# Rollover Pass



## tomtom83 (Oct 1, 2007)

Any new news on the pass? I know there was a meeting last night. I've heard from social media that they decided to close it.


----------



## ChasingReds (Jul 31, 2009)

was this what you saw?

http://www.crystalbeachlocalnews.com/keep-rollover-pass-open/

Still doesn't explain how they can seize private property - no mention of eminent domain, timeline or process


----------



## tomtom83 (Oct 1, 2007)

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/30273872/plans-to-close-rollover-pass-on-bolivar-peninsula-imminent


----------



## ChasingReds (Jul 31, 2009)

Interesting article, but really no new information. Plans even come w/cleaning stations which would be great. Saw another reference that the funds were carried over to the next fiscal year, but they still have to get through the lawsuit filed by the GCA. 

The pass is in serious need of upgrading and the owners should be permitted to raise the funds they need privately w/o the threat of closure by the state preventing them from doing so. If the funds can't be raised, then perhaps it is time it was closed, but in the meantime it's falling apart before our eyes while the 2 sides duke it out in court. 

More losers than winners on this one


----------



## Ron R. (May 21, 2004)

The biggest losers are the folks that have a physical disability and will lose the opportunity to drive right up to the water's edge to fish. The distance from their vehicle to the water is less than 25 feet. 

Asking them to use their walker or wheelchair and carry their gear on a pier is not equal accommodation. Pretty much ends their fishing days.


----------



## Stalkin Spots (Jan 12, 2014)

I don't have a dog in this fight so I don't lean one way or the other. I can see both sides of the argument. I can say, from what I have seen, that the place is a dump. Nobody should fish there without making sure their tetanus shot is up to date. Judging by the artists rendering they have big plans for the place, but that raises the question if they can't afford more trash cans or port-a-potties how on earth do they expect to raise the funds to complete a project of that magnitude?


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

:headknock


----------



## Lexy1 (Jul 12, 2012)

Stalkin Spots said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight so I don't lean one way or the other. I can see both sides of the argument. I can say, from what I have seen, that the place is a dump. Nobody should fish there without making sure their tetanus shot is up to date. Judging by the artists rendering they have big plans for the place, but that raises the question if they can't afford more trash cans or port-a-potties how on earth do they expect to raise the funds to complete a project of that magnitude?


x2
The picture of the park future looks awesome but where they can get the money for it?
It's the UNANSWERED question.


----------



## jr22dad (Mar 24, 2013)

*closing*

What the state is not taking into account is, IMO, for what its worth, close the pass, the fish will not be there for whatever you build because you are taking the flow away from gulf to bay which many species travel. The state may be taking this into account, but why should they give a darn? The people that lose are the landlocked fisherman and women, especially the handicapped.


----------



## ChasingReds (Jul 31, 2009)

Stalkin Spots said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight so I don't lean one way or the other. I can see both sides of the argument. I can say, from what I have seen, that the place is a dump. Nobody should fish there without making sure their tetanus shot is up to date. Judging by the artists rendering they have big plans for the place, but that raises the question if they can't afford more trash cans or port-a-potties how on earth do they expect to raise the funds to complete a project of that magnitude?


I suggest that we all of a "dog in the fight" as the state is attempting to seize private property without due process and backed up by bad science.

Jerry Patterson set aside >$5 mil when he headed up the GLO, that money has been carried over to the next fiscal year, but it's a waste of tax payers money as the bait that moves through the pass will go elsewhere and whatever fishing remains will be less than it is now.

IMHO, the state is playing a waiting game by stoping the GCA raise the private funds they needs to upgrade the pass and compromising public safety by letting is rot as they threaten to close it.

Just my 2 cents worth...


----------



## Jean Scurtu (Dec 6, 2011)

Ron R. said:


> The biggest losers are the folks that have a physical disability and will lose the opportunity to drive right up to the water's edge to fish. The distance from their vehicle to the water is less than 25 feet.
> 
> Asking them to use their walker or wheelchair and carry their gear on a pier is not equal accommodation. Pretty much ends their fishing days.


:texasflag

I am disable and in the last 10 years i was fishing just at ROLLOVER PASS because i can park my car very close to the bank,take my ice box from the trunk and start fishing sitting on my ice box.Before i was disable (problems with my legs) i was fishing in many places.I don't like to fish on the pier,i can'tn fish on the jetty ad i don't have boat and i can't use kayak.

The best place for me is ROLLOVER PASS and i can tell you ROLLOVER PASS is the best place for fishing in Texas for people witch don't have a boat ,kayak and for disable people.Here i was catching a lot of nice fish.I am fishing just with artificial from the bank siting on my ice box.I can't wade.

The reason for closing the pas are just fake,is not about erosion,people witch want to close the pass have different hiding interest.

If you just want to stop the erosion why don't build jetty and if the problem is not total solve for sure erosion the jetty help to be a minimum erosion.

If the pass is close and build one big pier ,for sure the people can't catch so nice fish like in pass .If the water don't move from gulf to bay you don't see so many fish and the [pier don't help with nothing.

I live in Houston and i must drive 2.5 hour to be at ROLLOVER PASS,and the same to return back in the same day home,so my fishing is not so easy ,but i am 70 years old(with $600 social security income/month) and like very much fishing.

To fish on the pier is no reason to drive to ROLLOVER PASS ,i can't fish on piers from Galveston,but i am not able to take my fishing tackle,ice box etc. on the pier.When i was not disable i was fishing on the pier and i don't like.

I hope nobody close this very good place for fishing.


----------



## Leo (May 21, 2004)

How can anyone argue with that?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

With out a doubt, the #1 best, free, handicapped accessible fishing spot for disabled, elderly, boat-less anglers in Texas and probably the entire Gulf Coast.

We should be protecting and expanding these types of outdoor opportunities


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Amen^^^


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Sometime in 1955 man decided that we new better than mother nature and opened a "fish pass" where none had previously been. Saltwater poured into the bay where for millennium freshwater mixed with saltwater the way God kind of intended it to be. Oyster reef and sensitive marsh have since payed a price. In addition sand from the Bolivar beaches started to pour into the bay.

The cost to the taxpayer and overall health of East Bay has become to big.

I am 100% for closing the pass that should have never been.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

We should let God speak for himself...How do you know God didn't send the guy's there to open the pass??

God didn dredge the IC either or any of the ship channels that the deep draft ship navigate.


----------



## pcde123 (Oct 23, 2013)

they should learn from the success of rollover and build a pass further down the coast, past san luis , maybe around matagorda


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

jampen said:


> We should let God speak for himself...How do you know God didn't send the guy's there to open the pass?


I don't pretend to know God's will. All I know is there was no pass until Government officials decided they new better.

And it has not worked out so well for the overall health of the bay.

I am sympathetic to the handicapped who benefit from Rollover. But it should not come at the expense of the Bay. There have been other alternatives proposed.

I really enjoy Mr. Scurtu's posts. He is a breath of fresh air. But in this case we have to look at the overall health of the bay and the economic costs.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Name one instance where restricting and/or reducing water exchange between the Gulf and the bay actually improved the "overall health" of the bay.


----------



## jaime1982 (Aug 25, 2009)

Its Catchy said:


> Sometime in 1955 man decided that we new better than mother nature and opened a "fish pass" where none had previously been. Saltwater poured into the bay where for millennium freshwater mixed with saltwater the way God kind of intended it to be. Oyster reef and sensitive marsh have since payed a price. In addition sand from the Bolivar beaches started to pour into the bay.
> 
> The cost to the taxpayer and overall health of East Bay has become to big.
> 
> I am 100% for closing the pass that should have never been.


I dont fish RP but thanks for the laugh. Green sent!


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

pcde123 said:


> they should learn from the success of rollover and build a pass further down the coast, past san luis , maybe around matagorda


No they shouldn't. Leave it be.


----------



## Cod Wallupper (Jul 11, 2015)

The best answer is to close this pass based on scientific evidence presented the other night


----------



## Stalkin Spots (Jan 12, 2014)

ChasingReds said:


> I suggest that we all of a "dog in the fight" as the state is attempting to seize private property without due process and backed up by bad science.
> 
> Jerry Patterson set aside >$5 mil when he headed up the GLO, that money has been carried over to the next fiscal year, but it's a waste of tax payers money as the bait that moves through the pass will go elsewhere and whatever fishing remains will be less than it is now.
> 
> ...


The state was given an easement to dig the pass. To my knowledge all they are proposing is to return the area to its natural state. To what bad science are you referring? The FACT that oyster reefs have diminished due to the increased salinity, or the FACT that aquatic vegetation has diminished due to turbidity and siltation, or the fact that water clarity has suffered due to both of these things?

I have no idea what your second paragraph means, and therefore can not respond.

I do not believe that the state has any ability to stop the GCA from raising private funds to benefit the pass. I also do not believe that the state is compromising public safety by allowing the bulkheads to rot. It is after all private property. You can't have it both ways. They are either responsible for the pass or they are not.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Until recently, oysters had been in drastic declined throughout the GB complex. 

The decline is not isolated to EB nor is it a result of having ROP opened or closed.

Much more complicated than that.


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

Let nature take its course, if the pass were to be eventually filled in by mother nature, fill it in.
i went fishing there for my first time a few weeks ago, it was quite nice; my little brother caught a small flounder and I liked the folks I met there, but priorities should be on the bay health and not on the people.


----------



## bowmansdad (Nov 29, 2011)

I have fished Rollover since its been open so I'm all for it staying open. Being 68, it's one of the few places I can go safely and have a reasonable chance of catching fish without wading or fishing on piers or jetties.
As far as restoring the bay, the Taylor Bayou project will have a huge impact on East Bay salinity by adding a huge source of fresh water along with the Trinity River, which ran 60k for 6 months or so this year. Salinity goes up and down with the fresh water inflow as it always has. 
I feel the GLO is overstepping their bounds on this one but on the other side, why can't the owners find the funds to proceed with the restoration of the Pass? I have no idea what is available or what it would cost and if the only way to fix it up is with private funds, why not go ahead with a fund raising campaign? If it's a legal issue that is preventing it then that's more ammo for the fight. I'd be willing to bet if the improvements started to occur, public opinion would cause the GLO to back off. 
I know everyone has an opinion and this is mine.


----------



## ChasingReds (Jul 31, 2009)

why can't the owners find the funds to proceed with the restoration of the Pass? I have no idea what is available or what it would cost and if the only way to fix it up is with private funds, why not go ahead with a fund raising campaign? If it's a legal issue that is preventing it then that's more ammo for the fight. I'd be willing to bet if the improvements started to occur, public opinion would cause the GLO to back off. 

I don't disagree, but there's a difference between "private funds" and "private donations", no idea what the cost would be, but assume they'd be looking for investors that would get a return on their money rather trying to raise that level of money through donations. The sword hanging over their head is the threat of closure, no one would invest in property that may be taken by the State so private funds may not exist and even though 1,000's people that use the area, can't see they can generate enough donations to cover the cost of new bulkheads and railings and making the area truly wheel chair accessible.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Chasing Reds,

I don't think the battle to close Rollover is about the funds necessary to restore the pass. It's mainly about the cost of the continual dredging and re-dredging of the ICW, the ecological damage it is causing in East Bay and erosion it is causing to the Bolivar beaches.

These links explain the issues in more detail:

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/30273872/plans-to-close-rollover-pass-on-bolivar-peninsula-imminent
http://www.texascoastgeology.com/papers/rollover.pdf


----------



## ChasingReds (Jul 31, 2009)

I appreciate your response and opinion, in mine it's also about the state seizing private property without due process. Both sides have their own data and studies and have been in court for years. Think all the proceeds of the parking fees all go toward their lawyer, bet they'd prefer to use that money on preservation.


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

This subject has been argued for a long time and rightfully so. Gulf passes are a good thing. Always. Migrations of all marine species depend upon access in and out of the GOM. The argument that ROP has hurt East Galveston Bay is utter nonsense. If you want to see what a massive mudhole looks like, close ROP and you will get your wish.

www.solarscreenguys.com


----------



## BullyARed (Jun 19, 2010)

I think handicap (or people with disabilities) folks should band together and let them known. Keep the pass open.


----------



## ChasingReds (Jul 31, 2009)

Copied from the ROP Facebook page, "the rest of the story"

PROPOSED CLOSURE OF ROLLOVER PASS TO HARM EAST BAY
Proposed closure of Rollover Pass to harm East Bay
The Gilchrist Community Association (GCI) and the Gulf Coast Rod, Reel and Gun Club (the Club) today released a study of the impacts of the closure of Rollover Pass upon East Bay that demonstrates that significant harm will result to East Bay if Rollover Pass is closed as proposed by the General Land Office (GLO) of the State of Texas.
This new study prepared by Larry Dunbar, P.E., was commissioned after documents contained in the files of the Corps of Engineers revealed that TxBLEND, the official State of Texas computer model for Galveston Bay, had been modified by a consultant to the General Land Office in a manner that eliminated all sources of freshwater inflow into East Bay. Due to this modification, this model predicted no adverse impacts from the closure of Rollover Pass on East Bay fisheries. However, the exact opposite result is shown when the official state model is correctly utilized, as shown in the Dunbar report. In turn, this erroneous model was relied upon by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in its decision to issue a permit allowing the closure of Rollover Pass.
According to Jim Blackburn, the attorney for GCI and the Club, â€œThis modification of the computer model conceals the impacts of this closure upon East Bay. It should be very troubling to those concerned about the Texas coast and coastal recreational fishing. The Corps should have the best information before them as they attempt to resolve whether to issue this permit or not.â€
East Bay is the easternmost arm of the Galveston Bay system lying between the Bolivar Peninsula and the mainland of Chambers County.
Rollover Pass was opened in 1955 by the Texas Game and Fish Commission, the predecessor to Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, on property owned by the Gulf Coast Rod, Reel and Gun Club. The stated purpose of the opening of the Pass was to improve bay water quality and salinity, enhance fish migration into Rollover Bay and East Bay, perpetuate state fish and wildlife resources, and improve local fishing conditions. Rollover Pass is adjacent to the community of Gilchrist on the Bolivar Peninsula.
In 2010, the General Land Office applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to close Rollover Pass. On August 10, 2012, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit allowing the GLO to close the Pass. The Gilchrist Community Association and the Gulf Coast Rod, Reel and Gun Club filed suit against the Corps of Engineers and the General Land Office in federal court in Galveston on April 19, 2013. The computer model at issue is called TxBLEND. It has been used in bay and estuarine modeling throughout the Texas coast as well as specifically in Galveston Bay. The State of Texasâ€™s bay and estuary planning process utilized the TxBLEND model in the official report of science committee studying Galveston Bay under Senate Bill 3. In the Senate Bill 3 process, the officially-approved TxBLEND model included inflows from Oyster Bayou, Spindletop Bayou and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in eastern Chambers and Jefferson Counties that empty into East Bay at the eastern extreme of the Galveston Bay system. However, when the GLO utilized the TxBLEND model in support of its permit to close Rollover Pass, the GLOâ€™s consultant removed the inflows into East Bay from the model.
â€œThe effect of the removal of the inflows into East Bay is to eliminate the effects of freshwater on the salinity of East Bay. In most of our bays, we need all the freshwater inflow that we can get, but East Bay is different. With Rollover Pass closed, most of East Bay becomes isolated from the Gulf and is more likely to be harmed by too much freshwater rather than too littleâ€ added Blackburn. According to the report released today, if the officially approved version of the TxBLEND model is used, East Bay is shown to become extremely fresh after the closure of Rollover Pass. Rather than predicting salinities in the desired 15-25 part per thousand range as shown in the GLO report, the un-modified TxBLEND model shows salinities ranging from 0 to 15 ppt after the closure of Rollover Pass.Again, according to Blackburn, â€œThe difference in these results is huge. Rather than being ideal for saltwater fish and shellfish, East Bay will become too fresh and will suffer a diminished fishery. The important point is that the GLO hired a consultant who modified the model to remove inflows and then submitted the results to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to convince the Corps to issue a permit to allow the closure of Rollover Pass. This was based, at least in part, on the results of that modified model indicating â€˜no problemâ€™. Such manipulation of an approved computer model is scientifically wrong, and I hope to show it is legally wrong.â€
For Further Information Contact Jim Blackburn, 713-524-1012


----------



## Pot luck (Oct 19, 2015)

*Roll over pass*

Let them close it down. It is a eye sore. Now the are putting trailers behind the bait camp trailer. They will keep adding more and it won't be safe for kids to go there. A lot of dope in that area. I want my girls to be able to go down the beach and not have to worry about some doper.


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

ChasingReds said:


> Copied from the ROP Facebook page, "the rest of the story"
> 
> PROPOSED CLOSURE OF ROLLOVER PASS TO HARM EAST BAY
> Proposed closure of Rollover Pass to harm East Bay
> ...


This does not require "rocket science" scientific calculations. Common sense tells the truth about this entire matter. No difference whatsoever from the reopening of Cedar Bayou/Vinson Slough on the mid coast. Positive results have already been reported from Mesquite and surrounding bays near Rockport as the result of the reconnection to the GOM through Cedar Bayou. To think that closing ROP will help the marine environment in EGB is like saying clogging your arteries with plaque from cholesterol will make you more healthy. If you don't like the trash and people who fish there, just be grateful that the water flows in and out carrying marine life with each changing tide. Closing that pass makes about as much sense as closing Packery Channel. Don't be confused, Gulf passes are a good thing, always.

www.solarscreenguys.com


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

Pot luck said:


> Let them close it down. It is a eye sore. Now the are putting trailers behind the bait camp trailer. They will keep adding more and it won't be safe for kids to go there. A lot of dope in that area. I want my girls to be able to go down the beach and not have to worry about some doper.


Then go somewhere else.

I cannot see where closing of a pass can do anything but harm a connecting bay system. It just does not make sense to my feeble mind. I cannot see any way how the closing of the pass could be beneficial to the bay, but I am not an engineer. Besides harming the bay, long term, you are also affecting many fishermen that may have no other place to fish.

For those that are not landlocked, or are not disabled, there are many other places to take your kids and families.


----------



## tokavi (May 6, 2006)

bowmansdad said:


> I have fished Rollover since its been open so I'm all for it staying open. Being 68, it's one of the few places I can go safely and have a reasonable chance of catching fish without wading or fishing on piers or jetties.
> As far as restoring the bay, the Taylor Bayou project will have a huge impact on East Bay salinity by adding a huge source of fresh water along with the Trinity River, which ran 60k for 6 months or so this year. Salinity goes up and down with the fresh water inflow as it always has.
> I feel the GLO is overstepping their bounds on this one but on the other side, why can't the owners find the funds to proceed with the restoration of the Pass? I have no idea what is available or what it would cost and if the only way to fix it up is with private funds, why not go ahead with a fund raising campaign? If it's a legal issue that is preventing it then that's more ammo for the fight. I'd be willing to bet if the improvements started to occur, public opinion would cause the GLO to back off.
> I know everyone has an opinion and this is mine.


The Taylor Bayou project will not put freshwater into East Bay. That water will go under the ICW in the Keith Lke System.


----------



## Pot luck (Oct 19, 2015)

It is dangerous.. The state will clean it up. Then it will be maintained. We live there. It will not do nothing but help the bay system. Reefs will come back and vegetation will come back and so will our beach that has washed away.


----------



## ChampT22 (Mar 7, 2011)

There are plenty of reefs and miles and miles of beach. There are only a hand full of passes. " Leave It Open".


----------



## Jean Scurtu (Dec 6, 2011)

ChampT22 said:


> There are plenty of reefs and miles and miles of beach. There are only a hand full of passes. " Leave It Open".


:texasflag

I agree !!!


----------



## SETXJR (May 12, 2014)

When it was first created, it was an excellent idea and was created to promote a healthier bay system. It was not created to allow people to fish from its banks and it was not created as a place the disabled would have a chance to fish. Through the years that is what happened at Rollover. I think it would be a shame that disabled folks and people without a means to a boat will not able to fish in such an easy manner. I think it is greater disservice to leave the pass open and harm the East Bay system and its aquatic wildlife. 

In 1955, the amount of fresh water flowing into East Bay was FAR greater than it is now. Farming is diverging fresh water into fields and not into East Bay. The amount of saltwater that is now and has been flowing into East Bay is harming the ecosystem. In turn, oyster reefs are hurting and if you know anything, you know that these oyster reefs are the lifeblood of the East Bay system. Do you notice that most the oyster reefs in far East Bay are no longer viable? Do you notice the money used by CCA and Texas Parks and Wildlife to restore and create oyster reefs further West?

What the Rod and Gun club has done, is made this political, "The government is trying to take away our land". The government is trying to lower the amount of taxpayer's money used to keep it open and the ICW open and trying to do what is best for East Bay. The natural state is always the best state when it involves wildlife and ecosystems. People try and compare Cedar Bayou and that is not a viable comparison. Cedar Bayou was walled off by man to protect the shoreline from an oil spill. 

The Solution - 

All parties need to work together to find some common ground. Maybe the Lone Survivor Foundation could get involved and pressure the state for all accommodations possible for the disabled, veterans or not. We need to put aside our differences in our political views and do what is right for the overall health of the bay system and our fisheries. That Bay has been there for a far greater amount of years than the last 60 and will not be "doomed", as was penned, if the pass is closed.


----------



## SETXJR (May 12, 2014)

shaggydog said:


> Then go somewhere else.
> 
> I cannot see where closing of a pass can do anything but harm a connecting bay system. It just does not make sense to my feeble mind. I cannot see any way how the closing of the pass could be beneficial to the bay, but I am not an engineer. Besides harming the bay, long term, you are also affecting many fishermen that may have no other place to fish.
> 
> For those that are not landlocked, or are not disabled, there are many other places to take your kids and families.


It is not harming the bay system by closing it. Have you been in East Bay before? There is no seagrass as there once was and there are no viable oyster reefs and there is an unbelievable amount of silt covering the seafloor. Just because it is a great fish catching spot doesn't mean its a good idea to keep open.


----------



## DSL_PWR (Jul 22, 2009)

Plans to close Rollover Pass on Bolivar Peninsula *imminent
*
http://www.khou.com/story/news/loca...ver-pass-bolivar-peninsula-imminent/74074148/


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

SETXJR said:


> It is not harming the bay system by closing it. Have you been in East Bay before? There is no seagrass as there once was and there are no viable oyster reefs and there is an unbelievable amount of silt covering the seafloor. Just because it is a great fish catching spot doesn't mean its a good idea to keep open.


Yeah the ICW wasn't there either probably should go ahead and shut it down as well surely it's not good for East Bay


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

Just leave it alone. Heck, spend the money on opening another pass.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Or the ship channel or the miles of jetties or floodgates, the hundreds of well heads, docks, bulkheads, canals etc. etc.


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

Pot luck said:


> It is dangerous.. The state will clean it up. Then it will be maintained. We live there. It will not do nothing but help the bay system. Reefs will come back and vegetation will come back and so will our beach that has washed away.


The days of the massive grass beds and vegetation are long gone. This was before the ICW. Commercial duck hunting was a viable business for many and it was certainly a paradise. However, closing the pass will not bring back those glory days. As a matter of fact, Closing ROP will do damage to not only the oyster beds, but to all marine species which inhabit the upper end of EGB. The oyster beds suffered great damage from Hurricane Ike and that has been well and easily documented. This pass has a history of providing a tremendous fishing area as huge migrations of marine species move in and out of the bay to the gulf because they need to in order to complete the natural cycle mother nature requires. 
If ROP is closed, The freshwater flows coming from the ICW and the marshes to the north and east all the way to the Neches and Sabine will be blocked and stacked in the upper reaches of EGB. A freshwater mudhole will be the result. 
Closing ROP is the desire of the few who blame ROP for the beach erosion which is happening up and down the Texas coast even hundreds of miles from Rollover. You folks are "barking up the wrong tree". Rollover Pass is a good thing. Save it!

www.solarscreenguys.com


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

If ROP is closed said:


> www.solarscreenguys.com[/URL]


East Bay was not a "mud hole" before we in our infinite wisdom decided to improve on mother nature. The pass has certainly not "helped" the oysters or the marsh in East Bay. Then there is the constant erosion of the Beaches and movement of sand from the gulf side into the bay and ICW costing the taxpayers millions.

It's causing to much ecological damage to the bay and erosion on the beach.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

The original plan called for a jetty that was never built. They need to add that jetty and the erosion problem is solved.


----------



## ChasingReds (Jul 31, 2009)

jampen said:


> The original plan called for a jetty that was never built. They need to add that jetty and the erosion problem is solved.


X2

Since the new jetty was finished in Matagorda, a whole new beach area was created between the jetty and the pier. Used to be able to fish anywhere along that pier, now have to go all the way to the end to fish the rocks - isn't mother nature wonderful!


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

This whole thing is all about money. It has nothing to do with salinity levels, oysters, sea grass, or erosion. They are tired of spending money to dredge the intracoastal and closing Rollover Pass will save them money. My Dad and Grandpa both told me that when the Pass was opened the fishing in East Bay improved almost over night. They were both commercial fisherman and catching fish was how they fed their family, so I think they knew what they were talking about. The oysters and grass dying has more to do with pollution than anything else. If they shut down the ship channel and all the chemical plants it would help, but that will never happen because there is to much money evolved, and after all this is all about the money. You could also remove everything that has been built in the Houston/Galveston area since the 1950's and return all the wetlands back to their original condition and I'm sure the Galveston Bay complex would be back to its pre-Rollover pass days in no time. Another thing you don't hear people talk about is subsidence. Some places in the Houston/Galveston area have sunk 10' to 12' in the last 50 years due to the pumping of ground water, oil, and gas, just check with the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, but they would rather blame things like Rollover Pass, or rising water levels caused by global warming, when the real problem is greed.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

For years, they actually harvested oyster reef material to make parking lots and well-pads.


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

sharkchum said:


> This whole thing is all about money. It has nothing to do with salinity levels, oysters, sea grass, or erosion. They are tired of spending money to dredge the intracoastal and closing Rollover Pass will save them money. My Dad and Grandpa both told me that when the Pass was opened the fishing in East Bay improved almost over night. They were both commercial fisherman and catching fish was how they fed their family, so I think they knew what they were talking about. The oysters and grass dying has more to do with pollution than anything else. If they shut down the ship channel and all the chemical plants it would help, but that will never happen because there is to much money evolved, and after all this is all about the money. You could also remove everything that has been built in the Houston/Galveston area since the 1950's and return all the wetlands back to their original condition and I'm sure the Galveston Bay complex would be back to its pre-Rollover pass days in no time. Another thing you don't hear people talk about is subsidence. Some places in the Houston/Galveston area have sunk 10' to 12' in the last 50 years due to the pumping of ground water, oil, and gas, just check with the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, but they would rather blame things like Rollover Pass, or rising water levels caused by global warming, when the real problem is greed.


This sounds right. They dumped a ton of chemicals in the bay years ago & it killed the grass. West bay use to be full of grass. Stand on the south shoreline & look north at all those chemical plants. That is what killed the grass.


----------



## Jean Scurtu (Dec 6, 2011)

:texasflag

*I agree with "sharkchum" !!!!*


----------

