For many, last night’s City Council study session of a commissioned report that aimed to determine whether the Federal Government would have any interest in altering or removing parts of the Long Beach Breakwater was a victory in and of itself. Activists have been fighting for over a decade to have something done about the structure, and the report – conducted by local engineering firm Moffatt & Nichol – was the culmination of that effort.
For others, though, the report signaled that there is a long and expensive road to travel before a single rock is removed. The issue of removing all or part of the breakwater has never been as simple as blowing up a pile of rocks – but for the first time yesterday, the public gained an inside view at the myriad complicated issues hiding within an eight-mile long solid structure that is 200 feet wide and stretches to the bottom of the ocean. Even armed with a completed presentation numbering in the hundreds of pages, the report is far from conclusive and raises many more questions than answers.
“There isn’t a silver bullet that we’ve seen,” said Moffatt & Nichol engineer Russ Boudreau, who presented the 30-minute report to the City Council. “We definitely need more study, it is so complex.”
The report that Boudreau presented to the City Council and public – which is available in this story we posted last Thursday – offers five possible alterations to the breakwater with the goals of increasing water quality, generating an economic boost to the City through tourism and other revenue, and possibly bringing waves back to the Long Beach shore.
But even if there were one option that Moffatt & Nichol found would achieve those basic goals – there isn’t – there comes with it a flood of other issues:
What effect would it have on homes and property? What about the animals that live on and around the breakwater? What about the THUMS oil islands that were built with the promise of a safe haven? What about the boating and fishing industries? Will the Army Corps of Engineers agree that the project is construction-worthy? And – of course – how much will it cost?
Some of these questions were answered last night, and some simply were not. Boudreau explained that there was only so much time to produce the report, and that a much deeper investigation is needed. What he does know, though, is that it is possible to bring waves back to Long Beach. That’s the good news.
The bad news? With the five options presented in the report last night, it doesn’t look like there will be any significant effect on water quality.
And we have the Los Angeles River to thank for that. The flow is so strong and the pollutants so potent that alterations to the breakwater studied by Moffatt & Nichol seem to produce few indications that water quality will improve**. That finding may come as a surprise to many who supported alteration of the breakwater in order to improve water quality. It may also make it more difficult for the City of Long Beach to convince the Army Corps of Engineers that there is an immediate need for reconfiguration.
**Although, Alternative 2 shows some encouraging results and an idea to use breakwater rocks to create a rockwall guiding the river straight to open ocean could improve water quality, but would likely add $130-$140 million to any breakwater alteration pricetag.
During public comments, two people presented a seemingly obvious solution: remove the entire breakwater. The two speakers most fervently in favor of that action were Emiko K. Innes (chair of the Surfrider Foundation) and Seamus Ian Innes (executive director of SinkTheBreakwater.org). They argued that Moffatt & Nichol should have studied the effects of removing the entire structure, which the engineering firm did not, citing the project as unfeasible.
“How is it not feasible to remove the entire breakwater?” said Emiko Innes, who asked for data and cost benefits to support the report’s conclusion.
“It would be too big of a bite,” Boudreau said. He may not have been speaking specifically about costs with that statement, but if Moffatt & Nichol’s report projects that altering parts of the breakwater may cost upwards of $300 million, it does seem reasonable to conclude that a complete removal would cost many times that amount.
But many did express enthusiasm for the report’s findings, including several Councilmembers who were excited with the possibility of waves and potential tourism revenue.
Boudreau referred to the beach as “a sleeping giant” that could b re-awoken with the return of surfable waves, bringing families all over the Southland to Long Beach shores. The Moffatt & Nichol study predicted possible additional revenue up to $52 million per year. Councilmember Garcia called it “a fantastic economic stimulus plan for Long Beach.”
“I’m in support of at least exploring what Phase Two might look like,” said Councilmember Patrick O’Donnell.
Phase Two consists of the City Council committing to the Army Corps of Engineers that Long Beach will pay for half of a feasibility study – a more detailed version of the Moffatt & Nichol study conducted by the Corps itself – that will cost an estimated $7 million. That will put Long Beach on the hook for about $3.5 million over a four-year period. The feasibility study would take an undetermined amount of time, and by the end of it, the Corps may very well say, “No thanks.” And that would be the end of the breakwater issue. Of course, they could also agree to alteration. Depending on the course of action chosen, Moffatt & Nichol estimates construction costs somewhere between $10 million and $300 million – Long Beach would be on the hook for about 35% of that total (for both the cost of the study and actual construction, the City may not have to pay out of pocket and can seek donations – cash or in-kind – from outside sources).
Of course, none of this will come to fruition if the Army Corps of Engineers cannot be convinced to tear down at least parts of the massive structure that they built themselves in the 1940s. Back then, their concern was protecting Naval ships from rough ocean and possibly torpedoes. Today, their chief concern may be the ecological impact that altering the breakwater may have on the environment – that may be the best way to convince them it’s worth pursuing, Boudreau says, but it also may fail to deliver the big waves that proponents are expecting.
Few in Long Beach would argue that the city has been plagued by the breakwater, especially since the Navy left and took their ships with them. The answer has always been to remove or alter the breakwater, but now that that effort is as near to completion as it has ever been, the question is: How?
How to achieve the results we desire? How to do so cost effectively? How to avoid hurting the environment? How to avoid causing damage to property – whether homes, oil islands or cargo ships? These are questions that the commissioned report aimed to answer, but instead revealed a new set of questions that we may not be able to answer for some time, and seem to be working against one another.
With so many different factions of groups seeking different things from a breakwater alteration, it will be near impossible to find a solution that will satisfy all parties. Are waves worth the trouble if water quality does not improve? Are we willing to create a rocky reef habitat even if waves do not increase?
Today, that’s the City Council’s challenge – and to do so in a cost-effective manner while also convincing the Army Corps (notoriously difficult to convince) that there is benefit with virtually no drawback.
Meanwhile, the breakwater stands strong, deflecting ocean waves as they barrel towards Naval ships that no longer reside here.
Click here to read our policy on covering the Long Beach City Council.