Practical Limitations of the Proposed Air Curtain for Canal 147 in Lower Matecumbe
Even under ideal circumstances, air curtain (or “bubbler”) systems typically prevent only around 60% to 70% of incoming sargassum and floating debris. In the case of Canal 147 on Lower Matecumbe, this limited effectiveness is further compromised by a strong, consistent onshore wind pattern from the east and southeast. These winds, combined with each new tide cycle, continue to push sargassum past any bubble barrier and into the canal system—especially when the proposed barrier would be installed approximately half a mile south of the canal mouth.
The result: even if 60% to 70% is deflected, the remaining 30 to 40% will still enter the canal with every tide. Over time—days, weeks, and months—this accumulation will settle at the rear of the canal, where water circulation is poor and stagnation is common. These dead-end areas are particularly vulnerable to rotting sargassum, foul odors, oxygen depletion, and declining water quality. In essence, the very problems this system intends to fix will persist despite the installation.
Moreover, the majority of homeowners at the front of Canal 147 have already voted against the bubbler project and submitted video documentation demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the system in a nearby canal at the Matecumbe Resort, where a similar air curtain is currently installed and operational. (Video link above). The footage shows sargassum freely bypassing the bubbler and accumulating inside the canal—further supporting concerns that this solution may not be effective for our specific conditions.
Given these significant limitations, it is premature and inequitable to impose a forced tax assessment on residents for a project that lacks proven, site-specific success. At a minimum, we respectfully request that local authorities conduct an independent feasibility study, including seasonal wind and tide analysis and also would request a revote.
Taxing residents for a system that cannot deliver reliable results, especially in a canal that faces unique environmental challenges, is not just questionable—it’s irresponsible.