• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
  • Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.

Beach contamination in Seagrove

New posts
The confusing terminology here seems to be "sand brought in after August 1." Do they mean brought in for approval, or brought in for dumping. This could be a legal stickler.

In other words, this quote from the minutes can be interpreted two ways: "..sand approved by staff at a 6.2 would stay but, future material would be at a 7.2.."

There are a couple of key verbs missing here.
Did they mean that after Aug 1, future mat'l (brought in for approval) would be (approved) at 7.2, [thus allowing for previously-approved sand to be dumped at any time going forward, justifying the current situation?]

OR

Did they mean that after Aug 1, future mat'l (to be dumped) would be (required to be rated) at a 7.2, [in order to be dumped at all after Aug 1--thus disallowing the current situation?]

The following paragraph seems to point to the latter case, since they use the term "removed" and not "rejected." But a good lawyer could make either case if this is all they had to work with.
 
Oh, Katie Blue, I hope that regardless of the specific wording, the non-code sand would have to come out. The wording may make a difference in terms of whether the owner pays or the county pays, but either way it really should be taken out and the appropriate sand should be put in.

By the way, I noticed that some sea walls were going in by our beach. Have you seen them? Other than the sea walls, a lot of tractor tracks in the sand, and that 1950s house hanging over the side of the dune, our beach looked very good. I'm sorry you won't be there over the break -- it would have been nice to run into you at the beach.
 
Thanks, Paula, we really wish we could be there too.

Generally I'm optimistic about things, but not so much about the chances of owners removing bad sand. If they had conscience and foresight, I'm betting they wouldn't have dumped it to begin with. And with all this confusion about what the actual letter of the law is, there's going to be lots of (eventual) infractions getting grandfathered in over the next year or so -- lots of irreversible damage. Best hope is that the majority of gulf front owners will do the right thing. But you know, I lost faith in the local govt about a year ago. I really hope that won't always be the case going forward, but until the next election... :idontno:
 
Well, sounds like we need to get some of the posters on this board who value the environment, think long-term, and can't be bought elected to county positions if they want to take them. Anyone want to run for office?

It's really too bad we won't cross paths this trip, Katie Blue, especially since we found out we're neighbors.
 
ecopal said:
Seagrove Villas has a new walkover-but it is private property.
If you use that walkover the dirty sand will be on your left-east and the excavation into the beach will be down a block on our right/west.

If you want to go down a public access you can use the Andalussa street access then walk or run west for a couple blocks.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the directions. I finally walked down there - actually I walked all the way to Doodle's. Couldn't believe my eyes - all of the brown "sand" (I know, not all of the sand is brown) and seawalls. It must cost an individual a boatload of money to build of of those seawalls, fill it with sand, create a dune, plant sea oats, and try to protect it all with the textile meshing and wooden fencing.

It must have been on another thread, but I can't find it - what is the science behind behind how these wooden seawalls covered with sand are supposed to stop erosion from a future storm?
 
it's really not exactly designed just to protect from a storm - its to keep the dune, while had been left in a vertical shape by the last big storm, from slumping back down to a more rounded shape (and taking their building with it), plus they are hoping that it will protect, at least a little, from the next big storm. we'll see.

ero20.gif


the unesco thing (for the carribean but valid for sowal as well - has everything in it, just read through each case and you will pretty much have everything) is at: http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/source/ero6.htm
 
aquaticbiology said:
it's really not exactly designed just to protect from a storm - its to keep the dune, while had been left in a vertical shape by the last big storm, from slumping back down to a more rounded shape (and taking their building with it), plus they are hoping that it will protect, at least a little, from the next big storm. we'll see.

ero20.gif


the unesco thing (for the carribean but valid for sowal as well - has everything in it, just read through each case and you will pretty much have everything) is at: http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/source/ero6.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info! I'll read up on it.
 
IMPORTANT CORRECTION to earlier post of 15Dec.05 on this thread which read in part:
>>>>...the dark sand dumped in Seagrove, as recently as yesterday, measures a 6.2 and it should be 7.2 per County Commissioners' ruling from the Blue Mtn Beach Special Mtg. ...When Mr Graham was asked why they are being allowed to add sand below the minimum standards, he responded in a way that let my friend believe that he was being poked and prodded by higher-ups in the County. ....According to Mr Graham, he and Pat Blackshear went to Pat's boss and several County Commissioners, including Cindy Meadows, and their response was, if they started before the change in minimum standards to the 7.2, they could continue with the jobs. ... My friend also asked him why he could not now tell all dirt contractors and homeowners that since they now understand the law to be different from what he was telling them, any new sand delivered from this day forward would have to meet the new 7.2 minimum requirement. He did not have a response, other than the people told him if the owners had started before the Blue Mtn Beach Mtg, they could continue. <<<<

Commissioner Cindy Meadows asked me to post the following correction regarding what she allegedly said to Mr. Graham (in above posting) regarding sand standards. Ms. Meadows stated on 22Dec.05:

" ... misrepresentations of my response to Greg Graham when he told me (only after I called him to ask about the complaints) of the Planning Department's ruling on this newly imported sand.* Pat's boss would be the County Commission and NO ONE called me to* ask my opinion.* I called Greg last week after receiving the e-mails from complainants.* I never agreed with Greg's ruling that they could continue dumping less than 7.2 sand.* I listened to his after-the-fact explanation of the case and how they were handling it.* I haven't officially (on the record) given my opinion on the matter.* I want all the information I can get before doing so and I will address this with Pat Blackshear.* I know that the owners importing the sand have applied pressure to the Planning Department.*
Commissioner Cindy Meadows"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter









Share this page




                               
Back
Top