Great story Jennifer, I had no idea but it does make sense. I wonder what other life thrives underwater because of the breakwater's presence. Thanks for a great story.
lbresident
· 1 year ago
You should read the story about the breakwater on lbpost and lbreport. There is some hope. Even Gary DeLong and some Peninsula residents are open to a new approach (reduce 1800 ft to sea level) that may be cheaper and quicker than a full blown reconfiguration.
Jenny
· 1 year ago
Thanks folks. I did read those two stories about Bud Johnson's report (which I've read in its entirety and whom I've actually interviewed a few months ago). What a great guy! His study is really interesting and his personal observations and recommendations are sound and intelligent. The only catch is, his study doesn't follow US Army Corps of Engineers' standards or methodology--things required to move the project forward. He's right when he says that more studies will always be required, even though they may not be necessary, but that's the downside to federal operations. I'm sure Johnson's study will be used by Moffatt & Nichol in the coming months for its great information, but since the breakwater is federally owned and maintained, there is no short cut that can be taken by the city to circumvent the USACE's bureaucracy--which includes more studies, going through the process of receiving federal funding and approval for the recon, feasibility and pre-construction phases of its operations. I really wish that political will existed, enough to drive Bud's initiatives into action, but I've never seen that kind of action taken until there's been a major disaster. For example, hurricane Katrina finally provoked the Corps to fix Louisianan levees. A few earthquakes and a major bridge collapse instigated better building codes, etc... And, just for the record, the term "reconfiguration" refers to every kind of modification to that hard structure--be it a full leveling of the breakwater, an 1800-ft section removal just below sea level like Johnson's proposing, or anything in between. Moffatt & Nichol will likely look all combination of alternatives for the breakwater and test them with the mathematical model simulator they are famous for.
Both of those stories are great though, because they're getting the message out that this recon study will not result in absolute ignorant doom for the coast and coastal properties. And, they have people--who've been against the project from the beginning-- talking about it. The more smart discussion and communication lines open, the better. Great job guys!
Ryan Z
· 1 year ago
Jenny, the way it's been explained to me (which may or may not be completely accurate, I'm no expert) is that the study (Bud's) could be taken to the Army Corps to ask about feasibility. If they agree that it's possible and at least worth looking into, pressure can be put on Congressman Rohrabacher to back the study, though he has purposefully stayed out of discussions like this in the past. At that point, the City Council would have to decide whether or not to proceed with the project or keep on with the Colorado Lagoon project (a city can only have one federal legislative project at a time), and if it's a high enough priority, they can vote to send the idea to Congress and it will be brought to the Army Corps. That'sa lotta hoops! But it is something... Somebody correct my process if it's wrong, por favor.
Jenny
· 1 year ago
Wow, I'll look into it Ryan, thanks. I'm no expert either...
Dave in Alamitos Beach
· 1 year ago
I like the Bud Report as well, though I hope people realize that it's probably a minimum of what could and should be done. I imagine the final recommendation will be a compromise between leaving the breakwater as it is, and tearing it down completely.
Does anyone know if a pollution lawsuit brought by, say, the Natural Resources Defense Council would help or hurt the (very) slow progression of this movement?
835
· 1 year ago
If those birds were the only thing standing in the way of sinking that breakwater, I'd personally snipe each and every one of 'em...
John
· 1 year ago
Stupid me, when I read the title of the article I thought it was referring somehow to the press-telegram!
Laurence B. Goodhue
· 1 year ago
Without even reading the report of the good Dr. Johnson(he has two PHD's )there is no question it is a sound and solid report.There are few in this City-if any-that know more about matters Marine than but.
Equally solid however would be the opposition for any major reconfiguration by the members of the House and Senate-most of who are painfully aware of the power of an unchecked rivers or seas.
One has to but pick up the paper and the see the type of damage that would be visited upon a,not so small portion of our tax base.There is ample opportunity to surf at Seal,Huntington,Newport Beaches.Look at the Press Telegram's pictures last week of the storm surf damage and flooding of pre breakwater days.
Will those that want to risk the tax base put up a bond to cover any damage? Would not that be fair?
Laurence B. Goodhue
· 1 year ago
oopps-forgot to spell check-the last word in first paragraph.Sorry Bud!!!
Ryan
· 1 year ago
Laurence, Bud's report (and most residents) are more concerned with creating ocean flow and circulation - of which there is currently none - to reduce pollution in our waters and on our beaches. Bud's report would do that and is not at all about creating waves. I think that at this point, everyone has pretty much adhered to the idea that we won't be seeing any waves for a long time.
Dave Wielenga
· 1 year ago
Hello Mr. Goodhue! Anything else you want the other 498,000 residents of Long Beach to sacrifice for the coupla-thousand people who live on the Alamitos Peninsula? Giving up clean water and sea life--you know, that stuff the Good Lord gave all of us--seems like such a small price for us to pay for their "tax base."
Dennis
· 1 year ago
So 835 in favor of waves and a more natural ocean environment would "personally snipe" the pelicans on the breakwater? Which village lent us this idiot, or is (s)he our own?
RKJ
· 1 year ago
As a long time surfer (before moving to surfless LBch), history shows if it's the right thing to do in LBch, it WILL NOT get done. This city has the most amazing track record of making text book cases of how to screw up what could LA's county's crown ocean front jewel. I won’t even attempt to start the list of idiotic catastrophic errors.
Paul Utted
· 1 year ago
Breakwater Down = $$$$$ for City and increase in value of Homes when beach is a desired beach.
All Comments
His study is really interesting and his personal observations and recommendations are sound and intelligent. The only catch is, his study doesn't follow US Army Corps of Engineers' standards or methodology--things required to move the project forward. He's right when he says that more studies will always be required, even though they may not be necessary, but that's the downside to federal operations.
I'm sure Johnson's study will be used by Moffatt & Nichol in the coming months for its great information, but since the breakwater is federally owned and maintained, there is no short cut that can be taken by the city to circumvent the USACE's bureaucracy--which includes more studies, going through the process of receiving federal funding and approval for the recon, feasibility and pre-construction phases of its operations.
I really wish that political will existed, enough to drive Bud's initiatives into action, but I've never seen that kind of action taken until there's been a major disaster. For example, hurricane Katrina finally provoked the Corps to fix Louisianan levees. A few earthquakes and a major bridge collapse instigated better building codes, etc...
And, just for the record, the term "reconfiguration" refers to every kind of modification to that hard structure--be it a full leveling of the breakwater, an 1800-ft section removal just below sea level like Johnson's proposing, or anything in between. Moffatt & Nichol will likely look all combination of alternatives for the breakwater and test them with the mathematical model simulator they are famous for.
Both of those stories are great though, because they're getting the message out that this recon study will not result in absolute ignorant doom for the coast and coastal properties. And, they have people--who've been against the project from the beginning-- talking about it. The more smart discussion and communication lines open, the better. Great job guys!
Does anyone know if a pollution lawsuit brought by, say, the Natural Resources Defense Council would help or hurt the (very) slow progression of this movement?
is no question it is a sound and solid report.There are few in this City-if any-that know more about matters Marine than but.
Equally solid however would be the opposition for any major reconfiguration by the members of the House and Senate-most of who are painfully aware of the
power of an unchecked rivers or seas.
One has to but pick up the paper and the see the type of damage that would
be visited upon a,not so small portion of our tax base.There is ample opportunity
to surf at Seal,Huntington,Newport Beaches.Look at the Press Telegram's pictures last week of the storm surf damage and flooding of pre breakwater days.
Will those that want to risk the tax base put up a bond to cover any damage?
Would not that be fair?
$$$$$$