re: Bigger Picture Beach Re-Nourishment

Pete Winterberger on June 1, 2012 at 9:28 am said in response to the comment by Pete and Judy Zuris

I respect your thoughts on a business approach to moving ahead or nor concerning this project. However, one of your statements needs clarification. You state “We could do nothing at the risk of losing all of the beach amenity to mother nature. If that time only lasted one day, as I understand it, then the island came back, it would all be public lands.” This may or may not be true. If we do nothing and allow mother nature to do as she may, then the concept of erosion and accretion apply per State Statute. Under this scenario, any land lost due to erosion becomes State Land under the water. Any land the accretes and grows out into the Gulf becomes our land no matter how far it goes out into the Gulf.The Statutes confirm that lands come and go and ocean front landowners always own up to 20 feet landward of the moving high water mark. All that changes if you artificially add sand to the shore line.

As we have found out, you (PLCA) loses their rights to accretion if we place place sand on the beach. Under the re-nourishment scenario, any land lost to the Gulf becomes State land and any land that accretes or grows out into the Gulf is also State land. PLCA recently spent lots of legal money trying to claim that there was a catastrophic hurricane event that caused our loss of beach and attempted to get a ruling that the above principals do not apply to our situation. We lost the ruling.

This conversation is a good example of the lack of knowledge the general membership has concerning this project and why the PLCA Board should conduct a bias free educational program so the residents clearly know the risks and rewards and the long and short term financial ramifications of this project.

(this comment is also being published as a new post so that the important content will be more visible to our readers)