Saving Sloat...

Basically the boulders screw up the longshore current of the beach and instead of the sand drifting north and south freely on the beach, it will hit a road block on its way south or north, a.k.a the boulders and settle and accumulate there, thus depleting the sand on other parts of the beach in the long run.

I'd appreciate being enlightened on this subject also. How will they affect the surf?

Longtime lurker and OB newbie here that loves the site and finally has something worthwhile to contribute. A helpful primer for me on all things California coast was the KQED documentary called Coastal Clash (available at library). The related website is pretty useful with lots of visuals to understanding the science of beaches and the issues and bureaucracies involved. Check it out- http://www.kqed.org/w/coastalclash/home.html

Speaking to the "poli-nomics" of using boulders, my opinion is that they are an expensive short-term solution with a possibility of unknown and unintended consequences. Tracey commented on the unintended consequences of boulders used in a lake: they lead to destruction elsewhere. Here, we are talking about the largest body of water in the world pulling, pushing and pounding against a bunch of rocks. I am disinclined to believe that using boulders will prevent erosion. Just look at Pacifica's apartment fiasco. I am inclined to believe that boulders provide quick political cover. Political timeframes are notoriously short. I am inclined to believe that boulders provide the illusion of a solution. Oftentimes that is all that is necessary to "get things going again." I am also inclined to believe that boulders could create a more dangerous option than eliminating that road until a long-term solution is agreed upon. The danger being that the sand underlying the road continues to erode between and under the rocks leaving a hollow gap. Would you want to drive over that? I'm not keen on it. No matter what, though, the simplest fact bears repeating: the world's largest waterbody will basically perform on its own terms no matter what engineered-solution we throw at it, least of all a pile of rocks.

Hi everyone,

Boulders are bad mainly because they cause quicker erosion.. Even DPW admits that ###### revetment is short term (ie 5-10 years) and unsustainable long term. Secretly I think the guy advocating it plans to retire long before he has to deal with the consequences....

After the supers meeting I thought I's suggest the following strategy:

~ Agree to a rock revetment for only the most critical 200' - 300' feet of bluff to protect the emergency area (smaller is better of course) where the pipe of poo is located and vulnerable.
1. Agree that this will not last as long or work as well as 900' BUT that it will get us through the emergency
2. Because the smaller revetment is highly problematic & doomed to failure (only faster than the larger 900') this keeps the fire on all the stakeholders to come up with a long term solution rather than a medium term "kick the can down the road" solution.

Peaceout
rev.mcc