2:45pm | Over the weekend, a faux memorial of sorts was held for the surf that used to grace the Long Beach shoreline. Conducted as part of “Breakwater Awareness Month,” as proclaimed by Councilmember Patrick O’Donnell, it and several other events are part of an effort to raise public awareness on the issue of reconfiguring the federal breakwater that severely limits wave height and action of the Long Beach shoreline.
The public campaign comes as the Army Corps of Engineers, who retain control the federal breakwater, are preparing to decide on whether there is adequate federal benefit for the government to move forward with an official $7 million feasibility study looking at reconfiguring the breakwater.
The Corps decision will be based on the review of the city-sponsored Breakwater Reconnaissance Study that was submitted to the Corps last year. The study, which ruled out removing the entire breakwater for financial and safety/mitigation reasons, came up with three possible plans (two of the plans also featured an “a” and “b” variation) for removing various portions of the breakwater. A fourth plan did not alter the breakwater but called for the building of a new “training” breakwater to guide pollution from the mouth of the LA River away from the Long Beach shoreline. The various options range in cost from about $10 million to over $300 million.
Tonight, a final event as part of “Breakwater Awareness Month” will see members of City Hall staff and representatives of the Army Corps meet at Ecco’s Pizza at 2123 Bellflower Blvd. from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. to discuss the city’s breakwater study with members of the public willing to attend.
Unfortunately, one of the things that seems to get lost in the recurring public debate over the Long Beach breakwater is the fact that the Los Angeles River–and all its upstream effluent–discharges almost directly onto the beaches of Long Beach.
Keep in mind that there were essentially three different things being considered in the breakwater study: wave action on the beaches, general water circulation within the harbor, and discharge of effluent from the LA River–effluent containing everything from common trash to elevated levels of metals to dangerous bacteria and organic matter.
Granted, the study was focused on the breakwater and perhaps, given that limited scope, it is understandable that the problems from the LA River did not merit more attention. Despite the small amount of focus on the LA River problem, there are parts of the study that touch how any breakwater reconfiguration might mitigate the river’s discharge.
While certain reconfigurations proposed in the breakwater study would significantly improve wave action on the beaches and/or improve circulation within Long Beach Harbor, the study makes clear that the altered circulation patterns within Long Beach Harbor resulting from three of the four reconfiguration plans now under consideration would do little to change the amount of LA River effluent washing up on the city’s beaches.
The first three plans–which each remove differing portions of the existing breakwater–are likely, according to the study, to result in “very little benefit,” and, “very little difference,” in regards to how discharge leaves the LA River and comes ashore in Long Beach.
The fourth option, which does not change the federal breakwater but creates an additional breakwater structure to guide the LA River outflow away from the shoreline, would, according to the Reconnaissance Study, prevent the LA River pollutants “from reaching the Long Beach shoreline, but may increase the total time required for the pollutants to leave the greater harbor area.” This “greater harbor area is the water between the beaches and the existing breakwater.
In fact, according to this study, while all reconfiguration options being considered could increase wave action on the beach and/or help create better circulation in the harbor, the impact on the shoreline by discharge from the LA River is likely to remain the same.
The study goes on to state point blank: “Additional measures should be implemented to treat, infiltrate and/or eliminate pollutant discharges to and from the LA River into [Long Beach Harbor]. These potential measures include, but are not limited to: a) constructing a sediment trap at the LA River mouth to isolate contaminated sediments within the trap; b) installing ”turbulence generating features” at the LA River mouth to improve vertical mixing to dilute bacterial concentrations…(water testing along the shoreline suggests that poor quality water from the LA River remains on the water surface as it moves along the Long Beach shoreline, i.e. a lack of mixing occurs); and/or c) installing a trash boom upstream of the LA River mouth to capture trash before it is discharged into the open ocean.”
This seems to suggest that perhaps the public dialogue is focusing on the wrong question. Instead of asking the question “How can we get larger waves on the beaches?” perhaps citizens should be asking first, “How do we clean the discharge coming from the Los Angeles River before it reaches our beaches?”
Is it worth spending between $100 million and $300 million to have larger waves that are simply going to be laden with as just as much trash and pollutants from the LA River as the beaches experience today? Is it worth it to spend up to $140 million to build a breakwater guide to divert the LA River outflow from the shoreline if the effluent is simply going to be trapped in the harbor, eventually to return to the beaches or be deposited on the harbor seabed?
Over the years proponents of removing the breakwater have logically argued that increased circulation from greater wave action would help to scour LA River pollutants from the beaches. However, circulation modeling done for the city study indicates that this is not the likely result. Wave action and circulation modeled for all the reconfiguration option (except if the “training” breakwater at the mouth of the river is built) would drive the river outflow onto the beach in addition to pushing it further east along the shore. In the case of the “training” breakwater at the mouth of the river option, the influx of ocean water pouring through the Queen’s Gate opening in the breakwater would create what amounts to a hydraulic dam at the mouth of the “training” breakwater and create a highly-polluted area of water behind it near the Queen Mary and Carnival Cruise terminal. Unable to escape this blocked zone, it is only logical to assume that this pollution would either trickle back into the harbor or settle to the harbor floor at the mouth of the “training” breakwater.
It would seem obvious from the study’s own findings that a truly comprehensive look at dealing with the restoration of quality beaches in Long Beach must feature solutions to the LA River discharge as an almost equal component to those solutions offered for the breakwater. After all, the goal of this whole effort is to ultimately improve the city’s beaches–waves and general circulation just being two factors–and without dealing with the LA River problem, the issue of dealing with the breakwater becomes only a partial solution.
And yet, all we have before us is a study looking at the breakwater. While efforts have been made to address the LA River problem upstream (click here, or here, to find out how), perhaps it is time to redefine what we all want from this overall effort and call for an equally thorough study of solutions to the LA River effluent problem.
This lack of focus on the effluent problem in the public debate is particularly remarkable considering the fact that there are proven solutions in place around the world successfully dealing with outflow effluent and trash capturing.
Although none of these pollutant trap technologies (most of which use various filtering techniques) have been applied on the scale that would be needed to deal with the LA River outflow, the technology behind these devices has been proven sound and highly effective. Some of these technologies have proven to trap close to 100 percent of non-sediment pollution (such as trash, organic debris and solid waste not suspended in the water). In addition, these technologies have shown themselves to be scalable–albeit, no one has done it to the scale needed for the LA River.
Research has also shown that coupling several of these differing technologies together could increase the kind of pollution trapped–in some cases all the way down to the suspended sediment or silt level.
Keep in mind that these are not some pie-in-the-sky technologies. Internationally, dozens of firms sell various versions of this technology. These devices and facilities have been in place and working successfully for more than a decade in places like Australia and have been tried more recently in several Southern California locations such as Santa Monica.
The bottom line, however, is would we as resident rather have a beach with clean water or would we rather have a beach with the same water but larger waves? While most people might want the former, if the LA River outflow problem is not addressed, there is a good chance the city will get the latter.