'Breakwaters' could help eroded Singer Island beach

While it is a good thing that a protective system is on the table, I believe we should be wary of these slippery solutions. This is a short-sighted option, and its benefits are quite questionable. It is startling that the department has not considered the proposal's potential drawbacks. I highly doubt this is a substantial long-term solution. It will likely create more problems, and the original issues will never be resolved.

This project may alter the original geology of the site, and this may trigger more erosional problems. This would disrupt the local topography, and the environmental ecosystems would be damaged. Simultaneously, residents would not receive their desired protection against the Atlantic Ocean. Traditionally, Singer Island contains a thin and unstable stretch of coastal property. I think we should search for long-term solutions.

Unfortunately, we have damaged our own nest; it is beyond any repairs. In addition, our local representatives are frivolous. They do not take the needs of people into their accounts, and we have witnessed unbelievable apathy toward inevitable consequences.

Wow, this is the first time I've seen an intelligent comment on any sun-sentinal article. Kudo's for that.

While I agree with your comment that the DERM needs to be wary of these 'slippery' solutions, I'm not sure what other alternatives are available to them. Either they 1) nourish the beach 2) Construct coastal structures to protect or 3) Let nature run its course and abandon the houses/condos on the beach a la Dr. Pilkey. Since barrier islands are dynamic coastal islands and constantly changing, the location of those buildings on the beach is the problem. Unfortunately, allowing those buildings to be washed into the sea is an idealistic approach and not likely to be accepted.

The trick in designing these coastal structures is not in designing them so that they protect what is behind them (eg condos at Singer Island), that part is easy. The trick is to minimize the downdrift impacts so that you are not further cutting off the sand to the south. Anyone know what island is to the south of Singer Island? But don't worry, something tells me those people will have no problems getting DERM's attention.

BirchFLL wrote:

While it is a good thing that a protective system is on the table, I believe we should be wary of these slippery solutions. This is a short-sighted option, and its benefits are quite questionable. It is startling that the department has not considered the proposal's potential drawbacks. I highly doubt this is a substantial long-term solution. It will likely create more problems, and the original issues will never be resolved.
This project may alter the original geology of the site, and this may trigger more erosional problems. This would disrupt the local topography, and the environmental ecosystems would be damaged. Simultaneously, residents would not receive their desired protection against the Atlantic Ocean. Traditionally, Singer Island contains a thin and unstable stretch of coastal property. I think we should search for long-term solutions.
Unfortunately, we have damaged our own nest; it is beyond any repairs. In addition, our local representatives are frivolous. They do not take the needs of people into their accounts, and we have witnessed unbelievable apathy toward inevitable consequences.

The reason they don't plant sea oats is because the resulting shore protecting dunes block the view of the ocean. The result is a bunch of stacked up rocks that are more attractive to look at.

The public should NOT have to pay for restoration so that PRIVATE entitties can keep the beach. The PUBLIC does NOT have access to the beach.

If one chooses to live on the beach, then it is the responsibility of that individual to contribute to the cost of restoration.

If the condo goes...then should be NO more building.

We all make choices. They choose to buy and live there. Do NOT ask the government for money for a beach the PUBLIC can NOT access.

I am confused. Is the beach at singer island a public beach with lots of access for the public to use. If so public money should be used to protect a public place. If it is a private beach then the home owners should pay.

Singer Island's beaches are open for anyone to access. You could walk from either MacArthur park to the north of the buildings or another park to the south. Although I do not like public funds being used to restore private areas of the beach, think of the consequences. Currently, many buildings are doing special emergency assessments to do something to protect the buildings. If these buildings lose all the beach, their foundation will be exposed. If the building collapses, guess where it will collapse to. Now there are builders building so close to the water without sea walls you wonder if they were just begging for public use of money. I'll admit I don't know enough to know what's good for everyone, but if breakwaters are what's needed, then we should go ahead. Attacking those who live there for living there isn't very nice, because it is just like attacking those in New Orleans for 'choosing' to live in a land under sea level requiring levees.

Jeremy wrote:

Singer Island's beaches are open for anyone to access. You could walk from either MacArthur park to the north of the buildings or another park to the south. Although I do not like public funds being used to restore private areas of the beach, think of the consequences. Currently, many buildings are doing special emergency assessments to do something to protect the buildings. If these buildings lose all the beach, their foundation will be exposed. If the building collapses, guess where it will collapse to. Now there are builders building so close to the water without sea walls you wonder if they were just begging for public use of money. I'll admit I don't know enough to know what's good for everyone, but if breakwaters are what's needed, then we should go ahead. Attacking those who live there for living there isn't very nice, because it is just like attacking those in New Orleans for 'choosing' to live in a land under sea level requiring levees.

Firstly, I do not believe that all development should be halted. I do recognize that we shouldn't force existing residents from the area. At the same time, I'm a realistic person. I have not seen any alternatives to the proposed plan. Many similar protective measures have backfired. Breakwaters, jetties, and groins may increase the downstream erosion. This would eventually affect the wave action, and properties to the north would still suffer from the same problems.

The breakwater system should be managed in a careful manner; if it does not pass the requirements, it should be revamped. If the cost is prohibtively expensive, it should not be approved. This stretch of the island has been vulnerable for many years, but constructive long-term solutions have not been utilized. We should consider dune restoration and restrictions on new development. This is a high-risk zone.

Here is my suggestion. I believe current structures should remain in their place, but new construction should not be encouraged within the unstable portions of the island. Those areas are vulnerable to erosion, and we should not repeat the mistakes of history. It is a vicious cycle, and it does not provide safe protection for residents. I think it is time to implement some common sense.

On a final note, I don't discourage all development. Locally oriented construction benefits the region, and it aids the state of Florida. I personally believe that we should manage our resources in a wise manner. Excessive overdevelopment isn't safe. I don't want our taxpayers to pay the price of incompetence.

*Prohibitively

I apologize for the spelling error. I'm a bit tired today.

On another note, I want to answer the previous point on New Orleans. I do care about the residents of that region; I merely want to emphasize the fact that historical attempts to control flooding have been woefully inadequate. The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet is an outstanding example of this folly. It supports minimal ship traffic, and it has destroyed countless acres of protective wetlands. It has left the region vulnerable to storm surge. Look at the massive salt water intrusion along the Louisiana coast.

This exemplifies the fact that we should be cautious. I sincerely hope the Gulf region recovers from Katrina, and I do think people should be allowed to rebuild their structures on higher locations. I do not want to repeat the mistakes of history. If we want to protect these areas, we should rebuild via the right way. We should use our coastal geography to our advantage. We should strategically place new developments within the least vulnerable sections, and we should emphasize the importance of preserving our barrier islands and wetlands. They are dynamic. They play a role as our first line of defense, too.

I must offer these constructive solutions. They are the best long-term solutions. They benefit the economy, and our taxpayers don't suffer from the costs of poor planning. These options would place local residents at the forefront, and it protects the value of our shorelines. In a nutshell, this post summarizes my points. It's my two cents. I think we must wake up and search for long-term solutions.

BirchFLL wrote:

<quoted text>
Firstly, I do not believe that all development should be halted. I do recognize that we shouldn't force existing residents from the area. At the same time, I'm a realistic person. I have not seen any alternatives to the proposed plan. Many similar protective measures have backfired. Breakwaters, jetties, and groins may increase the downstream erosion. This would eventually affect the wave action, and properties to the north would still suffer from the same problems.
The breakwater system should be managed in a careful manner; if it does not pass the requirements, it should be revamped. If the cost is prohibtively expensive, it should not be approved. This stretch of the island has been vulnerable for many years, but constructive long-term solutions have not been utilized. We should consider dune restoration and restrictions on new development. This is a high-risk zone.
Here is my suggestion. I believe current structures should remain in their place, but new construction should not be encouraged within the unstable portions of the island. Those areas are vulnerable to erosion, and we should not repeat the mistakes of history. It is a vicious cycle, and it does not provide safe protection for residents. I think it is time to implement some common sense.
On a final note, I don't discourage all development. Locally oriented construction benefits the region, and it aids the state of Florida. I personally believe that we should manage our resources in a wise manner. Excessive overdevelopment isn't safe. I don't want our taxpayers to pay the price of incompetence.

Limiting our insurance risks by not developing in caostal flood areas would help. I am so not in the mood for bailing out Citizens.

MyNewAlias wrote:

<quoted text>
Limiting our insurance risks by not developing in caostal flood areas would help. I am so not in the mood for bailing out Citizens.

I agree. That is another supplementary argument for reduced development along vulnerable barrier islands. It is remarkable that few people recognize this fact.

We have paid the price for excessive overdevelopment within coastal flood zones. Look at Fort Lauderdale, Miami Beach, and Saint Petersburg.
Many developers claim these poorly placed projects will bring valuable revenue to South Florida. While we do need revitalization, their statements have become excuses to support uncontrolled development. Their premise is blatantly false.

Most of our new construction caters to the upper class market; thus, we have not seen large-scale benefits to our region. Some of the new highrises have been practically empty. In addition, we have suffered under the weight of additional insurance costs.

We must acknowledge the fact that our current rampant overdevelopment will not be feasible over the long term. Endless coastal construction translates into higher insurance rates; thus far, we have not seen affordable housing. I cannot buy the nonsense that states, "...development will bring vibrant revenue into the region." This is a true statement, but it is only valuable if we control coastal development. In addition, we need affordable development. Although there are some exceptions, I cannot name a recent luxury project which brought "vibrant revenue" into South Florida.

We at SeaBull Marine Construction would like to bring a promising new development to your attention. Our product ShoreGuard is a cutting edge technology that can reverse the constant erosion of our precious shores.
Millions of dollars are being spent every year trying to rebuild shorelines, only to be washed away with the next major storm. After talks of banning bulkheads and sea walls in some areas, ShoreGuard may be the last defense in restoring and maintaining our shores.
Shoreguard's unique louver design acts as a breakwater and a one-way check valve: slowing the current, allowing sediment to be deposited with each wave, even reversing shore erosion with each storm. This design may be used in both freshwater and saltwater, with an added bonus of creating an artificial reef for marine life.
After hearing about shrinking beaches we know that ShoreGuard is an answer to the problem. We invite you to check out our website: www.seabullmarine.com to follow along as we install and monitor our saltwater version. I would enjoy talking to you or anyone involved with the beaches about the installation of this erosion reversing structure.
The DEP and Florida Fish & Wildlife approve our structure as safe for marine-life. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to hearing from you in an effort to regain our beautiful shores.
Sincerely,
Brian Pina

Planting sea oats is out of the question?

The home owners and condo owners that live on the beach do pay... a bundle of taxes... If the condos are gone, who will support the City of Riviera Beach????? There are many ways to get on that beach.

gfplux wrote:

I am confused. Is the beach at singer island a public beach with lots of access for the public to use. If so public money should be used to protect a public place. If it is a private beach then the home owners should pay.