Allen Mackey

Prof. Marx

ENGL 134-16

2 December 2004

Seawalls: Good or Bad?

            Walter Cavanaugh and Gary Grossman had a serious dilemma. Their entire households were literally falling away from them. Their houses on Indio Drive in the Sunset Palisades Planning Area in Pismo Beach rest atop a bluff that protrudes into the sea. The impact of the waves of the Pacific Ocean against the land was eating away at the bluf, breaking it down into gravel.

            In 2001, the two proprietors decided to do something to protect their property. On December eleventh, Pismo Beach authorized a Coastal Development Permit that allowed them to begin construction of a seawall to act as a buffer against the erosive impacts of water that crash upon the side of the cliff (W12b). The seawall stands fifteen to twenty feet above the water and is one hundred sixty-five feet in length with a width of one and a half feet (W12b). Looking at this wall, I thought it was a shelf of sedimentary rock of which the face of the cliff was naturally composed. However, after closer examination, I realized that it actually was man-made. According to my cousin, who was a member of the construction crew for the Cavanaugh-Grossman Seawall, the cosmetic appearance of the bulkhead was required to be the same color as the bluff which it protects. This wall towers fifteen to twenty feet above the surface of the ocean water, stretches one hundred sixty-five feet along the cliff, and is one and a half feet thick. As I gazed upon it, I thought to myself that no wave could penetrate this giant edifice.

                        Although the construction of this wall seemed to be a matter of common sense, environmental activists became involved and made an appeal to the Pismo Beach City Council, due to the potential environmental repercussions (W12b). They asserted that there was no proof that the seawall was needed for the protection of any endangered properties and it would reduce recreational beach area (W12b). This appeal was rejected on the fifth of February 2002, but fifteen conditions were placed on the construction of the Cavanaugh-Grossman Seawall concerning the final seawall plans, the construction plan, the site drainage plan, the landscape plan, verification of the seawall facing, restoration of the beach areas affected by construction, the “As-Built” plans, public access at nearby Florin Street, sand supply, the legal interest of Cavanaugh and Grossman in the development of their land, beach access easement, monitoring of the seawall by a licensed civil engineer, development of the shoreline, maintenance of the seawall, upkeep of the storm drains installed under the permit, and a deed restriction (W12b).

            The legal difficulties in the construction of the Cavanaugh-Grossman Seawall on Indio Drive are common when protecting cliff-side property from the erosive power of the ocean, whether private or public. These difficulties stemmed from an ongoing debate between environmentalists, property owners, and ocean engineers over one question: Do seawalls negatively impact the environment in which they are built?

            J. David Breemer, the managing attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation’s (PLF) Coastal Land Rights Project, addressed this question and the arguments of his opponents in his article titled “Anti-seawall Arguments Are Soggy.” Breemer claims, “When a coastal property is in danger of being eaten away by the ocean’s erosive force, a freestanding wall, or a concrete reinforcement of a bluff can halt the water’s advance and give the land a long lease on life.” In other words, seawalls are beneficial to the environment in which they are constructed.

            Breemer writes of a situation that took place late in 2003 in Santa Cruz County in which a seawall at Pleasure Point in Santa Cruz was proposed in order to protect East Cliff Drive, “a popular road and pedestrian path.” The Surfrider Foundation, an international non-profit environmental organization, was strongly opposed to the installation of such armoring of the cliff. Surfrider stated that they realized that “coastal erosion is an unavoidable natural process…it is proven that humans cannot stop the advancement of the sea…seawalls cause loss of beach…they [seawalls] eventually fail” (Pierce, Ish). They supported this with evidence from a 1986 publication of UC Santa Cruz which says that seawalls have a life expectancy between twenty and twenty-five years. In viewing the coastal erosion as an unavoidable process that nothing can even slow and in refusing to install any kind of protection on the cliff merely because the protection will eventually fail, the Surfrider Foundation acted foolishly. A seawall would at least help slow the coastal erosion, even if it does fail after a quarter century. However, due to the objections made by the Santa Cruz Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, the proposed seawall at Pleasure Point was rejected. According to Breemer, rejecting and vetoing plans of property protection where it is needed cause the land to be “doomed to an eventual collapse” and “the eventual loss of public access is only part of the price. The cost of this ‘victory’ for environmentalism includes tens of millions of tax dollars that will be needed to relocate water, sewer, and gas lines” (Breemer).

            A key argument by seawall opponents, specifically the Surfrider foundation, is that seawalls cause accelerated erosion of the unprotected beaches in front of them (Etoyner, Nelsen, Ranker). However, “ocean engineering specialists up and down the state agree with RL Weigel, professor emeritus at UC Berkeley, that ‘seawalls, in general, do not cause long-term beach erosion’” (Breemer). In addition, “where beaches give way to the ocean, the main cause is rising sea levels” (Breemer). RL Weigel is shown to be a credible source through his status of “professor emeritus” at a prominent engineering research university. Furthermore, Dr. Richard J. Seymour, “chief of the Ocean Engineering Research Group at Scripps Institute” stated that many “stable” beaches in California have remained free of erosion in the past fifty years “in spite of being backed with well-sited seawalls at the back of the beach” (Breemer). Finally, Breemer states that “a 1990 study by the National Research Council…concurred: ‘Properly engineered seawalls and revetments can protect the land without causing adverse effects to the fronting beaches.’” This evidence is made credible through the National Research Council’s affiliation with the National Academy of Sciences (Breemer).

            The Surfrider Foundation argues that seawalls “destroy surfing waves” by causing changes in sand patterns (Shoreline Structures). However, Breemer states that “many, if not most, of the best surf breaks in California are formed by reefs and jutting points, not sand bars.” He goes on to state that at such California surf beaches as Malibu, Rincon, and Cardiff, “fluctuating sand levels are of little consequence” because “surfers can still catch vigorous waves” in spite of the walls constructed to “stave off storm surges.”

            At the end of “Anti-seawall Arguments Are Soggy,” there is a strong emotional appeal. J. David Breemer states that “the anti-seawall extremist’s dream is nightmare” and “a stabilizing seawall is a thing of beauty” to “the family whose house is threatened by erosion or the elderly person who can access the coast only by car.” By saying that the absence of seawalls negatively affects elderly people and families the author creates a strong emotional appeal for seawalls as families and elders are two groups with whom the public sympathizes. By calling the opponents of seawalls extremists, a term that, after the Al-Qaeda attacks on September 11, 2001, is associated with terrorism, Breemer creates a negative feeling toward his adversaries. In calling seawalls beautiful and calling the goal of his opposition a nightmare, he shines a light of positive thinking on seawalls and casts a shadow of negativity on the absence of armored cliffs.

            J. David Breemer establishes his personal credibility through his credentials as the managing attorney of the PLF’s Coastal Land Rights Project which shows him to be knowledgeable as to the subject of seawalls and the effects of them, and, although he is paid to argue in favor of seawalls, he is also paid to know all about the positive and negative aspects of such structures.

            Breemer’s argument makes an excellent point. The construction of properly engineered seawalls is beneficial to the land. First, a ban on seawalls is short-sighted. Not only will the erosion cause the cliffs to disintegrate and destroy anything on top of the cliffs, but it will also, as said by Breemer, place a burden on the taxpayers for the rerouting of utilities. Second, the presence of a seawall does not cause any adverse environmental effects. Beaches with seawalls showed no sign of destruction over a span of fifty years except by rising water levels, and variations in the levels and patterns of sand have little effect on the surf. For these reasons, the construction of properly engineered seawalls should not be hindered.

           

 

Works Cited

1. Breemer, J. David. “Anti-seawall Arguments Are Soggy.” Pacific Legal Foundation.             18 November 2004.             <http://www.pacificlegal.org/view_CHOPEdDetail.asp?iID=120>

2. Brokaw, Ken. “Spectacular Sunsets.” “Indio.” Re/Max Ocean West. 18 November             2004. <http://www.kenbrokaw.com/indio.html>

3. Etnoyer, Peter, Nelsen, Chad, Ranker, Kevin. “Beach Sand at the Base of the Food             Chain.” “Surfrider Foundation.” 2 December 2004.

            < http://surfrider.org/specialplaces/beach_sand.pdf

4. Pierce, Nathan, Ish, Teresa. “Position of the Surfrider Foundation, Santa Cruz Chapter             on the proposed cliff stabilization along Pleasure Point, Santa Cruz.” 2 December             2004.

            <http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:TshFwUzCmHkJ:www.surfridersantacru            z.org/position.htm+seawalls+environmental+impact&hl=en>

5. “Shoreline Structures.” “Surfrider Foundation.” 2 December 2004.

            < http://www.surfrider.org/structures/index.asp>

6. “W12b.” “California Coastal Commission.” 18 November 2004.             <http://www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/W12b-8-2003.pdf>