers!! I'm also kidding about about "smilie challenged observers". Can't assume everyone has a sense of humor, some times!

Do we have a choice in the matter? You don't see me lying in front of the track hoe, do you?

I see by your smilie that you are kidding, but I get the feeling that you are more serious than you disguise. Please share with me your thoughts of the worst case scenerio you can imagine could result from the construction of the seawalls in Blue Mtn Bch.

[pgurney]

Smiling Joe gives a good description of what a lot of the literature says: hardened structures reflect more energy and increase beach erosion. On the other hand, the Corps of Engineers says that there is not sufficient data to support the idea that seawalls cause additional erosion. However, everyone in the literature seems to agree that seawalls prevent the dune systems from naturally nourishing the beaches and beaches disappear in front of seawalls without consistent artificial beach renourishment.

IMO If we're going to have seawalls and we want to keep the beaches, the state needs to approve an on-going beach renourishment program. Sources of quality sand should be identified and quantified on a regular programmatic basis so when the need arises it doesn't take 2 to 3 years to find the sand and get approval. I don't know about the affordability of this, but I personally don't see any other way if seawalls stay in our future.

The other option is to let the GF properties be expendable. I don't really see that happening, but who knows. It has in other states that prohibit seawalls.

I've continued to read up on the subject as time allows and am finding that there are no simple solutions. There are high costs attached to everything. Wow, earth shattering news right?

Hmmm, no time for further writing....I'm off for a new beach do and to Nordstrom's to pick up some Trish mascara and maybe some new sandals cuz I'm on my way down tomorrow!!! :D

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

PLEASE let me throw this out AGAIN.....
BMBV said......Beach armoring is not permanent. I've said it before... The Hoover Dam IS PERMANENT. If it is shown without a doubt that retaining walls are really screwing things up that not even nourishment can fix, well they can be taken out a heck of lot faster than they went in. Again, they are not permanent. Maybe the DEP permit is.

Just a quick question: If the structures are temporary, when will they be removed? Thanks.

You know what? I don't know. Yep... I don't know. But at a minimum, they'll exist all through "turtle season" and if removed, will be done so next winter.

This subject came up before several times. All retaining walls are temporary until they receive approval from DEP (or are at least in the process of reviewing the applications that must be sent within 60 days after the completion of the wall). The problem is I don't know what's going to happen if and when some of the applications are denied.

I really would not want to be in the middle of that scenario. All this stuff has already taken a financial toll on any of us. Don't need anymore surprises (such as being ordered to remove my retaining wall).

Hope this helps.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

That sounds really nice, but why would those properties be desirable if there is no beach to enjoy after the storms remove all of the sand?
I like the easy handouts :D .... So you're implying that even if there are no retaining walls erected, and nature takes its past and current course, that even after the bluff has receded 50 to 100 more feet, that current GF structures are destroyed and removed, that there may not be any beach left to make the newly 1st tier properties (turned gulf front) desirable?

If so, you're insinuating (maybe unintentionally) that bluffs are no worse than retaining walls as there will be no beach left either way.

If your statement is a sucker punch, I'm already whincing !! :lol:



I don't need to see the video, I was watching it happen live in person. Sure, the dune system which you call bluffs reflect the waves washing out the sand with it. It is well documented. However, there is a big difference between having a flexible and changing natural sand wall reflecting the water and having a solid, inflexible barrier reflecting the waves. If a wall cannot give (flex), that water will be reflected at a much more forceful rate, taking much more sand with it.
Saw it first hand? GF property owner? Hmmm. ;-) You crazy too? I thought only my video camera operator was the only nutty one to watch a hurricane approach. JUST KIDDING !!! Kind of wished I was here when it happened as well.

Perhaps (regarding reflecting wave intensity of a solid structure vs. bluff). But as I see it from the video, (IMHO) we're talking shades of grey not quantum differences regarding the amount of wave reflection with or without a wall.


Also, the natural shore line is not a straight line, which makes it more absorbant in some places, thereby not allowing as strong of one big solid reflection of a wave going back to sea. It is easy to test my thought of this. No different that the technology used to design the radar absorbing designs of the Stealth Bomber. The variations in the materials are designed to absorb the waves thereby diminishing the reflection of those waves. A solid straight-line wall will definitely take out more beach than a moving dune system. Unfortunately for GF property owners, there is that cost of potentially losing all of one's property if nature is allowed to exist uniterrupted by Man.
The shoreline may not be a straight line, BUT you could just about shoot a transit down the eroded bluff. It is a straight as any retaining wall. Actually straighter after some of the "lesser" walls were back filled :floor:

That's where the action is during a storm, not the normal water line on the beach.




If you are not implying that, are you implying that building the seawalls is detrimental to the beach?
Again, I'm not going to imply that because of what I saw on the video. What I am implying, is that the retaining wall may not do that much more damage to the beach than the vertical bluffs do when they are exposed.

If it's an incremental amount more erosion caused by the retaining wall, IMHO that's better than what we all experienced on the beach this past year and the year before regarding "recovery". I understand a non GF owner may not appreciate this observation.

This is not ABSOLUTE by any means but merely a logical deduction on my part based on the video. That's why we're here on the boards in the first place... to share ideas and debate / discuss them... not ram them down the throats of others.



I disagree. The Hoover Dam is not permanent. You think too much in the short term. ;-)
I do have my shortcomings !!! ;-) back at ya.



Do we have a choice in the matter? You don't see me lying in front of the track hoe, do you?

I truly don't believe I've tried to challenge anyone to do something about
"my right to build a retaining wall" to protect my non-conforming property which is in danger of collapsing from the next hurricane.

But if you do lay in front of a track hoe, I will pin up a picture of you along side of that BRAVE Chineese demonstrator who stood in front of the military tank. :D

I see by your smilie that you are kidding, but I get the feeling that you are more serious than you disguise. Please share with me your thoughts of the worst case scenerio you can imagine could result from the construction of the seawalls in Blue Mtn Bch.

Worse case.... let's see.... i hear the Jeopardy tune.... and the answer is:
I take my beach ball home and play in the bay. :D

Really, why are they renourishing the part of the beach that they are doing now? It's not due to retaining wall wave reflection damage because they didn't exist for the most part.

So let me answer your question with a question:

"What do you think the major cause of beach erosion is?"

SJ, I asked this very same question to another poster a few days ago. Their response (which totally surprised me) was something to the effect that it was off topic.

Wait a minute... am I crazy?... don't answer that yet.... did I miss something here?

Isn't the very reason all the retaining walls are going up and the current beach renourishment going on is due to EROSION?

I thought my question was very appropriate.

It would seem to me, that after the one poster said it was off-topic there would have been 100 others that would have jumped in and either asked "What is it?" OR provide an answer.

IT JUST DIED. UNBELIEVABLE!! Does everybody already know? What's up with the "no curiosity" factor?

SO.... Since you set up a worse case scenario type of question (and maybe I dodged it a little and joked about it in the past - i.e. gulf front marina... it's all in the marketing, etc.), I'll ask you (and others again):

"What do you think the major cause of beach erosion is (in Florida)?"

Please take a stab. I'm not setting you or anyone else up. Even I am a little taken back by DEP's answer, but it's there none the less (there! a hint!).

Thanks SJ !

[Smiling JOe]

I like the easy handouts :D .... So you're implying that even if there are no retaining walls erected, and nature takes its past and current course, that even after the bluff has receded 50 to 100 more feet, that current GF structures are destroyed and removed, that there may not be any beach left to make the newly 1st tier properties (turned gulf front) desirable?

If so, you're insinuating (maybe unintentionally) that bluffs are no worse than retaining walls as there will be no beach left either way.

If your statement is a sucker punch, I'm already whincing !! :lol:


Not at all. My reply to your post was refering to you buying up 1st tier properties. My point was that if the seawalls cause complete erosion of the beach, 1st tier property not be desirable. In fact, most of the local area would not be desirable. People would probably opt for BayFront property over the Gulf Front if no beach exists.

With the dune system (bluffs) are allowed to rebuild the beaches naturally, there will be beaches for a much longer period of time, ;-) although we all know it would be at Gulf Front owners' expense.

Now, I am beginning to sound like you two guys on reverb. Have I not made my point clear? Let's stop asking the same question to which the answers I have given. (speaking personally)


Saw it first hand? GF property owner? Hmmm. ;-) You crazy too? I thought only my video camera operator was the only nutty one to watch a hurricane approach. JUST KIDDING !!! Kind of wished I was here when it happened as well.

Perhaps (regarding reflecting wave intensity of a solid structure vs. bluff). But as I see it from the video, (IMHO) we're talking shades of grey not quantum differences regarding the amount of wave reflection with or without a wall.

Call me crazy.

While I don't have my own controlled lab, I may video tape my own little experiment and show you the difference.



Worse case.... let's see.... i hear the Jeopardy tune.... and the answer is:
I take my beach ball home and play in the bay. :D

Really, why are they renourishing the part of the beach that they are doing now? It's not due to retaining wall wave reflection damage because they didn't exist for the most part.

So let me answer your question with a question:

"What do you think the major cause of beach erosion is?"

SJ, I asked this very same question to another poster a few days ago. Their response (which totally surprised me) was something to the effect that it was off topic.

Wait a minute... am I crazy?... don't answer that yet.... did I miss something here?

Isn't the very reason all the retaining walls are going up and the current beach renourishment going on is due to EROSION?

I thought my question was very appropriate.

It would seem to me, that after the one poster said it was off-topic there would have been 100 others that would have jumped in and either asked "What is it?" OR provide an answer.

IT JUST DIED. UNBELIEVABLE!! Does everybody already know? What's up with the "no curiosity" factor?

SO.... Since you set up a worse case scenario type of question (and maybe I dodged it a little and joked about it in the past - i.e. gulf front marina... it's all in the marketing, etc.), I'll ask you (and others again):

"What do you think the major cause of beach erosion is (in Florida)?"

Please take a stab. I'm not setting you or anyone else up. Even I am a little taken back by DEP's answer, but it's there none the less (there! a hint!).

Thanks SJ !

Yes, you dodged a real question. Forget that I asked. I thought we were here to seriously discuss things, but I guess you don't want to play fairly in your own sandbox. I am disappointed in you.

[John R]

ok, i'm in. i went to dep's site, and i think i found what you're leading question is leading up to.

... While some of this erosion is due to natural forces and imprudent coastal development, a significant amount of coastal erosion in Florida is directly attributable to the construction and maintenance of navigation inlets. Florida has over 60 inlets around the state, many have been artificially deepened to accommodate commercial and recreational vessels and employ jetties to prevent sand from filling in the channels. A by-product of this practice is that the jetties and the inlet channels have interrupted the natural flow of sand along the beach causing an accumulation of sand in the inlet channel and at the jetty on one side of the inlet, and a loss of sand to the beaches on the other side of the inlet.


is this what you were looking for? crazy that it paralells my statement above regarding cape may. if this is indeed what you're referring to, are you implying that the panama city and destin inlets are responsible for our erosion?

i too saw dennis' and katrina's work first hand, and had the tupelo crossover torn out from under me while running back toward land. awesome power, it was like a parade of steps. every 20-30 seconds anothe set of stairs would pass by. i wonder where they all ended up?

during dennis, giving up some of my secret identity bmbv :cool:
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e53/rosenrosen15/IMG_1705.jpg

after dennis
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e53/rosenrosen15/IMG_1856.jpg

[Smiling JOe]

John R, I am not sure where the stairs ended up, but I did see a few sets of them pass by me at the public access at Blue Mtn Bch. I have a photo or two. My best guess is that the steps ended up piled up on 30A at Dune Allen, or farther west in Landlocked's favorite lake, Stallworth.

[Miss Kitty]

Read this quick...it will need to be deleted.

This Texas gal is bring only one tube to the beach...TOOTHPASTE!
Sorry ....I will leave now.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

ok, i'm in. i went to dep's site, and i think i found what you're leading question is leading up to.

... While some of this erosion is due to natural forces and imprudent coastal development, a significant amount of coastal erosion in Florida is directly attributable to the construction and maintenance of navigation inlets. Florida has over 60 inlets around the state, many have been artificially deepened to accommodate commercial and recreational vessels and employ jetties to prevent sand from filling in the channels. A by-product of this practice is that the jetties and the inlet channels have interrupted the natural flow of sand along the beach causing an accumulation of sand in the inlet channel and at the jetty on one side of the inlet, and a loss of sand to the beaches on the other side of the inlet.


is this what you were looking for? crazy that it paralells my statement above regarding cape may. if this is indeed what you're referring to, are you implying that the panama city and destin inlets are responsible for our erosion?

i too saw dennis' and katrina's work first hand, and had the tupelo crossover torn out from under me while running back toward land. awesome power, it was like a parade of steps. every 20-30 seconds anothe set of stairs would pass by. i wonder where they all ended up?

during dennis, giving up some of my secret identity bmbv :cool:
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e53/rosenrosen15/IMG_1705.jpg

after dennis
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e53/rosenrosen15/IMG_1856.jpg

John R,

OK !!! already! I take back back the "simple simon" thing that I said several days ago in more heated moments.

Honestly, congratulations for being the ONLY one to actually take the time to determine what DEP considers the major cause of beach erosion in Florida. I'm not implying that DEP's statement is the sole source for all our woes.

It's just that it's one more piece of information that everyone here should take into account before painting such a broad stroke regarding "all the negative impacts" of retaining walls. Things aren't always as black and white as some would lead you to believe.

BTW, I guess you know where all the sand is coming from for this phase of beach nourishment going on, don't you?

Truthfully, I'm not familiar with Cape May. Maybe I should reciprocate and take a look at their situation to see how it compares to ours.

Regarding the Panama City inlet... It sure would appear based on the DEP report and the fact that the "drift" is east to west, that we could be starved somewhat for sand.


IN SUMMARY:
We all need to be a little more tolerant regarding this difficult situation. The DEP reference, I would assume, probably catches a lot of people by surprise (including me when I first read it). Maybe, just maybe, it's not all the fault of gulf front property owners regarding erosion.

Thank you, John R, for giving me this spring board to make my point.

P.S. I still won't take any bull-h-t from anybody!! :biggrin:

Regards,
BMBV

[thumper]

...The DEP reference, I would assume, probably catches a lot of people by surprise (including me when I first read it). Maybe, just maybe, it's not all the fault of gulf front property owners regarding erosion.
Thank you, John R, for giving me this spring board to make my point...
However, the issue at hand is not what the DEP considers to be the current major cause of erosion. The issue is what the proliference of these new walls will do going forward to our beaches. Research points to the answer. Hell, a beach chair left at surf line overnight points to the answer.

This is why I said earlier that this question was off topic. More accurately, it's what they call a "red herring." (It's akin to saying, in 1910, not to blame those new automobiles for air pollution, since coal, after all, is the major cause of pollution.) We have to think forward. Do we take a painful (necessary) financial hit now to set up a system that research shows preserves and protects our shorelines for posterity, or do we use that money now to put out temporary solutions that, if we're lucky, might only benefit one or two generations?

BMBV, I sincerely hope you will address this question. (Sans vitriol or sarcasm.) This is a genuine concern. Thank you.

[Smiling JOe]

So what is your point, BMBV? Did I miss it? Is it that to date, seawalls have not been the biggest cause of erosion? If you would state your case, rather than running around in circles trying to make us guess it... oh, never mind -- that would make too much sense.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

So what is your point, BMBV? Did I miss it? Is it that to date, seawalls have not been the biggest cause of erosion? If you would state your case, rather than running around in circles trying to make us guess it... oh, never mind -- that would make too much sense.

Here's the way I see it.

A few weeks ago, everyone was arguing how ALL retaining walls and and the actions of ALL gulf front property owners were the sure death to the beach as we know it. I took major offense to this (as if all of you out there couldn't tell :D ). Looks like I was practically the only one on this thread to take a stand in defense of gulf front owners (in general). My sense is that most of them are a lot smarter than me and value their time much more than I do to enter into this debate when, as one poster said, "it's already in"....talking about the walls.

Regardless of what was said in these threads, (AGAIN just like "class warefare", "religion" and "abortion"), I felt that REGARDLESS of my argument and substance to back it up, that I felt that I was NOT opening the eyes of very many mis-guided people who were all too quick to slam ALL gulf front owners and their logical actions to TRY to protect their property.

Smiling JOe, I perceive you to be a person of decent reasoning and moderation. I do understand why you probably are pissed at me for my "underhanded" little game regarding "class warfare" that, BY THE WAY and FOR THE RECORD was not brought up by me, but clearly and intentionally brought up in the Pensacola News Journal. AGAIN, I apologize for the method but not for the results (at least as I and a few others see it).

Hell, at least I called you an intelligent dolphin swimming in a school of tuna. That, believe it or not, was a compliment.

I'm not hung up on "class warfare" at all. Some people, for some reason, feel comfortable in directing blame for many "problems" using that game.

I pointed out the infamous paragraph the way that I did (and hooked a lot more people than I imagined it would) because .....

If I had first brought it up that the Pensacola article said "extravagent homes... rich... well connected", I'm sure eveyone would have countered with some argument defending the article since part of the article supported "their cause". Again, as I've said before, rightly or wrongly, it would be logical to question the remainder of the article. It's called credibility. And in my mind, they lost it with that statement (and other reasons that will come to light soon enough).

But since I intentionally set everyone up the way I did, you have to admit, I believe I made my point.

And that point is that there are people who defend the turtles, sometimes more for their "own ulterior sense of satisfaction of blindly slamming gulf front property owners" than for the turtles' genuine interests.


SO with that said.....


So what is your point, BMBV? Did I miss it?
Smiling JOe, my point is that the sometimes there are more things involved in making up the total picture than a few here on these threads would have you believe.

Is it that to date, seawalls have not been the biggest cause of erosion?
I think that statement (question) is TRUE at its very core. There were very few retaining walls installed (relatively speaking) before Hurricane Dennis. Yet erosion of our bluffs continued. PERIOD.

If you would state your case, rather than running around in circles trying to make us guess it... oh, never mind -- that would make too much sense.
I apologize again and again and again.... I'm still blue in the face for apologizing previously for the method of my point making. You know if the situation was reversed, I think I would have acknowledged "You got me on that one... I do see some prejudicial overtones with the Pensacola New Journal article."


Smiling JOe, let me ask this question....
Why don't you summarize your opinions on the information exchanged on all the threads. You are a very verbose kind of person (again based on the plethora of posts everywhere on this website). Put it out there. Give it your best shot. I know I certainly have.

Best Regards,
BMBV

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

... Research points to the answer. Hell, a beach chair left at surf line overnight points to the answer.
That's what I like about you thumper... your command of the undisputable facts that take in the TOTAL climate of our predicament (ok a little dose of sarcasm here). ;-)


This is why I said earlier that this question was off topic. More accurately, it's what they call a "red herring." (It's akin to saying, in 1910, not to blame those new automobiles for air pollution, since coal, after all, is the major cause of pollution.)

The question you refer to is one I previously asked a couple of times regarding "What is the major cause of erosion in Florida's beaches?".

I believe you're just insulted that John R actually took the time to do some research (when the question was originally directed to you) and see for himself that there are possibly more things to consider in the TOTAL PICTURE when it comes to ersosion and retaining walls.

I don't really understand how you can think what DEP considers "the major cause of erosion on Florida's beaches" is "off topic". EROSION is the root cause of all these threads that are discussing retaining walls and geotubes and the like. DEP has their idea.

Sometimes these threads do evolve by somewhat drifting from topic.


We have to think forward. Do we take a painful (necessary) financial hit now to set up a system that research shows preserves and protects our shorelines for posterity, or do we use that money now to put out temporary solutions that, if we're lucky, might only benefit one or two generations?
By this, would it be logical to assume that you own gulf front property and that you are willing to "take a painful (necessary) financial hit"

OR

Would it be logical to assume that you and everyone else are willing to pay ALL gulf front property owners fair market value for our property?

Somehow, I sense the first part is not true but the second is more of what I think you had in mind. If you can swing this, I'll step up and be one of the first to sell.

There's your mission... Good Luck ! No sarcasm here. Go out there and "JUST DO IT"!

BMBV, I sincerely hope you will address this question. (Sans vitriol or sarcasm.) This is a genuine concern. Thank you.
I hope I did (a little sarcasm excluded in the first paragragh :D ). Did you notice that there was no mention of polluting cars or coal in my reply? ;-)

Regards,
BMBV

[thumper]

I don't really understand how you can think what DEP considers "the major cause of erosion on Florida's beaches" is "off topic".
Because I was under the impression the topic was how walls will (or will not) exacerbate our critically eroded areas. Yes, we have erosion already. It's my opinion that it's important to seriously explore the solutions that won't accelerate the situation.

I believe that our tax dollars should fund a study of possible solutions, with projections. IF historical and scientific data show that the best long term course to preserve beaches for future generations is a moratorium on rebuilding in certain areas, I would never support legislation that didn't compensate with fair market value for those homes.

As the long termers have seen, I like to chime in with an opinion every now and then, to put one man's thoughts on the record. With this post, I am back to lurking. Continue on, fellows.

[seagrover]

Sorry I have not read all 3 pages of posts - all I can say is, if in the area, come to the N Greenwood walkover here in Seagrove - which has not been re-opened for quite some time - and look at the black dirt they are filling these tubes with - I am appalled that they would allow anything like this on our beaches.

I did not buy beach front but my property values do have a relation to the color of the sand and this is dirt that they are filling the tuges with. I have been told they have to be through by May 1 - this will be interesting!!!

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Because I was under the impression the topic was how walls will (or will not) exacerbate our critically eroded areas. Yes, we have erosion already. It's my opinion that it's important to seriously explore the solutions that won't accelerate the situation.

Hi Thumper,

Not really meaning to split hairs here... but the title of this particular is geotubes not retaining walls :D ;-) . We've all gone off-topic here (some sooner and more drastically than others if you check towards the beginning of this thread). Just curious... do you or would you classify geotubes the same as retaining walls? I'm not sure what the answer is (either factually or just my opinion). In other words, how do you feel about the "negative" results of geotubes vs. retaining walls, such as increased erosion, negative effects on turtle nesting, etc.?

I actually did learn something here on SoWal :D regarding the very dark sand piled next to geotubes that someone posted a picture of recently. I, like some others, thought it was sub-standard trucked in sand (just from a casual observation). Now, from what I understand, it's all the dark subsurface soil that was dug up in order to "lay in" the geotubes. I assume they will use this dark sand to fill the tubes with.

For what it's worth, I too have a problem with that. Geotubes must be continually "cared for" in order that they be successful, long term. I'm not convinced that after the "panic" mode subsides, that those GF owners will "continually" shell out the money to keep the tubes covered with sand as is necessary to protect them for the long term each time a bad storm passes by. It's expensive enough the first go-round. That and many other reasons are why I decided to go with a normal retaining wall (maintenance free composite in our case).

Here's a question... maybe someone else can also "chime" in... that is, what percentage of the projects that are using geotubes are protecting CONFORMING vs NON-CONFORMING structures? In other words are some owners electing to go with geotubes who have a "newer" home because they feel that if the sh-t hits the fan regarding DEP permitting, that they might be dealt with less severly than if the owner put a retaining retaining wall like we did (qualified by the way)?

Just food for thought.

I believe that our tax dollars should fund a study of possible solutions, with projections. IF historical and scientific data show that the best long term course to preserve beaches for future generations is a moratorium on rebuilding in certain areas, I would never support legislation that didn't compensate with fair market value for those homes.
Fair enough !!! :D

In all likelyhood, our government, and rightly so, will probably just let the GF owners figure it out and foot the bill in the meantime via armoring and dune restoration in front of the wall (when theoretically allowed). History will ultimately determine the success or failure of armoring, dune restoration (and hopefully beach renourishment) in our, again, unique area of high bluffs. And it may very well turn out that in the long term, something like beach renoursihment is the only real affordable on-going solution. 20 years from now, maybe we'll all give up, govt will buy up all beach side properties within, let's say