Hope Quick, Process Slow For Breakwater Reconfiguration

By Kurt Helin
Editor

Long Beach has gotten some grades on recent water quality report cards that people wouldn’t want their child to bring home from school.

But if Long Beach residents want inspiration that things can get better, they can look just on the other side of the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

Back in the early 20th Century, the Santa Monica Bay was a huge area for commercial fishing. But that changed with industrialization, and the pollution that came with it changed the bay.

By the early 1980s, the pollution in Santa Monica Bay had water quality levels to the point it would have brought a “repeat the class” report card home. Environmental groups such as Heal The Bay were formed to push for water quality improvements there.

The target was pretty clear — Hyperion sewage treatment plant. Multiple lawsuits and years of political pressure came to bear, and a second treatment of the water was added before it was released into the ocean. The water quality in the Santa Monica Bay improved quickly.

Robert Palmer, who now is the spokesman for the Long Beach chapter of Surfrider, was active in that debate as a South Bay resident and said there are some parallels to what has happened to water quality in Long Beach.

“(The Hyperion plant) was the major cause of pollution in that bay,” Palmer said. “One of the issues we have here is we have the San Gabriel River on one side and the Los Angeles River on the other.”

A number of groups are working on improving water quality in Long Beach’s San Pedro Bay in a number of different ways. There is the trash and other materials coming down the two rivers and landing in Long Beach, for one. Another is the Surfrider-led effort to reconfigure the breakwater, theoretically improving circulation.

Some steps have been taken on both fronts, but they also are both also in the very early stages.

With the breakwater, earlier this year the City Council approved $100,000 to do the “reconnaissance study,” the first step in getting any changes made to the offshore structure. The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the breakwater, but because it was not ordered to by Congress, the Corps had refused to do the reconnaissance study.

Palmer said he saw the council approval of that study as a sign of times and minds changing.

“We used to have council members treating Long Beach as a port city and not a beach city,” Palmer said. “We are both.”

However, work on that study has yet to begin. The reason is the next step — while the Army Corps will accept a study from a certified outside organization, it still must review the document, Palmer said. And that costs money, about $30,000, which has to come from a federal government allocation.

Surfrider and city officials have reached out to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, the Republican Congressman from Huntington Beach who represents the coastal area of Long Beach as well as its port. Those meetings have yet to take place, although previous meetings with him to discuss the reconnaissance study could be described as “frosty.” Laura Richardson, the first-term Democratic Con-gresswoman who represents much of inland Long Beach, is supportive, Palmer said.

Even if the Army Corps ends up reviewing the reconnaissance study, it is a long way — and a lot of money — to getting the breakwater work done.

First, the Army Corps would have to rule the reconnaissance study showed it was in the best economic interest of Long Beach to move forward. That would include impacts on the Port of Long Beach and on homes along the coast.

As a second step, Congress would need to approve an Army Corps feasibility study, a $3 million to $5 million project, of which Long Beach would need to pay half. This study would include new and detailed environmental work, look more closely at the impact on the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, as well as impacts on the beach in Long Beach and the impact of waves on the shore and property.

If the feasibility study results and any plans for changes were approved, then there would be the pre-construction and actual work. That could cost between $150 million and $400 million, and again the city or port would have to pay a portion.

Reconfiguring the breakwater would not solve everything, Palmer said, but it would be a start.

“Look at Seal Beach, they have the San Gabriel River dumping on their shores,” he said. “But they do have a vibrant recreational beach filled with swimmers and surfers. What they have that we don’t is water circulation.”

However, port officials (the port’s board refused to help pay for the breakwater study) said that part of the problem with the breakwater plan is that it does not deal with the trash and other pollutants that flow down the rivers in the first place. It’s one area Surfrider agrees with the port, Palmer said, saying cleaning up the river needs to happen as well.

The challenge is, that is not just Long Beach’s problem to clean up.

More than 800 square miles of Los Angeles drains into the Los Angeles River alone. That means water — and trash and pollution — from more than 30 cities flows down the river and eventually dumps onto the beach in Long Beach.

One effort starting to be discussed in some Long Beach circles is relocating the mouth of the Los Angeles River, having it end in the ports as opposed to taking the turn that ends it on Long Beach sand.

The Los Angeles River is overseen by the Army Corps as well, meaning this effort would face all of the challenges and costs associated with breakwater effort.