By Willie Younger
A Natural State of Mind
For many decades, those familiar with the beachfront at Sargent were rightfully alarmed by the rate this Gulf shore was eroding. In the late 70s and early 80s, it was documented that there were erosional hot spots where land loss on the beach approached sixty (60’) feet per year.
The average loss along this precarious seven-mile stretch of beach was a little over thirty feet (30’) each year.
This troubling phenomena also led to the Gulf devouring 7 rows of beach homes.
You see, this marked Sargent Beach as having the greatest rate of erosion of all ocean shorelines in the Western Hemisphere.
As a result, things began to get a bit scary!
Because of this notorious rate of erosion at Sargent Beach, geologists and coastal morphologists from the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas had begun intense studies of this region of the Gulf Coast nearly 50 years ago. Their findings, and those of researchers from the University of North Carolina, led them to theorize that the cause of this persistent loss of oceanfront property was most likely the rerouting of the Brazos River in the 1950s.
They suggested that this had unexpectedly created scouring currents along the shore area to the southwest known as Sargent Beach.
So, when I read recently published articles in our local newspapers identifying a roadway-access dilemma at Sargent Beach, a screeching siren went off in my mind.
Sadly, these news pieces had reported that the paved road running parallel to the beach, southwestward of the bridge to the boat ramp on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) had been declared unfit for motorized traffic and indefinitely closed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Such damage by the sea’s intrusion was made noticeably worse by Beryl.
So, in looking both backwards into the past and forward with dire predictions of a storm-filled horizon, it would appear that the future for Sargent and Sargent Beach may not be any brighter than presently evidenced there… post-Beryl.
With an extraordinary array of complex problems associated with the assault of the Gulf of Mexico on this vulnerable stretch of coastline, perhaps a wee bit more of background information might be helpful.
Admittedly, my goal in releasing this brief historical review is to showcase specific perils likely to face the Sargent community.
Even more alarming is the dismal consequences awaiting the State of Texas, our nation and the free world should coastal erosion once again begin its volatile landward march and, thereby, endanger the GIWW and those with a vested interest in Sargent.
At the time when concern regarding erosion at Sargent reached a fevered pitch (i.e., early 80s), I was the Marine and Coastal Resources Extension Agent for Matagorda County.
Therefore, I feel compelled to provide a verifiable historical review since I was intimately involved in the collective effort to halt the erosion.
To clarify, my professional involvement was sharply focused as a member of an action-oriented core group which included County Judges Burt O’Connell and, his successor, Loy Sneary, along with members of the County Commissioners Court and community-minded members of the Sargent and Bay City Chambers of Commerce.
Boldly spearheading this cause was County Commissioner George Deshotels, who counted the people of the Sargent Area among the constituents he faithfully served at that time. Prudently bolstering lobbying efforts at the state and federal level were Judges O’Connell and Sneary, along with State Representative Tom Uher.
But recognition for initially spotlighting this broad reaching erosion problem is due community leaders and Sargent residents Muriel Tipps and the late Billye Clays.
My role was to provide practically-applied advice and assistance through the Sea Grant/AgriLife Extension Program of Texas A&M, with whom I was employed and assigned to serve Matagorda County.
Equally vital to this problem-solving campaign was the unwavering support of the entire Matagorda County Commissioners Court, along with deeply concerned private interests.
Locally, this included real estate brokers, all three county-based chambers of commerce and petrochemical manufacturers along our immediate portion of the Gulf Coast.
The latter being those who were dependent upon the functional reliability of the GIWW in order to move raw materials and/or finished products by barge.
Each entity felt solemnly bound to preserve the integrity of this waterway.
Disturbingly, a backwards look will reveal that it took over four years of frustrating educational persistence (eventually, some tearful pleading) to get the more stubborn and/or ill-informed parties convinced that “The sky was indeed about to fall and no state or federal assistance had been mobilized to halt it”.
Oddly, the parties with the most to lose were mysteriously sluggish when it came to assertively responding in a timely fashion to this looming marine transportation crisis.
These were many of the prominent petrochemical manufacturing complexes dotting the Texas/Louisiana Coast and their commercially allied inland waterway transportation interests.
While those producing tangible consumer goods in the nation’s industrial heartland clearly understood the threat and promptly became ardent advocates and loyal political allies in working towards an enduring solution at Sargent.
Particularly strong political support came from elected officials and captains of industry in the Ohio and Mississippi River Valleys.
So understandably, the daily prayer of the County’s action coalition was that a timely consensus would be reached that it was in the nation’s best interest to quickly protect the GIWW and, in doing so, save what was left of the beach at Sargent.
Of course, the greatest relief came when Congress accepted the reality that if barge traffic were to be halted at Sargent, a large portion of America’s and the free world’s vital supply of petrochemicals would be abruptly interrupted.
Subsequently, the powers-that-be set about to thoughtfully weigh the critical question, which was, “IF the transport of these essential industrial commodities by barges on the GIWW was suddenly stopped by a breach at Sargent Beach, could this workhorse waterway be repaired in a reasonable length of time and thereby prudently avoid astronomical economic disruptions?”
However, those with a clear(er) appreciation concluded that best plan would be to avert a catastrophic blow to this maritime artery at Sargent Beach ‘well before’ our country’s overall economy tragically – perhaps irreversibly – withered, along with a large chunk of our nation’s defense capabilities.
Ultimately, well-crafted, locally developed initiatives were successful in gaining the attention, allocation of funds and authorization of Congress so that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could address Sargent’s erosion problem.
In response to the urgency of the situation, the bureaucratic processes associated with this water-related federal project (i.e., to build a revetment wall) were shortened from the snail’s-pace average of 20-plus years to a lightning fast 8 years.
With great relief, the beach’s granite-block shield was duly installed before a storm-related disaster struck.
Occasionally, moderately-threatening tropical and wintertime storms, as well as seasonal high tides, sweep over this artificially-reinforced barrier (i.e., revetment wall) and cause localized flooding.
Fortunately, neither this vulnerable land mass nor the GIWW have been threatened with termination...YET!
To date, the wall has proven its ability to stop the sea from violently sloshing over this thin strip of land in an overly-aggressive fashion and, in doing so, promote the removal of this puny strand of sand/clay and destroy the underlying footing of the wall that is precariously standing guard there.
But it became glaringly obvious to the majority of those concerned that if a raging category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane struck at or near Sargent Beach, it may quickly wash away sections of the narrow strip of territory and the boulder wall separating the Gulf from the canal.
If this happens, the consequences would be immediate, dire and long lasting.
When the USACE’s wall-construction plans were revealed, many pleaded to raise this structure another 3-4 feet.
This opportunity to strengthen its ability to repel the Gulf was dismissed as both too expensive and ‘probably’ unneeded?
In closing, it is hoped that it is fully understood that the inland barges we see transiting up and down the GIWW cannot safely carry chemical products in the open Gulf.
Nor is there a fleet of U.S. merchant ships (i.e., tankers), ocean-going barges or chemical rail cars available to carry never-ending shipments of petrochemicals to their awaiting destinations.
And, existing pipelines are fully utilized and, therefore, offer very little promise of moving these industrial staples for the benefit of our country’s manufacturing interests.
Without a doubt, the GIWW is the unsung hero of our nation’s transportation system and, therefore, deserves both our deepest respect and vigilant protection.
So, as the old saying goes, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!”
Therefore, we would be wise to consider that near-term enhancements to the canal-protecting revetment wall (e.g., perhaps by elevating the wall).
Plus, we should never lose sight of the fact that such improvements are highly likely to also provide added protection from the wrath of an angry sea for the people and property found in nearby Sargent!
To punctuate the urgency, have you noticed that Atlantic storms are appearing more frequently and are often stronger than in the past?
Call it global climate change or a natural cycle of atmospheric variance.
It really doesn’t matter.
What is important is that we, as a society, should accept responsibility for protecting what is critical to both existing and future generations!