Originally posted by: worksuxgetsponsered
An inlet there would change the entire makeup of the lagoon. It's naturally low flow, changing that will efff everything else up.
I'm curious how the other inlets, natural (Ponce) and man-made (Sebastian), as well as partial openings (Port Canaveral locks) affect water quality and ecosystem in the lagoon.
This
Wikipedia article about Sebastian Inlet discusses concerns about water quality that area of the IRL more than 100 years ago.
It seems to me that we have better water "quality" (clarity) in general near the inlets, but a) I'm not sure exactly how that affects the overall ecosystem; and b) in areas with "bad water quality" near other inlets, is that more due to runoff from nearby civilization or drainage from more distant, rural farmlands and bodies of fresh water?
Obviously, we should and
can protect the entire IRL from damage that originates west of it. Building an inlet solely as a quick fix that allows pollution from the west to continue is no answer.
There is also a question of urgency: How quickly must something be done before the lagoon reaches a "practical" point of no return? As long as it would take a new inlet to ever get constructed there, it might still happen faster and provide a quicker "marine revival" than fixes to the west, nearby at least. Would it have much impact on waters farther north, like the mangroves around KSC (MI Wildlife Refuge) and farther north (Mosquito Lagoon)?
Would locks be required at a new PAFB inlet to minimize hurricane surge and saltwater intrusion? In addition to dredging and building a bridge, adding locks would increase the cost even further. Would subterranean intrusion affect shallow-well sprinklers near the IRL to the point of ruining mansion landscapes, or affect nearby (drinking?) freshwater sources like Lake Poinsett and Lake Washington?
One might argue that if sea-level rise accelerates, the entire barrier island will be underwater, making the entire IRL part of the Atlantic Ocean anyway, before construction is finished.
Many unintended consequences.
As with everything, it's a gamble. Some of the surprise consequences may be good, some bad. Superbank, anyone?
Old SI jetty bump?
I tend to agree in general about the unintended consequences more likely being bad than good. We do know for a fact that the intended consequences of cleaning up the "west side" will be good. A subliminally intended consequence is that it puts some restrictions on development across most of Central Florida, which we desperately need. Unfortunately, that's what makes it a hard sell to government and to landowners/developers with influence. As long as they can use our lagoon as their toilet and not have to pay anything to unclog it, that's what they'll do.
I don't know the answers; I'm just pointing out a few questions and factors that should be considered.