Several years ago on a trip to represent the city in Washington DC, I
asked the assistant secretary of the interior: Why can't we build a huge
tunnel under the beach to do the job?. He replied, "That sounds like a
good idea." His aide immediately said, "But sir, I think it would be too
Yes, it would be costly. But in evaluating the cost we need to factor
in the cost of what would be lost. What is the value of a football field
length of beach serving a metropolitan area of 10 to 15 million people?
What is the cost of annually moving thousands of tons of sand to
restore eroding beaches?
To those that say it can't be done, I remind them that this is a
country that put men on the moon. To those that say it's too costly, I
ask them to factor in the cost of what will and may be lost.
Sea is life -- inlet is needed
After reading Danette Goulet's recent article reflecting her opinion
of the unfortunate location selected for the Bolsa Chica tidal entrance,
all I could do was groan, "Oh no, not again."
The battle to restore the Bolsa Chica wetlands to its former viable
self seems to have a life of its own, which keeps popping up like a
target at a skeet-shoot.
Fortunately, the lowlands restoration has been approved. Pacific Coast
Highway improvements and the location of the ocean entrance at the south
end of the wetlands has been painstakingly studied and approved by most
all of the necessary permitting agencies.
Anyone questioning the need for the ocean entrance needs only to have
seen Councilwoman Shirley Dettloff's recent "Your City, Your Issues"
program on HBTV3 where she interviewed Jack Fancher the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife biologist who heads up the restoration committee.
Fancher says it all in four short words, "The sea is life."
The real inlet problem will be water quality
The inlet for the Talbert Marsh did not improve the area's surfing
waves. To be fair, it didn't particularly harm the nearby surfing,
The process of sandbar creation Vic Leipzig describes does