[ad_1]
We all need to remember that the railroad efforts to protect its tracks with rip-rap also protect the bluffs and homes behind the tracks. This fact is conveniently ignored in the discussion by the various advocacy groups. If we think San Clemente is plagued by bluff collapse and landslides now, wait until the railroad is gone and the surf crashes directly against the cliff faces. It will make the Solana Beach problem look like a picnic. The real problem is opposition by the Coastal Commission (CCC) and Surfrider Association to groins installed as sand retention devises, and/or the armoring of the bluffs to prevent collapse. The former devises are especially effective when strategically placed where the littoral ocean drift is strong and directional i.e., where the sand loss is likely to be the greatest. This is in fact the situation around San Mateo Point as has been studied extensively by Kahl et al in, “Characterizing longshore transport potential and divergence of drift to inform beach loss trends,” (2024).
Historically to solve this problem, groins have been used up and down the California Coast to hold sand in place, and have actually enhanced surfing conditions in some places e.g., Newport Jetties. While the Coast Act Section 30235 allows the use of groins to protect beaches, the CCC has been reluctant to grant permission for their installation. And none have been approved since 1989. The history of the forty-two existing groins, and their success has been extensively reviewed in Griggs et. al, “Groins, sand retention, and the future of Southern California’s Beaches” (2020)
The alternative to sand retention devises and armoring is the CCC outrageous land grab efforts to implement “Managed Retreat.” This strategy is to cheer on bluff collapse as that makes new sand and so keeps the beaches sandy. Of course, the bluffs are already built to the edges and so whatever is on top will also be destroyed. I say this tactic is evil as no compensation is offered owners whose homes are destroyed; they must simply “retreat.” Indeed, where limited armoring is allowed, the owners must pay the CCC compensation for the “sand” that is somehow now not available. If you don’t believe this is true, look at efforts by cities such as Del Mar, San Clemente, Half Moon Bay, and Pacifica where the CCC refuses to approve Local Coastal Plans (LCP) that don’t contain Managed Retreat. Lack of an approved LCP means homeowners and business must individually apply directly to the CCC for each building permit with long and costly delays, and uncertain outcomes. And the Cities themselves lose local control over their communities to the CCC. But so far, these Cities have stood strong against the CCC.
With these considerations in mind, we should strongly support the Railroad efforts to protect the tracks with tried-and-true rip-rap. Others have commented that the Railroad should directly use sand as an alternative since that was what mostly protected the tracks in the past. This would make sense if the sand retention devises discussed above were available. The City of San Clemente is studying the logic of such a solution and Oceanside approved such a plan only to backdown due to other adjacent city objections. But in any event, the implementation awaits a change of mind of the CCC and is well down the road. It has taken 10 years to get the small replacement of sand now underway around the San Clemente pier. Furthermore, the new sand without the retention devises will simply disappear as has quickly been the case with the existing sand. See the aforementioned Griggs research for Oceanside’s failed efforts at the same approach.
Finally, others including CCC and Surfrider have argued that placing rip-rap has caused the sand loss. This is a misrepresentation of the facts. 20 years ago, the beach in front of San Mateo Point was 180-foot-wide and the surf rarely made it to the rip-rap. Where did all that sand go? Well, the answer is the littoral current washed it away. And it is not being replaced during the wet season when the replacement sand used to make its way down the San Mateo Creek. Building inland and reduced rain fall has stopped the sand migration to the shore. We know this is true because any substantial rainfall brings a return of some beach, as it has done this winter. When those objecting to rip-rap say “it causes sand loss!”, they disingenuously forget to tell you the “sand” they mean is mostly the sand in the bluff being protected by the rip-rap. It’s not lost; it’s just not being made available.
Arial View of Ventura Beach. Courtesy of Oliver Knight
In conclusion, the CCC and Surfrider contention that rip-rap causes sand loss and should be banned is a red herring. This argument is used to obfuscate their true agenda that is a return to a pre-19th century coastline, no matter the private cost. It has little to do with available mitigation, such as groins, to a common problem in a free society.
Michael R Asay, Ph.D. San Clemente Resident, retired, Past Portfolio Manager PIMCO, Research associate at Goldman Sachs, and Economist at Board of Governors, Federal Reserve, Washington DC
Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.
Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.
For a different view on this issue, consider:
Related
[ad_2]
Source link
