Why Doesn't Galveston Take Better Care Of Their Beaches?

[galveston1602]

Living here (on the island) I may have a perspective of this that is missed by some of the people here who only visit on the weekends...

1. The beaches behind the seawall are scraped (and fluffed) everyday starting I believe at 4:00AM they are usually done by 8 ish. I see this everyday on my way to work so i know it happens. On particularly bad days for sargasum they will start using front end loaders to scoop up the seaweed after dark the night before. There is usually a crew of 6-8 people walking down the seawall and the beach picking up trash (im not saying they are the best but they are trying) The sargassum is raked on the west end occasionally at the request of the different neighborhoods (this varies based on who is in charge)

2. The monster sized mats of sargasum that float in during the spring and early summer would probably be 3-5' deep if they werent scraped daily, what this means is that even if the beach was cleaned 2 or 3 times a day the sargasum can wash up so quickly as to make it look like the beach isnt cleaned at all. obviously they cant clean the beach other than first thing in the morning for safety reasons.

3. The city digs sand from various places on the island and trucks it in to the beaches on the seawall. They seem to do this every other year or so. they spend millions doing this only to see it all get washed away! I'd like to see them look into other ways to keep the sand on the beach instead of spending more money on something thats only temporary http://www.rexross.com/reversingshoreline.html

4. The water does get to looking like chocolate milk alot of times. But, during the months of may-sept when the wind dies down for a few days in a row the water gets a nice green look to it. I have a window office on the 12th floor of the anico building in downtown and there are times during the year when you can see the clear "blue-green" water line less than a mile out. all in all id say that about 50% of the "prime time" beach season the beach water is decent looking.

5. Cleaning up the areas on the seawall where there is no beach is very dangerous because of the slick rocks and crashing waves and even still when it gets somewhat calm the city has crews out crawling among the rocks to pick up the trash and large driftwood. In the mornings you can tell when they are doing this because the top level of the seawall is literally covered in trash being thrown up to the trucks working above!

I will agree that we as a city can and should do more but I think the easiest thing the city could do is have an aggressive policy of enforcing littering laws.

[69Chevy]

"I will agree that we as a city can and should do more but I think the easiest thing the city could do is have an aggressive policy of enforcing littering laws."

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!

[Reefmonkey]

Living here (on the island) I may have a perspective of this that is missed by some of the people here who only visit on the weekends...

1. The beaches behind the seawall are scraped (and fluffed) everyday starting I believe at 4:00AM they are usually done by 8 ish. I see this everyday on my way to work so i know it happens. On particularly bad days for sargasum they will start using front end loaders to scoop up the seaweed after dark the night before. There is usually a crew of 6-8 people walking down the seawall and the beach picking up trash (im not saying they are the best but they are trying) The sargassum is raked on the west end occasionally at the request of the different neighborhoods (this varies based on who is in charge)

2. The monster sized mats of sargasum that float in during the spring and early summer would probably be 3-5' deep if they werent scraped daily, what this means is that even if the beach was cleaned 2 or 3 times a day the sargasum can wash up so quickly as to make it look like the beach isnt cleaned at all. obviously they cant clean the beach other than first thing in the morning for safety reasons.

3. The city digs sand from various places on the island and trucks it in to the beaches on the seawall. They seem to do this every other year or so. they spend millions doing this only to see it all get washed away! I'd like to see them look into other ways to keep the sand on the beach instead of spending more money on something thats only temporary http://www.rexross.com/reversingshoreline.html

Sorry, you're right, my place is out on the west side of the Island beyond city limits, where the city doesn't come in and take the seaweed away, I never go to the beach along the seawall, forgot they do that there. Of course, we have more beach between the vegetation line and the water line out west than the seawall beaches do, even though we don't pump sand there.....I wonder if our sargassum being left there has something to do with that?

[69Chevy]

I often times frequent Galveston and Surfside as well (down 288 for those of you unfamiliar.) I personally prefer Surfside for lazy beach lounging and swimming. But regardless, it too gets its fair share of trash washing up. Every singe time we visit no matter where we go we always take a garbage bag and clean up the general area. Yes we hate the trash, but looking at it or avoiding it is not going to change it. Freaking pick it up! even if its not your's. You don't have to be in a beach adoption program to care for that which you enjoy

I agree and do likewise. When I have children with me I give them money for every bag of litter they fill. Money for ice cream is a great incentive. However if you are biking or jogging down the Seawall you won't get to far if you stop and pick up every piece of garbage you see. I can't imagine the thought process of someone who spends the day at the beach and then trashes the beach while there. People shouldn't have to clean up after other people, people should clean up after themselves!

[AnTonY]

On 2/21/2007 at 5:33 PM, TJones said:

(HUGE BUZZER NOISE) WRONG !

Here Puma my friend, this gives a better explanation.

http://www.lazy-pelican.com/keeping-live-bait-alive.html

 

This refers to Galveston Bay, not the actual island. If it's suspended sediment, then the water should be clearer on calmer wind days.

 

On 2/22/2007 at 7:37 AM, brerrabbit said:

Not necessarily the Mississippi river but certainly the Sabine, the Trinity, the San Jacinto, the Brazos, and the Colorado all add to the problem. That combined with the fact that the Gulf is very shallow comparitivly speaking to other gulfs and oceans. It takes almost ten miles off shore to get past the hundred foot depth mark. Add it all up and you get murky water that deposits darker sand onto the beaches giving it a "dirty" look.

 

The Sabine,  Brazos, and Colorado rivers don't empty at Galveston.  The Trinity and San Jacinto go through Galveston bay before reaching Galveston, so much of the sediment should be deposited. 

 

The sheer bulk of discoloration clearly comes from the Mississippi River.

[AnTonY]

On 2/21/2007 at 5:33 PM, TJones said:

(HUGE BUZZER NOISE) WRONG !

Here Puma my friend, this gives a better explanation.

http://www.lazy-pelican.com/keeping-live-bait-alive.html

 

Actually, the muddiness in Galveston Bay may not always have been:
https://www.chron.com/opinion/king/article/Galveston-Bay-s-muddy-waters-solely-our-fault-5610001.php

[Reefmonkey]

 

On 3/2/2018 at 10:24 PM, AnTonY said:

 

This refers to Galveston Bay, not the actual island.

The island itself was formed by buildup of the same sediment that is suspended in the bay. And that same sediment extends out into the Gulf (which the bay is hydrologically part of).

 

On 3/2/2018 at 10:24 PM, AnTonY said:

 

 If it's suspended sediment, then the water should be clearer on calmer wind days.

Very fine suspended sediment takes several days of very still water to finally settle. One kickup of afternoon winds, one afternoon rainstorm, starts the clock all over again. But when we do get long stretches of doldrums and no rain, the gulf water often gets surprisingly clear, I've even snorkeled in it, I remember a few years ago it got where I could see my feet standing chest deep, and enjoyed following a school of spadefish for quite a while.

 

On 3/2/2018 at 10:24 PM, AnTonY said:

 

The Sabine,  Brazos, and Colorado rivers don't empty at Galveston.  The Trinity and San Jacinto go through Galveston bay before reaching Galveston, so much of the sediment should be deposited.

And the waters from the Trinity and San Jacinto keep on going through Bolivar Pass (and San Luis Pass to a lesser extent). Remember what I said about fine sediment taking a long time of still water to settle out? Well not only does the sediment from the rivers NOT have time to settle out, the currents the rivers create stir up sediment that has previously settled. 

 

Rivers also create plumes of sediment that fan out beyond a simple straight line out of their mouths. This is how deltas form. So just because the Sabine, Brazos, and Colorado rivers don't "empty at Galveston", doesn't mean their sediment can't make its way to Galveston.

 

And you're contradicting yourself here, you're saying the Sabine, Brazos, and Colorado, three rivers that are fairly close to Galveston can't affect Galveston water clarity because they don't empty at Galveston, but you are saying the Mississippi River, which is much farther away, can.

 

You're also not factoring in the longshore current, which runs parallel to the coastline, and which, in Galveston's case, happens to run West-Southwesterly (ie, from southwest to northeast), pulling sediment from the Colorado and Brazos towards Galveston.

 

On 3/2/2018 at 10:24 PM, AnTonY said:

The sheer bulk of discoloration clearly comes from the Mississippi River.

No, it doesn't, you're wrong, this has been definitively dealt with. The shear bulk of discoloration in Galveston comes from Texas rivers, NOT from the Mississippi. The Loop Current carries Mississippi water AWAY from Texas, not toward it. It makes no sense that you are so invested in the Mississippi source misconception.

 

 

On 3/5/2018 at 1:56 AM, AnTonY said:

 

Actually, the muddiness in Galveston Bay may not always have been:
https://www.chron.com/opinion/king/article/Galveston-Bay-s-muddy-waters-solely-our-fault-5610001.php

Bill King is both right and wrong. He's right that the bay used to be, and could be, clearer, and that oyster dredging and loss of seagrass makes for a silt bottom that is easily stirred up, making the bay murkier. If you look at Dana Cove, on the bay side of Galveston Bay State Park, where I've been canoeing and kayaking and fishing for 35 years, the planting of seagrass and placement of geotubes as breakwaters to shelter the cove and allow the seagrass to take hold since the 90s has absolutely made that water body clearer. When I was a boy in the 80s, it was nothing but puffermud and opaque brown water, but now when I paddle through it, I can see to the bottom, see flounder, stingray, crabs, etc. in the dense seagrass.

 

But King is off-base comparing the Great Lakes to Galveston Bay, especially using clarity as a benchmark. Clear water is not necessarily a sign of a healthy ecosystem, and the Great Lakes continue to struggle with water pollution, worse than Galveston Bay in some ways. And one reason why the Great Lakes have become so clear in recent years is the invasive zebra mussel, which filters plankton and nutrients out of the water - plankton and nutrients that native Great Lakes organisms need. It's not just the sediment that makes Galveston Bay waters murky, it's also the plankton, and that goes hand in hand with Galveston Bay being one of the most biologically productive estuaries in the United States. It blows the Great Lakes out of the water in terms of biomass density and biodiversity. You can see how much a role plankton plays in water turbidity in Galveston Bay during winter when the plankton doesn't bloom like it does during the summer. The water is much clearer in the winter, and a deep slate blue instead of greenish-brown.

 

As a final note, if you look at my profile, you'll see I'm an environmental scientist, so I kinda know what I'm talking about here.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Reefmonkey

[Elseed]

There should be a crystal blue lagoon development in Galveston. Along with some Hampton's type development. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Elseed

[Reefmonkey]

On 12/10/2018 at 1:56 PM, Elseed said:

There should be a crystal blue lagoon development in Galveston. Along with some Hampton's type development. 

What exactly do you mean by “crystal blue lagoon development “?

 

And what do you mean by “Hampton’s type  development?”  The Hamptons are a bunch of 200-300 year old towns, how do we recreate that artificially and why should we want to try to become an inferior wannabe clone of a NY East Coast experience  instead of the authentic Gulf Coast town we already are?

[Elseed]

On 12/17/2018 at 6:56 AM, Reefmonkey said:

What exactly do you mean by “crystal blue lagoon development “?

 What I mean is; there should be a a crystal clear blue lagoon development created in/around Galveston Beach. This project would be close to the beach and it will have a crystal clear blue lagoon anchoring it.

 

 

 

 

On 12/17/2018 at 6:56 AM, Reefmonkey said:

 

And what do you mean by “Hampton’s type  development?”  The Hamptons are a bunch of 200-300 year old towns, how do we recreate that artificially and why should we want to try to become an inferior wannabe clone of a NY East Coast experience  instead of the authentic Gulf Coast town we already are?

 

As for “Hampton’s type  development”, I mean; there should be a “Hampton’s type  development" in Galveston. No one said it has to be exactly like the Hampton's, that's why I wrote; “Hampton’s type  development." Notice the word "type." This development doesn't have to be inferior and it could essentially be just a neighborhood; at first. Then it can grow to whatever the developers or the city's hearts desires. Also, the "authentic Gulf Coast town" experience is a pretty crappy experience if you ask me. You've got to have vision Reefmonkey or you'll just continue to make the same crappy development that Houston and Texas is so used too.

[Houston19514]

12 hours ago, Elseed said:

 

As for “Hampton’s type  development”, I mean; there should be a “Hampton’s type  development" in Galveston. No one said it has to be exactly like the Hampton's, that's why I wrote; “Hampton’s type  development." Notice the word "type." This development doesn't have to be inferior and it could essentially be just a neighborhood; at first. Then it can grow to whatever the developers or the city's hearts desires. Also, the "authentic Gulf Coast town" experience is a pretty crappy experience if you ask me. You've got to have vision Reefmonkey or you'll just continue to make the same crappy development that Houston and Texas is so used too.

 

https://www.beachtown.com/

Edited December 24, 2018 by Houston19514

[Ross]

On 12/10/2018 at 1:56 PM, Elseed said:

There should be a crystal blue lagoon development in Galveston. Along with some Hampton's type development. 

Nope. There should be no further development West of the Seawall, and every effort made to remove existing development there. Behind the seawall, there should be no additional highrise development. In other words, let's not destroy Galveston by overbuilding crappy million dollar beach houses when there's no need for them.

[Elseed]

On 12/24/2018 at 11:36 AM, Ross said:

Nope. There should be no further development West of the Seawall, and every effort made to remove existing development there. Behind the seawall, there should be no additional highrise development. In other words, let's not destroy Galveston by overbuilding crappy million dollar beach houses when there's no need for them.

 

Nah, I think they're should be more development in Galveston. Just not any lame development.

On 12/24/2018 at 9:54 AM, Houston19514 said:

 

https://www.beachtown.com/

 Well there ya have it! Just more of it and much cooler for cooler people.

[Reefmonkey]

On 12/23/2018 at 9:43 PM, Elseed said:

 What I mean is; there should be a a crystal clear blue lagoon development created in/around Galveston Beach. This project would be close to the beach and it will have a crystal clear blue lagoon anchoring it.

 

 

 

 

 

As for “Hampton’s type  development”, I mean; there should be a “Hampton’s type  development" in Galveston. No one said it has to be exactly like the Hampton's, that's why I wrote; “Hampton’s type  development." Notice the word "type." This development doesn't have to be inferior and it could essentially be just a neighborhood; at first. Then it can grow to whatever the developers or the city's hearts desires. Also, the "authentic Gulf Coast town" experience is a pretty crappy experience if you ask me. You've got to have vision Reefmonkey or you'll just continue to make the same crappy development that Houston and Texas is so used too.

 

You've just repeated what you have said, without any clarification or attempt to operationally define what you mean.

 

I've been to the Hamptons before. The public beaches are crowded and not really all that much more picturesque than Galveston, plus parking is expensive and kind of a nightmare, as is even getting to the Hamptons from New York City on a summer weekend. The hip restaurants and bars are expensive and difficult to get into - even difficult to get a reservation at, unless you're "somebody" (ie, famous or well-known to be rich). A lot of the best shoreline is inaccessible to the hoi polloi, can't even be seen behind high privacy walls.

 

On the "crystal clear blue lagoon" are you saying you want a large sheltered body of water, in which the water has no turbidity from suspended sediments or phytoplankton? First, you're going to have to have a sealed bottom, like concrete or gunnite, to replace the natural silt that makes up Galveston Island which gets stirred up and causes much of the turbidity in Galveston bay and beach water. Then, whatever water you fill this impoundment with is going to have to be continually filtered to prevent the impoundment from becoming a stagnant algae-choked swamp. One way to go would be to filter seawater through a semi-closed system. You'd have to have pretty good retention time on the water to eventually get rid of the finest suspended solids, but you'd also need to bring in new water periodically to keep your nutrient load low to reduce algae growth, and to replace water lost to evaporation. It would be a constant balancing act, and pretty energy and maintenance-intensive (read: expensive) for an impoundment of any size to handle the kinds of crowds who might be interested in it. It would never be "crystal clear", but could be significantly clearer than the bay or the beachwater. And it's never going to be blue, because you're going to have algae growth on your hard artificial bottom, so it's going to be green, not blue, plus that algae growth will make that hard bottom slippery, as anyone who has ever waded on a boat ramp knows.

 

The only option that would actually give you "crystal clear blue" water would be to chlorinate, which would give you a giant swimming pool, which Galveston already has in Palm Beach at Moody Gardens, and at Schlitterbahn, for that matter. Seems you're the one who might have the problem with vision, Elseed, since you apparently overlooked these two attractions. Just like you overlooked Beachtown on the Hamptons side of your wish list. It appears your impression of Galveston being a "pretty crappy experience" stems from being ill-informed about what the island actually has to offer. In 2016 6.5 million visitors spent $780 million dollars in Galveston, which generated $1.1 billion in total business sales, including indirect and induced impacts. Compare that to the 2.25 million people who visited the Florida Keys, which have a more year-round vacation climate, that same year. Seems Galveston is doing pretty well attracting visitors, despite your opinion of it. Why don't you go to the Hamptons and see how far you'd get on the same amount of money it takes to have a nice summer weekend down in Galveston? Or maybe since you seem partial to artificial manufactured simulacra of some "ideal" destination, you'd be more comfortable at Disneyworld?

[Elseed]

On 1/2/2019 at 11:43 AM, Reefmonkey said:

 

You've just repeated what you have said, without any clarification or attempt to operationally define what you mean.

 

I've been to the Hamptons before. The public beaches are crowded and not really all that much more picturesque than Galveston, plus parking is expensive and kind of a nightmare, as is even getting to the Hamptons from New York City on a summer weekend. The hip restaurants and bars are expensive and difficult to get into - even difficult to get a reservation at, unless you're "somebody" (ie, famous or well-known to be rich). A lot of the best shoreline is inaccessible to the hoi polloi, can't even be seen behind high privacy walls.

 

On the "crystal clear blue lagoon" are you saying you want a large sheltered body of water, in which the water has no turbidity from suspended sediments or phytoplankton? First, you're going to have to have a sealed bottom, like concrete or gunnite, to replace the natural silt that makes up Galveston Island which gets stirred up and causes much of the turbidity in Galveston bay and beach water. Then, whatever water you fill this impoundment with is going to have to be continually filtered to prevent the impoundment from becoming a stagnant algae-choked swamp. One way to go would be to filter seawater through a semi-closed system. You'd have to have pretty good retention time on the water to eventually get rid of the finest suspended solids, but you'd also need to bring in new water periodically to keep your nutrient load low to reduce algae growth, and to replace water lost to evaporation. It would be a constant balancing act, and pretty energy and maintenance-intensive (read: expensive) for an impoundment of any size to handle the kinds of crowds who might be interested in it. It would never be "crystal clear", but could be significantly clearer than the bay or the beachwater. And it's never going to be blue, because you're going to have algae growth on your hard artificial bottom, so it's going to be green, not blue, plus that algae growth will make that hard bottom slippery, as anyone who has ever waded on a boat ramp knows.

 

The only option that would actually give you "crystal clear blue" water would be to chlorinate, which would give you a giant swimming pool, which Galveston already has in Palm Beach at Moody Gardens, and at Schlitterbahn, for that matter. Seems you're the one who might have the problem with vision, Elseed, since you apparently overlooked these two attractions. Just like you overlooked Beachtown on the Hamptons side of your wish list. It appears your impression of Galveston being a "pretty crappy experience" stems from being ill-informed about what the island actually has to offer. In 2016 6.5 million visitors spent $780 million dollars in Galveston, which generated $1.1 billion in total business sales, including indirect and induced impacts. Compare that to the 2.25 million people who visited the Florida Keys, which have a more year-round vacation climate, that same year. Seems Galveston is doing pretty well attracting visitors, despite your opinion of it. Why don't you go to the Hamptons and see how far you'd get on the same amount of money it takes to have a nice summer weekend down in Galveston? Or maybe since you seem partial to artificial manufactured simulacra of some "ideal" destination, you'd be more comfortable at Disneyworld?

Sorry bud but I'm right. Galveston should have a Hamptons type development. It'll be amazing. Oh, and Galveston should have a man made lagoon. It'll look amazing. It'll be breathtaking.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Elseed

[ernie5823]

I'd like to see Galveston Island back like it was when I was growing up about 40 miles from there, mid '40s to mid '60s. You could drive on West Beach, all the way from end of seawall to San Luis Pass. If you wanted to stop, fish, swim, camp overnight, etc. anywhere along the way, that was OK. For the most part, people put their trash in provided barrels along the beach. I especially remember surf fishing (caught mostly sand sharks & small hammerheads) and floundering at San Luis Pass. If you didn't want to take the slow route on the beach, the road to the Pass was a "two laner" all the way. Parking on the beach with girlfriends was another good memory from late teenage years.

 

I know, these are just irrelevant memories from an old Texan/Houstonian & times have changed.

[Reefmonkey]

On 1/5/2019 at 10:17 PM, Elseed said:

Sorry bud but I'm right. Galveston should have a Hamptons type development. It'll be amazing. Oh, and Galveston should have a man made lagoon. It'll look amazing. It'll be breathtaking.

 

Well since I laid out very detailed reasons in both threads why your ideas for Galveston development are ill-considered, and all you could come up with in response was "no, I'm right, it would be amazing," it's pretty obvious to anyone who reads these threads that you are not right, and have no idea what you're talking about, as others have attempted to point out to you.

[Reefmonkey]

On 12/24/2018 at 11:36 AM, Ross said:

Nope. There should be no further development West of the Seawall, and every effort made to remove existing development there. Behind the seawall, there should be no additional highrise development. In other words, let's not destroy Galveston by overbuilding crappy million dollar beach houses when there's no need for them.

 

Don't worry, thankfully, the City of Galveston is wiser than Elseed, after Ike they determined that investing any more money in infrastructure that would allow large-scale development beyond the seawall was irresponsible, and that (along with the economic downturn) cratered a proposed high rise development at Stewart Road and 12-Mile Road. The development had no business being there in the first place, as well as being environmentally unsustainable would have been a bad neighbor to surrounding neighborhoods that were already there. The developer had already broken ground (regrading and digging "lakes") and had presold some units, so certainly was out a bit of money when the project was cancelled, and in 10 years nobody has picked up where they left off because COG said they won't put in sewer and water to service the demand a highrise would create.

[Elseed]

On 1/7/2019 at 10:25 AM, Reefmonkey said:

 

Don't worry, thankfully, the City of Galveston is wiser than Elseed, after Ike they determined that investing any more money in infrastructure that would allow large-scale development beyond the seawall was irresponsible, and that (along with the economic downturn) cratered a proposed high rise development at Stewart Road and 12-Mile Road. The development had no business being there in the first place, as well as being environmentally unsustainable would have been a bad neighbor to surrounding neighborhoods that were already there. The developer had already broken ground (regrading and digging "lakes") and had presold some units, so certainly was out a bit of money when the project was cancelled, and in 10 years nobody has picked up where they left off because COG said they won't put in sewer and water to service the demand a highrise would create.

 

Sorry bud you're wrong and I'm right. The Houston/Galveston area needs some more cool almost outlandish ideas to put the city at the forefront of the world. Like it should be. Think Dubai.

However, lame Houstonians, like yourself only want a future of Applebees and Big Box Wal-Marts as far as the eyes can see. Fortunately, there are some good developers thinking of some cool things for Houston and Galveston in the future. 

[Elseed]

On 1/7/2019 at 8:54 AM, Reefmonkey said:

 

Well since I laid out very detailed reasons in both threads why your ideas for Galveston development are ill-considered, and all you could come up with in response was "no, I'm right, it would be amazing," it's pretty obvious to anyone who reads these threads that you are not right, and have no idea what you're talking about, as others have attempted to point out to you.

 

Sorry bud but I'm right and you're wrong. Don't worry, thankfully, the City of Galveston is wiser than Reefmonkey. Also, I'm than sure my type of developments will be more 

commonplace. Better luck next time bud.

[dbigtex56]

45 minutes ago, Elseed said:

Sorry bud but I'm right and you're wrong. Don't worry, thankfully, the City of Galveston is wiser than Reefmonkey. Also, I'm than sure my type of developments will be more 

commonplace. Better luck next time bud.

In summary: on one side, we have Reefmonkey, an environmental engineer, who has provided both his expertise and facts and figures to support his observations.
On the other, we have someone who seems to believe that mentioning the Hamptons and referring to people as "bud" (while providing absolutely nothing of substance) makes him One Cool Dude.
Who should I believe?
Tellin' you, I'm torn....torn. 

[AnTonY]

On 9/20/2018 at 3:42 PM, Reefmonkey said:

 

The island itself was formed by buildup of the same sediment that is suspended in the bay. And that same sediment extends out into the Gulf (which the bay is hydrologically part of).

Not exactly. Sediment-sorting dynamics ensure that sand ends up on the beach, whereas the finer clay and silt eventually deposits on the water flood. Also, the bay as we know it now didn't yet exist when Galveston was first formed.

 

On 9/20/2018 at 3:42 PM, Reefmonkey said:

And the waters from the Trinity and San Jacinto keep on going through Bolivar Pass (and San Luis Pass to a lesser extent). Remember what I said about fine sediment taking a long time of still water to settle out? Well not only does the sediment from the rivers NOT have time to settle out, the currents the rivers create stir up sediment that has previously settled. 

 

Rivers also create plumes of sediment that fan out beyond a simple straight line out of their mouths. This is how deltas form. So just because the Sabine, Brazos, and Colorado rivers don't "empty at Galveston", doesn't mean their sediment can't make its way to Galveston.

 

And you're contradicting yourself here, you're saying the Sabine, Brazos, and Colorado, three rivers that are fairly close to Galveston can't affect Galveston water clarity because they don't empty at Galveston, but you are saying the Mississippi River, which is much farther away, can.

 

You're also not factoring in the longshore current, which runs parallel to the coastline, and which, in Galveston's case, happens to run West-Southwesterly (ie, from southwest to northeast), pulling sediment from the Colorado and Brazos towards Galveston.

 

No, it doesn't, you're wrong, this has been definitively dealt with. The shear bulk of discoloration in Galveston comes from Texas rivers, NOT from the Mississippi. The Loop Current carries Mississippi water AWAY from Texas, not toward it. It makes no sense that you are so invested in the Mississippi source misconception.

 

Wow, lot's of defensive posturing here, beating around the bush with technical details that are already understood. And yet, somehow, you still manage to miss the point.

 

There is, in fact, a near-shore current that runs east-to-west along the shores from Louisiana. THAT is what brings a large amount of the Mississippi sediment towards the Texas shoreline. Hence why many aerial shots of Galveston depict a "mud-line," where the water closest to shore is muddy, becoming blue/tropical-like farther offshore. Also why beaches along the Sea Wall and West End have experienced erosion in the advent of jetties, while East Beach accreted.  The Loop Current that you refer to tends to be farther offshore closer to Florida, away from the mouth of the MS River. The SW current is temporary, and, in Memorial Day 2018, actually brought the clear water to Galveston.

 

And again, ALL Texas rivers except two empty into bays/estuaries, which are loaded with marsh vegetation. The bulk of sediment, therefore, is anchored away/settled out/etc, and the rivers themselves aren't exactly large in terms of volume. That, combined with the sheer size of Galveston Bay, along the the multiple sub-bays adjoining it (i.e. Trinity Bay, Burnett Bay, etc) ensure that any sediment influence on Galveston presently from nearby rivers is minimal. And the two Texas rivers that DO empty into the Gulf are do so SW of Galveston...where the prevailing near-shore currents drag the sediment away from Galveston.

 

It doesn't take much research to figure this out. Just look at the satellite images. Then consider why else would the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone extends west towards Texas, rather than east towards Florida, or out in the middle of the Gulf? It's obvious that the Mississippi effluent makes it's way towards Texas by virtue of prevailing currents.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by AnTonY

[AnTonY]

Deleted.

Edited March 16, 2019 by AnTonY

[AnTonY]

On 7/27/2007 at 11:28 AM, Reefmonkey said:

It is a popular, nevertheless wrong misconception that Galveston is muddy because of the Mississippi. If we were muddy because of the Mississippi, then the water out in the Gulf would be muddy too. I can tell you from paddling my surfski just a mile or two off the beach out on West Beach that the water clears up and turns blue pretty fast. It is our own Texas rivers that do it, and it is completely natural. Galveston's water is muddy because of the silt that comes out of it from rivers like the Trinity, Brazos, etc. It is this silt that built up the Island. No silt, no Galveston. The silt makes the water muddy, and the silt becomes beach sand, so it is going to be fine and clumpy?

So how exactly are we supposed to clean up Galveston's beachs when they are naturally supposed to look like that?

As for the sargassum (seaweed) that washes up on the beach, scraping it off would also scrape off a lot of sand, which would contribute to beach erosion, which is a bad thing. Leaving it on not only does not harm the beach, it actually helps build the beach back up, because the seaweed provides a matrix that holds the sand in place and keeps so much of it from blowing away or being washed away.

 

Nope, no misconception. Look at satellite images, look at the direction of the Gulf Dead Zone, look at the course/nature of Texas rivers, etc, and you'll clearly see that the Mississippi is the major contributor to Galveston's brown water. The fact that you're equating silt with sand (two distinct materials) shows that you still have a lot to learn about coastal geography. So much for that Master's degree.

Edited March 16, 2019 by AnTonY

[AnTonY]

On 3/15/2019 at 12:26 AM, dbigtex56 said:

In summary: on one side, we have Reefmonkey, an environmental engineer, who has provided both his expertise and facts and figures to support his observations.
On the other, we have someone who seems to believe that mentioning the Hamptons and referring to people as "bud" (while providing absolutely nothing of substance) makes him One Cool Dude.
Who should I believe?
Tellin' you, I'm torn....torn. 

 

Except that those facts/figures don't actually detract from @Elseed's point.

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

the Brazos River has more to do with the muddy look of the Gulf near Galveston. It's clear blue south of the Brazos's mouth.

[Reefmonkey]

8 hours ago, AnTonY said:

 

Nope, no misconception. Look at satellite images, look at the direction of the Gulf Dead Zone, look at the course/nature of Texas rivers, etc, and you'll clearly see that the Mississippi is the major contributor to Galveston's brown water. The fact that you're equating silt with sand (two distinct materials) shows that you still have a lot to learn about coastal geography. So much for that Master's degree.

Nope, you don’t know jack —— of what you’re talking about. The position of the dead zone, influenced by the warm core eddies’ deflection of the loop current actually proves my point and disproves yours. And sand and silt are just gradations on a spectrum of the same material based on particle size. Texas’s beaches are colloquially sand, though technically silt.  So much for your nursery school level understanding of ocean hydrology. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Reefmonkey

[AnTonY]

7 hours ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

the Brazos River has more to do with the muddy look of the Gulf near Galveston. It's clear blue south of the Brazos's mouth.

Nope, the Brazos empties southwest of Galveston, and currents closest to shore are often east to west. Therefore, Brazos sediment has little effect on Galveston.

 

Turbidity can carry down the coast to near Mustang Island often. The rivers of Texas dump sediment, but not to as high degree as the Mississippi.

Edited March 16, 2019 by AnTonY

[AnTonY]

35 minutes ago, Reefmonkey said:

Nope, you don’t know jack —— of what you’re talking about. The position of the dead zone, influenced by the warm core eddies’ deflection of the loop current actually proves my point and disproves yours. And sand and silt are just gradations on a spectrum of the same material based on particle size. Texas’s beaches are colloquially sand, though technically silt.  So much for your nursery school level understanding of ocean hydrology. 

I met Jack once, he was an interesting person.

 

The fact that the Dead Zone extends west towards Texas, rather than out into the middle of the Gulf, or east towards Florida, actually disproves your point and proves mine. Again, nuance -  those warm core eddies certainly have an effect, but there clearly are other currents at play that influence that westward prevailing direction.

 

While the source material is technically the same, the particle sizes affect the behavior in soil, water, etc, meaning that distinctions aren't arbitrary. The sizes are such that sand tends to be deposited by the beach, while silt and clay are carried farther off-shore before depositing on the water bottom. The bay side of Galveston is where you'll find the silt/clay concentrations, with all those marshes, and that portion is almost entirely separated from the open Gulf by the barrier island itself (the only breaks being the passes). On the other hand, the Gulf-facing composition is largely sand, albeit very fine (which makes it comfortable on the feet, and gets those jeeps stuck at times).

Edited March 16, 2019 by AnTonY

[Reefmonkey]

For anyone who is interested, this is a great paper explaining sediment patterns in the Gulf. If you have the patience to read through the entire paper, it will become clear that the dominant contributors to sediments in nearshore Texas Gulf waters are Texas rivers.

 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-3447-8_3

 

For a “quick and dirty” snapshot, this figure of mineral group distribution showing Central Texas origin minerals dominating in the Gulf adjacent to our portion of the coast is pretty persuasive. 

 

 

Figure 3.15

General map of heavy mineral group distribution in the Gulf of Mexico (from Davies and Moore 1970: reprinted with permission from The Journal of Sedimentary Research). Province I is from the Appalachians; kyanite and staurolite dominate. Province II is from the Mississippi River; augite, hornblende, and epidote dominate. Province III is from Central Texas with hornblende and epidote dominating. Province IV is Rio Grande; epidote, augite, and hornblende are dominant, and Province V is in Mexico; little is known about the heavies in Province V

Edited March 16, 2019 by Reefmonkey