Seems the GLO fixed the study in their own favor.Here is the article:http://therecordlive.com/2014/01/07/proposed-closure-of-rollover-pass-to-harm-east-bay/

Interesting, I just have a hard time when people indicate shutting down a manmade cut is harming the fishing or bay. It�s the same issue they are having in Louisiana. Closing channels is returning the marsh to its natural state. Fresh water marshes. That is bad for the fishermen and food industry, but it's the natural state. East bay existed well before rollover pass was opened and will exist if its closed. You can argue closing it brings the bay back into its natural state. Of course you would have to tear down all those man made levees out there as well.

Would it bring it back to its natural state? I am sure that Roll Over isn't the only modification to have been done to the bay. Heck a new drainage ditch anywhere up or down the San Jacinto would have an effect on the bay.

There are times in our history that we have actually done things that did have positive impacts on the welfare of our environment, even if they were small and few between.

I wonder how much of a difference there would be in this "fight" if each angler had been historically charged around $20 per head, and the money had been put towards improvements ongoing, also the amount of directly identifiable tax revenue seen by such a charge.

I am not taking sides here, those questions just came to my mind.

I am not angry or annoyed so please don't take me this way, I just have a different philosophy in this discussion. I find the idea everything should be returned to its "natural state" as the best course of action confusing. I am sure you don't take that stance exclusively or maybe you do. To me people are the care takers/stewards of the planet. We change feral landscapes to fields for our benefit, manage grasslands for their maximum livestock production. Why not manage bays for their maximum production? I think there should be a cost to benefit consideration but politically correct science returns things to their natural state even when the natural state supports far less biomass and biodiversity. Why is it wrong for people to improve the ecosystem?

I agree Oldtrackster.
It we want to go back to Natural State, we need to get off of this puter, kill off about half of the population, and start wearing loin cloths. OK, maybe not.

There were reasons that Rollover was dug, and I seriously doubt it had the fishing community in mind, that was probably just an after thought. It took 50 years to discover that this was a bad experiment? Historically when it gets to this point, and they are talking about messing with private citizens, there is a very large sum of money to be had somewhere around this thing.

Sorry I'm just too old and cynical, I guess. Heck I've never even fished there, and have a bad feeling about this.

This has been discussed into the ground on other boards and has nothing to do with returning the bay to a "Natural State". It has to do with all the damage Rollover pass causes to the ICW and the beachfront and the millions it takes to fix this damage. No one had tried to open a pass at the head of a bay like Rollover and they knew they had made a mistake within weeks of opening the pass when it quadrupled its width in a matter of days and they had to shut it down and bulkhead it. Yes, it was dug with the fishing community (at least a small part) in mind and it didn't take fifty years to notice it was a bad experiment. They have been trying to close it for over 40 years. Yes, there is money involved. The Gilchrist Community Association and the Rod and Gun Club stand to lose, not the state. BTW, the article is BS. Historically, East Bay was a grass bottomed, nearly fresh water bay. People thought that salt would help. Instead, it killed all the grass and because of the tidal flow through the pass, it silted up the bay. East bay would be much better off without rollover as would the ICW and the Bolivar beach front. Like I said, 2cool has beat this to death.

All responses so far just debate closing or not closing.Did anyone else read the article where it claims the GLO fixed the data so as to skew the study in their favor?Is the apathy so great that we don't even raise an eyebrow?This study(falsified)is being used to take private property from private citizens and all you guys can debate is whether or not the fishing will get better?When they come for your property I hope the fishing improves!

The data isn't really skewed. East Bay is historically a nearly fresh water bay. Closing Rollover will restore it to normal. It isn't supposed to be salty. GCI and the Rod and Gun club (who owns the land the pass goes through, not the pass itself) are the ones skewing things. They stand to loose some money or are at least afraid they will. The state built the pass and owns the pass itself and is restoring land back to the owners. Rollover was a very large mistake and it's high time it was fixed, before Bolivar Peninsula becomes Bolivar Island

Did you read the article David?

"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.'

Yet you say the data isn't skewed. The State was granted an easement to dig the pass,that's all.They don't own the land or the pass nor do they have an easement to fill it in. They are trying to take the land by eminent domain and I just hope it isn't your property they come for next.

Yes I read the article. I've read so many accusations and such from both sides, but mostly from GCI and the Rod and Gun Club I'm getting sick of it. The Rod and Gun Club has tried all kinds of things to get support because they think closing the pass will cost them money and could care less about the millions this is costing the taxpayers. The state has offered to build them 2 fishing piers and that isn't good enough. This pass needs to be closed for a multitude of reasons and if the people won't deal with the state, then the state has little or no recourse. As far as any study goes it is all in who you believe. The Rod and Gun Club hired a guy to say what they wanted to hear, the state had their own experts. Be careful what you read on the internet. As far as how salty East Bay will be, as I've said, East Bay was originally a near fresh water bay and opening Rollover ruined a lot of the fishing in the bay by killing the grass with salt and silt. People like Rollover because it funnels the fish into a small area making them easy to catch. As far as coming after any land I own, if they have as good a reason as they do at Rollover, then I'm willing to deal with them. The Rod and Gun Club isn't.

David,
I have researched this extensively and feel you are just hiding your head in the sand. Please listen to this radio podcast interviewing Jim Blackburn about the new developments in the case. If only the word gets out about what these politicians are doing can we stop them before they come for your property!
http://houston.cbslocal.com/?podcast_url=http%3A%2F%2Fcbshouston.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F01%2F400-done-0112.mp3&podcast_name=Outdoors+Show&podcast_artist=The+Captains&station_id=63&audio_link=true&config_file=config.xml&dcid=CBS.HOUSTON

Sincerely,
Alan

You may feel I'm hiding my head in the sand, but I will guarantee you I'm not. Maybe you are a bit. I listened to that one sided show and nothing there changed my mind. Did you go on the website and actually read the reports that they claimed showed some sort of conspiracy? The freshwater inflows weren't left out totally. It was, like any lawsuit, paid "experts" expressing their opinions on the methods. Their hired expert felt the model should be run differently. That radio show just showed one side of the argument and while they were at it, never backed up their claims with any proof, especially with the dredging costs, water inflows etc. They just stated they were wrong and it was some sort of GLO conspiracy. Remember, Rollover was built to make East Bay something it wasn't, sort of "improving" nature and you know how often that has good results.

Well like I thought you didn't listen to or read anything.If you had you would have known that they have commissioned another study that will be complete any day now.The environmental lawyer said that study would show a total cost savings of 10 to 60 thousand dollars annually,not one to two million like the GLO tried to bafoon you with.Oh well,some people will never think the government would lie to them. Keep drinking that kool-aid.

First of all, there is no reason to get personal. No one is "drinking kool aid" on this end and I probably distrust the government more that you do. I also am not accusing you of not listening or reading, so keep it civil please. I'm sure there is a new study that shows exactly what Gilchrist Community Association etc wants it to show, and I'm sure GLO can show what it wants. You need to look beyond the he said, she said and study the problem as a whole. Simply, any good provided by the pass is outweighed by the bad caused by it. You have your opinion, I have mine.

Stay thirsty my friend.