Agency May Revoke Imperial Beach Breakwater Permit

The California Coastal Commission will hear testimony next month to decide whether to revoke a permit issued to Imperial Beach for construction of a controversial 3,500-foot breakwater intended to stop beach erosion, it was learned Monday.

Kris Johnson, a commission staff member, said she is working on a staff report that will include a recommendation to the commissioners on whether the permit, issued in July, should be pulled.

Johnson said that permit revocations are rare, and added that she was not sure what action the commissioners will take on the matter when they meet in Los Angeles between Feb. 4 and 7. While such hearings are not rare, Johnson said, they are not regular features at commission hearings.

Johnson said the revocation hearing is being held to address opposition to the breakwater by William C. Kellogg, a La Jolla geologist, and the Surfrider Foundation, an organization of surfing enthusiasts. In August, Kellogg and the foundation sued the commission in Superior Court, charging that the permit for a breakwater would cause beach erosion rather than prevent it.

Kellogg argued that sand replenishment would be a better alternative to stop the beach erosion and said the breakwater would harm the environment. In addition, H. Paul Kondrick, Kellogg’s attorney, said he has acquired U.S. Army Corps of Engineers documents that show the project is not cost-effective. Kondrick also charged that corps officials have withheld critical information about the project from the public.

“They were sitting on the documents . . . . Back in July the corps said the project would cost between four and five million dollars, when they knew it would cost as much as $8 million,” Kondrick said.

According to Kondrick, federal law stipulates that a corps project must be cost-effective on at least a 1-to-1 ratio before it is funded; i.e., a dollar in public benefit for every dollar spent. But Kondrick said that documents obtained from the corps through discovery proceedings showed that the project’s cost-effectiveness would be 0.57 to 1.

Corps spokesman Larry Hawthorne angrily denied Kondrick’s charges.

“We’ve been up front on this project. We haven’t told any lies. We haven’t withheld any information,” Hawthorne said. However, Hawthorne and corps counsel Phil Marquez said they were not sure about the project’s cost-benefit ratio.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contracted with Riedel International of Portland, Ore., to build the box-shaped breakwater. The cost of the project was estimated at $2.6 million when it was first proposed in 1957, and originally it was supposed to be 5,000 feet long. But the cost was estimated at $7 million during a court hearing in November, when a federal judge ordered a halt before construction could begin.

Imperial Beach city officials failed to return repeated phone calls about next month’s revocation hearing. To date Imperial Beach and the state have deposited $1.3 million each with the corps to help fund the project, said George Armstrong, spokesman for the state Department of Boating and Waterways. Armstrong said the state was prepared to add $800,000 for the project, as requested by the corps, and Imperial Beach had been asked to provide an additional $300,000.

The additional funding was blamed on increased costs brought on by construction delays. Riedel was prepared to begin construction in November, but Superior Court Judge Jack R. Levitt issued a temporary restraining order and work was halted. U.S. District Judge Edward J. Schwartz later also blocked the project, ordering the corps to file a supplemental report to its 1978 environmental impact statement on the project.

On Monday, it was not clear whether the state or Imperial Beach would be able to retrieve any of the money deposited with the corps for the project, which was to be funded 57% with federal funds and 43% with state and local funds, if the permit is revoked.

“The corps would not start construction until it had the state and local money,” Armstrong said. “If the permit is revoked, I guess some of that money would be used to pay for design and construction costs. I’m sure the contractor would also sue for damages. He mobilized all of his equipment, brought it down and then the work was stopped.”

Hawthorne said that Riedel has already demanded payment “and that is still being negotiated.” He declined to go into detail, and Riedel officials did not return a reporter’s phone calls.

However, Hawthorne said the project would not necessarily be killed if the permit were revoked. If Imperial Beach still wanted the project, Hawthorne said, the corps could update its 7-year-old environmental report to reapply to the Coastal Commission and satisfy any court challenges.

Armstrong said the state favors the breakwater project; he called it “about the only solution that works.” He said sand replenishment is too expensive.