[ad_1]
Michael Asay’s recent piece defending railroad armoring is riddled with inaccuracies and misleading claims that need to be corrected.
First, Asay’s recent defense of riprap and groins overlooks significant challenges these structures have posed in managing coastal erosion. For instance, Pierpont Beach in Ventura has faced ongoing issues with sand accumulation against private properties, leading to legal disputes and costly bi-annual sand removal efforts by the city. Despite the presence of groins, the area continues to grapple with sand management challenges, indicating that such structures are not a one-size-fits-all solution.
Similarly, Newport Beach has engaged in extensive sand replenishment projects to combat erosion. In 2023, the city collaborated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to dredge approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of sand from an offshore site, depositing it along a 12-mile stretch of coastline, including Newport Beach. There are ongoing challenges with maintaining beach width and stability, even in areas with existing coastal armoring and development right up to the shoreline.
Second, Asay falsely claims that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) is “forcing” managed retreat on homeowners. This is simply not true. The CCC does not require cities to include managed retreat in Local Coastal Programs (LCPs), nor does it force people to abandon their homes. Most LCP updates addressing sea level rise and coastal hazards have not specifically included managed retreat, and none have expressly required it. It’s a tool in the toolbox and should not be ruled out. The Surfrider Foundation supports this concept and its inclusion in land use planning. What the California Coastal Act does say is that new and redeveloped homes should not automatically be granted seawalls — because seawalls destroy beaches. That’s not a radical agenda, it’s just a fact, and the law reflects that beaches belong to all Californians — not just the privileged few who can afford to live along them.
This brings us to the biggest issue: Asay’s attempt to downplay the well-documented impacts of coastal armoring. Seawalls and riprap do accelerate erosion. That’s not up for debate — it’s been studied extensively — see this Stanford report and this publication by Dr. Gary Griggs. When waves hit these structures, energy is reflected downward and sideways, scouring away sand and preventing natural replenishment. Over time, this leaves us with narrower, steeper beaches or no beach at all. That’s exactly what’s happening at Cyprus Shores Beach at Cotton’s Point, where OCTA’s boulder dump has obliterated beach access and degraded surf conditions.
Here is a quick video that helps illustrate the seawall effect.
Hard structures like riprap and groins often fail to provide sustainable, long-term solutions to coastal erosion. Instead, they can lead to unintended consequences, such as increased erosion downstream or the need for continual human intervention to manage sand distribution.
The bottom line? We’re not losing beaches because we aren’t armoring enough — we’re losing them because we are. If we want to protect San Clemente’s coastline, we need to stop throwing taxpayer money at failed strategies and start investing in real, long-term solutions. That means finding smarter public transportation solutions, restoring natural sand flow, and using science — not misinformation — to guide our decisions.
Mandy Sackett, Senior California Policy Coordinator, Surfrider Foundation, San Clemente
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
