Seawalls

[ecopal]

March 13th, Monday, 5 pm at the South Walton Courthouse Annex.
The public is invited.

County Sponsoring a Community Workshop on the Beaches.
(Please note this meeting was originally scheduled for March 21st. It has been moved to the 13th).

in attendance:

County staff

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Issues include the Incidental Take Permits, use of public tax money for
private seawalls, and private intrusion on public beach property.

# 1 Issue: Should Taxpayer Money Be Used to bring Private Seawalls into compliance with Federal law?

Who will pay for the incidental take permits and conservation plan that U.S. Fish & Wildlife is requiring for 158 of the seawalls that would otherwise be in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

Should tax money be used to help pay for seawalls which are only intended to protect private property?

Seawalls do not protect the beach.

To the contrary, 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 downdraft side (end scour)”*


# 2 Issue: Should the County Approve Seawalls Constructed on the Public Beach which can contribute to beach erosion and interfere with public use?

A representative for 10 property owners in the Seagrove Beach area has acknowledged that their seawalls were “inadvertently” built seaward of their gulf front property line. *In other words, their seawalls are on public property, anywhere from 28’ to 40’ beyond their property line. Most of the walls are already finished and covered with sand.


*The “DEP Report for the Governor’s Coastal High Hazard Study Commission” states on page 3, “Armoring protects upland structures but it has the adverse effect of increasing the erosion in front of the armoring structures and adjacent properties as the system becomes sand starved” Dec. 2005.

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Just imagine the lawsuits when our beach is eliminated behind all these private seawalls. There will be no beach left just like in Galveston Tx. The only thing that is going to protect our beach is to dredge sand like in west Walton Co. ASAP

[kurt]

Just imagine the lawsuits when our beach is eliminated behind all these private seawalls. There will be no beach left just like in Galveston Tx. The only thing that is going to protect our beach is to dredge sand like in west Walton Co. ASAP

How soon that will happen remains to be seen. The process for eastern SoWal has started and a big sticking point will be if enough suitable sand is located. If there is not, will folks settle for sand that is less than the existing white sand that is so unique? By lowering standards recently for dune rebuilding, is it already a moot point?

In the current project in western SoWal, if they were to run out of white sand, the project would be halted. Would we just walk away or approve lesser sand to complete the project?

[ecopal]

Please be reminded there is a public workshop scheduled for Monday, March 13th at 5 P.M. at the South Walton courthouse annex. It is my understanding that two issues will be addressed in particular: the issue of the incidental take permits and the Habitat Conservation Plan, how it will work and who will pay for *it and the issue of *the 10 seawalls built on public property.

As taxpayers, I encourage you to attend.

If you can not attend please monitor:

www.southwaltoncc.org
&
www.sowal.com message board
&
local news papers

for further information so you can contact the county commissioners with your input and questions.

[SoWalSally]

From Blue Mountain Beach Community Association:

Yesterday evening Walton County held meeting that dealt with seawalls that were built under the county emergency permit, which was issued after the hurricanes last year. After the storms the commissioners said property owners needed to be allowed to do whatever they felt they needed to do to protect their property. Many beachfront property owners built walls that did not comply with state statutes and in doing so they may have created situations that will be determined to have created a “taking” of threatened or endangered species habitat. This situation may be remedied with a Habitat Conservation Plan.

The county has said beachfront property owners have three choices.

They can put their head in the sand and do nothing. They can wait for the Feds to act, or...
They can each apply for their own Habitat Conservation Plan, something that county attorney David Hallman said could conservatively cost each of them, $250,000.00, or...
They could take part in a unified plan that the county would facilitate on behalf of the beachfront property owners who agreed to join the process. Each property would pay their fair share of the cost, which again could conservatively be $250,000.00.

The county is trying to determine how many beachfront property owners want to take part in the unified plan. Time is of the essence because grants are available to the county but the deadline is April 1, 2006. Hallman said if there is not enough interest the county will not apply for the grants. If there is enough interest the application MUST be filed soon. These grants could pay for most or even all of the cost of obtaining the Habitat Conservation Plan. If there is enough interest a second meeting may be held 3/21/06.

Hallman said beachfront property owners who joined the process would get a professionally prepared Habitat Conservation Plan. He said the cost for individual property owners could not be determined until they knew how many would join the process. It would also seem that if the county did get grants to cover most or all of the costs, the grant would significantly reduce the cost to property owners.

Hallman said those property owners not joining the process up front could be excluded or required to pay a premium for joining late. He also said he was not there to give legal advice but suggested that beachfront property owners who have not talked to an attorney who specializes in “takings” or the other issues revolving around these seawalls could be making a mistake. He suggested they talk to such an attorney within the next 24 hours.

Hallman was clear in saying the county would not be applying for permits or the Habitat Conservation Plan on behalf of the county but only as a facilitator for beachfront property owners IF there is enough interest. The county issued 241 temporary permits for coastal armoring.

Habitat Conservation Plan could provide an out for property owners who have not complied with state statutes and create things important to the welfare of the community.

Additional information may be obtained from Walton County Deputy Building Official Gerry Demers at 850-267-2084.

[John R]

so, if anyone who built and doesn't file themselves, or joins with the county, will be in non-compliance federally as of 4/2?

jr

[ecopal]

BCC meeting, 5pm today at the South Walton Courthouse:

Some private owners built a seawall on public beach property.

The BCC will discuss and may decide to permit or to deny private owners the right to keep their seawalls on public beach.

Ten to eleven homeowners in Seagrove built their Seawalls on the public beach and are asking the County to allow the seawalls to remain on the public beach.

This will affect public use of the beach.

These seawalls affect 2 public accesses.

If you use the beaches in Seagrove you don't want to miss this meeting.

[SHELLY]

If we work it right, maybe the homeowners will let us park in their driveways, trudge through their living rooms, and sit out on their patio--may even be able to swing having Pina Colada's delivered (I'll have the red umbrella--not the blue one--on my pineapple spear please... )

P.S. A place to store my beach equipment and a nice warm shower to rinse off the sand would be a nice touch too.

Otherwise.....MOVE IT CLYDE!!!

[SGB]

Does anyone know where in Seagrove the 10-11 homeowners are located? Does anyone know which beach accesses are affected?

[TooFarTampa]

Any news?

[aquaticbiology]

hilarious!

and all the seawalls get pulled out again - hahahahahaha

probably right in the middle of turtle season too - hahahahahahahah

some jerk will spend 250,000.00 on a 5-page HCP - hahahahahahahahaha

the geotube people will probably be ok - hahahahahahahahahahah

the county who didn't do its job is named walton - haaahahahahahahahaah

by June it will all be blowing away anyway - not funny in the least

I will always visit, but I will never live (or own property) down there again

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Thank you, SoWalSally, for the post regarding the meeting this past Monday. I wasn't able to attend so the information you presented was interesting to say the least.

I have lurked at SoWal for quite some time now.

Believe me, I have been involved in all this retaining wall stuff since BEFORE Hurricane Dennis. I had mixed emotions about installing a retaining wall, even though we were certainly eligible even before Dennis. However, when your back is against the "wall", for whatever reason, you HAVE to react.

One thing that really bothers me about some of the posts I read from so-called "beach lovers" is their basic antagonistic short-sightedness when it comes to this very complex situation (such as "let nature take its course..."). I guess that what happened to New Orleans with Katrina.

For whatever reason, our government (that's us by the way) has "permitted" these properties to be built where they are. They have the resources and ability to determine long range effects of erosion at the beach (we thought). Yet here we are.

Lots of people read these posts (kudos to SoWal for a GREAT site!). It's a shame that much of the well thought out posts are swimming among some garbage posts. I won't single any of them out, but you probably can tell the ones I'm referring to.

As with anything in life, there are 2 (or more) sides to every issue.

There!! My first post!! I guess I've finally taken a stand.

[iwishiwasthere]

[Miss Kitty]

BMBV. I'm afraid to ask where my posts would fall in your equation! However, I welcome your posts and have wanted to hear from a GF property owner since this all began. Can you tell us more about your situation? I am not understanding this process and the huge fees involved.

[Jdarg]

Hi Beachvagrant- the kudos for the great site need to go to Kurt.


But I just had a thought- is SoWalSally somehow closely related to Kurt??

Hmm...

[John R]

Glad to have you here beachvagrant. I'm sure, as a beachfront homeowner, you had some heavy, and expensive decisions to make regarding the erection of a wall. although you may not enjoy the tone of some of the posts from those who have stated their opinions, there are some that have some scientific backup with them, and pose legitimate questions related to the environment and the law. would you care to respond to them as how they relate to you only, not the group?

jr

[aquaticbiology]

welcome bmbv! great first post!

i know you're worried, but the fact is it will probably only get worse - the feds are fairly stable, but the federal laws are more deeply hidden and you don't find out about them until later on - but the county is all over the place, and it is their job to know about these laws and things that will pop up

when your house is about to fall in the gulf, and the county says you can put up a temporary wall with permanent permitting to come later, you see your solution and you spend your money to fix the problem - the county should have known all along about 'take' (oh what a wonderful pun)

as for my posts, they come from someone who moved inland, lock, stock and what we could find of the barrel, they may seem to be insensitive, and i go there and say things people sometimes don't want to hear, and bring up issues people don't want to talk about, but somebody's got to do it or it ends up like the septic tanks in Gulf Trace, still there, ticking away - why don't the feds stick their noses into them if they are so concerned about the environmental impact of 'take'

[pmd8]

Yes, sometimes we natives do get snippy about seawalls. Perhaps if you had witnessed the harm seawalls have been doing since the 1960's and the erosion exacerbated by building on the dunes, you might not have built so close to the water. My anger is not so much at the homeowners but the local governments that continue to allow building in these areas. I bought a copy of the University of Florida's "Review of Beach Erosion and Storm Tide Conditions in Florida 1961-1962" on eBay and it's deja vu all over again.

Comparison to what has happened in New Orleans is somewhat specious. There you have over a quarter-million houses built seventy years or more ago in a flood zone, rather than hundreds built in the last decade directly on the Gulf of Mexico. What is similar is the government also disregarded warnings in the early 80's and did nothing. I don't have a problem with government assistance for the folks in NO, but we shouldn't be encouraging rebuilding on the Gulf by bailing out vacation homeowners, especially if it's at the expense of our natural shoreline.

Although seawalls may temporarily help single homes, they cause problems for the rest of us. Not to mention they're ugly. From the photos posted on this site, it appears most people are using dark fill. I'm from Panama City (and own in Inlet Beach) and 30 years after dark fill was placed there, it's still visible.

So suck it up and resign yourself to possibly losing your house. Don't blame us or nature, but the county commissioners of today and yesterday.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

BMBV. I'm afraid to ask where my posts would fall in your equation! However, I welcome your posts and have wanted to hear from a GF property owner since this all began. Can you tell us more about your situation? I am not understanding this process and the huge fees involved.

Please understand that I'm not trying to slam any fellow "beach lover". I just want people to be somewhat a little more aware of ALL of the circumstances that have put US (gulf front and non-gulf front owners) in this situation. IF a poster doesn't truly understand the total background, then perhaps all the "negative feelings" should be kept to themselves. Otherwise they risk losing any credibility with those that see the bigger picture. This is an important issue that deserves more than a kneejerk response that I see in a lot of posts.

Do I understand all this "incidental take" stuff ?? Heck NO !! And apparently not too many other people do. I'm totally confused as to how gulf front owners are "taking" away habitat when the retaining walls are going in where the bluffs were prior to the recent storms.

I understand turtles will climb a dune somewhat to lay eggs. After the hurricance, because of our unique geological elevation features anywhere on the Gulf, the erosion created an almost vertical wall (plenty of photographic evidence to confirm this). Only after owners paid to have sand hauled in, was any resemblance to dunes created.

Why then does it matter that there is a wall behind that dune ??

Turtles (as well as humans) are not immune from hurricanes in my opinion. I believe what benefits the beach front owner relative to the rebuilding of the dunes also benefits the turtles.

The initial feedback I'm getting, is that there are as many opinions from attorneys regarding the "incidental take" impact as there are attorneys.

I can understand incidental take when it comes to new development. I don't quite understand how it applies when all a property owner is trying to do, is PRESERVE what they were authorized to have to begin with. If the wall is a several feet seaward of this magic line, then, perhaps that's another issue.

Sueshore, I don't really know where your posts fit in all this. There is not a single gulf front property owner that I know of who is against building retaining walls to protect their property (other than the fact some think they won't survive). So it seems ALL the opposition comes from those that don't have beachfront property....SURPRISE SURPRISE !!!

Are we irresponsible for desiring to protect our property at TOTALLY our expense? I don't think so.

Should retaining walls be compared to septic tanks at Gulf Trace? I don't think so.

Would our area be better off without the walls after the next major hurricane when all the homes and condos are sitting on the beach? I don't think so.

Do the authorities have a real (and honest) handle on the situation? I don't think so.

Constructive replies and comments are more than welcome from everyone!

[Beachlover2]

[Amp22]

pmd8 - most of the gf owners are using approved fill. There are a few glaring instances of ugly fill and I don't know how they are getting away with it.

BMBV - I take it (pun intended) that anytime you replace natural habitat with artificial habitat or modified habitat it is considered "take".

I believe that the knee jerk reactions were by county officials and gf homeowners to do wahtever they could as fast as they could whether they really knew what they were doing or not and whether knowing it would really help or not. It was panic and it was let's do whatever we want and ask forgiveness later. Acting in panic mode never brings good results. The argument about property rights, building on dunes, etc. shouldn't be a practical part of the argument at this point and has been covered pretty good on this board months ago.

Rather - is the right thing being done recently and now? If you walk along the beaches and see the travesty going on the answer is easily no. There was little planning and little oversight. Some seawalls may be done "right" but most are a mess. If they can be covered VERY well and deep and planted then they will look fine and not be dangerous.

UNTIL they are destroyed some day in the future by a storm. And they WILL be destroyed. At that time we wll be neck deep on our beaches by the biggest mess of debris you've ever imagined. I don't want to see that or pay for removal which will never get completely done anyway as much of it will be half or completely buried.

Take or leave my opinion, but it is the height of arrogance for gf owners to think they are "improving" or "repairing" the beaches for the rest of us. We may not be paying for your seawalls but we will PAY for your mistakes for generations.

It would have made a lot more sense for all the gf owners and the county to put all the money and effort into a beach nourishment project for eastern Walton County.

[pmd8]

You ask why it matters if there's a wall behind the dune? http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-337/construction.html
Coastal Construction - Role of Human Activities - An Overview of Coastal Land Loss: With Emphasis on the Southeastern United States

[Amp22]

BMBV. I'm afraid to ask where my posts would fall in your equation! However, I welcome your posts and have wanted to hear from a GF property owner since this all began. Can you tell us more about your situation? I am not understanding this process and the huge fees involved.

Several gf owners have posted on these issues and they have been slammed pretty hard.

[pmd8]

I mostly agree with you Amp22, although I've discussed beach renourishment in prior posts and have seen it first hand in Panama City Beach and Miami Beach.
The sand is not the same and it's a temporary and expensive solution.

Regards.

[pmd8]

In regard to "all the opposition is from those who don't have beachfront property", the beach is public, so we all own beachfront property.

I do have bayfront property in Panama City and Miami Beach. We've left the Panama City property in it's natural state, despite the fact that our neighbor's seawall has affected it. In Miami Beach, my property is on a "fill island" and seawalls have completely encircled the island since it was formed in the 1930's. I do not use fertilizer on my yard because it eventually finds its way into the bay.

Think globally, act locally.

[Beachlover2]

I was going to do a link to this previous discussion - but decided instead to just cut and paste - this was from Dave Raushkolb in October of last year and I think it is in better words than I could say






Coastal Erosion solutions: Seawalls, Geo-tubes, Beach Scraping and Beach Nourishment. What is the answer?

Basically, when the ocean rises due to a hurricane there are three powerful forces at work: wind, rising tide and ocean swells from a storm. The water that is moved by those forces moves in three directions. The tide brings the water up, the storm moves the wave action in and the wind pushes the water/waves in the direction of the wind.

Most of us who have experienced a hurricane know that when a storm approaches and we are on the east side of that storm we get winds from the northeast, then east, then southeast, then south and on around to the west and so on. The inverse would be true if we were on the west side of the storm. The key point is that for a large portion of the time the tide is abnormally high, the swells are abnormally big and the east or west current is scouring the beaches parallel to the beach.

The beach sand is a porous movable material that is completely vulnerable to these forces. Solid structures are also vulnerable to these forces but, more importantly the sand next to any solid structure will be scoured away much more rapidly than if there was no solid structure near it.

Let's dispense with scraping first. It makes the beach nicer to look at but that's it. It is newly pushed sand that has no level of impaction so it washes away in minutes. Placing sand back on the cliff/dunes and planting sea oats provides a favorable cosmetic solution.

Seawalls and geo-tubes are solid, heavy structures. Any porous sand next to these structures gets scoured away very rapidly making the situation worse near them. If you have a house next to a seawall, your backyard will go faster as the east riptide and oncoming waves collide with the seawall. The same is true with the beach in front of the seawall. The impact of the water hitting it and pushing sideways with the tide completely eliminates the beach in front of it. All you need to do is look at the wall in Galveston Texas; there used to be a beach there, now you just jump off the wall into the water; no beach. A geo tube is heavy and more solid than the sand. Any thing near these things will have sand scouring next to them too. Also when the water gets behind a seawall it washes away the sand behind it with the same impunity. Some of you might have seen the photo of the breached seawall on Dog Island I posted after Hurricane Dennis.

The largest seawall in the county is being installed just east of Seaside and it runs from the Wheel House/Seagrove villas and ends at the 30-A/395 intersection and could go further as adjacent homeowners buy on. It is roughly 20 feet high and runs 4 blocks long. Adjacent homeowners will be affected and the beach behind that wall will disappear if we get a few more storms to start the scouring activity. The prevailing winds here are from the east and the river of sand that runs along our beach could soon be interrupted and affected by this seawall.

The only solution to our erosion problem is to focus on getting our beaches nourished by pumping sand back on to the beaches. All of Walton County is being surveyed and the wheels are in motion. All these seawalls will do is destroy adjacent property and eliminate the beaches behind them. Geo-tubes will have a similar effect as the water washes over and around them.

Rosemary Beach has investigated thoroughly all options including geotubes and has decided to push for the sand dredging/beach nourishment option. There will be no geotubes or seawalls in Rosemary Beach. They did decide to do some cosmetic work (scraping) on the dunes/cliffs and finish with sea oat plantings. The town manager, James Bagby gave a very informed talk at the Rosemary Beach Homeowners meeting on where the county and federal agency's are in the beach nourishment process and it looks like it could happen countywide if approved. Jim said the pumping would take 3 days to do Rosemary Beach and would raise the beach 6 to 8 feet and go out 100 to 150 feet out.

The nourishment effort/process has taken its course in the west end of the county and they will soon begin pumping sand there. They are beginning the process for our part of the county from Inlet beach down and there will soon be a stage for public input. The whole beachfront of the county is being surveyed for this purpose and sand core samples are being taken in the gulf for sources of white sand. Funding will be an issue but if approved the beaches will be automatically nourished by the federal government after major storms. Panama City beach has been doing this for years already.

In Okaloosa County 5 beachfront homeowners disputed the nourishment project delaying it in lawsuits for 2 years. They were concerned that the thin strip of public access from the high tide waterline to the water would be enlarged if the beach was widened and people would set up beach chairs behind their property. I believe they are now being sued by adjacent owners who lost their homes in recent storms. When the time comes for public input our county voices must be united behind the nourishment answer. That’s the answer.

[Amp22]

In regard to "all the opposition is from those who don't have beachfront property", the beach is public, so we all own beachfront property.

I do have bayfront property in Panama City and Miami Beach. We've left the Panama City property in it's natural state, despite the fact that our neighbor's seawall has affected it. In Miami Beach, my property is on a "fill island" and seawalls have completely encircled the island since it was formed in the 1930's. I do not use fertilizer on my yard because it eventually finds its way into the bay.

Think globally, act locally.

I agree that nourishment (they don't call it renourishment) is not ideal but the mistake of building too close to the water was made long ago. Dredge and fill makes sense if enough time goes by before having to do it again.

You must be on the Venetian Causeway?

[Smiling JOe]

If you have been lurking on this board for any length of time, you know my position on seawalls, and I shall not go further with that at this time.

BlueMtnBeachVagrant, I just want to say thank you for contributing to the discussion. Please don't be so quick to block out and supress even the simplest of thoughts regarding seawalls, or anything for that matter. When you disagree, simply state your case. That encourages communication and understanding. A person doesn't have to be knowledgeable on a particular topic to have a basic thought of such a thing. If your thoughts are more well-rounded, please, by all means, share them and help enlighten us who may not be as well-versed. To simply say, refrain from negative comments will never help to communicate and educate.

Again, thanks for being willing to get on stage. Now dance!

[kathydwells]

I don't have a gf home. Heck, I don't even own a home down there. But I do have a place that I love in Seagrove that most of you know about. They do have a seawall. I don't know all the pro's and con's of the issue. I have read enough to know that I am glad I don't have to make a decision on the matter. However, I found this picture and thought I would share it. I was just trying to educate myself, but I thought some of you might find it interesting as well.

[ecopal]

The purpose of a seawall is only to protect a private house with no concern to what it does to the beach.

Seawalls will just interfere with natural beach renourishing and contribute to erosion of the beaches and to neighboring beach front homes.

Some beach front owners who put in seawalls are having second thoughts now that they have found out that they have opened themselves up to litigation and penalties from federal and state environmental agencies not to mention their neighbors whose property could be damaged by the beach scouring caused by a seawall.

Many beach front owners who put in seawalls have also permanently damaged the beach by digging into the solid subsurface which will destabilize the beaches and make them more prone to erosion in the next storm.

Some beach front owners, fortunately a minority, also brought in dark sand to save money.

Kudos to owners who have showed good judgment by using quasi natural means such as bringing in high grade white sand, planting it with sea oats, and installing sand fencing.

We all need to call our County Commissioners to make sure the beach front owners who put in seawalls aren’t successful in their blitz of political pressure to make the county subsidize their seawall folly with tax money.

I was at the meeting Monday night where the county generously offered to act as facilitator for the seawall owners in their application process for permanent permits. Rather than thanking the county for their support some of them were complaining that the county was not going to pay for it and also protect them from litigation.

[John R]

I was at the meeting Monday night where the county generously offered to act as facilitator for the seawall owners in their application process for permanent permits. Rather than thanking the county for their support some of them were complaining that the county was not going to pay for it and also protect them from litigation.

surprised? if i was one of the owners who did not follow due process when installing a wall, i too would be screaming about the new 250k that i am now facing. i'm sure we'll be hearing, 'i didn't know'...the gun was loaded.

jr

[SHELLY]

Excerpt from an article written in the late 1990's: Army Corp of Engineering Destroys Another Beach:

"Most of the repair is futile: more hand-wrestling with God along the shore.

"The emblem of the United States Corps of Engineers," writes Graham [Wade Graham, author of New Yorker Article "Beachless], "is, fittingly enough, a fortified castle: what began for the purpose of national defense against human invaders has, over the years, become a military campaign against natural forces."

Graham traces the roots of the Corps' war against nature. They begin with construction of "battlefield fortificiations" in the Revolutionary War expanding in "subsequent conflicts...to include the construction of defense against naval threats and the management of navigable waterways. By the 1820s, the Corps was building jetties and seawalls...In this century, the Corps has spent billions of dollars to deploy and maintain its arsenal of engineered solutions to natural depredations on all the country's shorelines."

As to truly strengthening beaches, the Corps' taxpayer-supported efforts to strengthen the coastline does, in fact, the opposite, declares Graham. He cites the work of coastal geologists--including Pilkey [Duke University Geology Professor]--who have found that "while hardened structures may save buildings, it actually accelerates beach erosion, bringing about the gradual disappearance of the natural resource that inspired people to build there in the first place."

He quotes Pilkey as saying the work the Corps of Engineers has been doing along the coasts of the U.S. involves a "fundamental misunderstanding of the beach."

He relates Pilkey's findings that "far from needing protection...beaches are protection--the continent's defense against the sea. The beach performs a kind of judo: it absorbs storm assaults by changing its shape, then rebuilds itself during the periods when waves are relatively gentle. Pilkey notes that a beach's set of responses to changes in the sea are so subtle and effective, so seemingly intelligent, that geologists call it `beach behavior.'"

"During storms, the beach gives up to waves sand that has been stockpiled in dunes, and the waves then carry the sand seaward and drop it on the bottom. This additional sand makes the beach flatter, and thereby forces waves to shoal and break earlier, thus lessening erosion.When calm seas return, the sand that has been moved offshore is slowly carried landward again by the orbital motion of the gentler waves, allowing the beach's defense to rebuild."

"Once a beach becomes `engineered," writes Graham, "it is, in effect, prohibited from responding to storm waves by flattening and becoming progressively steeper, thus increasing wave energy instead of asborbing it."

But the Army Corps of Engineers and beach house owners don't want to know about the realities of beach dynamics. They'd rather just continue to use millions and billions of dollars of tax money to try to bail out houses built where structures have little long-term future: on the beach."
----------------------------

Read the last couple paragraphs of the link "Beachless," I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

WOW !!!
Where do I start??

1. We'll start with AMP22.
From your first post...
"So suck it up and resign yourself to possibly losing your house. Don't blame us or nature, but the county commissioners of today and yesterday." No one is blaming you for anything. No one is blaming nature. You have completely missed the purpose of my post. That is, all this unsubstantiated negative flow of so called infromation regarding why property owners should or should not be allowed to protect their property. It IS their property to protect (IF ALLOWED BY DEP RULES) and at the OWNER'S expense.

BMBV - I take it (pun intended) that anytime you replace natural habitat with artificial habitat or modified habitat it is considered "take". Possibly.

I believe that the knee jerk reactions were by county officials and gf homeowners to do wahtever they could as fast as they could whether they really knew what they were doing or not and whether knowing it would really help or not. It was panic and it was let's do whatever we want and ask forgiveness later. Acting in panic mode never brings good results. The argument about property rights, building on dunes, etc. shouldn't be a practical part of the argument at this point and has been covered pretty good on this board months ago.

Rather - is the right thing being done recently and now? If you walk along the beaches and see the travesty going on the answer is easily no. There was little planning and little oversight. Some seawalls may be done "right" but most are a mess. If they can be covered VERY well and deep and planted then they will look fine and not be dangerous. I'm not sure I see the same travesty you do. Again this is a matter of opinion. I'll be the first to admit there are some walls out there that I wouldn't spit on. So do you suggest that those of us who built a proper wall are not entitled to have done so? Also you use the term "dangerous" loosely. You provide no explanation as to how some or all of the walls are "dangerous". I can't imagine opening my finacial exposure to such liability if I thought the wall was "dangerous".

UNTIL they are destroyed some day in the future by a storm. And they WILL be destroyed. At that time we wll be neck deep on our beaches by the biggest mess of debris you've ever imagined. I don't want to see that or pay for removal which will never get completely done anyway as much of it will be half or completely buried. I'm growing a bit weary of those who think "ALL" walls will be "destroyed". I am confident that our particular wall will hold up under any category hurricane that's thrown at it. I've done too much research and performed my own calculations under worse case scenarios. Problem then is the building won't survive the wind damage (built long before current codes). On the OTHER HAND, I can guarantee that some walls will fail after the next Dennis. It is a shame that in today's world of standardization and enforcement, some bad walls were indeed constructed... some due to owners being cheap and others due to some contractors (and engineers) not truly understanding how to construct a solid wall and some due to just bad contractors. There are as many types of walls out there as there are a...oles, I mean opinions.

Take or leave my opinion, but it is the height of arrogance for gf owners to think they are "improving" or "repairing" the beaches for the rest of us. We may not be paying for your seawalls but we will PAY for your mistakes for generations. Hmmmm... "height of arrogance". First of all, no mention of "improving" or "repairing" the beach for "the reset of us" was made. Second, you suggest beach renourishment at the county level "would have made a lot more sense for all the gf owners and the county to put all the money and effort into a beach nourishment project for eastern Walton County." How is the fact that sand is trucked in to "renourish" the dunes any worse than what you suggest? Are you suggesting dune renourishment is a bad thing and beach renourishment is a good thing? Regarding "pay for your mistakes for generations"...You're reaching a little here. Make sure your slate in life is absolutely clean regarding this concept before pointing fingers.

It would have made a lot more sense for all the gf owners and the county to put all the money and effort into a beach nourishment project for eastern Walton County. You imply that gulf front owners have that kind of clout to tell the county and DEP and Fish and Wildlife what to do. Sorry, we don't.

In summary I believe your posts reflect a lot of personal frustration with your perception of the current beach situation.[/I]


2. From PMD8..
You ask why it matters if there's a wall behind the dune? http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-337/construction.html
Coastal Construction - Role of Human Activities - An Overview of Coastal Land Loss: With Emphasis on the Southeastern United States
I fully understand the concept of wave reflection and resulting increased erosion. Are you aware that during Dennis, that there were plenty of reflected waves bouncing off the near vertical bluff. I have actual video documenting this action. I'm not sure how this is much different from a retaining wall. Perhaps that's why we lost about 20 additional feet of land after Dennis. The study may not be applicable unless it applies to our high elevation and the near "vertical bluff" effect that is created after a hurricane. Again, don't overlook the fact that the elevation of our 20 or so miles of beach is UNIQUE to the entire Gulf of Mexico within the U.S. However I respect your post as it was at least a "factual" reference. Thank you.

BUT.....in a later post you said In regard to "all the opposition is from those who don't have beachfront property", the beach is public, so we all own beachfront property. That's news to me since we own to the mean high water line. But I'll let you slide on that one.


3. From Smiling Joe...
...To simply say, refrain from negative comments will never help to communicate and educate.
Most diplomatic.


4. From EcoPal...
The purpose of a seawall is only to protect a private house with no concern to what it does to the beach. Interesting point. The statement assumes that the wall will cause more erosion than if no wall existed. We'll have opportunity (I believe) to quantize this a little better after the next hurrincane IN OUR UNIQUE AREA.

Seawalls will just interfere with natural beach renourishing and contribute to erosion of the beaches and to neighboring beach front homes. I believe that those who did not install a wall was because one of 3 reasons: a) they were not entitled to one based on DEP rules or b) they could not afford it or c) they believed a wall would not hold up after the next storm. Yes there are situations where there may be accelerated erosion but again we'll have a chance soon enough to quantize this.

Some beach front owners who put in seawalls are having second thoughts now that they have found out that they have opened themselves up to litigation and penalties from federal and state environmental agencies not to mention their neighbors whose property could be damaged by the beach scouring caused by a seawall. There are very clear rules within DEP that specify who can and cannot have retaining walls. Those of us who followed the rules, should not be exposed to litigation. Regarding the incidental take issue, I found out today, that it really is not going to be that big a deal for each property owner in terms of expense. Yes, there are plenty of walls that were constructed that were done so without being allowed so by the DEP rules. That's a risk they are taking ("their back is against the wall").

Many beach front owners who put in seawalls have also permanently damaged the beach by digging into the solid subsurface which will destabilize the beaches and make them more prone to erosion in the next storm. This is a very interesting point and it may well be true. But my guess is that a particular propery owner is better off with a wall than without.

Some beach front owners, fortunately a minority, also brought in dark sand to save money. And also because the county approved the color (even though I don't necessarily agree with the county). The sand was originally intended to "shore up foundations" only, but things changed somewhat I guess. I also had a problem with some of the dark colored sand brought in.

Kudos to owners who have showed good judgment by using quasi natural means such as bringing in high grade white sand, planting it with sea oats, and installing sand fencing. I agree to an extent. We did the same thing after Ivan...all for nothing after Dennis. Lots of money and effort wasted.

We all need to call our County Commissioners to make sure the beach front owners who put in seawalls aren’t successful in their blitz of political pressure to make the county subsidize their seawall folly with tax money. Don't worry too much about this. It won't happen.

I was at the meeting Monday night where the county generously offered to act as facilitator for the seawall owners in their application process for permanent permits. Rather than thanking the county for their support some of them were complaining that the county was not going to pay for it and also protect them from litigation. As I said before, some people built walls knowing that they were not entitled to have a wall in the first place. They are the ones that should be worried regarding litigation. I agree with you that the county would be doing us gulf front retaining wall owners a favor by coordinating this effort and then "billing" the property owner based on, let's say, front footage. I would definitely be appreciative

Thanks for the post.


IN SUMMARY:

Yes there are a lot of walls that were built that technically should not have been built (again based on DEP rules). The idea is basically that if any "older" structure built on slab (pre 1985 or so) as opposed to pilings are allowed to construct a wall. A house on pilings will theoretically survive any undermining. This was somewhat apparent at Gulf Trace.

Are all of the walls going to fail? NO
Are some of the walls going to fail? Absolutely YES.

Are any of the gulf front property owners asking the county for monetary assitance? None that I know of.

Should ALL gulf front owners be blamed for the action of a few such as dark sand and shabby walls? Of course not. Should the county? Perhaps. Should DEP? Only if they approve non-qualified or sub-standard construction and design.

Should a gulf front owner do nothing to protect their property (when authorized to do so)? That makes no sense no matter how hard one would try to argue this otherwise.

Is our 20 mile stretch of beach unique as to elevation and what I see as the vertical cliff effect after a hurricane? Does this also increase erosion? I believe so based on video showing reflective waves and the fact that we lost 20 feet of property due to a storm that by all accounts was really not that strong. It just ate the bottom of the bluff and sand sloughed down.

Oh yea, like it or not, the beach in many areas is not public, period. Is this legally enforced? Mostly no but I have seen an occasional "private property" sign down on the beach. Would this change if beach renourishment were to take place? According to the lawsuit that took place, looks like a portion of the beach will then become legally public. I have no problem with this and actually support this. Now the question - should taxes pay for this? I believe so as the beach is the top of the food chain when it comes to the local economy (in case no one knew)

That's it for me regarding this debate unless someone has a specific question or if I have new specific info that I think might be interesting for everyone. Our wall is in, application applied for and I'm looking forward to hopefully a season where we can all can be just "beach lovers" again.

Thanks to everyone for reading and hopefully understanding "our" point of view!!!!

[Smiling JOe]

BluMtnBchVag,

You mention that you followed DEP rules while others did not. Will you not need to apply for a permenant permit for your seawall? Also, what about the take? Will that apply to you since you followed DEP rules?

BTW, for you to be a newbie at posting, you did a great job of seperating your comments from others with the use of bold. Good job! It was easy for me to follow.

[John R]

excellent post beachvagrant. thanks for taking the time to post your view with a quite level head.

- i too am concerned about the take. done legally or not, any engineering being done is bound to affect the balance of things that have been happening long before we got here. imo, the seawalls are just compounding the issue.

- i am sure many walls poorly constructed will not survive, and will end up being strewn along the coast(it would be great if they were id'd to be able to locate their origin) for taxpayer pickup. of the others that will survive, what makes me nervous is what impact they'll have on surrounding land.

- with regards to future generations. who knows? if you sewall is constructed as well as you say it is, and your house as well as you say it isn't, maybe the only thing left standing someday will be your wall. shelly's excerpt regarding the corps regarding the cyclic nature of give and take, seems to be proven by history, to be true. it may not be as quick as a sewall, but it apparently works just fine. we as humans are too proud to worry about what we're leaving as a legacy.

- regarding the near vertical bluff. at least it has the ability to repair itself(re. shelly's post), i'm not sure how the sewall will assist in natural dune rebuilding, short of what will become natural; homeowners backfilling after each hurricane season. can we sit on your sand at lowtide?

- regarding wall 'entitlement'. aren't all gf owners starting with the same set of factors? this is the confusing part for me. are some more entitled than others due to certain things? i'm sure many are hampered by money, but all are facing erosion issues, no? is it just those who followed the rules the ones who are entitled?

- the dark sand issue. what a cluster. this argument will rage for years. 'shoring up foundations' apparently is in the eye of the interpreter. will it bleach itself? will it cloud the white forever? these people bought here when it was white, they realize what makes this place magical, and yet they are driven by their pocketbooks. this, for me, is where future generations will be paying for the selfishness of a few. if they have no concience about it now, they won't in the future either. the county yayo's share the resulting blame.

- reagrding wasting of money on sand. again we're too proud. the person who built further away from the shoreline probably didn't have that expense. purely conjecture here.

- isn't the deadline for the dep permits 4/1? then we'll see who followed the rules and who didn't. and, didn't county already state they won't be leading the charge with this(i'm fuzzy here)? this will be playing out longer than next hurricane season, i'm sure.

- i agree with you, all this will be played out within the next 6 months by the upcoming hurricane season, which i fear will be as active as last year's was. either way, there will be one group who will be able to say i told you so. and, the county will be forced into action, and stop sitting on their hands. i for one would welcome some state and federal intervention here. at least the law would be made clear.

thanks again for your level headed response to the rants. we just have a different opinion.

jr

[TooFarTampa]

Wow, great discussion. I like the point-counterpoint. Everyone is making excellent statements here.

I have no horse in this race but in general I dislike seawalls and fear for what they are doing to the dunes (as ecopal pointed out) and what things will look like in the event of another Dennis. However, BMBV made a point that is truer than just about anything in here:

Should a gulf front owner do nothing to protect their property (when authorized to do so)? That makes no sense no matter how hard one would try to argue this otherwise.

The problem is there is no solution here, other than perhaps moving these pre-1985 structures farther back when possible. That is of course impossible to do with the larger condo-type structures. If I were a gulf front owner of a smaller house, I would like to think that I would explore that possibility first. (And some homeowners do this in other areas prone to erosion.) But then I am not so I don't know. BMBV is right in pointing out that the zoning of the beach property by county officials way back then can be blamed for all of this, though at that point the building area was likely a significant distance from the dune line. Hindsight is 20/20.

Thanks to everyone for reading and hopefully understanding "our" point of view!!!!

BMBV, you are as well-reasoned a poster as I can imagine. Unfortunately I do not believe every gulf front homeowner has been as thorough as you have been in making your decisions. The bottom line is, many of these are absent homeowners, wanting to do the most expedient thing as Amp22 pointed out, and were willing to just drop their projects into the hands of someone not well-versed either just so things could get done, regulations be dam*ed. I frankly don't see a lot of people doing coastal research and calculations. It just doesn't happen. (But if you think that "most" are doing what you are doing, I would like to know.) I applaud your efforts and hope things work out for you in the long and short term.

[TooFarTampa]

Another thought is that if the seawalls don't work out, and I don't believe they will -- most of them will make a mess eventually -- the county is going to have to explore the issue of eminent domain, and perhaps make plans to buy back certain properties from gulf front homeowners whose land is disappearing. I think that might be inevitable, and it is a shame that no one seems to be talking about it now, because it might be the only solution that actually makes sense in the long term. Not that I wouldn't feel bad for the affected gulf front owners, but owning along the gulf is a risk, and if the government is willing or able to buy people out as needed at a reasonable cost, or trade coastal for interior land (plus make a payment on top of that), that seems to me to be a good long-term plan for the greater good of the area we love. Just MHO.

[Smiling JOe]

Another thought is that if the seawalls don't work out, and I don't believe they will -- most of them will make a mess eventually -- the county is going to have to explore the issue of eminent domain, and perhaps make plans to buy back certain properties from gulf front homeowners whose land is disappearing. I think that might be inevitable, and it is a shame that no one seems to be talking about it now, because it might be the only solution that actually makes sense in the long term. Not that I wouldn't feel bad for the affected gulf front owners, but owning along the gulf is a risk, and if the government is willing or able to buy people out as needed at a reasonable cost, or trade coastal for interior land (plus make a payment on top of that), that seems to me to be a good long-term plan for the greater good of the area we love. Just MHO.

I have mentioned this idea of eminent domain on this board in the past regarding GF properties. I think the State, rather than the County would be the ones that would be able to afford that much beach property.

[John R]

I have mentioned this idea of eminent domain on this board in the past regarding GF properties. I think the State, rather than the County would be the ones that would be able to afford that much beach property.

that begs the question 'why should the county invoke eminent domain'? condemn the property, charge the homeowner with clearing it, so it's safe, and leave it at that. now the property owner has a nice piece of property to visit that's unworthy to build on. many of them may end up unbuildable anyway. i don't want to pay for that.

jr

[Smiling JOe]

that begs the question 'why should the county invoke eminent domain'? condemn the property, charge the homeowner with clearing it, so it's safe, and leave it at that. now the property owner has a nice piece of property to visit that's unworthy to build on. many of them may end up unbuildable anyway. i don't want to pay for that.

jr

Maybe the govt officials who allowed the property to be built upon in the first place should have to pay? Those sonsofbitc....

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

BluMtnBchVag,

You mention that you followed DEP rules while others did not. Will you not need to apply for a permenant permit for your seawall? Also, what about the take? Will that apply to you since you followed DEP rules?

BTW, for you to be a newbie at posting, you did a great job of seperating your comments from others with the use of bold. Good job! It was easy for me to follow.

We are indeed applying for a permanent permit.

Everyone who legally expects to keep their wall must apply for a permanent permit within 60 days of the completion of the wall.

Incidental take does not appear that it's going to be that great an issue based on a conversation with the county yesterday. The original estimate for $250,000 was for a county wide take permit. This more or less would be shared by the 150 or so walls that are constructed. It's not $250,000 per owner as one poster casually suggested.

Thank you, Smiling Joe for the encouragement and feedback.

[John R]

Incidental take does not appear that it's going to be that great an issue based on a conversation with the county yesterday. The original estimate for $250,000 was for a county wide take permit. This more or less would be shared by the 150 or so walls that are constructed. It's not $250,000 per owner as one poster casually suggested.

Thank you, Smiling Joe for the encouragement and feedback.

From Blue Mountain Beach Community Association:

Yesterday evening Walton County held meeting that dealt with seawalls that were built under the county emergency permit, which was issued after the hurricanes last year. After the storms the commissioners said property owners needed to be allowed to do whatever they felt they needed to do to protect their property. Many beachfront property owners built walls that did not comply with state statutes and in doing so they may have created situations that will be determined to have created a “taking” of threatened or endangered species habitat. This situation may be remedied with a Habitat Conservation Plan.

The county has said beachfront property owners have three choices.

They can put their head in the sand and do nothing. They can wait for the Feds to act, or...
They can each apply for their own Habitat Conservation Plan, something that county attorney David Hallman said could conservatively cost each of them, $250,000.00, or...
They could take part in a unified plan that the county would facilitate on behalf of the beachfront property owners who agreed to join the process. Each property would pay their fair share of the cost, which again could conservatively be $250,000.00.

there must be some wires crossed somewhere.

jr

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

From John R..... excellent post beachvagrant. thanks for taking the time to post your view with a quite level head.

- i too am concerned about the take. done legally or not, any engineering being done is bound to affect the balance of things that have been happening long before we got here. imo, the seawalls are just compounding the issue. One cannot dispute this in its most elemental form.

- i am sure many walls poorly constructed will not survive, and will end up being strewn along the coast(it would be great if they were id'd to be able to locate their origin) for taxpayer pickup. of the others that will survive, what makes me nervous is what impact they'll have on surrounding land.No disagreement here. But perhaps you're hyperbolizing the cost of clean up as compared to everything else. Believe it or not, we're all concerned about the long term effects of the retaining walls. But as I've said before, more or less, I'm much more concerned with the short term effects of the next Hurricane Dennis.

- with regards to future generations. who knows? if you sewall is constructed as well as you say it is, and your house as well as you say it isn't, maybe the only thing left standing someday will be your wall. I have truthfully suggested this scenario to several people. shelly's excerpt regarding the corps regarding the cyclic nature of give and take, seems to be proven by history, to be true. Can't argue that either. it may not be as quick as a sewall, but it apparently works just fine. unless you're a gulf front property owner we as humans are too proud to worry about what we're leaving as a legacy. Now you're showing just emotion. PIease don't include ME in your WE HUMANS.

- regarding the near vertical bluff. at least it has the ability to repair itself(re. shelly's post), i'm not sure how the sewall will assist in natural dune rebuilding, short of what will become natural; homeowners backfilling after each hurricane season. can we sit on your sand at lowtide? Again the point is if we're going to experience an "abnormally high number of hurricanes" for the next few years, the vertical bluff will not have a chance to "repair itself". Vertical bluffs are more susceptable to severe erosion than rolling dunes. At this rate, The retaining wall "battle" (just an issue) will be handed to those north of 30A in just a few years (assuming 20 feet loss per hurricane).

- regarding wall 'entitlement'. aren't all gf owners starting with the same set of factors? this is the confusing part for me. are some more entitled than others due to certain things? i'm sure many are hampered by money, but all are facing erosion issues, no? is it just those who followed the rules the ones who are entitled? As stated in my previous post, those strutures built on slabs (typically pre-1985) that are in "imminent" danger due to erosion are entitled to install retaining walls. There are other exceptions such as if you have a new home and your neighbors on each side have valid retaining walls, then you can close the gap. PLEASE take a look at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/p...pdf/62b-33.pdf . You will find all the answers here. It is fairly clear.

- the dark sand issue. what a cluster. this argument will rage for years. 'shoring up foundations' apparently is in the eye of the interpreter. will it bleach itself? will it cloud the white forever? these people bought here when it was white, they realize what makes this place magical, and yet they are driven by their pocketbooks. this, for me, is where future generations will be paying for the selfishness of a few. if they have no concience about it now, they won't in the future either. the county yayo's share the resulting blame.The dark sand issue is ANOTHER issue and addressed by the county. The county originally screwed up and paid to have a lot of the dark sand hauled off the beach before they raised the "color requirement by a notch". The sand color issue is not an issue regarding retaining walls. People without walls can also bring in sand. So you see it's not just retaining wall owners. Let's leave the sand color out of this discussion. The title of this thread is "Seawalls". And my part of this thread has to do with "our" retaining walls in general.

- reagrding wasting of money on sand. again we're too proud. the person who built further away from the shoreline probably didn't have that expense. purely conjecture here.This comment is entirely too vague for a response.

- isn't the deadline for the dep permits 4/1? then we'll see who followed the rules and who didn't. and, didn't county already state they won't be leading the charge with this(i'm fuzzy here)? this will be playing out longer than next hurricane season, i'm sure. With this comment, it's apparent you have no handle on the DEP permitting procedure. Deadline for permits is 60 days after completion. Everyone must be off the beach by May 1st so theortically the LATEST any permit can submitted is July 1st. County provides preliminary approval. It then goes DEP and FWL. Then it comes back to the county for final approval. The county is a non-issue for the most part as long as your retaining wall doesn't cross boundaries or violate other county rules. DEP and FWL call the shots.

- i agree with you, all this will be played out within the next 6 months by the upcoming hurricane season, which i fear will be as active as last year's was. either way, there will be one group who will be able to say i told you so. Let me guess...You're hoping it's you. and, the county will be forced into action, and stop sitting on their hands. i for one would welcome some state and federal intervention here. at least the law would be made clear. The law is already clear. Perhaps you're referring to enforcement.

thanks again for your level headed response to the rants. we just have a different opinion.
I don't dispute we're in a "predicament" with everything that''s happened. Again I just don't want people to assume from some of the posts, that all beach front property owners are irresponsible and don't care about our beautiful beach. I believe most of us are doing the best with situation as it is.

Oh yea, thank you!.....and please don't take any response personally as you are not the first to express some of the views that you did.
jr

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

there must be some wires crossed somewhere.

jr

Imagine that !!

[Cheering472]

BMBV

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

TooFarTampa
Wow, great discussion. I like the point-counterpoint. Everyone is making excellent statements here. All I can hope is show (again) that there are 2+ sides to this issue.

I have no horse in this race but in general I dislike seawalls (as do I) and fear for what they are doing to the dunes (as ecopal pointed out) and what things will look like in the event of another Dennis. However, BMBV made a point that is truer than just about anything in here:

Originally Posted by BlueMtnBeachVagrant
Should a gulf front owner do nothing to protect their property (when authorized to do so)? That makes no sense no matter how hard one would try to argue this otherwise.


The problem is there is no solution here, other than perhaps moving these pre-1985 structures farther back when possible. That is of course impossible to do with the larger condo-type structures. If I were a gulf front owner of a smaller house, I would like to think that I would explore that possibility first. (And some homeowners do this in other areas prone to erosion.) But then I am not so I don't know. BMBV is right in pointing out that the zoning of the beach property by county officials way back then can be blamed for all of this, though at that point the building area was likely a significant distance from the dune line. Hindsight is 20/20.

Actually, in my opinion, the feds and especially the state are to blame for this more so than the county. With all the "historical" information and scientific tools at their disposal, if only 30 years ago, they moved the CCCL line back a couple of hundred feet and then bought out any property owner that was deprived of building a structure on their propery as a result of this, then we would not be where we are today. This concept could have been fine tuned. I persoanlly would have liked to see the entire coast a state or national park. It's not too late if the government were to buy out everyone at "fair market value" via eminent domain. Let's be honest, this won't happen - just too expensive now. All of the above is a topic for another thread.



BMBV, you are as well-reasoned a poster as I can imagine. Thanks. Unfortunately I do not believe every gulf front homeowner has been as thorough as you have been in making your decisions. The bottom line is, many of these are absent homeowners, wanting to do the most expedient thing as Amp22 pointed out, and were willing to just drop their projects into the hands of someone not well-versed either just so things could get done, regulations be dam*ed. I frankly don't see a lot of people doing coastal research and calculations. That's suppose to be the job state licensed engineers (which you are required to have) and state licensed contractors (which the state is suppose to enforce quality and consistency) and other goverment officials who are suppose to enforce the field. It just doesn't happen. (But if you think that "most" are doing what you are doing, I would like to know.) Some owners that are allowed to have retaining walls, have done a crap job regarding construction. Some owners who are pobably not allowed to walls, on the other hand, have done a WONDERFUL job. I truly have mixed emotions on the concept on why certain property owners can protect their property and others can not. Again it's all in the DEP link previously posted.


Personally I would like to have seen one CONTINUOUS wall contstructed from(let's say as an example) Little Red Fish Lake all the way to Draper Lake whose construction was coordinated (and quality mandated) by the county or state and paid for by owners. Then there would be consistency in quality, looks, sand finish, etc. There would be no gaps or weak spots. But of course many of the readers on this thread would oppose this. So now, instead, the result is we have a mish-mash of walls that are of varying heights, depths, quality, material, etc. I at least tried to coordinate several adjacent property owners in one continuous project. I was somewhat successful. But, AS ALWAYS, you have that "cheap bastard" that does it his way to supposedly save a few bucks. Those are the walls that won't survive.


I applaud your efforts and hope things work out for you in the long and short term.
Again thanks!!

[kurt]

Please use the quote feature instead of bold responses, otherwise it can become confusing as to who is responding to what. It also helps folks respond to your responses and keep the dialog going.

[ecopal]

To BMBVagrant,

What are you going to do if your seawall does erode the beach as research/history says it will--hint: saying you are unique again does not answer the question-- are you going to pay to renourish it?

What are you going to do if your seawall does get destroyed and litters the beach with debris? Are you going to pay to clean it up?

What if your wall causes your neighbor's beach and bluff to be scoured resulting in them losing their home, are you going to pay for the damage?

Is it really fair to blame the government for not putting the control line further back? I bet beachfront owners would have fought to the death to stop that from happening. We each have to take some personal responsibility too.

Also, didn't you comprehend the danger of building on the Gulf? I certainly did when I bought here.

[TooFarTampa]

I believe that every point ecopal makes is valid. BMBV, I know you are trying to do your best in a very difficult situation, and you seem to be putting forth a good-faith effort, but you lose me when you talk about how one continuous seawall would be ideal. That just sounds like a disaster and once again, would be solely for the benefit of the gulf front structures, because the beach itself would be in danger of disappearing.

I don't think there's anything wrong with looking into a plan where the state or county would buy out owners on an as needed basis, over time. I read in that Tampa Tribune article SJ posted awhile back where someone suggested not just paying the owners but throwing in some interior land as compensation, and that makes sense too, given that there is so much state owned property along and nearby 30-A.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

To BMBVagrant,

What are you going to do if your seawall does erode the beach as research/history says it will--hint: saying you are unique again does not answer the question-- are you going to pay to renourish it?

What are you going to do if your seawall does get destroyed and litters the beach with debris? Are you going to pay to clean it up?

What if your wall causes your neighbor's beach and bluff to be scoured resulting in them losing their home, are you going to pay for the damage?

Is it really fair to blame the government for not putting the control line further back? I bet beachfront owners would have fought to the death to stop that from happening. We each have to take some personal responsibility too.

Also, didn't you comprehend the danger of building on the Gulf? I certainly did when I bought here.

Your questions for the most part don't deserve a response.