• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

It’s not even Memorial Day and people are arguing over sand on the beach. But this isn’t just any sand. The argument is over new sand, or what its supporters prefer to call “beach renourishment.” Sounds like something ordered up at Whole Foods — so nourishing. So natural. And according to a variety of plans, so much.

In fact, if Imperial Beach officials have their way, the local beach will be the recipient in coming years of roughly 2 million cubic yards of additional sand. That would be enough to fill the Rose Bowl — more than five times over. And this mountain of new sand would be dumped on just 1.3 miles of Imperial Beach’s shoreline.

One concern is that some of the new sand would come from dredging the ocean bottom about one mile west of the mouth of the Tijuana River, whose pollution is notorious and responsible for frequent beach closings in Imperial Beach. Nonetheless, the sand has been determined to be clean and of appropriate consistency for placement on the city’s beach, according to Greg Wade, community development director for Imperial Beach.

Most of the sand won’t come cheap. The Army Corps of Engineers’ plan to dredge sand off the coast, move it to the shore, and spread it along the beach would cost nearly $60 million over 50 years. A separate San Diego Association of Governments’ project would cost $22 million for sand replenishment along county beaches. A third project, also conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers, in which sand dredged from San Diego Harbor would be deposited off the shoreline of Imperial Beach, would be free to the city.

The prospects for the $60 million project suffered a setback last week. The federal Office of Management and Budget failed to include any beach-replenishment projects among the programs to be funded with federal stimulus money. The political tussle now shifts to Congress, which can still insert funding for the project in an upcoming energy and water appropriations bill. Representative Susan Davis, a Democrat whose district includes Imperial Beach, has requested $3 million for the project. The city has secured some $6 million from the Port of San Diego and the state toward the first $14 million phase. The city has spent about $450,000 since 2001 lobbying for sand projects and for engineering studies.

To supporters of sand replenishment, it is a sensible way to preserve the eroding coastline, which is key to the beach town’s identity and its economy.

“We have two million visitors a year coming to Imperial Beach,” said Wade, the city’s community development director. “Our population is just over 27,000. So not only do people from the region come, people come from all over. It’s an international resource. I would go so far as to say that the economic benefits of a sandy beach far exceed the costs.”

But Serge Dedina, lifelong surfer, environmentalist, and executive director of Wildcoast, an Imperial Beach–based group, says that’s going way too far. Dedina says the sand-dumping programs amount to “bailing out multimillionaire beachfront homeowners” who worry that continued coastline erosion jeopardizes their properties.

“These big projects do not make sense,” said Dedina. He says that Imperial Beach, still largely a working-class town, should have different priorities.

“Imperial Beach doesn’t have a sand problem,” said Dedina, pointing to the beach on a sunny, warm weekday afternoon. “What we have is a water-quality problem.”

To say the least. Pollution from Tijuana has closed Imperial Beach’s best surf breaks— Tijuana Sloughs and Boca Rio, at the southern end of the city — about 1600 days over the last decade, according to Wildcoast.

Mark Massara is director of coastal programs for the Sierra Club. “Generally, these programs are a bunch of engineers seeking millions of dollars of taxpayer money to throw in front of the seawalls of millionaires,” said Massara. He argues — and no one disagrees on either side of this issue — that overdevelopment of coastlines and damming of rivers has severely diminished natural sand replenishment. But Massara says that developers want the public to pay to reverse the damage they’ve done.

Sand replenishment is acceptable, Massara said, only when it’s part of a coordinated campaign to reverse environmentally damaging coastal development, such as a halt to the construction of seawalls, which contribute to beach erosion. Massara and Dedina insist that replenishment without taking these other measures is an expensive short-term solution. For example, Massara said, a countywide sand dump in 2001 was largely washed away within months.

But supporters of beach replenishment argue that there’s little choice in the short term except to renourish beaches or see them erode. Supporters say further that their studies prove dumped sand can stay on beaches for at least several years.

Shelby Tucker, an associate regional planner with the San Diego Association of Governments, said studies of its 2001 sand-replenishment program — which dumped about 2 million cubic yards of sand along county beaches — provide evidence that most beaches retained some of the dumped sand more than seven years later.

“We expected the sand to stay on the beach for five years or so,” said Tucker. While some of the sand was swept off the beaches, she said it stayed within the regional ocean ecosystem and returned to shorelines in recent years. The evidence for this is obvious on many beaches, she said, because of color differences between dumped sand and natural sand.

Rob Rundle, principal regional planner at San Diego Association of Governments, noted that cities don’t have to participate in Sandag’s sand program. Though most coastal cities have opted to take part, Del Mar and San Diego have chosen not to, primarily to save money. The program would have cost those cities about $220,000 and $1.2 million, respectively.

Marco Gonzalez, an attorney and member of the Surfrider Foundation’s local advisory board, said a key issue is how the sand replenishment is done.

“I would agree philosophically that you can’t simply address the symptoms of the problem [of beach erosion],” said Gonzalez. And he also agrees that many Corps of Engineers sand-dumping programs — particularly on the East Coast — have been badly done; there have been stories about live munitions dumped along with sand on some beaches.

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from SDReader

More from the web

Comments

AugustWest May 7, 2009 @ 7:41 a.m.

Hopefully you folks down there know that Mark Massara, hired gun for Sierra Club who travels the Coast "protecting" it, has an oceanfront view on San Francisco's Ocean Beach. Right along the road next to Great Highway. 180 degree view of the surf. Think he likes having a seawall and plenty of sand there? You bet!

0

JoeShmoe May 7, 2009 @ 12:33 p.m.

Steve Aceti is lying through his teeth when he says "I am not looking at the homeowners." The entire cost/benefit process that the Corps of Engineers uses to justify dumping millions of tax dollars on the beach is based on the supposed "storm damage protection" that all of those properties get from the sand. If there are no homes or infrastructure built close to the water's edge, then they can't get the money.

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close