SACO — The city of Saco stands by its September decision to hold the federal government accountable for a solution to mitigate erosion caused by the Saco River jetty, and has vowed not to put the issue on the back burner.
The Saco River jetty has long been blamed for disrupting the natural flow of sand in the ocean and causing erosion that has over the years, destroyed homes and caused the coast to shrink. The jetty extends about 6,600 feet into the ocean from the mouth of the Saco River, and was built in the late 1800s by the Army Corps of Engineers to create a smoother shipping channel in the river.
In 2007, $26.9 million was allocated by Congress for a project to mitigate beach erosion caused by the jetty, but the expenditure of the money on a project has not yet been approved.
The Army Corps is in favor of a proposal that would install a 750-foot stone spur jetty, running perpendicular to the main jetty and an initial replenishment of beach sand. Under the Corps recommended proposal, the city would be responsible for maintenance of the jetty and periodic future beach replenishment.
The city prefers a different proposal which it says would more effectively mitigate erosion, and though it would cost more upfront, it would over time be more cost effective. This proposal would include a 500-foot spur jetty in addition to two 400-foot breakwaters.
In September, the City Council approved a resolve stating that the city will find a resolution to damage caused by the jetty and the city will not be responsible for maintenance on the jetty and periodic beach removal.
The Corps has stood by its original proposal, and told the city if it wants to move forward on the proposal preferred by the Corps, which would require the city to maintain the jetty and periodically replenish the beach sand, it needed to send the Corps a letter of support by Feb. 15.
The City Council decided Monday night to stand by its original decision and not send a letter of support to the Corps.
“It’s a federal jetty, it’s a federal channel, it’s a state river, and we don’t need to be saddled with it,” said City Councilor Lynn Copeland.
By refusing to send a letter of support for the proposal favored by the Corps, the proposal would be shelved and it could be three to five years before a new proposal would be approved and moved forward with, said city officials at Monday night’s meeting.
The city has allocated $25,000, which city staff will use to pursue research and legal consultation to try to obtain more federal money.
Councilor Micah Smart said he thought it was worth the extra time to find the right solution to mitigate erosion, and in the interim, the City Council needed to keep the issue on the front burner.
“I think we need to keep workshopping this and discussing this,” Smart said.
Copeland spoke to the seriousness of the erosion issue and urged city staff to continue working to find a legal advocate to help the city get the best solution.
“There are houses falling into the ocean,” she said. She said she had a constituent who was thinking of selling his house along the coast because he was didn’t know what damage the property could incur in the future.
“To hear another three to five years just makes my head explode, and we have to continue an expectation that we’ll continue actively moving this forward because it matters,” Copeland said.
Councilor Nathan Johnston asked City Administrator Kevin Sutherland to give the council periodic updates on the matter.
— Staff Writer Liz Gotthelf can be reached at 780-9015 or by email at egotthelf@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
