Registered or Premium Member? LOG IN | Become a Member: TRY PREMIUM FREE
|
LAKE WORTH SAVED
Surfers, divers and anglers band together to stop massive, unnecessary dredge-and-fill project
By:
Marcus Sanders
|
March 12, 2009
14542 views | 36 comments
|
|
Florida surfers, fishermen, and divers are celebrating one of the state's biggest environmental victories:
the halting of a 700,000 cubic yard so-called "beach nourishment" project that would've destroyed the waves (along with all kinds of sea life) at Lake Worth Pier.
Last year, Gibson, along with the Surfrider Foundation, the Snook Foundation, the City of Lake Worth, the ESA and a few other concerned individuals filed suit against the Town of Palm Beach, who wanted to dredge-and-fill the area a mile either side of Lake Worth Pier. |
|
"Palm Beach is one of the wealthiest communities in the country, and basically, local condo owners wanted more sand - even when the beach didn't need it," explained Gibson. "And the sand they wanted to put in was too fine - it would never have lasted a serious swell. It also would have covered over seven acres of nearshore reefs, destroying fish habitat." ESA contest director and local surf historian Tom Warnke agrees: "For the Town of Palm Beach to get a permit to fill that whole area with poor quality material (mud) would have been a travesty. That muddy water would also keep us from being able to watch for sharks, and vice versa. The judge used that as one of his main points to shoot down the project." "This is a tremendous win for Florida's Beaches," said Chapter Chair Greg Lyon. "To our knowledge, this is the first time that any court in the US has flatly rejected the permitting of an approved dredge-and-fill project due primarily to the potential negative environmental impacts." LAKE WORTH BATTLE TIMELINE by Terry Gibson Circa 2000: The Town of Palm Beach and several consultants respond to panicky condo residents by aggressively pursuing permits to dredge-and-fill an area starting about two miles north of the Lake Worth Pier, known as "Phipps" or "Reach 7." The beach is stable, and even showing signs of accretion. But they press on, attacking anyone who raised questions about the project's necessity, or concerns about the burial of nearshore reefs and impacts to coral reefs near the dredging site. Sept/October 2004: Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne make back-to-back landfalls. The storms sweep offshore reefs clean of algae and repair surf breaks throughout the region that had been degraded by so-called "beach nourishment" activities. Most beaches begin a natural process of recovery, but the initial retreat sends condo owners into a panic. Judge Robert Meale called the Town's consultants' work, among other things, "an embarrassment."
Sept. 2005: Hurricane Wilma strikes from the west. Although the storm had no Atlantic fetch, the Town of Palm Beach scores emergency permits and FEMA money to dredge-and-fill miles of reef- and wave-rich coast. They finally get the Phipps permit and nearshore reefs are buried, while the dredging silts over Palm Beach County's most beautiful dive sites and destroys the beach and its surf-fishing opportunities. While the dredge works, the Town tries to convince the City of Lake Worth, a small bohemian town, to join the project. The mayor and environmentally aware council refuse and the project stops half a mile north of the pier. Within weeks, the fill washes way because they applied fine sands and coral chucks on a coarse-sand beach. Much of the material drifts south, damaging reefs south of the Lake Worth Pier and making the surf weak and unorganized. Local surfers, divers and anglers are incensed, and start to talk. Lawyers are retained. Sept. 2005 to January 2008: Surfrider, Florida Sportsman magazine, other anglers and divers urge the Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and other agencies to oppose the project. NMFS never lifts their objections, but the Town uses its money and power to force the agencies to agree to the project. January 2008: Surfrider tries to broker an agreement with the Town. The meeting ends with the Town's consultant attempting to attack Surfrider Life Member, Terry Gibson. March 2008: Surfrider, the Snook Foundation, Terry Gibson, Tom Warnke, Capt. Danny Barrow, Eastern Surfing Association and the City of Lake Worth file an administrative challenge against the DEP for issuing a bogus permit. The Town intervenes on behalf of the DEP, and takes over as defense council. Shortly thereafter, Town attorneys, from the firm Greenberg Traurig, file several motions to dismiss. One motion, which the DEP would not sign off on, claimed that Surfrider's attorneys, Martha Collins and Jane West, were not mentally competent to try the case, because two of them were pregnant. Sept. 2008: The trial lasts three full weeks. March 2009: One year after Surfrider et al. file the petition, Judge Robert Meale returns with a recommendation to deny the permit. He called the Town's consultants' work, among other things, "an embarrassment." MORE SURF NEWS SURFLINE HOME PAGE |
|
Comments: (36) Add Your Comment
Billy Bear 03/17/2009 07:02 AM
Terry, I have to disagree with you. I live in Juno Beach and about 100 yrds south of the pier is eroded almost to the sea grapes/dune. Furthermore, Lantana is really bad. As for the artifical reefs, I heard you are against them and a lot of people are wondering why. Most all the best breaks in FL are man made. Why not work with the cities to protect the beaches and make some new surf breaks. You should google Dr. Kerry Black from ASR.
PEAKFINDER 03/16/2009 05:01 PM
T-ROCK hit the nail on the head
The Beach 03/16/2009 04:24 PM
Surfrider is based in Cal. look what they have done for there beaches, what makes you think they care about our's.
Terry Gibson 03/16/2009 10:34 AM * PREMIUM MEMBER - Real Name
Let's set the record straight on a couple of things.
1. Artificial surfing reefs were never formally proposed. They were mentioned, in the abstract, once, after the permit application had been completed. It was a ruse to distract us.
2. The beach is not critically eroded and in no need of sand. I walked it last week at high tide and the narrowest point was 50 yards from dune to water.
3. Our agenda is simple: clean water, healthy beaches and reefs, good surf, good fishing and good diving.
Patrick 03/16/2009 07:27 AM
As a new resident to PBC, I have been shocked how beachfront residents privately "own" sections of beachfront. If you don't want the public on the beach in front of your house then don't seek public and federal funding for a "renourishment" when your property erodes. Other smart ideas: not building on geologically shifting coastal ares!
T-Rock 03/16/2009 05:14 AM
If there are transfer stations on both inlets in the area what is the solution to the issue? You know a retreat will not happen. Do they ask each condo to create a pool of money for there own armorment? Jetties just rob Peter to pay Paul. No disrespect but what is the solution? Terry? Tom? Erika?
peak finder 03/15/2009 07:01 PM
I heard the same thing and agree with shea, dont be fooled make sure your on the right side , it can be very mis leading.All politics suck and have there on agenda they dont care about the ocean.Just the word organigation should make you suspicious
Jerry in West Palm 03/14/2009 02:05 PM
Greg Gordon is right. This is not re-"nourishment", unless the ONLY thing considered is the amount of sand on the beach. Beaches don't have a problem with erosion, only buildings do. I've lived and surfed in PB County for over 30 years and have seen how their projects screw with the beaches every time a dredge and fill takes place. Score one for the beaches this time!
Billy Bob Boogie Britches 03/14/2009 11:07 AM
That is a great victory for everyone against the tyrranical Palm Beach elite. In PB County there are approx 26 miles of coastline. Only 3.5 of those miles are accessible to the public. The police harrass us, the residents tow our cars, and we aren't even allowed to fish at night due to the "curfew". It is time to take stand against the Town of Palm Beach.
Richard Dragger 03/14/2009 07:58 AM
The real fight should be how they nourish the beaches and the building of artificial reefs for protection AND surfing!!! THAT IS THE FUTURE!!! CP & E knows it and so do most surfers in FL! Just because they made past mistakes doesn’t mean they need to continue to get blasted by Surfrider. There is a whole new staff there now and most surf so forget the past and start working together to build these reefs instead of continuing the Cold War!!!
buffalo 03/13/2009 07:20 PM
politics and surfing dont mix.For every do there is a dont,for every will there's a wont.Political org. just misappropiate surfers money.Leave nature alone.Its not nice to fool with mother nature.
Suzanne Mulvehill 03/13/2009 01:04 PM
I am thrilled that our beaches and environment will be protected. Thank you Surfrider and all of those who fought for this just cause. I saw and still see the damage from the last dredging project when I snorkel along the reefs just south of Lake Worth Beach. We are the voice for the ocean.
Lake Worth resident 03/13/2009 11:50 AM
Environmental activists are not responsible for finding solutions to the problems created by the real estate industry. We are responsible for preventing harm. It is incumbent upon those who represent the condo owners to find and implement an environmentally-sound solution. The inside politics read: suggested solutions are more expensive and don't make money for the dredging company. Repeat: SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS DON'T BENEFIT THE ONE AND ONLY COMPANY THAT DOES THIS DREDGING. Get the idea?
El Lobo 03/13/2009 11:17 AM
Has anyone seen any studies as to what would happen if you did do nothing? Wouldn't the fallen structure ruin the reefs also? Would surk breaks be ruined? Take Ocean Reef Park, if that big ass condo there at the northern peak fell in what would happen to the wave? Maybe people need to get together to find out if leaving the beaches untouched as they stand would not eventually prove to be the worst decision for our waves.
Greg Gordon 03/13/2009 11:14 AM * PREMIUM MEMBER - Real Name
View All Comments (36 comments)
The word 'nourishment' is an insult to our intelligence. It's 'dredge' and 'fill' - it doesn't nourish anything. The silt buries live reefs, crushes sand fleas, leaving less food for sea birds, and makes the water cloudy, great conditions for more shark attacks. Not to mention the quota of endangered sea turtles that each dredge is allowed to kill each year ... The short term solution may be sand transfer stations at the jetties, long term is managed retreat. Great job Terri, Tom, and Ericka!
Add Your Comment:
ABOUT SURFLINE'S COMMENTS: Surfline comments are intended to foster and continue a community discussion and/or debate on the topic brought up by the feature above. We encourage you to comment and express your opinion. Before commenting, you should know that Surfline Comments are moderated, which means that comments containing personal attacks, excessive profanity, or off-topic remarks may not be posted. Also, 'EDITOR'S PICKS' are comments that we feel capture points-of-view from all sides of the issue at hand, not necessarily the comments Surfline most agrees with. Thanks. --the editors
|