Re-nourishment issue bothers resident
To the editor:
When a person’s actions fail twice in a row, what should they do? Should they try to get insurance against another; a third failure?
Our Town Council faces that very problem.
Lee County designed three sister beach restorations a dozen years ago. All were in the same beach area only a few miles apart.
Bonita Beach and Lovers Key were actually constructed, but then the added beach soon washed away.
Project #3, our beach, was delayed for years by our beach front private owner’s. They did not agree with County’s changingstories. Only about 30 percent of the needed easements were signed privately. The Feds cancelled.
But County still faced two real problems: 1. How to do a better job of keeping Matanzas Pass open as the Coast Guard requires. 2. County had some severe erosionin some places, not there a dozen years ago.
To illustrate County’s dilemma: Pink Shell had gained about 75 feet more beach from the year 2000 and beyond Hurricane Charley. Later, Pink Shell’s beach growth reversed dramatically, losing about 150 feet of beach, in a few years. What’s the cause? County has not answered.
That leads to the question. Should Town buy insurance against the third sister beach failure? Should we spend about five percent of the cost of County’s new project for insurance. During beach construction, should we use advances in beach engineering to understand the CURRENT CAUSES OF AND FIXES FOR EROSION? Implementation fixes could follow beach construction.
Our Council bought this engineering review concept and asked for County’s participation. That would add about five percent to County’s project cost, using newer engineering technology for post construction fixes. County simply said no new technology!
Should Council cave again to County or go it alone with this five percent added insurance approach?
Tell Council what you think before June 21!
Frank Schilling
Fort Myers Beach