The Texas General Land Office (GLO) has proposed new rules for Beach Construction Certificate and Dune Protection Permit Rules

The proposed rules cover two major subject areas: 

1. One group of rules primarily provides new procedures for local governments and the GLO to follow when processing individual Beach Construction Certificates and Dune Protection Permits, as well as local government beach access and use plans. 
2. The second group of rules outlines guidelines for local governments that choose to adopt erosion response plans containing a building set-back line. 

The Open Beaches Act and the Dune Protection Program are designed to help local landowners and communities protect and preserve their beaches so that all Texans can continue to enjoy them. The responsibility for protecting the public's right to use and enjoy the beach is shared by the state and local coastal governments. 

Cities and counties along the coast are required to adopt laws to protect the public's beach access rights. Usually, these local laws are adopted as a dune protection and beach access plan. The state reviews local beach access plans and certifies that they meet the minimum state standards set forth in the General Land Office Beach/Dune Rules. Statewide beach access standards protect everyone's right to use and enjoy all Texas beaches.

Download and read presentation here

Watch Video

Considerations for Setback Lines - Establish building set-back line to accommodate shoreline retreat Historical erosion rates as determined by the BEG (setback recommended to be the greater of the following):

• 60 times the annual erosion rate measured from the line of vegetation
• 25 feet landward of the landward toe of the foredune ridge
• 300 feet landward of mean high water of the Gulf of Mexico (no foredune ridge)

Limited to the dune protection line

The Beach Access and Dune Protection Program is designed to:

1. Help beachfront property owners and local governments maintain a healthy beach/dune system
2. Assist local governments in managing the Texas coast so that the interests of both the public and private landowners are protected
3. Reduce the erosion of public beaches and discourage erosion-response methods such as rigid shorefront structures that can have a harmful impact on the environment and public and private property
4. Reduce flood losses and minimize loss of life and property
5. Protect the public's right of access to, use of, and enjoyment of the public beach
6. Ensure timely and predictable governmental decision-making and permitting processes
7. Educate the public about coastal issues

Officials and residents who oppose the Texas General Land Office’s proposed beach building setbacks should take a drive down to Surfside before saying the regulations are too restrictive, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson said.

Surfside has some of the worst erosion in the area, where waves along some stretches of beach lap up against the pilings of houses and where structures have been removed because they ended up on the public beach after the dunes migrated.

“What if we’d had some of these rules in place there?” he asked.

But Galveston County commissioners aren’t convinced and said Wednesday they couldn’t support the rules as written.

County Judge Jim Yarbrough and all four county commissioners cited “serious concerns” about the rules, such as vague wording and minimal public input. Some commissioners worried that the rules would diminish home values and give insurance companies justification to deny claims or raise rates for windstorm insurance.

Officials’ objections remained, even after land office staff members tried to persuade them the rules were flexible and voluntary.

The rules ask governmental entities to adopt Erosion Response Plans and suggest a setback of 60 times the annual erosion rate, measured from the line of vegetation, 25 feet landward of the landward toe of the foredune ridge or 300 feet landward of the mean high water line, whichever is greater.

The erosion response plans and the adopted setbacks are voluntary, but compliance will be considered when Patterson doles out Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Act grant funds. Both the county and the city of Galveston rely heavily on state funding for beach reconstruction projects.

But the land commissioner has always had discretion in allocating the funds, Patterson said.

And coastal communities that cannot demonstrate they are taking an aggressive stance against erosion make it more difficult to ask the state for more erosion funding each biennium, he said.

“We have to show we’ve taken measures to prevent erosion,” Patterson said, noting that of the state’s 254 counties, fewer than 20 have a slice of the coast.

“We need to adopt measures that ensure we won’t keep coming back to the Legislature for funding.”

Coastal geologists say building too close to the dunes eventually destroys them, removing the coast’s natural system of storm protection.

Galveston’s shoreline is eroding 5 feet a year, on average. The current setback adopted by the city is about 25 feet from the landward toe of the dune.

If the city adopted the 60 times erosion rate plan, city officials have said the setback line would be pushed back about 300 feet, crossing FM 3005 in some places.

Precinct 1 Commissioner Pat Doyle said the proposed rules are the “largest unfunded mandate we’ll see coming in a long time” and questioned their constitutionality.

“I’m not bashing the (land office), but there are a lot of holes in this,” he said.

The rules put the cost of reimbursing homeowners to move properties once they’re on the public beach onto local government, something that could get very expensive after widespread storm damage.

State officials also claim the rules don’t constitute taking private property, a determination local officials say is sure to be challenged in court by landowners who were planning to carve up their beach-front property into expensive residential lots.

At the request of the county, the city and the Galveston Park Board of Trustees, the state has agreed to extend the public comment period to Aug. 15. The rules will not take effect until sometime in the fall.

The land office will hold public hearings on the rules from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. July 8 at the jury room in the County Justice Center, 600 59th St., and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. at the county annex in Crystal Beach, 946 Noble Carl Drive.

Overflow Crowd in Crystal Beach Protests GLO Setback Rules

Angry property owners in Crystal Beach turned out in full force Tuesday night to share their concerns about a state proposal that could change how close to the beach property could be developed.

Among the group was District Judge Bob Wortham, who says it's a case of the state trying to steal land from property owners.

No one at the Tuesday afternoon meeting in Crystal Beach supports the proposal.

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson held public hearings in both Crystal Beach and Galveston on Thursday to explain the proposed changes.

Land owners are concerned about a proposed beach erosion plan that could move the line of where property could be developed from 25 feet to 300 feet.

Many wondered what impact the rules could have on the value of their property if they decided to sell it.

The state says the rules are needed to prevent erosion, but property owners and some local officials believe the rules would give the Texas General Land Office too much authority over private property.

Even though compliance with the rules is voluntary, the state could withhold critical funding from local governments if they don't adopt the new rules.

The public has until August 15 to comment on the proposed changes. You can offer a comment by going to the Texas General Land Office website.

Statement from Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson:

During the past six years, the Texas Legislature spent more money than ever before to address coastal erosion.

As Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, I've spent those years working with lawmakers to increase their awareness of the coast's needs. I've lobbied hard for coastal funding. There is still much work to be done, but I am proud of what is being accomplished in Galveston and across the Texas coast thanks to the more than $55 million in taxpayer money over the past six years the Legislature has provided to tackle coastal needs.

Continued success in getting the Texas Legislature to invest in our coast will only come if legislators see we have been careful stewards of these precious tax dollars. The new beach and dune rules proposed by the Texas General Land Office will provide the tools local governments need to better protect the dunes and homeowners. They'll also show the Legislature the very same coastal communities asking for public funding to combat erosion are taking the issue seriously and planning for the future.

These proposed changes give the General Land Office more time to review large-scale construction projects. This allows better review of projects that may have a large-scale impact on the Texas coast for generations to come.

These proposed changes also suggest local coastal officials consider creating an erosion response plan. The proposed new rules give several options for local governments to consider when establishing a construction set back from the dunes of either 1) 60 times the annual erosion rate, measured from the line of vegetation, 2) or 25 feet landward of the landward toe of the dunes, or 3) 300 feet landward of the mean high water line. Or, local governments may even propose alternatives to these suggestions for what best fits their situation.

These erosion response plans are entirely voluntary. The proposed rules have been designed to allow local governments to tailor a plan best fit their community's needs, as no one-size-fits-all-plan from Austin could ever work everywhere on the Texas coast.

These proposed rules changes are now out for public comment, and I've extended that public comment period until July 17.

General Land Office staff spent several weeks traveling the coast to make sure the comments from everyone concerned are heard.

I have made sure the rules are common sense, grandfather existing legal construction and are flexible enough to allow local governments the room to propose common sense solutions to their individual erosion issues.

Most everyone who lives in a coastal community would agree that local government officials should have an erosion response plan, I think. But some are upset I would even consider asking them to create such a plan, or worse yet, that I or any other Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office would consider their voluntary erosion control plan when handing out taxpayer dollars to address the erosion problems in their area.

The flexibility of these proposed rules - along with the many opportunities for exemptions - ensure that private property rights are respected. These proposed rules won't keep anyone from building on their property. They will, however, help to protect that private property.

Jerry Patterson,
Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office

Confusion, anger surrounds new Texas beach building guidelines

Misunderstanding seems to have plagued the state's new guidelines for building on Texas beachfront properties.

While state officials say they hope to protect property owners from erosion, many coastal homeowners fear the state is either dictating how they can use their own property or is attempting a large-scale land grab.

"Beaches in Texas are one of our greatest resources," said Bob Wortham, 60, 58th District Court Judge judge and a Crystal Beach property owner. "Our tourist dollars are unbelievable. They want to take that from us."

Since May 16, when proposed changes to the state's beach and dune rules were published in the Texas Register, anger has been festering, especially in Galveston County. On Tuesday, the state's General Land Office took comments from hundreds of Bolivar Peninsula and Galveston landowners during two meetings - the only ones requested by any coastal community in the state.

The new guidelines dictate the set-back, or where new properties can be built, which ranges up to 300 feet from the mean high water line.

In the past, laws established the beaches as public property and protected the sand dunes, said Sidney Bouse, a 50-year-old surveyor from Port Bolivar who thinks the guidelines have stretched the state's control of property too far.

The heart of residents' concerns was whether the new guidelines will allow them to rebuild following a storm that destroys their homes.

While landowners expressed concerns that the state is encroaching on their property rights, Jerry Patterson, commissioner of the land office, said the guidelines are entirely optional.

Counties and cities can choose to adopt them and the Erosion Response Plan or not. However, opting out of the guidelines will be a factor when those counties and cities apply for Coastal Erosion Response Act funding available to repair damage after storms, Patterson said.

Those funds turn the optional guidelines into state law, some Bolivar residents say, because no county or city will want to risk losing that money.

Patterson said the guidelines' intent is to protect homeowners and future homeowners from houses built too close to erosion-prone beaches, not to intrude on Texans' rights. In 50 years, he said, a home originally on the beachfront might be dangerously close to high tide.

"It's a matter of how responsible you are when you build near the dunes," he said.

People unable to submit comments during either of Tuesday's meetings in Galveston County can do so in writing through Aug. 15. Mail to Walter Talley, Texas Register Liaison, Texas General Land Office, P.O. Box 12873, Austin, TX 78711 or fax to (512) 463-6311.

If beachfront owners want to spend their $ on insurance(which pays very little) and the cost of rebuilding their homes it should be the right of the homeowner. My family had a beachfront home for over 40 years and this is the first time we are having to rebuild. This is happening due to same crashing into the front of the house. Possibly piling from another house or a boat. Also, we have alway worked to rebuild the dunes in front of our property.

You can continue to argue and debate these issues until the actions of the Texas General Land Office and it's Land Commissioner take the situation in his own hands but that will NEVER happen because first of all, he won't, and second, it isn't those we elect to hold these positions of leadership that we believed would actually roll their sleeves up and work on resolving our issues. It's the attorneys that revolve through the State's doors that make these decisions and they don't turn back after wreaking havoc by their actions motivated to obtain more Federal GOVERNMENT FUNDS to misappropriate all the while using a city/county in the process. County Judge Yarbrough is no dummy and by moving slower rather than most when jumping on the first dollar offered to make a deal with the devil. It shows he is not selling out his community, he is diligently and appropriately reviewing a situation that has caused irreparable damage to many people. This concern is rare. In addition, Judge Yarbrough knows the State of Texas and the GLO as well as most, he is very familiar with their surprise 'hidden agendas' found in the fine print that not only adversely affect the private property owners, their livelihood and families but it also affects a city/county that implements the conditional GLO rules that sometimes aren't applicable and contain false, erroneous data to benefit the GLO's undisclosed agendas leaving out the county/city benefits that could be overseen or risks that it places on the county and it's residents. The state GLO is not accurate, thorough or honest all of the time! The actions of the GLO are often wrong, fraudulant and when someone strong enough to stop believing a state agency just because it's an authority and performs their own research is a wise man. The state makes blundering errors when given a choice or worse, intentional. They are human beings not GODS. When the state is desparate to obtain yet, more funds, property or benefit from the federal government; we all lose in the end. If the state can obtain these funds and believe the smaller cities around the Texas Gulf Coast are ignorant and dependent on the GLO 'strings attached' financial assistance to achieve their own agendas then, we should all be on welfare and hold our hands out rather than, becoming a self sufficient community proud of stability and success. A community that isn't dependent upon government for all of our issues in need of resolve is stronger and more powerful to steam roll. Otherwise, allowing the GLO to make the rules only if the leaders of the community 'sell out' shows gullability, vulnerability and weakness. If the city had enough willpower to say "NO" they probably wouldn't be in the mess they're in especially when a planning office is making decisions and not qualified or resourceful enough to think outside of the box that the state wrapped and put a bow on. If planning were able to think out side of this box and not 'cut and paste' the states rules and place in local ordinances, that would mean the administrative area of planning would have to actually perform just as the field area does. Thought process and performing due diligence would mean accountability, work. We know this isn't going to happen especially when the recent beachfront ordinance that passed wasn't made available to the public 72 hours before presented to council; as the city codes and rules state it should've have been. Along with the fact, the recent ordinance that passed via city council was INCOMPLETE AND INACCURATE where even the state GLO reps agreed it didn't address all that it could or should have....Point proven: the city doesn't care what tax payers, working men, women or senior citizens say and feel. WHY? They don't have to! Especially when planning involves themself so deep into quick money from the government our voices aren't important nor is the small amount of taxes we bring to the table when decisions were already made before hitting the council agenda. Its planning that runs the train off the tracks and the council allows it because they're unaware of the lack of knowledge involved because "it sounds good," 'free' money is coming. Planning appears to sound very impressive presenting regurgitated information fed by the state. It's sad, Galveston doesn't need development nor want it because then, it would bring another element to the community; work, dealing with more people offering knowledge and intellect outside the box of state and federal funds.