Nominate Your Preferred Option

Yep, Completely Agree. The council have been well aware of the problem for a long time as have most people. I'm sure everyone agrees that the councils management of the Lake itself has been an absolute debacle. Now we see it ripping the coastline away Nth and Sth of the entrance. To do nothing is such a negative reaction to a fixable problem which will only cost the community more and more as time passes. The NSW will fund half of the Revetment, Groyne and Beach nourishment. Will will they subsidize half of the lost revenue from rates that will fall in the ocean if we do nothing?

Totally agree.

Lake Cathie is an important toursim icon for the Greater Port Macquarie.

Everything we do will affect something else in another respect. It all depends on what exactly were trying to save? The strip of homes? Or the natural environment of the beach?

I am an Environmental Geology student who is currently doing a project on this issue. What i have found is anything structural we build WILL have effects some way or another because of the change in wave motion (the mover of sediment). Groynes will change the density of sand behind them, it will be more evident further down though. Natural groins are different because it is their location the shape the coast as we see today, stick another one or two in and you force a change. Revetment seems like an obvious choice (judging by the votes), however, it too can dramatically affect the beach. Some work fine sure, but chances are, it will never be the same because the dunes contribute to the overall sand level, and this will place a gap between the sea and the dunes.

I understand how locally affected people feel and i feel sorry for them. However, their views are biased on the fact they only want their homes saved and probably couldnt care about much else. A bold statement i know, but in a nationwide view, im sure letting natural erosion take its course will always be the favourable answer. The only money being spent should be relocating and helping the affected residents continue their lives, because Lake Cathie will not have the beautiful beaches and natural environment it has today if we structurally alter it. Even the residents their should know that, it comes down to what they care for the most. Themselves or their beautiful area?

Let me just recap that i strongly agree that the residents should be compensated appropriately. It is probably cheaper than building half the structures anyway.

I read the article you mentioned & I have also spoken to John Vaughn, the situation at Lake Cahie is entirely different to Belongil. Have you happened to notice we have a road in front of the houses, & how did that road get there, the council took peoples front yards some years ago, & why did they do this? to put a road there, so if the council put the road there, the council is responsible for it, & for it's maintenance. How would you like this to be your parents, grandparents or even children in this situation. Some of these residents have fought for this country, they have a right to live out their lives in their own homes. By the way do you have an idea where 17 families can go?especially when they have no money, maybe you have a spare room or two.

At least now we can see where you get your arguments from.

I think you should read http://www.coastalmanagement.com.au/projects/Maroochy/default.htm and stop pretending there are no benefits to groynes/breakwaters. (pretty easy to find supporting arguments)

I have read this before and the first thing is, this article has nothing to do with Lake Cathie. Have you been to Belongil? His house is on a spit which is a dynamic mobile coastal system. I'm pretty sure the coffee rock at Cathie is not even remotely similiar to this situation. Also its hard to tell if he has taken into consideration any local factors in forming his view. For instance The Lake at Cathie has a much much larger impact on the surrounding beaches than rising sea levels (something that has been acknowledged by the council but not included in the Hazard Study). Another difficulty that many Byron residents find themselves in is that they built without councils approval. Nothing against Rob Brander, a smart guy but he has the luxury of just putting forward his universal views from his home in sydney and doesn't need to consider the social and financial implications of what he is saying. He does however state that Sea structures will protect the coastline (and we know they will provide us with sand for a beach too). We just need to make sure we put it in the right spot so we don't make the same mistake byron shire.

You've been very one dimensional on this. You're not the only one who wants to save the beach, everyone does. However, there are other things to consider that are easily just as important and in my view maybe more important. I and others have answered every question you have put forward yet you still won't answer some simple things people have asked.

I'm very intrigued as to why you're toeing the council line so much and won't comment on very valid points put forward to you???

I cant get access to google earth my main computer is playing up. What does shape of the coastline look like above? does it make a curved shape directly after the rock?

Don't need to worry about the surf at middle rock. Can't really see how it would be affected at all.

As for the sand there..well middle rock is what helps keep the sand on the bonnys side and I guess we're all hoping for a similiar effect at the Lakes entrance. The plain fact is that a man made structure would be an attempt to hold sand there and not flowing into the lake. No-ones suggesting otherwise. Naive is probably the wrong choice of words.

As for interfering with the natural ecosystem well I guess that decision was made long time ago when we built bridges, and subdivisions all around the lake and serviced them with pipe outlets running straight onto the beach etc.

As another chap stated, we have to make a decision whether our stripped beach, choked and more often than not brown and stinky lake should have some derelict houses and crumbling roads added to it or do we want..........a sandy beach, healthy river, healthy neighbourhood and economy with a groyne. Do you detest the breakwalls at port mac and camden haven and harrington and coffs harbour and foster and nambucca heads with such passion? heaven knows known of these are reknown for their surfing.

Retreat will only offer future generations of surfers the opportunity to sit out on the peak at Middle Rock and view an endless line of houses with no literal rainforest or beach accesses(Already closed).It will only get worse and your kids and grandkids will be left with the problem.

Be sensible look at what has been ocurring over the past two decades along the beachfront,consider and be involved in solutions rather than complacency.

Middle Rock is now a fickle break and I have witnessed a great decrease in the quality of waves over the past two decades.It relies on sand to create good banks and if there is no sand as a result of natural migration there will be no waves anyway.

To "the beach is for everyone" re' putting man made structures in the ocean. I'm not positive but I believe the protective dykes in the netherlands have helped them and ocean groynes have certainly helped the north Atlantic states of the USA.

Much of the French Atlantic coast is protected by revetments and while I was there I can assure you there was plenty of sand. In fact at low tide you could walk over 200 - 300 metres to the waves.

Initially it was probably thought decades ago that breakwater structures may not work and they certainly have at the mouth of many of our rivers you may like to visit ie the great Clarence rv on which I lived many years ago.

Haven't the revetments along the Hastings protected the shoreline and the seawall at Flynn's beach protecting it - or maybe you should canvass Council to remove them and let the NATURAL ecosystem run it's course ?

Your "gorgeous natural landscape" will be somewhat marred I imagine when Council permits Ilaroo Rd bitumen to fall into the ocean. Or maybe you propose they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean up the mess. Not to mention the money required to continually move fencing away from continually receding coastline to protect those using the proposed reserve, previously our homes of course.

You cannot be serious about the affects to Lighthouse Beach some, what 5 k's away thus not even worth commenting on - SMEC didn't.

Sorry about living too close to "our beautiful ocean". Just remember the original developer of Cathie had our land earmarked for a reserve as a continuation of the Jonathon Dickson reserve.

However it was Council who made it impossible for him to do so and thus it was sold for development so don't give us this inane throw away line about being "too close to our beautiful ocean".

When the sea laps at the doors of those on Chepana and Kywong Sts will you also admonish them "for living too close to our beautiful ocean". I suppose we could turn the tennis courts into a salt water skating rink with a bit of Country energy help.

Now to your NATURAL ecosystem. No doubt you believe in green house emissions causing climate change - most do of course based on 95% of reputable scientists believing so. That being the case there is nothing NATURAL happening here really is there. Your car, your heating,your air conditioning have caused it as much as anything or anyone else.

Further on your point of NATURAL processes. Where do you think all the sand in Lake Cathie came from. No, not the moon. Most agree it came from north of the Lake as you might expect given the general north to south current I've experienced while fishing the ocean for the best part of 20 years. If it's from the south IT'S ILLAROO RD SAND.

Now why doesn't it come back out which would be a natural process of ebbing tides and re nourish our beaches. There's sufficial annecdotal and some empirical evidence from the many studies of the lake undertaken so far to reach a few conclusions.

Firstly the National Parks and Wildlife (no doubt one of your favoured charities ) opened Lake Innes to the sea. Now that's a "quick fix" Brilliant. Now it takes so much water to fill the Lake reservoir that there is a lesser current flowing during ebb tide. Thus sand is not expunged to our beaches.

Secondly that slow moving ebb tide now grounds to a halt thanks to Council's "quick fix" Ocean Dr bridge and the bridge to the Estate behind Cathie. They are massively too short compared to the original and prevent any real impetus to the ebb tide and thus the sand remains in the Lake.

Lastly, did you know the worst area of erosion along Illaroo Rd is at the south end and guess what's there. A smashed storm water drain that Council will not fix. During heavy rain the outflow washes supporting sand away and more of the concrete drain is broken. That's certainly not a "quick fix" but it's cheap.

We have one thing in common - sadness. Except mine is caused by witnessing human neglect, ignorance, lack of forsight and a total absence of empathy and compassion.

beach user have you ever considered how come these homes are close to the beach. the council took peoples yards years ago to make a road, otherwie we wouldn't be discussing this. How far ar you prepared to let the coast erode before doing something? when it's at your front door?

What do you think of the "engineering" that has caused a lot of this problem, & affected the loss of sand eg stormwater pipes, blocking of the lake by Kenwood Drive bridge. You say retreat, O.K so where to? any suggestions there? "save the beach" can't seem to answer this question so maybe you can. These people are all parents, grandparents & great grandparents, some even fought for this country if you have rooms to spare let us know. How would you feel if it was you parents? THINK OF IT. Many many years of hard work, saving, going without other things, to buy a home just to give up & walk away I don't think so. Where is the Aussie spirit, we help other countries, bushfire & flood victims, this is not something these people have created, so why should they be punished? Think long & hard on this & give a truthful answer

Opening the lake with tractors a few times a year hardly seems like letting nature take its course but we do it to stop the peoples homes from flooding. Do you also support the flooding of many homes surrounding the Lake or just the collapsing of them into the ocean? You can't have your 'interfere with natural occurrences' argument both ways.

I understand what you are saying but I think you miss the picture. The locals there are more protective of the beach than anyone else, only a fool would think otherwise. I think what people want is to achieve a bit of balance between where they live and the natural environment. To simply let house after house fall away will have not only have no benefits for the environment, but would hardly foster a sustainable future for the people of Cathie.

It is easy for the 'Negatives' to find poor examples of coastal engerneering but like wise there are millions of examples where 'Hard Engerneering techniques' in the natural environment have had hugely positive effects for both the community and environment alike. We only need to look a to our own region to see examples of this.

Everyone wants to see the Environment looked after (no-one disagrees with this), everyone wants a beach (no-one disagrees with this), what is easily just as important (and maybe more in my opinion) is that no-ones lives are ruined and that the enormous social implications of 'doing nothing' are avoided at all costs. The Reactive Management Strategy doesn't deal with any of these issues! The short term economic gains of letting this bit of coastline fall away, pale in significance to the longer term detrimental effect it would have on the community, environment (beach and Lake) and economy (decreased tourism).

Lets pray the council doesn't put this in the 'too hard basket', the decision couldn't be simpler!

I think the problem is we have done too much. We have built structures in stupid places, we have destroyed our natural environment. And continuing the cycle is not going to fix anything. The erosion of our coast is an ongoing thing, as levels rise it is only going to be worse. Whether you think that the recent sea level changes are from climate change or just the natural cycle "its happening" its only the detail that people are disputing. Large storm events smash concrete storm water pipes and groynes like they are twigs. A reasonable storm event (not a cyclone) can move boulders that I cant lift 50m inland, if you dont belive me go to boulder beach in balina, the entire beach is made from large boulders moved by the sea from the headland that is probally 200m away. In some cases I can see building structures to save property as the lesser of 2 evils, however if you are perched on a sand cliff facing the pacific ocean, I dont like your chances.

Removed by moderator - this was a duplicate comment

I think you have a valid point there Mally. You say that sand moves from the north to the south 75-85% of the time.

By putting a groyne in at the south side of the lake entrance we will therefore be trapping sand on the northern side of the groyne, and we will cause accelerated erosion on the southern side of the groyne.

HANG ON!!! Aren't we supposed to be doing the opposite?? Your observations of 40 years, indicate to me that putting a groyne in at the lake entrance would be disastrous for properties on Illaroo Road and Chepana Street.

Thank you for pointing out that we really do not have a true understanding of the coastal processes at play here, and by constructing a groyne, the opposite of the intended outcome could be achieved.

http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/pdf/CRC/61-noosa.pdf

Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary & Waterway Management Technical Report 61

Here is an interesting document that is written about the failed attempts to engineer a solution in Noosa. I urge people to read the whole document as technical as it may be. Here are some exerts that are of note.. I hope we do not head down this path...

History has shown that Main Beach is vulnerable to erosion. Prior to the 1960s, it was washed away many times but was able to repair itself in each instance. The movement of shorelines is a complex phenomenon that may result from natural processes, anthropogenic effects or in many cases a combination of both. The impact of anthropogenic effects has become increasingly apparent in recent

times, with humans’ desire to develop the coast conflicting with natural processes (Camfield & Morang, 1996).

Unsuitable developments along Hastings Street and on the foredune of Main Beach have placed property in danger.

Attempts to provide protection from erosion led to a beach system that is unable to regenerate itself and as a result, the majority of the beach remains in a severely eroded state (Cato, 1989).

Experience has led to the realisation that modifications to the coastal zone need to be made with caution if adverse economic impacts and environmental effects are to be avoided. It is now recognised that coastal engineering work should be undertaken only if there is sufficient knowledge of the processes at work (Gao & Collins, 1995).

While this may assist in future coastal developments, it does little to address the adverse effects that have already been caused. A number of options have been investigated to maintain a useable beach and the visual

amenity at the eastern end of Hastings Street , but none have been deemed suitable. As this beach has such a high resource value, there are many benefits in increasing our understanding of the beach and estuary behaviour

(Geomorphology editorial, 2002). This is a major reason for this study being undertaken.

Since the river entrance was trained in 1978, beach nourishment has been used to maintain a useable area on Main Beach . Rapid removal of this sand results in

the beach quickly returning to its eroded state. The sand reserves in Noosa Inlet that previously provided nourishment material have almost been exhausted

(Jackson et al., 2001),

Thankyou Chantelle -I believe your comment needs to be repeated LOUDLY for all to hear:

"I don't see why their pasttimes should be more important than people's homes."

Surely we can all agree that there are various alternative surfing spots in the area (should the conditions be so affected) as "save the beach" negatively predicts.

I am confident in saying that the alternative living arrangements for the affected residents of Illaroo Road are less generous. It doesn't come as a surprise to most, that homes, units, apartments,caravans,nursing homes and the like all cost money. A luxury many of the Illaroo Rd residents are without if their homes are deemed WORTHLESS.

Hi Chantelle,

A very thought provoking arguement well put.

There are methods of combating Beach Erosion. We only have to be open to a solution and putting off the enevetable is foolish.

The expected sea level rises is only about 90cm by 2100, so im not sure if the water will reach woolworths in your lifetime. The hazzard map only shows a few streets. I must say you must be a real optimist to think that a rock wall or groin is going to stop the kind of erosion and sea level rise that is going to threaten woolies.

Is it selfish to be realistic, or is it selfish for some to think that the entire population should be expected to fund measures to save the houses of a few who have made a bad investment. I bought a car that was a lemmon a couple of years ago, I am an innocent victim who has been unfairly treated, will you want to pay for my car? A house is an investment, some people make big bucks, others build on a swamp and lose the lot. If someones builds a house in the mountains and there is a landslide they do have to wear it. Thats what insurance is for, isnt it???

Heres another idea, knock down the houses there and rejuvenate the land back to littoral rainforest.

Dont you think the littoral rainforest's biggest problem is everyone built their bloody houses on it?

I think the whole point of environmental restoration is to try not to interfere too much, an attitude of, If sea levels rise so be it. But by the same token the rainforest is fairly resilient as it has evolved on the coast (thats if you belive in evolution). The greenies whole point would be to leave nature as much as possible and for us to adapt as the Aussie Aboriginals did. 20,000 yrs ago the aboriginals were living where the coast was, where the continental shelf is now. Imagine if they tried to build a rock wall to stop rise, the great wall of China would pale into insignificance wouldnt it. To be honest carg im sure the greenies are having a good giggle at all these consevative Nationals voters losing their houses because they voted for keeping their HEAD IN THE SAND. I am definatelly not a greeny as some reading this would think. But I do think we have made a right royal mess of this country, its not until you look into what this country was like 200 years ago that you do realise just how altered it is. Im not just blaming the white man either, the country the white fella came too was the product of disturbance by the aboriginals, if left without human influence it would have been a very different place.