THE Legislative Council’s Environment and Planning Committee recently released its report into Climate Resilience in which several findings and recommendations were made regarding coastal erosion and corresponding impacts on Inverloch. I understand the Government now has six months to respond but is under no obligation to accept any findings or action any recommendations.
In a recent Facebook post, a press release was uploaded by Inverloch Foreshore Action Group in which IFAG called on the Government to “Pump up sand after the rock bags have been put in place to reinstate the lost areas of sand dunes”.
Yet in the same press release, former Woorayl Shire Engineer, Keith Godridge said that “Most concerningly, the present proposal of DEECA to pump sand from the Inlet to the surf beach does not meet the recommendation of the Parliamentary committee”
Moreover, IFAG continues to place their faith in the “engineering” report prepared by Mr Godridge, where he implores that “Expecting fresh sand with newly planted vegetation to withstand erosion where the former dunes were washed away is ludicrous” and that “Wasting the funds on a pumped dune renourishment program instead of saving the clubhouse would be unforgivable.”
Mr Godridge has previously stated “an engineered solution like a rock protection wall or seawall was needed” and his report, without evidence, peer review, design concept, cost estimate or construction schedule, heavily promotes the use of rock bags as “the ideal solution for permanent erosion control at the Inverloch Surf Beach”
Perhaps not unexpectedly, but after several readings I have found no reference in the Report on Climate Resilience to support a claim that the pumping of sand would contravene any of the recommendations contained therein.
However, with regard to IFAG’s blind subservience to whatever Mr Godridge claims about rock bags and the efficacy of seawalls, Table 6.2 Mitigation infrastructure, key vulnerabilities and risks to climate resilience provides a discomforting explanation about the key vulnerabilities of seawalls and the environmental risks when seawalls fail to be maintained.
I appreciate the ardour by which IFAG is trying to make itself relevant, but it appears to me that DEECA’s proposal to pump sand to nourish the beach is no different to what IFAG seems to now be asking of the Government, albeit without the further expense of placing rock bags.
If IFAG is indeed now proposing almost an identical solution to DEECA’s proposal – and indeed one that is consistent with what the Minister outlined in his statement of February 25, 2025 in response to
IFAG’s petition – then IFAG’s present call for DEECA’s removal “as the entity responsible for addressing the erosion crisis” can only be seen as another attention-seeking publicity stunt.
Considering that extensive beach nourishment works are likely to start next month (potentially without Government authorisation of the Cape to Cape Resilience Plan), IFAG needs to get off DEECA’s back, get aligned behind some professional coastal engineering advice and focus on getting the Ministerial support and funding needed to urgently revise the Cape to Cape Resilience Plan to incorporate updated environmental data, recent storm impacts, and local stakeholder input and include short term engineered protection options alongside longer term adaptation strategies as set out in
Recommendation 1 of the Report on Climate Resilience.
Trevor Forge, Inverloch