|
|
|
 |
On The Edge Robbed by Dams, Scoured by Seawalls, Devoured by Winter Storms, Ventura County May Soon Lose One Of Its Most Precious Resources by Paul Jenkin MAKING WAVES, April 1998 |
|
Take a moment out from the California Beach Festival to stroll westward toward Surfer's Point. As you approach the mouth of the Ventura River, cast an appraising eye. You may wonder where the rubble, concrete barricades, and rusting chain link fences came from and where portions of the bike path have gone. At low tide, keen observers might spot the corroded automobile chassis with wood-spoked wheels that lies in the surf zone. Its curious presence marks decades-long efforts to stabilize the shoreline with everything from a demolished concrete bath house built near Surfer's Point in the 1920s to a tombstone that once marked the final resting place of someone at Cemetary Park on Poli Street. This small but important stretch of Ventura's shoreline is one of the most obvious examples of coastal erosion in the county. Living testimony to the folly of building too close to the sea, it speaks loudly to ineffectual attempts to protect such development. Coastal tourism is California's largest ocean-dependent industry. It brought in an estimated $45 million dollars to Ventura County in 1992, according to "California's Ocean Resources: an Agenda for the Future," which was authored by the governor's office and released in March 1997. Visitors and residents spent $4.1 million on coastal recreation, which the report says is enjoyed by 70% of those who live in the Golden State. Along with providing a wonderful place to stroll soak rays, and throw a frisbee for the dog, the beach serves as the shore's first line of defense against relentless forces of the ocean. But this buffer is disappearing, and man is speeding its demise. More than 86% of California's 1,100-mile coastline experiences erosion at a rate of about one foot per year. On undeveloped shores the sand is free to come and go, cliffs collapse, and dunes are breached during times of high tides and surf. On developed coastlines, man frequently intercedes. Hard Solutions, Hard Consequences Because of erosion, developments that were originally built a comfortable distance from the ocean, today are finding themselves perched precariously on the edge. In years past, "hard" structures were erected to protect them. The seawalls on the Ventura Promenade and at Faria Beach, and rock revetments that line the freeway and Old Coast Highway north of Ventura, are good examples. While protecting the structures they front, such coastal armor is now known to alter the natural flow of sand, thereby destroying downshore stretches of beach. At Faria, yesterday's beachfront home is today's oceanfront property. Ventura beaches get their sand from up-coast and inland sources; rivers, creeks, and eroding cliffs and shorelines all contribute. But because of the protective rocks and seawalls that extend southward from the Santa Barbara county line, much of this sand is now directed offshore. "There are 11.5 miles of rock revetments upstream... and groins, jetties, and breakwaters downstream," said Steve Chase, assistant city manager for Ventura. "... The entire littoral [shore] is a joke." Beaches exist in a state of "dynamic equilibrium." Sand is delivered, them moved about by daily changes in tides, waves, and winds. The rise in sea level, presence of dams and debris basins, and shape of the beach also influence the flow of this river of sand. Beaches change from season to season. During winter, when powerful storms blow in from the north Pacific, large pounding waves scour the beach and deposit sand offshore. Subsequent waves break on these sand bars, dissipating their potentially destructive energy before reaching the beach. During the calmer periods of late spring and summer, longer, more gentle waves move sand back to shore. The beach fills in just in time for the tourist season. Ventura County's coastline has endured a long history of losses to the ocean. The 1995 pounding of the Ventura Pier -- which is now under reconstruction -- is perhaps the most dramatic recent example. But it is certainly not the first. Storms during the winter of 1936 destroyed Pierpoint's "Pleasure Pier" at the end of Seaward Avenue. A concrete boardwalk and 40-foot-wide Shore Drive were also engulfed as the sea reclaimed a wide swath of shoreline. Rather than fight the inevitable, many homeowners moved their houses inland as the ocean crept closer and closer. In recent years, residents, aided by the city of Ventura, have replanted some of the dunes, which helps to hold the sand and has provided added security to the Pierpoint community. Resident Teri Raley, who walks the beach frequently, observed, "The dunes are six feet higher since '76 when we first moved here. The people who live on the beach used to have an ocean view form their first floor rooms, but not anymore." In years of relative calm, beaches retain more sand. Lulled by placid ocean conditions, developers overlook its penchant for destruction, and build in erosion-prone areas. Improvements to Surfer's Point in 1989 are a case in point. Too Close For Comfort Storms during the savage winter of 1983 had damaged an earlier bike path after just two years of service. Subsequent studies of the area recommended that any development along Surfer's Point observe a 100-foot setback from the high-tide line. Despite the empirical evidence, in the interest of recreation and tourism, the city of Ventura paid for a new bike path and parking lot immediately adjacent to the shoreline on the fairgrounds property. Because of the strong likelihood of erosion, the California Coastal Commission designated the path and parking lot "temporary." Their lifespan was projected at five to 20 years. But like its precursor, the bike path suffered damage within just two winters. Inundated with requests to fix and protect this popular feature, the city applied for an emergency permit to deposit rock boulders along the shore. The Coastal Commission denied the request as environmentally unsound. Yet days later, the city dumped huge granite boulders on the downshore side of the Ventura River. Chase conceded that building the revetment was "not a smart move." The structure not only exacerbated erosion downshore, but created conflict between the Coastal Commission on one side and the city fairgrounds on the other. Gary Timm, district manager of the Coastal Commission's Ventura Office, said his staff considered charging the city with a violation, but determined there were complicating factors. The rocks, Timm said, were dumped above the mean high-tide line, which was within the city's jurisdiction under the Local Coastal Plan (LCP). The LCP clearly states that revetments and other protective devices are not allowed on the beach, so the city's wall building was in violation. "We concluded that if they were going to keep the rock there, they should get a permanent permit, which was subject to appeal," said Timm. "We told them we would appeal it as soon as they issued the permit." The city applied for the permanent permit, the Coastal Commission staff appealed, but their bosses -- the coastal commissioners -- would not deny the permit, telling everyone concerned to work it out. "It's not resolved; I guess that's the bottom line," said Timm. "The rocks are still there and there hasn't been a permit or an LCP amendment." The revetment has hastened the erosion of downshore dunes by high waves. Since its installation, more that 60 feet of bike path and parking lot have cleaved into the ocean. Today, an inland migration of concrete barricades and fences that delineate the jagged bike path mark the passing of each storm. Virtually unusable in its current state, the path and parking spaces at the upper end of the lot continue to disappear into the surf. A study funded by the city of Ventura in 1993 evaluated several projects aimed at solving erosion problems at Surfer's Point. One was a return to 1989 conditions, which would require filling the eroded areas and protecting the immediate shoreline with either a cobble berm, a rock revetment, or a stepped seawall. Costs for these barriers, not including permits and future maintenance, were estimated at $1.2 million for the berm, $2.2 million for the revetment, and $3.6 million for the seawall. Another option, demolishing the fractured bike path and relocating it to Shoreline Drive, would cost $119,000. Looking For Compromise In an effort to resolve conflict between the city and the Coastal Commission and solve the erosion problem, State Senator Jack O'Connell formed a "working group" in early 1995. It included representatives from the offices of Assemblyman Brooks Firestone, the city of Ventura, state Fairgrounds, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Coastal Commission, California Coastal Conservancy, and the Surfrider Foundation. Mark Bailard of the Coastal Conservancy served as facilitator. The group considered two options: 1) hardening of the coast and rebuilding the bike path and parking lots at their original sites, or 2) relocating the bike path to Shoreline Drive. After much discussion, the working group still could not agree on a solution. The majority preferred relocating the bike path landward, because it was the cheapest and most environmentally sound. But the fairground board of trustees didn't go for it. Their desire t restore the property to its 1989 condition and protect it from the sea with rocks, squelched consensus. As a result, the working group disbanded late in 1996, and nothing has been done since. Representatives of the fairground did not return phone calls. Kris Kuzmich, an aide to Senator O'Connell, said her boss "expresses a high degree of frustration in the matter." All the parties involved appear to echo the sentiment. Everyone but the fairground board acknowledged that another seawall would likely spell trouble for Ventura's downshore beaches. Further loss of sand would likely jeopardize the storm-plagued pier and the state beach, as well as Pierpoint beaches. Would more rocks and seawalls necessarily follow, armoring the coast all the way to Ventura Harbor? Like an abandoned car, the revetment is illegal and doesn't appear to be going anywhere. The bike path and parking lot, however, are. Getting Soft Given the destructive nature of armoring the coast, "soft" approaches are gaining ground. The idea is to maintain the buffering ability of the beach by adding sand to it. To aid in a "managed retreat" of the bike path and parking lot, and help restore the area around Surfer's Point, there has been talk of "backpassing" some of the sand now dredged from the mouth of Ventura Harbor west to the popular recreation area. Recycling sand would also help to restore the eroded dune area and provide additional material for the beaches between the river and the harbor. Dredging consultant Richard Parsons said that grain size would not be a problem; money is the big consideration. He suggested that further studies may be needed. "If the sand would all be back at the harbor in a year, it would be a good expenditure of money," Parsons said, "But if it took five years, it may be worthwhile." Each year, an average of 540,000 cubic yards of sand are dredged from Ventura Harbor and piped down to the mouth of the Santa Clara River at a cost of $1.5 million to $2.5 million. Parsons estimated that it may cost another half a million dollars to redirect the sand upcoast. Brian Brennan, former president of the Ventura County Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation and now a candidate for Ventura City Council, has long supported such soft solutions. He expressed excitement at the prospect. "The hope is that replenishment will help the beach heal itself," he said. Parsons said the levee at the Ventura River should also be studied to determine if it should be modified. Because of its current shape and location, sand brought to shore by the Ventura River is believed to be pushed out to sea, rather than feeding the beaches at Surfer's Point. Bailard concurred saying, "With the current configuration of the jetty at the rivermouth, the area will always have scouring. The jetty is at the wrong place and the wrong angle." Let It Flow The Surfrider Foundation would eventually like to see the release of inland sand supplies now held back by dams. Twenty miles up the Ventura River, more than 11 million cubic yards of sediment lie trapped behind Matilija Dam. The material represents the accumulation of almost half a century of sand that Surfrider and others say should be on the beaches. During the life of Matilija Dam, heavy siltation and structural defects have reduced the water storage capacity by more than 90%. With Lake Casitas now serving as the area's primary reservoir, Matilija has been rendered obsolete for anything but flood control. Proponents would like to see its removal, which would allow sand to flow freely to the beaches. It would also provide the endangered steelhead trout with access to its historic breeding grounds in the upper reaches of the watershed. While dam building has been a popular pastime during the last century, dam removal is a relatively new idea. A study of the Ringe Dam in Malibu, which is similar in size and scope to Matilija, estimates that dismantling the dam would cost anywhere from $10 million to $20 million. While this would seem to be a large sum of money, the artificial nourishment of regional beaches to make up for the shortfall of river sediments runs as high as $5 million per year. When people build too close to the beach, the threat of damage from erosion eventually becomes a problem for the entire community. Costly protective measures are often footed by the taxpayer for the benefit of the private property owner. The ultimate cost is the loss of precious beach. Political stalemate has stalled any solution to the problem of erosion at Surfer's Point. The decaying asphalt, concrete barricades, and chain link fence serve only as an unsightly reminder of a noble idea in a bad place. Sitting at the edge of a restless ocean, which, if predictions prove accurate, may soon be stirred by the most extreme weather conditions in recorded history, man's improvements may not remain for long. |
Next Article: San Mateo Point, A Battle to Protect A Coastal Jewel
MAKING WAVES table of contents
|
Surfrider Foundation USA: 122 S. El Camino Real #67 San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 492-8170 fax (949) 492-8142 
|
Email addresses: Membership: mmate@surfrider.org Chapter Issues: emazzarella@surfrider.org Envir. Issues: ekliszewski@surfrider.org Legal Issues: mkremer@surfrider.org Catalog: jwright@surfrider.org Website Staff: mbabski@surfrider.org Other: info@surfrider.org See our feedback page. Surfrider Website INDEX |
All rights reserved