Letter to the editor

I am a professional geologist, resident of Huntington Beach and

environmentalist.

For the last 25 years during the effort to save and restore the Bolsa

Chica, I have provided professional expertise and other support to, and

on behalf of, environmental organizations interested in saving and

restoring the Bolsa Chica, residents of Huntington Beach, the people of

California and, very importantly, posterity.

My professional input was primarily oriented toward pointing out the

extent and level of geological hazards and other concerns that would be

associated with the development of the Bolsa Chica.

The following comments and concerns continue primarily to be

professionally based and are directed toward the proposal for a tidal

inlet, which is the alternative most favored by the agencies and many

environmentalists for water replenishment and circulation in the Bolsa

Chica restoration plan. In view of my history of involvement with the

Bolsa Chica, my comments may seem incongruous with my past efforts but

these comments are made for the same purposes as in the past.

Tidal inlets are interruptions in the natural shoreline processes that

produce such things as beaches, beach maintenance and replenishment,

estuaries, lagoons and wetlands, all of which we have come to enjoy and

sometimes depend on. These processes are complex and we can do all the

modeling studies we like, but when we meddle with Mother Nature and

shoreline processes, we do not always, and some would say rarely, do it

right. I believe it is the consensus of professionals, geological and

others that, because of the unavoidable and potential problems associated

with them, tidal inlets are to be avoided in this day and age, if at all

possible. Avoidance is possible at Bolsa Chica.

The primary problems associated with this projected tidal inlet, even

if it works (something that remains in doubt), are: beach interruption,

maintenance and replenishment; sea cliff protection in the area of

Seapoint Avenue and southwest to Goldenwest Street; the physical,

continuing maintenance of the inlet itself; and, whether Wintersburg

Channel water should ever enter the wetlands, potentially polluting an

area usually relatively free of pollution.

Quite aside from the inlet-produced loss of beach width, beach access

and near-shore use, beach protection and maintenance must be assured for

the vitally important public amenity it provides to the public both north

and south of the proposed inlet; its contribution to the economy of

Huntington Beach; and any protection it does or can supply for the

eroding Huntington Beach sea cliffs and Pacific Coast Highway between

Seapoint Avenue and Golden West Street.

Such protection, as well as maintenance of the tidal inlet, will come

at a high cost in perpetuity. Taxpayers, now and in the future, are being

asked to assume these burdens effectively forever. Do they even know the

projected cost of such protection and maintenance? I don’t believe they

do. If so, where are these set out in publicly accessible documents?

Beyond these considerations, very significant questions arise as to the

reliability of such financial support, as the residents of Surfside and

Seal Beach have had occasion to raise in recent years.

What happens if that support isn’t there or the politics of the

situation change? Further, the state is now considering legislation that

would significantly affect coastal modification and might, as has been

done in other states, ban coastal armoring. What will happen then to the

eroding Huntington Beach sea cliffs and Pacific Coast Highway if and when

such armoring is banned and such methods as beach protection and

maintenance must be used?

Lastly, the question arises as to why this alternative with all of its

disadvantages and potential problems would even be considered when there

is an alternative -- alternative No. 5 of the plans’ environmental report

-- that offers a credible, low-technology, low-cost solution to wetlands

restoration. This alternative would use at least one closely controlled

and monitored tidal gate and a currently available, but blocked, culvert

to assist in water requirements for the restoration of the tidal

marsh/lagoonal environment that most recently existed geologically at

Bolsa Chica.

The answer seems to be that the tidal inlet and associated deep-water

environment and habitat of past eons is the alternative favored by the

state and federal agencies involved, and has been sold to at least a part

of the environmental community, which just wants to see restoration and

has to rely on the agencies to get it done. The agencies currently have

money available for the tidal inlet but not enough money to do the

deep-water restoration. However, in order to encourage support for the

tidal inlet, the agencies reportedly have taken the position “no tidal

inlet, no restoration” and the money will be used for other sites. That

sounds suspiciously like blackmail and holding the Bolsa Chica hostage,

especially since at $11 million for the tidal gate/culvert solution, the

savings might be used for at least a partial restoration, thus

eliminating not only the tidal inlet, the damaging dredging necessary for

a tidal inlet/deep water type of restoration, but at least beginning

restoration.

In any event, I encourage the public, Huntington Beach residents, the

environmental community, city staff and council members and members of

the agencies themselves to look long and hard with their eyes wide open

at the tidal inlet alternative before such an alternative is chosen and

implemented, especially when another suitable alternative is available.

BOB WINCHELLHuntington Beach