Port Hueneme Calls On Washington to Help Rescue Beach From Erosion

PORT HUENEME —  Officials in this seaside community see the city beach as an hourglass where the sands are rapidly running out--to sea.

With waves lapping only 50 feet from Surfside Drive, the city is redoubling lobbying efforts to persuade federal officials that the sand replenishment program--which keeps the beach intact--must be moved up from its usual November start date to prevent significant erosion.

“We may be faced with the prospect of the ocean taking out portions of Surfside Drive,” Community Development Director Tom Figg told the City Council on Wednesday night.

So the city is appealing for help from county, state and congressional officials and it will fire off a letter to the federal government that could be a precursor to litigation if actual damage is suffered.

Figg estimates it would cost $60,000 to rebuild each 100 feet of oceanfront street lost to the surf. Summer high tides are expected to gobble up much of the beach before the fall start of the replenishment program the Navy and Army Corps of Engineers have conducted every two years since the 1950s.

The present problem has occurred because two years ago a less-than-usual 1.2 million cubic yards of sand was dredged using an inefficient offshore delivery method rather than employing pipes that funnel the grit directly to the beach, Figg said.

The federal government inaugurated the program after discovering construction of the Port of Hueneme in 1937 disrupted the natural sand flow that constantly renews the beach.

But, according to Figg, military officials say the $3-million replenishment program cannot be accelerated by more than 30 days because of environmental concerns and the availability of dredging funds that are tied to the federal fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, Figg said.

An alternative is to place riprap--essentially large concrete blocks--on the beach as a temporary measure to protect it from the waves. However, the corps has again cited the lack of money for such a project, which cost about $400,000 when last done in 1978.

That’s not good enough for the city.

“Asking for federal dollars for this is not only appropriate, it’s mandatory,” Councilwoman Toni Young said. “It’s their fault.”

The shrinking beach is a symptom of what municipal officials fear could be a long-term problem. The city is pressing for a formal pledge from the Navy to continue the replenishment program indefinitely. Until now, a rather informal understanding has provided the authority for it.

Without this program, the city has estimated that more than 1,200 people could be displaced from 420 coastal homes, which are valued in excess of $55 million.

The city has linked the signing of such an agreement to the impending transfer of 10 acres of former military land to the city. It’s a potentially crucial bargaining chip, Figg said, because the Navy would have to pay for the upkeep of the now largely vacant property if the property’s conveyance is delayed.

“It may be our single greatest and only opportunity to take care of the replenishment issue,” he said.