Texas 4x4 Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

· Registered
18 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've been keeping up a bit with the restrictions to vehicular access to our beaches and trails (SB155, which prohibits access to streams and rivers (think Spring Creek) comes to mind), and I found the Texas Open Beaches Advocates Forum a long time ago, and after this weekend's trip to Galveston, I finally had a chance to see first hand all of the problems that they are always talking about.

I went back to check out the site this morning to find this . Apparently the house is trying to rush HB1603 which will severly limit all access to ALL of Texas PUBLIC beaches. Not just Galveston, but the whole Texas coast.

Here's a link to sample letters from the same forum that you can use to e-mail your local representative and ask them to vote no on this bill. The final vote will come up on May the 10th (tomorrow). I know it's kinda late to be posting this, but any little bit counts. Here's a link that'll take you to a page to find out who your local representative is.

And here's a quick read and example of some of the crap that's being pulled.

Anyway, I apologize that I didn't keep up with this and pass this on sooner, but hopefully this will get some more people involved. Thanks

· Registered
60 Posts
Never mind. I don't see the urgency to run and save the beaches according to the bill, construction and structures are what would be affected, not driving on the beach. It looks to me to be a way to keep subdivisions from building right up to the water, which would cause access problems mostly in the bay areas.

79R4432 QS-F

By: Bonnen H.B. No. 1603



relating to the authority of certain political subdivisions to
erect or maintain shore protection structures and the location of
the line of vegetation in relation to those structures.
SECTION 1. Section 61.017, Natural Resources Code, is
amended by adding Subsection (e) to read as follows:
(e) In an area of public beach where a shore protection
structure constructed as provided by Section 61.022(a)(6)
interrupts the natural line of vegetation for a distance of not more
than 4,500 feet, the line of vegetation is along the seaward side of
the shore protection structure for the distance marked by that
structure. A line of vegetation established under this subsection
is the landward boundary of the public beach and of the public
easement for all purposes. The state retains fee title to all
submerged land described by Section 11.012.
SECTION 2. Section 61.022, Natural Resources Code, is
amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsection (a-1) to
read as follows:
(a) The provisions of this subchapter do not prevent any of
the following governmental entities from erecting or maintaining
any groin, seawall, barrier, pass, channel, jetty, or other
structure as an aid to navigation, protection of the shore,
fishing, safety, or other lawful purpose authorized by the
constitution or laws of this state or the United States:
(1) an agency, department, institution, subdivision,
or instrumentality of the federal government;
(2) an agency, department, institution, or
instrumentality of this state;
(3) a county;
(4) a municipality; [or]
(5) a subdivision of this state, other than a county or
municipality, acting in partnership with the county or municipality
in which the structure is located; or
(6) a subdivision of this state, other than a county or
municipality, acting with the approval of the commissioner, if the
structure is a shore protection structure and is located in an area
on the west side of a natural inlet to the Gulf of Mexico bounded on
the east by the bridge abutment for a public bridge over the natural
inlet and extending not more than 4,500 feet west along the
(a-1) In granting approval of a shore protection structure
under Subsection (a)(6), the commissioner may specify requirements
for the design and location of the structure.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
Act takes effect September 1, 2005.

· Registered
13 Posts
Black Top Beach?

You've got to pay more attention to what the local governments are doing.
The Corpus Christi Caller Times has printed articles about this and they are very biased in their openion. They still haven't shown any reports of people being run over on the Texas beach.

The Texas Open Beaches Act was intended for areas like S. Padre and Galveston where the condos were built and the access to the beaches were already blocked. They had to provide parking and access to the masses so the compromise was to install 1 parking spot for every 15' of beach taken every 1/2 mile.

That means for every 1/2 mile they must provide a 300 car parking lot!

The ACT was created to get access back to areas already lost.
"NOT, to take away more beach and provide a parking lot!"


· Registered
13 Posts

Here is the link I've been using.


I'm not kidding when I say that they are trying to take the beach away.
They are trying to stop vehicular traffic from BalliPark/BobHall Pier to the Packery Channel.

This is a link to the fishing web sight in CC.

Did a little searching here is the latest from todays CallerTimes news paper.

Beach petition arrives at City Hall
11K signatures taken; 7K must be verified

By Denise Malan Caller-Times
June 30, 2006

City officials have as many as 20 days to scrutinize 11,200 signatures that could bring a vote on a vehicle ban for 7,200 feet of Padre Island.

A petition, turned in Thursday by the Beach Access Coalition, needs about 7,000 verified voters' signatures to put the issue on the ballot.

Groups on both sides of the debate are turning their attention to campaigning before the possible April election.

"I've talked to a broad cross-section of people," said Mike McCutchon, Beach Access Coalition spokesman. "A lot of them are very upset with our City Council right now."

The City Council voted in March to take cars off the beach between the Packery Channel south jetty and Padre Balli Park after developer Paul Schexnailder said it was necessary for a $1.5 billion resort. The council stipulated that before the ban could take effect, Schexnailder had to start work on $75 million worth of construction on the north end and begin building the hotel and homes planned for the area on the south end.

Colleen McIntyre, spokeswoman for It's About Time Corpus Christi, a group campaigning for the traffic ban, said she is not surprised the Beach Access Coalition gathered enough signatures to put the issue to a vote.

"It's still a matter of what happens in an election, not what happens in a petition drive," McIntyre said. "They're two very different things."

It's About Time Corpus Christi believes a beach without cars will be safer and more user-friendly for families and promote a healthy lifestyle.

The Beach Access Coalition believes wooden posts separating vehicles from pedestrians would make a pedestrian-safe beach and that development is not hindered by vehicles driving on the beach.

The council also needs the approval of the General Land Office to put the vehicle ban into place. The land office generally has 60 days to make sure such a plan agrees with the Open Beaches Act. If it does, the plan is approved. However, the office has asked for an extension to get extra information from the city.

The Beach Access Coalition also collected more than 1,000 signatures from people who live outside Corpus Christi and cannot vote on the issue. Those signatures will be submitted to the General Land Office during a coming public comment period on the city plan, said Neil McQueen, chairman of the Surfrider Foundation local chapter.

The Beach Access Coalition also is circulating a petition to make sure future vehicle bans are left up to voters from the beginning. They will collect signatures until October. That issue also could be on the April ballot.

Contact Denise Malan at 886-4334 or at HYPERLINK mailto:[email protected] [email protected]
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.