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

[Reefmonkey]

19 minutes ago, AnTonY said:

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).

You’r hanging your hat on the dead zone, but it is a layer of stratified high nutrient freshwater floating on top of the denser saltwater below and is a separate issue from sediment distribution. The fact that it stays where it is and doesn’t get dispersed westward demonstrates this. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Reefmonkey

[Reefmonkey]

And another figure showing sediment distribution showing that Mississippi sediment gets distributed toward the southeast, and Texas river sediment predominant, especially along our stretch of the coast. 

 

 

Figure 3.17

Map showing Gulf of Mexico sediment distribution along with sample sites (from Balsam and Beeson 2003: reprinted from Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, Vol 50, Seafloor sediment distribution in the Gulf of Mexico, Figure 4, Copyright 2003, with permission from Elsevier). Contrast this map with that in Figure 3.10

 

Beachwater turbidity is primarily influenced by wave action, this is why those of us who fish offshore know that the gulf water is very clear just a few miles out. It is why Galveston’s beachwater can get surprisingly clear on very calm days, like it did last Memorial Day weekend. The Mississippi doesn’t stop flowing nor do nearshore currents grind to a halt just because the wind dies down on the Texas coast. When Galveston beach water is brown, that’s because waves are stirring up local sediments, and as the figures I posted show, those sediments are predominately from Texas rivers. Our brown beach waters are NOT from the Mississippi. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Reefmonkey

[Ross]

54 minutes ago, Reefmonkey said:

You’r hanging your hat on the dead zone, but it is a layer of stratified high nutrient freshwater floating on top of the denser saltwater below and is a separate issue from sediment distribution. The fact that it stays where it is and doesn’t get dispersed westward demonstrates this. 

@Reefmonkey, it's 2019. We no longer use logic, facts, and science, it's all about teh feelz, because science is so...harsh and unforgiving and doesn't comport with everyone's worldview. Bwahahaha

[AnTonY]

2 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

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

 

This doesn't actually refute the point because it refers to a wide span of geologic time, over thousands of years. When sea-levels were lower, rivers like the Trinity actually went directly to the Gulf to deposit silt/sand/etc. That sediment is what your map refers to, and is what got reworked by the ocean to become Galveston. But since then, the sea-levels rose, and sediment distribution got altered: most of the Texas rivers got drowned out near the coast, becoming the bays that we see today. The Mississippi also experienced change, naturally shifting course over centuries. Today, it empties near the Port of Orleans, fixed by the levee structure. And alot of the sediment ends up in the Gulf....heading towards Galveston to muddy the waters.

[AnTonY]

3 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

You’r hanging your hat on the dead zone, but it is a layer of stratified high nutrient freshwater floating on top of the denser saltwater below and is a separate issue from sediment distribution. The fact that it stays where it is and doesn’t get dispersed westward demonstrates this. 

 

Again, you're beating around the bush with unnecessary flex. We already know that the two processes are distinct, but it still doesn't change the fact of their relation.  The high nutrient freshwater is laden with sediment. It's pretty clear that the Mississippi River effluent drifts west towards Texas, and affects the turbidity.

 

2 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

And another figure showing sediment distribution showing that Mississippi sediment gets distributed toward the southeast, and Texas river sediment predominant, especially along our stretch of the coast. 

 

 

Figure 3.17

Map showing Gulf of Mexico sediment distribution along with sample sites (from Balsam and Beeson 2003: reprinted from Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, Vol 50, Seafloor sediment distribution in the Gulf of Mexico, Figure 4, Copyright 2003, with permission from Elsevier). Contrast this map with that in Figure 3.10

 

Beachwater turbidity is primarily influenced by wave action, this is why those of us who fish offshore know that the gulf water is very clear just a few miles out. It is why Galveston’s beachwater can get surprisingly clear on very calm days, like it did last Memorial Day weekend. The Mississippi doesn’t stop flowing nor do nearshore currents grind to a halt just because the wind dies down on the Texas coast. When Galveston beach water is brown, that’s because waves are stirring up local sediments, and as the figures I posted show, those sediments are predominately from Texas rivers. Our brown beach waters are NOT from the Mississippi. 

 

Again, those maps cover thousands of years in time, things weren't the same back then as they are now. But most importantly, the Mississippi sediment won't be shown in the ocean floor around Galveston in those maps, because the sediment IS STILL IN SUSPENSION at that point. It drops offshore near the Lower Texas coast, hence you see that area of purple along that portion of the shore. And  I'm well aware the wave-stirred sediment can affect clarity as well, I'm just saying that the Mississippi sediment suspension contributes heavily to the discoloration. Again, nuance.

 

And surface currents are generated largely by the wind. And it's pretty clear that they aren't static, they vary in strength, extent, and even direction depending on the time of year. In Memorial Day of 2018, it wasn't just calm water, the current was also reversed, coming from the SW. The strength was such as to pin the sediment plumes from the Brazos along the mouth, allowing the Galveston water to become quite crystal clear, to a point never before seen by locals. As seen later during the summer, the water had clearer moments during the calm-days, but not quite like it was during Memorial Day: The prevailing current was still there, but lessened by the calm winds.

 

2 hours ago, Ross said:

@Reefmonkey, it's 2019. We no longer use logic, facts, and science, it's all about teh feelz, because science is so...harsh and unforgiving and doesn't comport with everyone's worldview. Bwahahaha

 

Yeah, you two seemed to be quite up in your feelings. Just look at how @Reefmonkey had his knickers in a twist this entire discussion.

Edited March 16, 2019 by AnTonY

[Reefmonkey]

2 hours ago, AnTonY said:

 

This doesn't actually refute the point because it refers to a wide span of geologic time, over thousands of years. When sea-levels were lower, rivers like the Trinity actually went directly to the Gulf to deposit silt/sand/etc. That sediment is what your map refers to, and is what got reworked by the ocean to become Galveston. But since then, the sea-levels rose, and sediment distribution got altered: most of the Texas rivers got drowned out near the coast, becoming the bays that we see today. The Mississippi also experienced change, naturally shifting course over centuries. Today, it empties near the Port of Orleans, fixed by the levee structure. And alot of the sediment ends up in the Gulf....heading towards Galveston to muddy the waters.

 

You're just babbling at this point, trying desperately to appear to poke holes in what I have said. These are upper-level sediments, extending well out into the Gulf. The current state of the Gulf coast is as it has been for at least 4,500 years. If Mississippi were dumping all these sediments our way, they'd have covered up the Texas river sediments.

2 hours ago, AnTonY said:

 

Again, you're beating around the bush with unnecessary flex. We already know that the two processes are distinct, but it still doesn't change the fact of their relation.  The high nutrient freshwater is laden with sediment. It's pretty clear that the Mississippi River effluent drifts west towards Texas, and affects the turbidity.

 

 

Again, those maps cover thousands of years in time, things weren't the same back then as they are now. But most importantly, the Mississippi sediment won't be shown in the ocean floor around Galveston in those maps, because the sediment IS STILL IN SUSPENSION at that point. It drops offshore near the Lower Texas coast, hence you see that area of purple along that portion of the shore. And  I'm well aware the wave-stirred sediment can affect clarity as well, I'm just saying that the Mississippi sediment suspension contributes heavily to the discoloration. Again, nuance.

 

And surface currents are generated largely by the wind. And it's pretty clear that they aren't static, they vary in strength, extent, and even direction depending on the time of year. In Memorial Day of 2018, it wasn't just calm water, the current was also reversed, coming from the SW. The strength was such as to pin the sediment plumes from the Brazos along the mouth, allowing the Galveston water to become quite crystal clear, to a point never before seen by locals. As seen later during the summer, the water had clearer moments during the calm-days, but not quite like it was during Memorial Day: The prevailing current was still there, but lessened by the calm winds.

 

 

Yeah, you two seemed to be quite up in your feelings. Just look at how @Reefmonkey had his knickers in a twist this entire discussion.

 

As for the dead zone, all those rivers like the Calcasieu, Sabine, Trinity, Brazos, Colorado couldn't possibly also be contributing freshwater and nutrients that create a plume which could be meeting up with the Mississippi-generated plume, thus expanding the extent westward, could they? Naaaaahhhhhhh.

 

"beating around the bush with unnecessary flex?" I don't know what "unnecessary flex" even means, but I am certainly not "beating around the bush" when providing detailed information to support the truth that the sediment making Galveston beach waters brown is from Texas Rivers. And you're saying that at least 4,500 years of Mississippi sediment significant enough to perennially keep Galveston's waters brown hasn't settled at all in 4,500 so can't be found when taking surface sediments......yet when the easterly current momentarily stops, all that sediment that it already brought here that supposedly hasn't settled in 4,500 years suddenly drops out and makes it crystal clear......riiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhttttt.

 

And what even is your "source" for the Memorial Day 2018 current reversal? Oh yeah, it was a Facebook post by the city of Galveston:

 

Quote

BLUE WATER IN GALVESTON? Whether it's true or not may be a trending debate on social media, but those of us who call this Island home know that these last few days have been incredible. They say it's due to the current changing from east to west.

 

I love the use of the weasel word "they in "they say it's due to the current changing".

 

The reason you see the "area of purple" along the lower Texas coast is because you have fewer rivers down there, and the rivers you have are lower-flow than the ones north of the Coastal Bend. And it is the lack of high flow Texas rivers that makes the water clearer down there.

 

"Up in your feelings?" Try talking like an adult. And don't even start with accusing me of having my "knickers in a twist" when you escalated today's conversation with an insult aimed at my grad degree. What this really came down to is you getting your hackles up because I dared refute your confident but unsubstantiated assertion that the discoloration "clearly comes from the Mississippi" with facts. So you grasped at a few straws, babbled about the Dead Zone and satellite images, provided sources like the "they say it's due to the current changing" Facebook post, but it's all been sound and fury signifying nothing.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Reefmonkey

[Reefmonkey]

 

Oh, and looking into the reason for the Memorial Day 2018 beach water clarity, the National Weather Service's West Gulf River Forecast Center explained that on that Monday there were two factors, first, that there was not the typical outgoing tide that dumps large amounts of sediments from the bay system into the Gulf, and second, that Tropical Storm Alberto pushed a large plume of clear water that flushed the existing sediments up the coast and away from the island.

 

But clearly, the National Weather Service identifies sediments coming from the bay system as the main culprit of Galveston's usual turbidity, and even has satellite imagery showing the usual plumes and where they originate from.

 

 

But NWS's satellite imagery clearly must be wrong, because AnTonY says this is impossible:

Quote

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.

 

 

I think we're done here.

[AnTonY]

@Reefmonkey, with all due respect, not a single thing you've posted actually refutes the point. At best, they are "flexes" (i.e. superfluous details) that are either adjunct to the point, or besides it. And the point is that the Mississippi, is, in fact, the main factor in causing turbidity along the Upper Texas shoreline, in this present time. It takes a MASSIVE load of sediment to make beach water look so chocolaty, and it doesn't get more massive than the Mississippi. Again, it does not take a grad degree to figure this out, simple satellite images, as well as the direction of the Dead Zone, make it clear which direction the Mississippi effluent goes towards.

 

You also aren't grasping the nuance here. Coastal environments are not static, my dude. So many processes, highly variable in both extent and time of year. A lot has happened over 4500 years. The maps you show refer to ancestral deposits, the discussion is about the causes for Galveston's present day turbidity. 

 

The Upper Coast Texas rivers don't actually discharge as much sediment as you think. The rivers are larger, and the climate is wetter, but with wetness comes greater vegetative cover, with forests and streambank cover to anchor the sediment. The area around Galveston is actually marked as "quartz sand." Greater silt discharge from Texas rivers will actually be found in the area between Galveston and Port Aransas: the rivers there run through Texas prairie lands, which still get heavy rainfall for flash floods, but too dry to grow much of the thick vegetation that anchors the sediment.

 

 

 

 

[Reefmonkey]

Tell it to the National Weather Service, I'm done trying to overcome your obstinate obtuseness.

[AnTonY]

38 minutes ago, Reefmonkey said:

 

Oh, and looking into the reason for the Memorial Day 2018 beach water clarity, the National Weather Service's West Gulf River Forecast Center explained that on that Monday there were two factors, first, that there was not the typical outgoing tide that dumps large amounts of sediments from the bay system into the Gulf, and second, that Tropical Storm Alberto pushed a large plume of clear water that flushed the existing sediments up the coast and away from the island.

 

But clearly, the National Weather Service identifies sediments coming from the bay system as the main culprit of Galveston's usual turbidity, and even has satellite imagery showing the usual plumes and where they originate from.

 

 

But NWS's satellite imagery clearly must be wrong, because AnTonY says this is impossible:

 

Again, nuance. Learn to grasp it. I didn't say that Galveston Bay sediments didn't affect Galveston, I said that they were minimal factors compared to the Mississippi. The Gulf is a micro-tidal environment, and the bay is practically closed off from it with the exception of a small pass. And it's exactly as I said, there was a SW current that day that lead to clear water.

 

Plus, even if the sediment does indeed come from the Ship Channel ... it would still prove a point I made earlier, that the turbidity in Galveston/Galveston Bay has a strong man-made component. No matter how you slice it, I'm right.

 

38 minutes ago, Reefmonkey said:

I think we're done here.

Yeah, I'd ask your Uni for your money back.

Edited March 16, 2019 by AnTonY

[AnTonY]

 

Quote

Alongshore currents carry sediments from the Mississippi, which drains most of the interior of the continent, for considerable distances along the Texas Coast. In these sediments, one finds much of the waste materials produced in the Central United States. Mississippi sediments have been identified as far to the west as the continental shelf off Rockport.

 

Checkmate

 

[Reefmonkey]

Nope, scrounging around for an obscure nearly 50 year old report that doesn't say what you obviously think it says isn't a "checkmate", maybe if you had actually gotten a decent education instead of disdaining those of us who did, you'd understand why.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Reefmonkey

[CaptainJilliams]

 

[Reefmonkey]

There are something like 40-some other subforums containing countless other threads if this one isn't to your liking, CaptainJilliams.

[CaptainJilliams]

25 minutes ago, Reefmonkey said:

There are something like 40-some other subforums containing countless other threads if this one isn't to your liking, CaptainJilliams.

 

You know, you're right, my apologies. You kids have fun continually bumping a thread from 2007, seems like a constructive conversation.

[Reefmonkey]

I'm sure every other thread here, especially the ones you participate in, solve world hunger.🙄

Edited March 17, 2019 by Reefmonkey

[AnTonY]

On 3/16/2019 at 9:07 PM, Reefmonkey said:

Nope, scrounging around for an obscure nearly 50 year old report that doesn't say what you obviously think it says isn't a "checkmate", maybe if you had actually gotten a decent education instead of disdaining those of us who did, you'd understand why.

 

Funny you say this, considering that the paper you linked earlier references material just as old, even older. Not to mention your genetic fallacy, given that the empirical findings as seen with the paper still would stand regardless of how long ago they were recorded.

 

But even if we stick with the paper you provided, this is what it has to say about Texas:

Quote

The inner shelf off the Texas coast will extend to depths of about 15 m (50 ft). The sediments here have various origins but two are major contributors—the Mississippi River and reworking of older sediments as the sea level rose over the past 8,000 years or so. Shells and shell debris are another significant component. The influence of the river diminishes from northeast to southwest along the Gulf. 

 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-3447-8_3#Sec2

 

So yeah, it's best that you ask your university for your money back, because they did not do a good job at all.

Edited March 18, 2019 by AnTonY

[Response]

 

[Reefmonkey]

2 hours ago, AnTonY said:

So yeah, it's best that you ask your university for your money back, because they did not do a good job at all.

 

Good grief, are you still at it? There's no money to ask for, I was a National Merit Scholar, full ride (and in grad school, they pay you, with a stipend). Here, since you're all about satellite images, let me show you again that NWS satellite imagery that shows the sediment plumes coming out of Bolivar and San Luis passes that NWS says are responsible for the usual color of Galveston water:

 

 

And I know that next to satellite imagery, your favorite thing to talk about is the Mississippi River dead zone, so you should read this:

 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/explainer/article/dead-zone-hypoxia-gulf-of-mexico-hosuton-8316093.php

 

Quote

 

Why Texas' Gulf of Mexico 'dead zone' is different

 

But that's Louisiana. Texas is different. It has a different kind of dead zone, said Steve DiMarco, an oceanographer and veteran dead zone researcher with Texas A&M, and it's also hitting record size this year after a very rainy spring.

When you put the two contiguous zones together, that's a 600-mile swath of uninhabitable sea from Gulfport, Miss., to south of Corpus Christi, Texas. 

"The dead zone that's off Texas right now has nothing to do with the Mississippi," DiMarco said. "It has everything to do with the Brazos, the Colorado, the Guadalupe, the Trinity."

 

Unlike the Louisiana zona, DiMarco said, Texas' has much less to do with pollution runoff and more to do with natural rain. And Texas has sure had a lot of rain this season.

 

The Texas dead zone was first described in the 1970s, DiMarco said, though evidence suggests it's been occurring for more than 100 years, which predates most chemical fertilizers and many chemical pollutants.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2019 by Reefmonkey

[AnTonY]

8 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

 

Good grief, are you still at it? There's no money to ask for, I was a National Merit Scholar, full ride (and in grad school, they pay you, with a stipend).

 

They must have had low standards back then.

 

8 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

Here, since you're all about satellite images, let me show you again that NWS satellite imagery that shows the sediment plumes coming out of Bolivar and San Luis passes that NWS says are responsible for the usual color of Galveston water:

 

And again, those teeny-tiny passes are clearly minimal factors in causing Galveston's turbidity compared to the mighty Mississippi.

 

8 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

And I know that next to satellite imagery, your favorite thing to talk about is the Mississippi River dead zone, so you should read this:

 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/explainer/article/dead-zone-hypoxia-gulf-of-mexico-hosuton-8316093.php

 

Nope, the article refers to conditions for one specific year. The exact extent from the Mississippi varies year-by-year, but it often does extend towards to Upper Texas shoreline:

 

Quote

The zone occurs between the inner and mid-continental shelf in the northern Gulf of Mexico, beginning at the Mississippi River delta and extending westward to the upper Texas coast.

https://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/index.html

 

Point being, that the Mississippi River does indeed have influence on the water quality of the Texas coast, including the turbidity. That is fact, and no amount of your defensive posturing will change that.

Edited March 19, 2019 by AnTonY

[Reefmonkey]

6 hours ago, AnTonY said:

 

They must have had low standards back then.

This  is now the fourth time you’ve made an unprovoked attack on my education, this most recent one being  in response to nothing other than me brushing off your immediate previous attack without responding in kind. How about we do this without  the childish personal attacks, ok? If you’ll agree to stop, I’d be happy to go through the science with you, help you understand it better in a civil and collegial manner, but otherwise I’m not going to continue with a discussion with someone who carries on such behavior. 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Reefmonkey

[AnTonY]

On 3/19/2019 at 7:11 AM, Reefmonkey said:

This  is now the fourth time you’ve made an unprovoked attack on my education, this most recent one being  in response to nothing other than me brushing off your immediate previous attack without responding in kind. How about we do this without  the childish personal attacks, ok? If you’ll agree to stop, I’d be happy to go through the science with you, help you understand it better in a civil and collegial manner, but otherwise I’m not going to continue with a discussion with someone who carries on such behavior. 

 

I mean, you were being strangely defensive and obstinate about this topic given your educational standing. There's literally evidence word-for-word that the Mississippi is the major contributing factor to Galveston's turbidity. The local rivers aren't heavy contributors because they already are filtered out by the bays, and those bays are nearly enclosed from the Gulf except for tiny passes (not wide enough for significant sediment dispersal).

Edited March 30, 2019 by AnTonY

[Reefmonkey]

So that’s a no then to civility. I’m sorry I wasted so much effort on you. 

[AnTonY]

 @Reefmonkey, I've already mentioned before that your science was sound, and your points valid. However, they either are minor details in the grand scheme of the circumstance, or they otherwise don't refute my point.

 

[dbigtex56]

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.

Further, these crappy million dollar beach houses don't seem to be holding their value. Seems that people who have that kind of money to invest don't want someone else's dated "dream home" McMansion. 
Although the original WSJ article is paywall protected, here's a video transcription of their recent article "A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Big Houses".
I fail to see how this kind of development would benefit Galveston in the long run, especially since every hurricane season might spell disaster.

[AnTonY]

Obviously you don't just build a bunch of high-end beach houses for the sake of it, but I see no issue with such developments arising as the island improves itself. Now, if you want to see a structure that is truly destroying Galveston, look no further than the SeaWall and its eroded beaches.

[Ross]

14 hours ago, AnTonY said:

Obviously you don't just build a bunch of high-end beach houses for the sake of it, but I see no issue with such developments arising as the island improves itself. Now, if you want to see a structure that is truly destroying Galveston, look no further than the SeaWall and its eroded beaches.

I don't see unending development of the island as a positive or an improvement. But, it's not my property, so I have no control over it.

 

Do you know why the Seawall is there? Why it was built?

[AnTonY]

5 hours ago, Ross said:

I don't see unending development of the island as a positive or an improvement. But, it's not my property, so I have no control over it.

 

That was my point.

 

5 hours ago, Ross said:

Do you know why the Seawall is there? Why it was built?

 

Yes. Too bad that one-time save lead to its own issues. No wonder South Carolina banned them.

Edited March 23, 2019 by AnTonY

[Ross]

1 hour ago, AnTonY said:

 

That was my point.

 

 

Yes. Too bad that one-time save lead to its own issues. No wonder South Carolina banned them.

The Seawall wasn't built to save the beach. It was built to protect the City of Galveston from hurricanes.

[AnTonY]

6 hours ago, Ross said:

The Seawall wasn't built to save the beach. It was built to protect the City of Galveston from hurricanes.

 

And like I said, by not saving the beach, the SeaWall is leading to slow, but sure, destruction of the island. The event that you wish not to occur.