Allow private seawall on a public beach?

[ecopal]

County Commissioner Meeting
Tuesday, April 11th at the South Walton Courthouse Annex. 4 PM.

Should a private seawall illegally installed on a public beach be permitted to remain on public property?

This issue is a test of this County Commission's oath to be custodians of the public property.

Also note: One of the commissioners, Ro Cuchens, owns the company that installed the illegal wall.

The slogan of residents that want the seawall removed is:
”Mr. Cuchens, tear down that wall”. :clap_1:

Below is an excerpt from the South Walton Community council position. http://www.southwaltoncc.org/


"Seawalls are intended to protect vulnerable upland structures. They do not protect the beach.

.....documents published by both U.S. Fish & Wildlife and the DEP indicate that coastal armoring “can result in accelerated erosion seaward of the hardened structure and adjacent to the structure, especially on the downdrift side (end scour)”

It is unfortunate that neither the engineer nor the contractor *verified the gulf front property line of these lots before constructing the walls. To build the walls without updating the affected property line was a business risk that they chose to take.

The result was that they built their walls anywhere from 28’ to 40’ onto their neighbor’s property. *The neighbor happens to be the public....
Aside from the property rights issue of a private landowner encroaching onto public land, state law requires that “armoring shall be sited a sufficient distance inside the property boundaries to prevent destabilizing the beach and dune system on adjacent properties or increasing erosion of such properties during a storm event.”

We do not see how the county can authorize these walls to remain on public property."

Please call the commissioners to voice your opinion.

If possible come to the meeting--it should be very interesting.
I hope someone will be selling popcorn at the door. :popcorn:

Commissioner Brannon
19367 U.S. Hwy 331 S
Freeport, FL 32439
Tel: (850) 835-4860
Fax: (850) 835-4836
E-mail:* brascott@co.walton.fl.us

*Commissioner Pridgen
Address:
17400 State Highway 83 North
DeFuniak Springs, FL 32433
Phone: (850) 834-6328
Fax: (850) 834-6385
Email: prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us

Commissioner Larry Jones **
Contact Information
Donna Walsinkham, District 3*Executive Assistant
1483 County Highway 1087
DeFuniak Springs, FL. 32435
Phone: (850) 892-8474
Fax: (850)892-8475
e-mail: jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us

Contact Information
Commissioner Cuchens can be reached at (850) 835-4834.
His office is located at 417 Highway 20 East in Freeport.
Email: cucro@co.walton.fl.us


Commissioner Cindy Meadows
90 Spires Lane, Unit 7-A
Santa Rosa Beach, FL. 32459
Phone: (850) 622-3059
Fax: (850) 622-3067
e-mail:* meacindy@co.walton.fl.us

[John R]

should be a fun meeting, maybe we'll all get to meet one another.

[jimmyp5]

it seems extremely unlikely that the placement of these walls was "inadvertant" ... this instead smacks much more of forgiveness being easier to come by than permission

the commissioners must not let this audacious move by the property owners and their contractor/commsisioner stand

[TooFarTampa]

Will Ro recuse himself from this vote? :roll:

What I don't get is why it is even an issue. Since as commissioner he is required to represent the people and property of Walton County, there should be no reason to hold a special meeting. (Unless the popcorn vendors are having a slow year.) When the mistake or whatever first became known, he should have said sorry, corrected the problem and that would be it.

Do we have pics of this trespass? And is the entire seawall in the wrong place or just a portion of it? Is the illegality of the seawall at all in dispute? I can't wait to see how this turns out. :popcorn:

[SHELLY]

Mother Nature will take care of the walls...what they really need to discuss is who is going to pay for the clean-up.

[iwishiwasthere]

Mother Nature will take care of the walls...what they really need to discuss is who is going to pay for the clean-up.

:clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1:

[SGB]

Does anyone know exactly where these seawalls that went over their property line are in Seagrove?

[John R]

Sorry I couldn't make it. Is it over yet? Anyone know the outcome?

jr

[Seasider]

What's up with all the "emergency" walls on vacant lots?

[Smiling JOe]

What's up with all the "emergency" walls on vacant lots? They are illegal.

[ecopal]

I was at the BCC meeting.
Great to see so many of you there.

There were two TV crews there.

Unfortunately the main agenda item we came to watch was taken off at the last minute.

But it still was an informative meeting.

I did get to talk to a well informed resident who explained where the illegal walls are.

This person also told me that there is no way the walls were placed there by mistake. The property limits are well known by all in the area.

Essentially the illegal wall runs westward from the Seagrove Villas and includes multiple properties.

The property from the top of the bluff --marked by red line--- where there used to be a public sidewalk-- to the water is all public.

These so called beach front owners actually do not even own the bluff face on which they placed their seawalls.

They built an enormous seawall that extends far out onto the beach.

See attached.

All the property from the red line seaward is public.

click on picture to enlarge

[John R]

thanks for the info. so what was the outcome? will any of the wall be removed?

jr

[Smiling JOe]

thanks for the info. so what was the outcome? will any of the wall be removed?

jrEcopal says the item was taken off the agenda at the last minute.

Ecopal, did they say when it would be addressed?

[TooFarTampa]

And if the wall is not relocated or removed, will the SWCC consider filing a lawsuit on behalf of the public? From what I understand it has sued before.

Is it on county land or state land, and does the DEP have any jurisdiction?

[John R]

Ecopal says the item was taken off the agenda at the last minute.

Ecopal, did they say when it would be addressed?

sorry, i misread that, thinking it was cut from the news. ecopal, what justification was used to remove it from the agenda?

[Beachlover2]

If it is on public property - why isn't it just removed and a bill sent to the people who installed it. Even if you don't collect on the money to remove it - it would definitely make a statement to not build on public land. The longer it is there - the easier it becomes to leave these illegal walls up.

Or am I missing something here?

[Rita]

And if the wall is not relocated or removed, will the SWCC consider filing a lawsuit on behalf of the public? From what I understand it has sued before.

Is it on county land or state land, and does the DEP have any jurisdiction?

I would encourage folks to become members of SWCC. I think it was $30/yr. and they will keep you informed of things that are going on and meetings coming up.

Thanks for the update Ecopal.


.

[ecopal]

Mother Nature will take care of the walls...what they really need to discuss is who is going to pay for the clean-up.

I agree that eventually all the seawalls will probably be removed by Mother Nature and I too am concerned about the mess that will be left.

However, most storms are not strong enough to destroy many of the walls but are mighty enough to reach the beach armor and scour away all the beach sand in front of them. If we have another Dennis type storm this is the likely result.

The most probable outcome is that the beaches will be eroded away in front of the walls years before the walls are washed away.

[beacheart]

I happen to be one of those bad gulf front property owners who had a retaining wall built to save my family's 30 year old home. We were at least 300 feet farther back then, maybe more. I had a choice - let the house fall into the gulf or try to save the place. What would you do?
The only real solution to the huge problem is for the beaches to be renourished. If they are not renourished then the future of South Walton is in jeopardy. Beach renourishment is the bottom line for us all.
Having property on the beach is no piece of cake - believe me. I rent the house during the season to meet expenses - which are huge.

[John R]

I happen to be one of those bad gulf front property owners who had a retaining wall built to save my family's 30 year old home. We were at least 300 feet farther back then, maybe more. I had a choice - let the house fall into the gulf or try to save the place. What would you do?
The only real solution to the huge problem is for the beaches to be renourished. If they are not renourished then the future of South Walton is in jeopardy. Beach renourishment is the bottom line for us all.
Having property on the beach is no piece of cake - believe me. I rent the house during the season to meet expenses - which are huge.


beachart, i think most of us realize your predicament, as evidenced in the exhaustive 'seawalls' thread. might as well get the q&a over with though. makeup of wall? legal? color of topsand? ro contractor? finished? adjacent to other walls? one of the one's that have been discussed/photographed on sowal? etc...

jr

[TooFarTampa]

I happen to be one of those bad gulf front property owners who had a retaining wall built to save my family's 30 year old home. We were at least 300 feet farther back then, maybe more. I had a choice - let the house fall into the gulf or try to save the place. What would you do?
The only real solution to the huge problem is for the beaches to be renourished. If they are not renourished then the future of South Walton is in jeopardy. Beach renourishment is the bottom line for us all.
Having property on the beach is no piece of cake - believe me. I rent the house during the season to meet expenses - which are huge.

Thanks for posting beacheart. I am very sorry about your situation and I agree that it is not an easy choice. I am curious about a couple of things and hope you will answer these questions.

If the structure is 30 years old, and there is a possibility of an increase in frequency of storms, then in your opinion what is the value in saving it? (other than sentimental) I have to assume that the new homes on pilings and built to strict hurricane codes are far superior to anything you have. Would it be impossible (ie too expensive) for you to rebuild in the event of a total loss? If you have lost that much back yard -- which seems mind-boggling -- how much depth do you have left on your property? Do you have enough to rebuild fairly far back if you had to?

I am asking these questions because I am truly curious about the beachscape along the more vulnerable areas like Blue Mountain and parts of Seagrove. I do wonder if many of these owners have had so much of their property eaten away by storms that they wouldn't have room to rebuild.

I agree with you that renourishment is a far superior choice to armoring. I'm not sure what I would do in your situation, though I believe that seawalls are going to create much bigger problems than they solve.

[beacheart]

We built a Northstar wall - only 16 feet from the front of the house and filled in with white sand. Also am doing dune restoration. It is too bad some of the contractors were so irresponsible but ours was very responsible and followed the rules.

[beacheart]

To answer the question about rebuilding. No I could not have torn down and rebuilt after Dennis. I now have more flood insurance and could rebuild because we have a deep lot.
I am on the other end of 30-a from Seagrove so I am not in the know about that end. I do know that alot of people won't be able to rebuild because they have so many houses behind them. Ft. Panic is a prime example.
This whole situation is a big mess. The "old" days are gone and this is what we have now. I hope everyone who loves So. Walton will try to unify and promote beach renourishment asap. I consider the beach belonging to everyone.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I agree that eventually all the seawalls will probably be removed by Mother Nature and I too am concerned about the mess that will be left.

However, most storms are not strong enough to destroy many of the walls but are mighty enough to reach the beach armor and scour away all the beach sand in front of them. If we have another Dennis type storm this is the likely result.

The most probable outcome is that the beaches will be eroded away in front of the walls years before the walls are washed away.




Ecopal,

Somehow, either way, I can't help believe this would make you happy by vendicating your staunch position on retaining walls.

Yes, they are technically still considered retaining walls (for now).



For the record
All the beach erosion problems started LONG before any retaining walls were erected. You may be right about one thing... that assuming the rate of erosion of the beaches continues on its current course, eventually the beach will disappear.
When we get to the point where the water meets the wall (not to be confused with where the rubber meets the road :D ), then we all have problems. The walls did not cause the problem, but are now part of the problem.

The posts before this one... beach renourshment. What a novel idea !!! No disrespect to the poster. But my point is, isn't that what just about everybody has suggested up to now as the only real choice we have at the moment? I 100% agree with beacheart and his assessments. But i guess I'm just a biased gulf front property owner.

In the meantime, it takes one storm to wipe out several homes that are now vulnerable - therefore the retaining walls go up. BUT it can take several years for beach renourishment to be executed. You act as if one is suppose to sit idly by and watch their property wash away in the meantime.

Ecopal, please tell us your position on possible future beach renourishment in our area.

What is your opinion of the renourishment project going on as we speak?

Have you ever acknowledged John R's response to a question I posed on another thread... What does DEP considers to be the significant cause of beach erosion? John R took the time to look it up (thanks John R). Can you comment on that?

Ecopal, try to reach way down deep and give me some GOOD NEWS !! My therapist is making a fortune off me!

BMBV

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Ecopal,

One other thing. I asked you in another thread, what you would do in regards to remedying the entire situation.

Care to take a stab (not at me ;-) ) ?

BMBV

[dbuck]

I happen to be one of those bad gulf front property owners who had a retaining wall built to save my family's 30 year old home. We were at least 300 feet farther back then, maybe more. I had a choice - let the house fall into the gulf or try to save the place. What would you do?
The only real solution to the huge problem is for the beaches to be renourished. If they are not renourished then the future of South Walton is in jeopardy. Beach renourishment is the bottom line for us all.
Having property on the beach is no piece of cake - believe me. I rent the house during the season to meet expenses - which are huge.
Beacheart, I'm truly sorry for your problem. I don't have a beach home, much less a beachfront home, BUT if I did, I would do everything that I could afford to do to keep my house from washing away including Seawalls, geotubes, maybe both. I wouldn't let people make me feel too guilty if I were you. We tourist and second home owners want oceanfront and great ocean view properties to rent and buy. Just think how many dunes have been wiped out in the process. I guess we are all guilty of ruining our beaches. One thing is for sure---Nature will have the last word. Just my 2 cents.

[Rusk]

All the beach erosion problems started LONG before any retaining walls were erected. You may be right about one thing... that assuming the rate of erosion of the beaches continues on its current course, eventually the beach will disappear.

Pardon me stepping in, but this is an uninformed response, or at the least only paints half the picture. The other side of erosion is called accretion, and the balance of the two have sustained beaches for millions of years. If one were to follow the logic of this poster, we should have no beaches at all, anywhere, as erosion has been happening forever, due to various artificial and natural means. Florida has been eroding all our lives, but the beaches have remained wherever flexibility of coastline was retained- even where there has been significant erosion- because accretion occurs on the backside of the process. The key to allowing accretion is to keep the shoreline free of hard structure. This can be accomplished by nourishment or by rebuilding further back from the dune line. At this point we are all in a state of panic and denial. Soon a critical mass of understanding will emerge to support this thinking. It's time to buck up and take the hit, and that goes across the board. Let's wake up. Thank you for letting me voice my opinion in this forum.

[pgurney]

Here's one that might help your therapist bills and make some others feel a little better. It has to do with what BMBV and John R have been discussing as the major source of coastal erosion in Florida.

If you read the state's entire report on the erosion, it is broken down into 7 sub-regions within the state. The three major sources in the report are tropical storms, hurricanes and dredged inlets. The dredged inlets inhibit natural beach renourishment since they prevent the sand from naturally moving past the inlet and settling on the downstream beaches - it settles out in the inlets instead. Without the inlets there would be more of a balance in the natural erosion/nourishment cycle in non-tropical storm/hurricane conditions. What this means is that the beach shouldn't disappear in front of a seawall (or retaining wall) placed in an area that is not affected by inlets during normal conditions. Repeat....normal conditions.

Here's the part to make some of us feel a little better: the 30-A (or thereabouts) section of Walton County is not affected by dredged inlets according to the state's report. We still have the tropical storms and hurricanes to deal with (which would erode the dunes further back anyway), but at least there's some good news here. :clap_1:

Go To Page 6 - Pleistocene Mainland (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/publications/pdf/ph-gulf.pdf)

[TooFarTampa]

Here's one that might help your therapist bills and make some others feel a little better. It has to do with what BMBV and John R have been discussing as the major source of coastal erosion in Florida.

If you read the state's entire report on the erosion, it is broken down into 7 sub-regions within the state. The three major sources in the report are tropical storms, hurricanes and dredged inlets. The dredged inlets inhibit natural beach renourishment since they prevent the sand from naturally moving past the inlet and settling on the downstream beaches - it settles out in the inlets instead. Without the inlets there would be more of a balance in the natural erosion/nourishment cycle in non-tropical storm/hurricane conditions. What this means is that the beach shouldn't disappear in front of a seawall (or retaining wall) placed in an area that is not affected by inlets during normal conditions. Repeat....normal conditions.

Here's the part to make some of us feel a little better: the 30-A (or thereabouts) section of Walton County is not affected by dredged inlets according to the state's report. We still have the tropical storms and hurricanes to deal with (which would erode the dunes further back anyway), but at least there's some good news here. :clap_1:

Go To Page 6 - Pleistocene Mainland (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/publications/pdf/ph-gulf.pdf)

Nice post. I read some report/study on the DEP's site from 1998 or so in which it appeared Walton County had no history of ongoing erosion issues. Meaning, without the heavy storm activity, the beaches don't need our help. Here's hoping that Bermuda High has shifted and sends much of the hurricane activity elsewhere for awhile. Hard not to be concerned about those Gulf temps though. :shock:

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I happen to be one of those bad gulf front property owners who had a retaining wall built to save my family's 30 year old home. We were at least 300 feet farther back then, maybe more. I had a choice - let the house fall into the gulf or try to save the place. What would you do?
The only real solution to the huge problem is for the beaches to be renourished. If they are not renourished then the future of South Walton is in jeopardy. Beach renourishment is the bottom line for us all.
Having property on the beach is no piece of cake - believe me. I rent the house during the season to meet expenses - which are huge.



beacheart,

Is there any possibility of you having some photos from 30 years ago and some from today that you could share with us?

I know that I personally would GREATLY appreciate seeing them.

Thanks in advance!!

BMBV

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

....These so called beach front owners actually do not even own the bluff face on which they placed their seawalls.

They built an enormous seawall that extends far out onto the beach.




Ecopal,

Your love for adjectives humbles me. Problem is they're difficult to gauge how much "much" is (other thread), how enormous "enourmous" is and now how far "far" is (as in "extends far out onto the beach"). But you're entitled to your opinions, of course.

beacheart responded that the wall is just 16 feet out from his home. I am assuming we're talking about the same group of homes. If I'm incorrect in my assumption, either you or beacheart please correct me.

Do you consider the fact that his wall being just 16 feet from his structure qualifies as extending "far out onto the beach"? The rest of it appears to be beautiful white sand dunes which I'm sure even the turtles would appreciate ! :D

[John R]

We built a Northstar wall - only 16 feet from the front of the house and filled in with white sand. Also am doing dune restoration. It is too bad some of the contractors were so irresponsible but ours was very responsible and followed the rules.

beachart, thanks for the reply. glad you found an upstanding contractor. good luck with your restoration, and thanks for using white sand.

jr

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Here's one that might help your therapist bills and make some others feel a little better. It has to do with what BMBV and John R have been discussing as the major source of coastal erosion in Florida.

If you read the state's entire report on the erosion, it is broken down into 7 sub-regions within the state. The three major sources in the report are tropical storms, hurricanes and dredged inlets. The dredged inlets inhibit natural beach renourishment since they prevent the sand from naturally moving past the inlet and settling on the downstream beaches - it settles out in the inlets instead. Without the inlets there would be more of a balance in the natural erosion/nourishment cycle in non-tropical storm/hurricane conditions. What this means is that the beach shouldn't disappear in front of a seawall (or retaining wall) placed in an area that is not affected by inlets during normal conditions. Repeat....normal conditions.

Here's the part to make some of us feel a little better: the 30-A (or thereabouts) section of Walton County is not affected by dredged inlets according to the state's report. We still have the tropical storms and hurricanes to deal with (which would erode the dunes further back anyway), but at least there's some good news here. :clap_1:

Go To Page 6 - Pleistocene Mainland (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/publications/pdf/ph-gulf.pdf)

pgurney:

Most excellent find and post. I am a more enlightened person now.

Regarding St. Andrews Beach and significant causes of erosion....
"Erosion is attributed to tropical storms, hurricanes and the effects of St. Andrews Inlet."

Regarding Walton County beaches and significant causes of erosion....
"Erosion is attributed to tropical storms and hurricanes."

Now we have an idea as to how far the beaches "downstream" are indeed affected by inlets.

This is exactly what your synopsis is.

Oh yea...Pleistocene Mainland. That's what I should have been calling our sticky yellow sand bluffs all along! Geology can be interesting. :D

Thank you again.
BMBV

[walljumper]

6829

6830

6831

6832Walls on the beach, The owners think there great. I think they are ugly and I have never seen such greed from both the owners on the beach and the county commissioners. If anyone really beleives these walls will protect these home you must be out of your minds. The next big storm will wash these away. If peers, oil platfoa:lol:rms can be destroyed these walls are useless. And as far as being on the countys and public beach these should be removed at once and would be if there was not something in it for the commissioners. These commissioner all they know how to do is count money and spend ours. The storms put casinos on top of hotels. Leveled w:floor:hole areas. Armored walls just thinking silly.

[scooterbug44]

While I feel sorry for those whose homes are threatened by erosion and storms, that doesn't mean they get to extend their property onto the beach and then say "oops" or ask for millions of dollars to be spent to unnaturally protect their property. With apologies to "field of dreams", if you build it, it's your fault!

News flash - water erodes soil! This is true everywhere - even when there isn't a tropical storm or hurricane involved! That's why you leave a buffer zone.

I'm really getting sick of the constant conflicts of interest when the commissioners are voting on the actions of one of their own! :angry: