Calendar

News

Issues

Education

Texas Surfrider

Membership

Store

Links

Surfing


Water Quality Testing Results

Contact the
Texas Surfrider Foundation

P.O. Box 563

Liberty TX 77575

Lili at Surfside

In 1998, Texas Surfrider adopted Mile 14 at Surfside Beach in the Texas "Adopt-A-Beach" Program

Why Did Surfrider Enter the Surfside Lawsuit?
Joined the Texas Land Office as a Defendant for the Texas Open Beaches Act

The Texas Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation is a defendant in the lawsuit filed by some of the front-row property owners in Surfside, Texas. Surfrider joined this suit as a co-defendant with the General Land Office and the State of Texas. Surfrider is helping to defend the Texas Open Beaches Act.

What's the Real Problem?

The houses now sitting on public beach in Surfside were constructed legally, behind the dunes, and on private property. But they are illegal now. What changed? As anyone can plainly see, the line of vegetation has moved behind the houses, leaving them on public beach easement.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are the owners of beach houses that have been stranded on public beach for several years as the result of serious beach erosion in Surfside. They are suing the Texas Open Beaches Act (OBA) -- the law passed in 1957 to protect the beach as a public resource and that now makes these houses illegal. No one questions the fact that according to the OBA, these houses are on public beach and as a result are illegal.

Why did this happen? Perhaps the most important thing is this fact: the Texas coast has been eroding, or receding, for about 15,000 years. In the last 30 years that trend has averaged about 10 feet per year, and that is not counting erosion caused by storms.

Are there other factors influencing erosion? Yes. In order to understand the issue, you need to know the basic dynamics driving coastal processes.

Most people believe that the sand on the beach came from the sea in front of the beach. But that's not true. For millions of years, "each sand" flowed down our rivers, naturally nourishing the world's beaches and generally balancing out the natural forces of erosion..

But for over 100 years we have dammed rivers for recreation and drinking water, trapping valuable sand upstream. We have concreted and channelized our rivers and streams, further reducing the flow of sand to the beach. The net result is there is not enough sand flowing to the beaches for them to remain stable. Because of these things, two-thirds of the Texas coast is eroding at a rapid rate.

Causes of the Erosion Problem at Surfside

The eriosion in Surfside is particularly severe. What's aggravating erosion in Surfside?

About 70 years ago the Army Corps of Engineers moved the Brazos river mouth 10 miles to the south to reduce the flow of that pesky sand into the Freeport Harbor. A quick look at aerial photos will show the creation of a large sand point in at that new river mouth. For millions of years that sand had been flowing to Surfside Beach and Quintana.

The bulkheads built in front of the houses also increase erosion. Anny science teacher will tell you that as the waves hit the flat bulkheads, they rebound with more speed and force than they would if they impacted dunes. This more powerful rebound scours sand away at a faster rate.

Erosion is a chronic problem and will undoubtedly not reverse itself until the next ice age. There's probably not much we can do about that, and it's not very likely that all the upsteam dams will be removed.

Which brings us to our next question -- how do we manage a problem we are not likely to solve? How do we respond to beach erosion?

Most Effective Response: Stay Out of the Way!

The best, most cost-effective strategy is simply to Stay Out of the Way! Give the Gulf of Mexico some space! You have nothing to lose if you don't build there in the first place.

So how close to an eroding shore should you build?

Using the accepted erosion rate for the upper Texas coast of 10 feet/year, it is possible that a 150' deep lot could disappear before the 30 year mortgage is paid. Some would call that a very risky investment. You can buy; life insurance, health insurance, fire insurance, and hurricane insurance. But you can't buy erosion insurance. If an insurance company won't cover it, maybe you shouldn't be doing it! Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a construction setback based on the erosion rate?

In fact, the proposition is so risky that anyone who purchases beach-front property has to sign an acknowledgment that erosion could put their homes on public beach, in which case they have to be removed or demolished. THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE SURFSIDE LAWSUIT SIGNED THIS ACKOWLEDGMENT!!!

Second Most Effective Response: Get Out of the Way!

The next most cost-effective solution is to Get Out of the Way! This strategy is referred to as Planned Retreat. In the long run, it's cheaper to move than to do anything else. If you move away, you can't lose. The return on your investment in this strategy is guaranteed.

But sometimes we don't want to move. Sometimes we want to preserve the environment and even restore it to what it once was before upstream development caused our beaches to begin eroding away,

And now it's really starting to catch up to us...

So what's our next best option?

Sand.

Beach Nourishment is expensive, and periodically the beach has to be re-nourished. The costs add up, but when the existing beach represents a public resource with adjacent chimerical properties serviced by substantial infrastructure and is the economic lifeblood of the surrounding community, beach nourishment is the best possible response and a good investment given the potential losses.

Surfside Beach didn't have to lose the 100 yards of sand and sand dunes that once separated the beach houses from the Gulf. Surfrider believes that nourishing the beach at Surfside on a major scale is a much more beneficial and cost-effective option than having to enforce the Open Beaches Act over the next thirty to fifty years.

There is one other option that is sometimes considered as a response to erosion. It is combative approach and so ultimately a really stupid idea. It's called Coastal Armoring.

Coastal armoring includes seawalls, breakwaters, and geotextile tubes. It also includes the even more stupid idea that littering the beach with large chunks of concrete (see below) is going to help in some way. All of these tactics actually make erosion much worse. They cause an "amplified rebound." They increase the rate at which sand is washed away. They are desperate measures of last resort. Other than large-scale seawalls, they generally don't even succeed in protecting the property behind them, and they always aggravate the beach erosion problem in front of them (as can be plainly seen everywhere in Galveston, Texas).

Surfrider Does Not Want to Tear Down People's Homes!

But what do you do with this??

You either have to tear it down, or

Nourish the beach to push the house back behind the vegetation line.

Surfrider says, "Let's go get a whole lot of sand! Let's go find the money!!"

Problems Caused by Erosion

Surfside joined this lawsuit with the Texas General Land Office as defendants of the Open Beaches Act. Erosion has put numerous houses at Surfside on the public beach. They are an encroachment on public land, and they impede access and use of the public beach. Most of them are rented commercially, further privatizing public land for personal profit.

But Surfrider's greatest concern at Surfside is the imminent danger to public safety that these houses represent. That's as simple as the photograph above.

A nonetheless serious concern is the privatization of the public beach. Russell Clinton, one of the litigants in the referenced lawsuit, has told me on a number of occasions that the land beneath his house is his "private property" and the people who set foot there are "trespassers." The Texas Attorney General and I disagree with Mr. Clinton. Yes the land is his, but anything between the Gulf and the Line of Vegetation is "public beach easement" -- similar to public sidewalks and other easements everywhere.

Some owners of beach houses feel the Open Beaches Act concept of a rolling easement of the Line of Vegetation causes them to be treated differently than all other Texas property owners. Of course it does. These people are the only property owners in the state whose boundary is determined by the Gulf of Mexico, something far beyond the control of the state's courts. For this reason, the property owners were all required to sign an acknowledgment of the imminent risk as part of the sale of the property in the first place!

Why is Surfrider getting involved in the affairs of Surfside?

After the recent hearing in Angleton a Surfside Beach resident asked me, "What has Surfrider done besides demand houses be removed from the beach?" It's true that most members of Surfrider must drive 50 or more miles to get there. It's also true that we make that drive many, many times each year.

And we regularly make that drive to give something back to this community:

1. In 1998, we adopted "Mile 14," the Pedestrian Beach from the Jetty to the entrance to the pay beach in the Texas Adopt-A-Beach Program. We have 3 or more beach cleanups a year in Surfside.

2. In 1999, we provided the labor to construct the dune fences along Beach Drive.

3. Since 1999, we have participated in every GLO coastal program to preserve the beach for all Texans and have always called attention to the erosion problems in Surfside and the community's need for assistance..

4. Surfrider Foundation was instrumental in drafting the new law that allows houses to remain on the beach up to 2 years after a storm moves them beyond the line of vegetation. In fact, the Land Commissioner requested a conference with Texas Surfrider only days before the legislative session ended to hammer out final language.

Although we don't like houses on the public beach, it's unfair to bulldoze them as soon as they cross the line. A reasonable amount of time should pass to determine if the new line is only temporary. Scientists suggested "a minimum of one seasonal cycle" should pass before action is taken. The two year moratorium is an OK compromise.

5. Surfrider is also the organization that initially proposed and then helped pass the law last year that allows towns like Surfside Beach to qualify for a large scale nourishment project without the required 25% local matching funds. Surfrider worked very hard to get this law drafted and passed. What's that mean? Big money for large amounts of sand -- for free!!

Was there a single Surfside official, resident or owner of an illegal house involved in this important legislation? No. Not one appeared before a committee, testified on it's behalf, or helped in any way!

This is the most significant piece of legislation ever passed to protect small coastal communities from erosion. Surfrider has been and will continue to work to secure funding for Surfside Beach nourishment projects. Although there are other Texas beaches that could use more sand, Surfrider feels that Surfside Beach is in the most critical need and should be the first recipient of this type of State project.

6. We are not plaintiffs in this lawsuit. We didn't start this litigation. The owners of the illegal houses filed the original suit against the people of Texas. They want Texas taxpayers to reimburse them for their "lost revenue" and overturn the Open Beaches Act. All Surfrider did was join the suit on the side of the State to defend the people of Texas and the protection for public resources guaranteed by the OBA. The beach belongs to everyone, not just those who have front row houses.