By DOTTY NIST
In the face of strong opposition to the Walton County Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction (beach nourishment) project, county commissioners have opted to put work leading up to the project on hold in order to determine if there is enough interest among beachfront property owners to warrant continuing to pursue it.
The decision was made at the Jan. 13 Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) regular meeting at the South Walton Annex.
Work toward the project had been initiated over 10 years ago with a federal feasibility story. Now, according to state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) spokeswoman Dee Ann Miller, a permit application for the project DEP has been completed, and the county is due a decision from the state on approval by Feb. 18 unless the county opts to allow the state additional time to decide.
Beachfront property owners will have the choice of whether or not to sign a construction easement that would allow project contractors to come onto their property to construct the project. Signing is voluntary, but it is unlikely that sand will be pumped onshore in areas not covered by signed construction easements. Representatives of project co-sponsor the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have stated that the project may be deemed unfeasible if an insufficient number of property owners agree to easements, although no specific number has been indicated.
Input from beachfront property owners in has been overwhelmingly negative at workshops and hearings held on the project in recent months, and this carried over as the commissioners discussed the project on Jan. 13.
This began with Walton County Tourist Development Council (TDC) Executive Director Jim Bagby presenting the commissioners with the alternatives of continuing with the project “full steam forward” or “taking the train off the track.”
District 5 Commissioner Cindy Meadows’ response was to propose putting the project “in abeyance” and sending out construction easement language to ascertain property owners’ interest in the project. Meadows proposed putting off, in the meantime, tasks associated with the project such as resurveying the Mean High Water Line (MHWL) and establishment of the Erosion Control Line (ECL).
Meadows observed that the indication is that 90 percent of beachfront property owners will not sign an easement. “There are an awful lot of people against it,” she said.
Meadows moved to proceed as she had indicated, and District 4 Commissioner Sara Comander seconded for discussion.
Comander initially spoke against sending out the easement language due to the opposition to the project that had been encountered. “If our emails are any indication, we’re going to be wasting stamps,” she said.
Comander observed that a decade ago, before she was elected commissioner, she recalled some of the same people now in the room to oppose the project who were at that time present to ask the commissioners to help them save their homes, which were in danger of collapse from storm impacts. In response, the BCC had authorized the issuance of emergency permits for temporary seawalls, an action that had led to mandates for the Habitat Conservation Plan and the Leave No Trace program, she recalled. Comander added that, however, the BCC does hear beachfront owners who are now saying that they do not want the project.
Meadows responded that for liability purposes, it would be ” judicious” to have a record of the property owner saying yes or no to the project.
District 2 Commissioner Cecilia Jones agreed on the importance of having “something in writing” from property owners. She added that it is possible that some property owners will say that they need more information in order to make a decision.
Comander also agreed that a “stack of papers” from property owners saying yes or not to the project would be helpful after the next storm or hurricane.
Ten people addressed the commissioners in public comment, all of them property owners except for one attorney. Again, only a couple of speakers said anything favorable about the project.
“This project should not proceed at all,” said attorney Kent Safriet.
“Why do you want to fundamentally change Walton County? Why do you want to reduce property values on the beach?” asked Blue Mountain Beach property owner Emmett Hildreth. He called the easement a “horror.”
Linda Hildreth thanked the commissioners for the action that they had proposed, putting the project on hold. “Thank you for listening to your constituents,” she said.
“Forget the easement,” urged Blue Mountain Beach property owner Sherry Chase.
Gary Drake warned of a “legal quagmire” if easements were sent out. He suggested instead affidavits or letters of interest. He asked how the easements would be “undone” if there is no valid project.
Walton County Attorney Mark Davis responded that the easements would not be valid if there is no project, but that in that instance out of an “abundance of caution” the BCC could record a determination that the easements would no longer apply.
Randall Brown pointed out that a lot of beachfront property owners live out of town and may not be informed about the project.
Meadows responded that she goes on the philosophy that people are “very smart” and that, upon learning about the project, they will do their own research and/or consult an attorney. “I want them to decide on their own,” she said. Meadows was of the opinion that the easement, “the true document,” should be sent out.
Sending out a letter of intent instead would be like asking a person to decide if they would like to get married and showing them a certificate that wasn’t the real one, she said.
Representing property owners at Rosemary Beach, David Bailey told the commissioners that the association board was “very appreciative” of their efforts with the project but that the board still had too many questions to act on an easement at this time. “We’re very interested in an opportunity to provide our thoughts on the project,” Bailey commented. He added that the owners he represents had been disappointed at the possibility that the BCC might act to “kill” the project at the meeting.
The commissioners discussed sending out an informational letter with the easements. District 1 Commissioner Bill Chapman spoke in favor of doing so.
Chapman observed that he had received over 300 emails, mostly in opposition to the project, but that there are more than 900 beachfront property owners.
“Absentee owners may not have a clue,” he said. Chapman predicted that sending out the easements and letters would “kick off” in property owners’ heads the need to research the project.
Meadows amended her motion to provide for the informational letter to be sent along with the easement language, with the understanding that the letter would be composed by the county and TDC attorneys and would include a point of contact for information. The motion included a six-month period for property owners to decide whether or not to sign the easements.
The motion was approved unanimously.
In action following, the BCC also approved the easement language, which had been revised in response to a number of public workshops and that Bagby pointed out was the 12th version.
Information on the project and easements are available on the web site www.protectwaltoncountybeaches.com.
