Sign In
or Create a new account
Nominate Your Preferred Option
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Having reviewed the 13 proposed Options in the Lake Cathie Coastline Management Plan,(see the library for Option summaries)which Option do you consider the most appropriate and why?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Relates to
survey: Please rank the coastal managment option you consider the most appropriate
Comment 1 17 Aug 2009, 6:54 PM
Lake Cathie would have to be considered the "jewel in the crown" as far as the Hastings area is concerned. The coastline in Lake Cathie is not only unique, it also plays a major part in the prosperity of the Lake Cathie community. To allow the coastline to erode into the ocean will not only have a devestating effect on tourism, it will also seriously effect local business owners. To protect this precious piece of coastline with a Revetment, Groyne & beach nourishment will guarantee the survival of this piece of coastline for at least the next 50 years. I would have thought that we have an obligation to future generations to protect this coastline for their enjoyment.
Comment 1.1 17 Aug 2009, 10:48 PM
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?
Comment 1.1.1 18 Aug 2009, 7:02 PM
I agree with both of the above writers, & we need to do somethig sooner rather than later. Fixing is the onl way to go or we will be t Ocaen Drive before you know it, & that's a lot of houses & people being moved out of ther homes & community
Comment 1.1.1.1 19 Aug 2009, 2:01 PM
I think we all need to consider that the erosion is a natural process. By trying to "fix" the problem with hard engineering tecqniques, we will just create issues elsewhere on the coast. The only sustainable option is to RETREAT. How long to you expect ratepayers to pay to protect these 20 houses? 50 years? 100 years? It is simply not an option. What happens when the erosion starts affecting other properties in the region - are we to build seawalls along the entire developed coast? Given that sea level rise is expected to be a significant issue, we need to start to plan ahead so that our future generations can enjoy the beach as we do. If we build a seawall there will be no beach. Building such structures causes increased erosion in front of the wall. If this continues all the way to middle rock, there will be no beach, no rideable surf.
But at least we'll still have those 20 houses (surrounded by rock) of the people who are out to privatise the gains, and socialise the losses.
Comment 1.1.1.1.1 19 Aug 2009, 10:47 PM
What absolute garbage! erosion is a natural process, we don't need a 2 year study to tell us that. What is unique here is the lake which is acting like a sand vacuum immediately Nth and Sth of its entrance. Hence no problems at Bonnys which has middle rock as a natural Groyne. The only problem here is that the lake wasn't included in the hazard study at all.
You have absolutely no foresight about what that beach would look like in 50 years if you want to continue to let the lake rip sand away from the more…
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1 21 Aug 2009, 8:48 AM
I don't claim to have a full understanding of the coastal processes at work here - i don't think anybody does. SMEC don't, Council don't. What is causing the erosion Gaz? "Sand Vacuum"?? - the volume of sand that accumulates in the lake entrance is minimal compared with the volume of sand moving up and down the beach system every year. Go and have a look at the beach today in front of the lake. There is more sand along there than there has been for quite a while. why?
You refer to middle rock acting as a groyne protecting more…
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1.1 21 Aug 2009, 3:41 PM
OK, so to indulge you I just went down to Middle rock and had a look around. Now keeping in mind that with the series of massive storms we had a few months ago which stripped most beaches bare of sand in this region, wait for it........Middle rock looks exactly the same as it did 20 years ago when I used to swim there. So as far as the long shore drift is concerned Middle rock does an amazing job of holding the Sand southside. Even took a few snap shots of the road to access the beach to show more…
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1.2 23 Aug 2009, 9:06 PM
I think that you will find that SMEC & Council have a perfect understanding of what is causing the erosion. The 11 protective options that have been put forward under the Draft Study have been tested & proven reliable time and time again here and around the world. You know what I find pathetic is that when we have a relatively simple solution to this problem, the people that have no vision for the future or foresight are the first ones to stick their hands up and say "stuff You" why should I pay for that. We all live in more…
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1.3 1 Sep 2009, 9:03 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.2 6 Oct 2009, 8:01 PM
Its one thing to be community minded, but is another to flog a dead horse. Lake Cathie will not die if a few houses have to be destroyed. The facts are that other councils have spent decades trying to save beach houses and have only ended up spending a fortune on nothing. Have a look at the Byron Shire trying to save houses at Belongil. A fortune spent for nothing, only to finally realise that retreat is the only real answer.
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.2.1 14 Oct 2009, 5:38 PM
which few houses? the first 17? or the next 50?
Pls go and do ur research on Belongil before you start with this tired line of argument
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 9:39 PM
Sea levels are still predicted to rise, so eventually the levels will be high enough maybe to take more than 50. So how long should you keep up these measures? sooner or later you would be forced to retreat unless we go into another glacial period.
Comment 1.1.1.1.2 20 Aug 2009, 4:25 PM
Privatise the Gains and Socialise the Losses? Heard that one a bit through through the GFC didn't you? What and the others above are arguing for is the exact opposite!
Comment 1.1.1.1.3 24 Aug 2009, 5:32 PM
It is obvious your life savings are not at stake here, what does happen when the erosion starts to affect other properties here or along the Australian coast, does council just step in, take their homes and say bad luck. I think not!
This stands to set a precedent for all Australian coastal homes.
Council needs to look at fixing this problem and looking after its rate payers.
Comment 1.1.1.1.4 25 Aug 2009, 3:40 PM
What rock has “save the beach” been living under. Thousands of coastal communities right around the world are protected by structures and other “hard” engineering techniques. In the 60+ countries that I have visited, I can name hundreds of examples.
If retreat was accepted as the way to go, what happens when the erosion reaches the next row of homes, and then the next street, and then the shopping centre and the tavern and maybe even as far as “Mr save the beaches” home. When there is a relatively simple way to protect the town, common sense should dictate over more…
Comment 1.1.1.1.4.1 6 Oct 2009, 8:06 PM
Yes Lew there is many places with levees and other such barriers. However how many are subject to the pounding that the beaches of south east australia are subject too. You can build these things but there is going to be the need for constant maintenance in some and periodic in others, (just to save a few houses) it would be cheaper in the long run to relocate the people whose houses are onder threat. And look at New Orleans, the levees bursting killed more people than the huricane.
Comment 1.1.1.1.5 1 Sep 2009, 10:32 AM
Retreat will not make the problem go away but add a new set of problems continuously.At what point is the next line of the village protected.
I am generally not one for adding man made structures to the environment but in this case it has become necessity to protect roads,homes,lifestyle and tourism.
I believe a well designed asthetically pleasing combination of groyne,rock revetment and beach renourishment will see Lake Cathie into the future.
There is no known positives for retreat.
I make comment to a misleading newsletter delivered recently titled LAKE CATHIE-SAVE OUR BEACH. There is no credability in this newsletter whatsover without a signature or organisation.I am lead to believe the author has something to hide and has imitated the other group of concerned residents to confuse the reader.
Comment 1.2 24 Aug 2009, 5:35 PM
Totally agree.
Lake Cathie is an important toursim icon for the Greater Port Macquarie.
Comment 1.3 23 Oct 2009, 10:58 AM
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 more…
Comment 2 23 Aug 2009, 11:08 AM
Option 3 looks to be the best but all the options that involve saving the beach and coastline look preferable to the option of cutting off services and kicking out home owners without compensation. Council at some point approved planning for those homes and can hardly shirk from the duty of attempting to solve the problem. Let's try building a seawall, groyne or revetment. This is certainly a unique beach and a tourist attraction for the entire area.
I think Gaz' comment too about Middle Rock protecting Bonny Beach is a valid one. It would be worth trying a similar exercise near the lake.
Comment 3 24 Aug 2009, 9:07 AM
I think everyone should read this article which is on a very similar situation in Byron. It presents perspectives from boths sides of the argument.
http://www.swellnet.com.au/surfpolitik.php?surfpolitik=Unsure_Footing_200809.php
Comment 3.1 24 Aug 2009, 7:51 PM
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.
Comment 3.1.1 6 Oct 2009, 8:11 PM
Its a sad situation if Veterans are forced out of their homes, however facts are facts, their houses are teetering on the edge and building rock walls and groynes are nothing but a temporary measure.
Comment 3.2 24 Aug 2009, 11:05 PM
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 more…
Comment 3.2.1 6 Oct 2009, 8:15 PM
From what i see Gaz, save the beach is at least trying to answer everyones questions, but you might not want to hear. Have another read.
Comment 4 26 Aug 2009, 5:28 PM
For those interested, the satellite images of Middle Rock/Cathie on google maps show very clearly how the longshore drift is caught by middle rock.
Comment 4.1 6 Oct 2009, 10:49 PM
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?
Comment 4.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 5:48 PM
I'm sure your clever enough to access your university computers.
If this great bay was produced by a groyne on Sth entrance (as you predict) how many houses would be affected?
would the lake benefit from less sand choking its mouth?
would that mean we would need to do Less environmental harm by not needing the tractors and backos tearing up the beach as much?
wouldn't it create a more stabile marine environment?
Wouldn't mean a better beach and lake for people to enjoy?
Please, you said yourself you don't know the region that well so I'm not sure why you're arguing so hard or who you claim to represent.
Comment 4.1.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 10:04 PM
I dont recall saying that tractors and backhoes dredging the mouth was a good thing; do you????
My argument isnt environmental at all, its more structural and economical. If it was environmental I would argue to rejuvenate the lake to a freshwater lake, which I have been led to believe it was originally.
As far as the great bay, if that scenario did happen I would say many more houses, however I would actually expect that the mouth would still infill, my uneducated guess would be that the lake would become a wave dominated estuary (look up the features of a more…
Comment 5 27 Aug 2009, 5:32 PM
I think that "save the beach" has some extremely valid and well thought out points that seem to be so quickly and eagerly dismissed.
I and other members of the community will dearly miss surfing at beautiful middle rock and marvelling at the amazing place we all like to call home should the decision be made to not retreat !!!.
It seams so backward and naive to think that by building man made structures and placing them in the ocean that it will not adversely affect the current NATURAL ecosystem and movement of sand up and down our coast.
Does anyone more…
Comment 5.1 27 Aug 2009, 11:35 PM
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 more…
Comment 5.1.1 28 Aug 2009, 3:52 PM
Well Gaz you're losing credibility by commenting on things you do not understand.
Do you SURF at middle rock? Do you know what makes middle rock a good surf break? When the north side of middle rock gets good, it is after a continued period of north to south current which pushes the sand against the northern side of the rock. Then we get a south swell ... and the wave works.
SURFERS BEWARE!!!
If a groyne is constructed at the south side of the lake entrance, it will rob middle rock of the sand it currently recieves during these currents, and guess what... it will also close the lake. People who think a groyne is going to keep the lake open are dreaming. I think Naive is a great choice of words.
And as for your comment regarding the natural ecosystem, you infer that we've already half stuffed it, so why not finish the job. Once again you're credibility is fast losing ground Gaz!!!
Comment 5.1.1.1 1 Sep 2009, 10:22 PM
I have no problem losing credibility if its you saying it.
I do not surf that is correct, However I do love to swim and there has been little or no good swimming to have on Cathie beach for a long time because more often than not there has been no sand there. Hang on your saying there is sand there most of the time and thats what makes it such a good break? Seriously if you don't want to go for a walk to Middle Rock then get on google maps and hit satellite view. At least we more…
Comment 5.1.2 6 Oct 2009, 8:18 PM
You build groynes and walls dood you change the longshore drift, thus changing the sand to the north of the spot. I cant see how it cant change the local coastal geomorphology, and sedimentology.
Comment 5.1.2.1 14 Oct 2009, 5:55 PM
Dude! Everything we do will change the longshore drift and interrupts the natural process! Retreat is the biggest scam to date on this! to enlighten you as to what happens about every 6 months when retreat is put in place (because its been in place for the last 13 years). So much sand chokes the lake (directly from your longshore drift - because the lake can no longer keep it open) that the council takes Tractors down to the beach (when the water is high enough) and rips huge tracts through the sand flushing it all out to sea.
NOW I FOR THE LIFE OF ME CANNOT SEE HOW WHAT YOU"RE PROPOSING WILL NOT INTERRUPT THE LOCAL COASTAL GEOMORPHOLOGY AND SEDIMENTOLOGY
Comment 5.1.2.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 10:23 PM
EXACTLY interference has stuffed the place, how do you expect more interference will help. Continually we try to modify and control nature and continually it kick us in the ass. If you try to control one spot it will have some influence on others. That is a perfect example why not to build more structure.
Im not sure what retreat has to do with the lake choking (please explain).
And my longshore drift does choke the lake entrance because we try to control the lake by opening it when it is naturally supposed to be CLOSED and would be freah from what more…
Comment 5.2 1 Sep 2009, 11:39 AM
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.
Comment 5.3 10 Sep 2009, 6:35 PM
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 more…
Comment 5.3.1 6 Oct 2009, 8:19 PM
If you build these structures you will change the entire coast that you all seem to care so much about.
Comment 6 27 Aug 2009, 8:57 PM
I am concerned about the news I saw tonight, it didn’t look like people want to save the beach rather CHANGE the beach. I have to agree with some of the less popular comments and say retreat.
We need to let the greater interest of the area take the box seat here. Why would we risk damaging substantial amounts of pristine coastline with "engineering" methods that have proven only to relocate a problem or make things worse in the long run? Look at Kirra beach, they are now actually reversing there efforts. Look at other examples that cause more erosion, this more…
Comment 6.1 28 Aug 2009, 4:44 PM
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 more…
Comment 6.1.1 31 Aug 2009, 5:19 PM
I think Beached whale has raised a great point regarding the Kenwood drive bridge and storm water pipes into the ocean. Classic examples of what at the time was an engineering solution and the result? As you have stated terrible. Do you know and can you foresee what more medalling will do? Can you guarantee it will not make maters significantly worse?
What will the result of the next engineering stunt be? Maybe they will build another groyne due to the new damage the proposed one will cause, and then another and maybe a wall between to make sure. A jewel in the crown no longer, that will be the result. You raise an excellent point indeed.
Comment 6.1.1.1 1 Sep 2009, 7:04 PM
So you consider the current state of lake cathie to be a 'jewel in the crown'? Here's the scoop, people argued against the bridge narrowing and kenwood bridge. People informed council their neglect of storm water drains was having a severe impact on the coastline. Council did nothing and now look where we are? Now the council doing nothing is going to fix the problems? It seems to me that the people of Cathie know a heck of a lot more about where they live than the council. You and 'save the beach' have only one argument about impeding nature. more…
Comment 6.1.1.1.1 2 Sep 2009, 10:33 AM
Good point! What are your views on the social impact a retreat would bring on the local community?
Comment 6.1.1.1.2 6 Oct 2009, 10:55 PM
Thats interesting, you say building structures stuffed the beach, and your solution is to build more. Interesting hypothesis that one huh.
If houses are destroyed then they would build houses elsewhere wouldnt they, supply and demand? So rates wouldnt be affected much in the long term, and they wouldnt have to build expensive structures that are not as reliable as some think.
Comment 6.1.1.1.2.1 14 Oct 2009, 6:10 PM
Nope you missed the point again. Locals know a heck of a lot more than the Council, SMEC and a couple of Uni grads is the point! If they had listened from the start we mightn't be in this position. there is a difference between what is smart and what is not, and that is what is on show here.
Locals campaigning for a widening of the bridges to increase the Lake Flow out to sea....Smart Idea.
Council choosing not to but rather let the situation play out.......Bad Idea!
Locals telling the council to fix the broken pipes headed out to sea because more…
Comment 6.1.1.1.2.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 10:36 PM
I agree the councils and other levels of government have made some silly decisions in the past and will do so in the future. So are you saying that widening the bridge and lengthening the pipes will fix the problem? if so give it a go but the pipes will get damaged again so there will be ongoing maintenance. Obviously redirecting stormwater to a treatment plant would be good, and I would support that. It may help the beach and I would be very interested to see the results. But sea level rise would suggest that it will be a more…
Comment 6.1.1.2 3 Sep 2009, 4:34 PM
The engineering solutions proposed in the draft management plan have been developed by coastal engineering experts from SMEC. The Kenwood Drive bridge and the poorly designed storm water pipes into the ocean had no such expert study done into their possible effects prior to their construction.
You seem to think that because errors that have occurred in engineering design in the past, means that all future engineering solutions are doomed to fail.
Seems to me that you're selectively pushing the barrows that suit your own narrow views and not being at all objective.
Comment 6.1.1.2.1 6 Oct 2009, 8:34 PM
And you havent pushed your own barrow lew. Please, the truth is that everyone has there own bias. I dont believe that saving a few houses is going to save the entire Hastings region,and building a few structures will not save the world. The engineers are there to explore all the options, and the coastal managers are there to weigh up all the points, including social values and needs. They may come up with groynes etc, if they think its politically viable, however I can bet in twenty or thirty years retreat will be the adopted option. the ratepayers of Port Maquarie Hastings are not going to be happy with continually trying to save houses that were build on silly spots like coastal sand dunes. Its true that the residents are not at fault. And maybe the council should buy back the land as they do with compulsory aquisition. But finding and endless supply of cash to replenish sand and repair storm damaged rock walls and groynes is really not the answer.
Comment 6.1.1.2.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 6:20 PM
My bias is that of fighting for friends and good locals in the community. Still trying to work out yours though.
Once again you know exactly not what you're talking about. Endless supplies of cash for maintaining pipes and beach nourishment (sometimes reffered to as Lake dredging) is exactly what you'll need to be doing if your silly RMS is adopted. Thats Fact! We've seen it for the past 13 years.
Houses built on silly sand dunes?.......Mate, go and get a shovel and ask one of the good folk of Illarroo if you could do a little digging under their lawn.
Mate, you've about as much credibility as your Belongil spit argument!
Do you really think a 1.1 million dollar Groyne is Endless cash....considering the amount of money a Retreative option would cost!
...Councils second biggest Myth......A Reactive Management Strategy would be the Least Costly Measure! It does seem to me that every single option in the Draft has been costed over 50 years except 1! you guesses it...RMS! Absolute Scam!
Comment 6.1.1.2.1.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 10:51 PM
Its interesting you mention the damaged pipes in other posts, but cant see that the new pipes will get damaged and therefore need maintenance. Beach nourishment is placing sand on the beach, dredging is digging out sediment to create deeper channels. Beach nourishment does not necasarilly mean the sand is supplied by dredging but I believe is most of the time (sorry for not speaking in your lingo).
Its probably not costed over 50 years because it is not building stucture that will need maintenance, the idea would be to adapt to the changes in the local geology and that may take various forms, may be some day they might see cathie as a venice like town with canals (it sounds strange and I admit unlikely but people make strange decisions like building suburbs on sand dunes close to the coast, I believe the Gold Coast is basically sky scrapers on sand dunes, seems pretty crazy in hindsite).
Comment 6.2 2 Sep 2009, 11:04 AM
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.
Comment 6.2.1 4 Sep 2009, 6:18 PM
.
Comment 6.2.2 6 Oct 2009, 8:53 PM
Lets say the building of the groynes restricts sand transport to the mouth of the lake. the mouth gets larger and then is subject to flooding from the increased hydrological flow. The tides are now higher in the lake, king tides now threaten the entire lower section of the township in the king tide season. If I remember correctly the higher tides around Lake Cathie are at christmas time. So there goes the tourist trade and cuts the roads for a few hours a day. Whats the solution to that? probably build a rock wall ala Hastings and Camden Haven rivers. Im not privy to the quantities of sand transported past the mouth there in a year, but this is a scenario I see if the sand transport is limited south of the mouth. Remember larger mouth equals larger tides if the king tides coincide with large rainfall, as has happened here many times in the last two years. Id say it is going to be ugly for Lake Cathie.
Comment 6.2.2.1 14 Oct 2009, 6:38 PM
OK!! One of us has absolutely NO IDEA what they are talking about! It could be me and I'm happy to be exposed, But in my life time....I have never seen anything like what it is you're saying. But I'm pretty sure the only exccess flooding we've seen is when your precious RMS has mean the Lake closes.....and Continual heavy rain (for say months) means that the Lake floods until the council can be bothered getting those tractors out and yep.....Doing the right thing by the environment and ripping hige tracts in the sand to wash the entire beach at more…
Comment 6.2.2.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 10:58 PM
I dont claim to have graduate knowledge dude. Never will you find any mention of a degree in my posts, I have been studying the subject though. If you have a look around you may bea able to find some reports about Port Phillip Bay in Melbourne, the bay basically is a massive body of water that has a small opening. When the tide rises it doesnt rise fully on the inside because the small entrance restricts the flow. If the entrance was to errode away the tides will rise inside and flood the low lying areas like the sewerage farm on the western side. When I was living there there was talk of sinking ships to stop the headland from eroding, I thing that was more a pipe dream than anything else. In my earlier post I have said after a bit of research thet I would expect the infilling to continue.
Comment 6.3 30 Sep 2009, 9:32 PM
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 more…
Comment 7 27 Aug 2009, 9:52 PM
Personally I love Lake Cathie and love to take my dogs walking on the beach there. I have also watched it disappear over the past 15 years quite drastically. What ever we're doing at the moment (which is nothing) isn't working as far as lake cathie beach goes. I don't see how continually doing nothing and letting homes consistently fall into the ocean will help fix the problem for all those beach lovers? I'm not sure how letting homes fall into the ocean would fix the lake either?? Not sure how it would maintain the beach amenity as someone previously commented too???
I'm too old to surf so I can't comment there but definitely some kind of groyne would help provide a better beach for all those who want to protect the beach. I would have thought that was pretty hard to argue?
As a beach lover all my life I would definitely support a protective structure situated in Lake Cathie.
As a community we've done nothing for too long now and the natural environment has suffered year after year. Time to step forward and fix this problem for everyone
Comment 7.1 6 Oct 2009, 9:06 PM
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.
Comment 8 27 Aug 2009, 9:59 PM
If a Protective measure would be half funded by the state government, then we'd be crazy not to take advantage of that.
Comment 8.1 29 Aug 2009, 5:02 PM
Removed by moderator - this was a duplicate comment
Comment 9 29 Aug 2009, 5:12 PM
I think some of you are losing sight of the picture (save the beach), the council has been negligent for many years in not maintaining their stormwater drains which has allowed a breakdown along the dunal areas & they should rectify their erosion issues along Illaroo Road , immediately!!. Their Duty of Care must be to maintain community assets ie stormwater drains, the road that we use & allow access to properties on Illaroo Road, not just walk away.
In the 6years from when i first notified PMHC that the stormwater drain at the southern end of Jonathon Dickson park more…
Comment 9.1 31 Aug 2009, 10:41 AM
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.
Comment 9.1.1 1 Sep 2009, 6:14 PM
I personally would want a breakwall either side like you say but as I don't live in Lake Cathie. I think the decision should really go to them. But hey, unlike you I put others who's needs outweigh my own first. As you once put it to me all you need to do is step out of your workplace and walk down to middle rock to see that it is trapping sand immediately South, hence no real erosion has occurred there.
Please mate, give us your thoughts as how to handle the social impact of doing nothing. You claim to be coming from an environmental angle (which I severely dispute) but have absolutely no foresight as to the cost on the entire community both economically and socially. I and others have put this to you time and time again. You're a one dimensional argument who hasn't yet grappled with the wider issues at hand
Comment 9.1.1.1 6 Oct 2009, 9:16 PM
You talk like the loss of a few houses is going to destroy the entire region. In the near future we are talking about a few houses. Lake Cathie is much more than a few houses. Its horrible for these people who are affected yes I have no doubt. And maybe they should be compensated for mistakes made by the council, (Byron Shire is testing that in court sometime soon I think). But there comes a time when you have to look at this rationally. You cannot stop the ocean, you can slow it maybe. but you will never stop it even with sentimentality.
Comment 9.1.1.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 6:46 PM
Easy for you to say because you don't live there. As this is no fault of there own, personally I expect every reasonable measure to be put in place to protect people (I'm glad you've admitted culpability on some level by the council).
I think just over 1 million for a plan to (AT WORST) keep people in there homes for another 50 years, help keep sand on the most popular part of Cathie Beach, Help keep the Lake open, Help promote tourism and business, is a vey worthy investment. We'd chew through that money in a couple of years if we decided not to react.
Maybe even delaying the inevitable would be worth it so that these people don't have to be subject to homelessness! I live in Port and I use the Beach and Lake in Cathie far more than I will ever use the Glass House, New walkway from Shelleys to Towns, New footpath and hand rail at Laurieton. For me this is an investment not a cost!
Comment 9.1.1.1.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 11:04 PM
Thats fine if that is your opinion. As far as the Glass House well the idea should be for the glass house to pay itself off and become an asset in the future. There seems to be a strong opinion in the community that that is not going to happen but only time will tell. I dont see the correlation with Cathie, its spending continuous money to save a few houses that I dont think will make a difference to the local tourism trade (we will have to agree to disagree on that one).
Comment 9.1.2 11 Sep 2009, 10:25 PM
Ahh Save the Beach you are a protagonist who offers no solutions just wants sit & observe the demise of the dunes, of a road & then peoples houses.
I'm happy to agree with you to hold off on the groyne, are you happy to agree with my other points ie PMHC's lack of maintenance for the stormwaters that are taking away the beach & dune you wish to save, this should be fixed immediately? + the need to be proactive & save what we already have? ( ie the existing road & access to peoples properties?
My point 29/8/9 above more…
Comment 9.1.2.1 6 Oct 2009, 9:51 PM
Yes I agree with you about the stormwater drains etc, mally. That is a big problem contributing to the problems around many parts of the coast. I was talking to the coastal manger at Balina a few weeks ago, and they tried to get the stormwater drains diverted to the sewage treatment plant. It was decided it was to expensive. Save the beach does suggest retreat, yes that is not a solution, but management is about finding the best outcome by weighing up social needs, wants, political pressure, cost and the implications of building structure as compared to other actions. more…
Comment 9.1.2.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 6:48 PM
What your main concern immediately NTH of the Lake?
Have you really only been to the Beach once or twice?
Comment 9.1.2.1.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 11:14 PM
If the lake becomes a full time estuary, like you think it will, the north side becomes a full time headland made from sand. Most headlands are made of rock because the shape concentrates the wave energy (by wave refraction) and wears away the sand rapidy. If there is less sand transported to the north side this process will speed up (i expect) then your building a rock wall over there. Unless there is rock on the north side there then it may not be a problem for quite some time. The houses are not in immediate danger at the moment on the north, but I expect the houses on the south side were not always as well. Yet they are now! I just think it is short sighted to be thinking about the next 50yrs and stuff the future we will all be dead then, thats probably what union carbide said when it dumped toxins in the parramatta river.
Comment 10 30 Aug 2009, 7:15 PM
The Reactive Management Strategy is, firstly, THE worst available option. I can't imagine that the Council would expect the residents to be leaping for joy at the idea of them losing their homes and hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it's kind of bewildering that the option is proposed at all.
Secondly, I can understand both sides of the other options: Retreat vs. Revetment, Groyne and Beach Nourishment. Yes, compensation for the residents is certainly the preferable option for obvious reasons - namely, we NEED money to LIVE. To give us nothing will only cause tremendous emotional and economic stress.
In more…
Comment 10.1 1 Sep 2009, 10:30 AM
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 more…
Comment 10.1.1 1 Sep 2009, 9:23 PM
There is a method available to combat beach erosion that as yet has not been considered.
This is an especially designed Mass Gravity Dry-stack Retaining wall that is eco-friendly.
It has been extreamly successful in parts of South Africa and now Im lead to believe in San Diego USA.
It has been designed to capture the sand and return water to the ocean.This has been offered to Hastings Council, but they seem to be disinterested in even looking at the product.Old Bar are considering it at the moment.
Comment 10.1.1.1 1 Sep 2009, 10:33 PM
The council should be open to all ideas and techniques available to them. I guess they first need to realise the benefits that protecting this part of the coastline can bring to the region. But your right, if they are serious with their managment study they shouldnot dismiss any protective measure and definitely should have included he lake in the Hazard report too.
Comment 10.1.1.1.1 2 Sep 2009, 9:34 PM
The way I see this is we have 2 choices. The first choice is to do nothing. The result of this will be, Illaroo Road will wash into the ocean, the houses on Illaroo Road will wash into the ocean, the lives of Illaroo Road residents will be totally destroyed, tourism in Lake Cathie will be destroyed, the lake itself will eventually be so choked with sand it to will be destroyed, no longer will you be able to fish and swim in the lake, small business owners in Lake Cathie will go broke and they too will have their more…
Comment 10.1.1.1.1.1 2 Sep 2009, 10:27 PM
Well done mate you couldn't have put it simpler. Its important to remember that the guys arguing against intervention have had their way for a long time now and in that time we have seen the Lake more often than not resemble a brown swamp, tourism become basically non existent except for the last year or so when they keep getting the tractors down there opening it up, and the business' Nth of the bridge go under. So add to that a steady stream of houses and livelihoods being lost.....I think you only need to consider a few things other than surf breaks to realise what the most sensible option is.
These extremists that think that any human involvement only makes things worse, I wonder how they feel about getting tractors down on the sand and gouging it away when water levels in the lake rise. Do they support the flooding of many homes surrounding the lake (which would be a natural occurrence under their ideology) or do they support human involvement and getting tractors dig massive holes in the beach to let the sand wash out to the ocean?
Comment 10.2 7 Sep 2009, 5:08 PM
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.
Comment 10.3 8 Sep 2009, 11:29 AM
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.
Comment 10.4 6 Oct 2009, 10:07 PM
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???
Comment 10.4.1 9 Oct 2009, 6:24 PM
I hear what your saying and I appreciate some of your earlier points. My main response is to say that this is not normal erosion that is occurring here. This argument has been rebutted add nauseum. The car analogy is woeful, but to go along with you I guess the council relates do the dodgy person who sold you the car? These properties were purchased from a brand new car dealership and now the dealership is not honouring the warranty, in fact they are actively putting water in the petrol tank to break it quicker so they'll need to buy more…
Comment 10.4.1.1 12 Oct 2009, 5:15 PM
I dispute your point on the car analogy, my point is that everybody makes bad financial decisions and has to wear the consequences. Im not so sure that everybody else should pay for it. You blame the council and maybe thats fair enough, but if you build a house with a wooden frame and white ant destroys your house can you make tham pay for allowing wooden structure in a white ant area?? Why bother paying for insurance, you can get the council to pay if it floods, if it burns down you can blame the council for allowing flammable more…
Comment 10.4.1.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 7:35 PM
The reason you cannot understand the Loss of Tourism and Business is because you never saw it 15-20 years ago! Many Small Business's/Accom/General Stores/ Take Away Food / Petrol Station evaporated once the Lake started closing in the late 90's and people didn't want to come there for their hols. If you were around you would have seen the devastating effect it had on the local community. If you were around you would have seen that it was just that..A JEWEL IN THE CROWN! years of neglect from your retreative plicy which has been in place for many a year more…
Comment 10.4.1.1.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 7:43 PM
Re: the CAR analogy you decided to put forward. Its perfect. These people did not buy a Lemon Car. This is a defendable problem albeit maybe only delayable due to the councils willingness to let it get this far. What impacts do you think Opening the Lake twice a year has on the local beaches? what impact does not mantaining sea drains and pipes have on the local beaches?
This is not your run of the mill normal coastal erosion! Global warming and sea level rises exist for sure. they have nothing to do with what's going on here. we don't need to spend a million dollars on a SMEC study to tell us that!
Comment 10.4.1.1.1.1.1 14 Oct 2009, 11:40 PM
They did buy a lemon! Even if the council does decide to save the houses they have obviously had allot of stress from the unknown, and I wouldnt want to be in their houses on a big storm night.
Im getting confused you said earlier that the lake needed to be opened to attract tourism and then at other times you say it is a problem stuffing up the beach. Maybe we should let it do its thing and then adjust to its will.
See this is the problem you change things and it has effects somewhere else. And it is unpredictable, the engineers that do these Impact Assessments will be working with many unknowns and I would bet even they would have a few scenarios in their possible file.
Comment 10.4.1.1.1.2 14 Oct 2009, 11:29 PM
Im happy to give people slack dude, as I said the reason I got involved was the lack of slack being distibuted to the ones who dared to disagree. I understand that 20yrs ago this may have been a very different place. A friend I have in Sydney has been coming to Port for nearly 40 years and says that tourism has destroyed the Port he knows and loves. I guess that is all up to individual taste. I dont have any emotional attachment or financial attachment to this issue so I am looking at it from a strictly functional view point, it seems that it is all about fix it for us and bugger the future. I totally understand that people have invested money and have an emotional attachment to their homes, if I was in the same position I would want to have it saved as well but in reality I dont think it is good in the long term. You talk about reactive management, well changing somthing in a dynamic area like sandy coastlines will often need another measure when the changes start to stuff another area.
Comment 11 2 Sep 2009, 10:29 AM
Retreat seems like an option that would not have a desired outcome for anyone. To do nothing would be a ridiculous notion given that there are possible solutions available (whether they get funding or not). The thought that retreat would somehow protect the beach and surf is laughable.
Comment 12 3 Sep 2009, 3:45 PM
It seems to me that one area that has been so far overlooked is the fact that along Chepana Street there is a "littoral rainforest" that is supposed to be a "rare and precious" piece of coastal reserve. There have been great efforts over the last few months by Council and Landcare to re-establish this "rainforest". A great deal of money has been spent weeding and replanting. Residents have been forced by Council to move fences and anything encroaching on this reserve at their own expense. This is Crown Land owned by the State Government, apparently in the care of more…
Comment 12.1 6 Oct 2009, 10:45 PM
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 more…
Comment 12.1.1 7 Oct 2009, 11:13 AM
I would like to suggest that the access to Illaroo road by large trucks (e.g. Hastings Council trucks and Country Energy trucks) be limited. On a daily basis large trucks rumble along Illaroo Rd. It is obvious they are not working on the road, the drivers are just looking at the beach and the entrance. I'm sure this is a nice distraction during a work day but it does not help the protection of the road. It has been said that sand can be seen falling out from the area below the road when large trucks drive along Ilaroo Rd. Please consider limiting access to the road only by those large trucks which absolutely have to dirve along it. Thank you.
Comment 12.1.2 14 Oct 2009, 7:51 PM
We should have chosen to inhabit the moon!
Once again you know not what your talking about but would like to antagonise people by teling them to knock their houses down.
The Littoral forest NTH of middle rock are being exposed since the Lake started filling with sand causing the Bay you like to mention so much. So NO! you're RMS is what is causing the loss of this rainforest. So A groyne just might save your forest to.
A lot of people would agree that we've made mistakes in this country. However I;m sure if a million people were telling you that you were about to make another one you still wouldn't listen.
Inaction can be just as disastrous as bad judgment. The Aboriginals know that one all too well
Comment 12.1.2.1 15 Oct 2009, 12:26 AM
I suggest that you are advocating a mistake; and you are not listening, that is called having an opinion (Im happy to respect yours if you respect mine). Unfortunately your replies usually involve attacking me and my two cohorts, saying we hate people and veterans, we are radicals, why not extremists, sounds like sound bites of conservative politicians, why not say its un australian and complete the set.
Im not necessarilly saying to knock the house down, some houses may be moved if its the structure that is important. In Byron Bay they are only letting people build in the danger more…
Comment 12.1.2.1.1 20 Oct 2009, 5:23 PM
Headin the sand,
I'm interested to know how you are aware that Aboriginals built homes that wer washed away and then they just moved.Is this based on Archeological diggings ?
