Breakwater at Imperial Beach Delayed Again

A U.S. District Court judge Monday blocked construction of an Imperial Beach breakwater until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers files a supplemental report to a 1978 environmental impact statement that cleared the way for the controversial project.

Judge Edward J. Schwartz ruled that construction of the 3,500-foot breakwater, which is designed to stop beach erosion, cannot begin until Corps of Engineers officials address several issues that are not covered in the 1978 report. Among them are:

- The effect that sewage spills from Tijuana would have on the box-shaped breakwater that will lie 500 yards off the beach.

- The cost-effectiveness of the project, given the current $7-million estimate for the job, up from an original estimated cost of $2.6 million.

- Whether new construction technology makes sand replenishment a more effective means of stopping the erosion.

- The environmental effect that a shorter breakwater and phased construction would have on the beach. The Corps of Engineers’ original construction plans called for a 5,500-foot breakwater to be completed at one time. The corps now plans to build 3,500 feet of breakwater that will be completed in four stages.

- Whether construction of the breakwater would promote erosion of the beaches north of Imperial Beach.

Schwartz’s ruling was in response to a complaint filed during the summer by Imperial Beach resident James M. Knox, who asked for the supplemental report.

The judge issued a preliminary injunction, effectively blocking construction for about a year, said University of San Diego law Prof. Richard J. Wharton, who acted as Knox’s attorney. Wharton works in the university’s Environmental Law Clinic.

“My client isn’t saying ‘no’ to the breakwater. . . . We have had such substantial changes (in the project) that a supplement is required. That’s all we want . . . a supplemental report,” Wharton said.

After the hearing, Wharton told reporters that the supplemental report will in effect be a whole new environmental study of the project.

Assistant U.S. Atty. John R. Neece, who represented the Corps of Engineers, argued that requiring a supplemental report would further delay the project, which was first proposed in 1957. Neece said the project, which was approved in 1981 by the California Coastal Commission, has already been studied to death and argued that Knox’s complaint was a thinly veiled attempt to stop the project by delaying it until it becomes too expensive.

‘They’ve Done It Before’

“The key . . . is to create delay. They’ve done it before and they’re doing it here,” Neece said.

However, Schwartz responded that Corps of Engineers officials have ignored new information associated with the project, which critics say may have an adverse effect on the environment.

“It’s undisputed that the Corps of Engineers has received new information and has not supplemented the” environmental impact statement, Schwartz said. He added that some of the information “raises the question as to the cost-benefit ratio required (by Congress) to base such a project.”

Schwartz said that the “corps has not been reasonable in its response” to the new information. But he made it clear that it was not his intention to stop the project completely or rule it illegal becauses it poses a threat to the beaches.

Finally, Schwartz said that the grunion played a role in his decision.

“The grunion aren’t here to tell us when they’re running,” said Schwartz, who noted that they are expected to appear on local beaches between March and May. Corps officials had said that construction on the breakwater could begin by next Monday.

But then Schwartz quoted from a Corps of Engineers report that said that if the grunion did not appear until May, construction would have to be stopped until September. Either way, the project would face a delay, Schwartz said.