Parting of the Waves

SEACLIFF —  It is not some furry critter on the brink of extinction, nor some stretch of native habitat fancied by developers for the next Rancho de Stucco.

It is just a pair of dirty oil piers so comfortably familiar to beach-goers that a proposal to dismantle the barnacle-ridden structures has stirred a roiling environmental controversy.

Not to say there is an outcry to save the dilapidated relics of Ventura County’s oil-boom days.

But there is concern that removal could destroy a popular Ventura County surf spot and disrupt a friendly beach culture that has evolved over 60 years.

For its part, Mobil Oil says it is simply holding true to the state oil lease it signed in the late 1920s to remove the pier complex and oil wells when production stopped.

The underground reservoir has been bled dry, and the company is ready to close the popular beach from September to May and pull up the strangely popular piers, pilings and all.

“This is a positive step,” Mobil spokesman Len D’Eramo said.

Not everyone is so sure.

Waves Breaking Right and Left

“Oil Piers” has long been a prime Ventura County surfing spot, with left- and right-breaking waves that beckon surfers when other surf breaks are reduced to a crumbly mess by heavy afternoon winds.

Surfers and jet skiers--two groups often at odds--have used the wooden barrier to form an amiable relationship, surfers to one side, jet skiers to the other.

Furthermore, surfers believe that the piers’ hundreds of pilings collect sand that would otherwise be whisked by currents down the beach, creating perfect conditions for peeling waves.

A contingent of surfers has been pushing state regulators to hold Mobil responsible for financing the construction of an artificial surfing reef if the surf is damaged.

Some envision a surfing park, using the piers’ wooden planks to build a beach-side boardwalk.

“Those piers are an eyesore,” said Rob Holcombe, a 28-year-old surfer and employee of Patagonia, the Ventura clothing company. “They are a danger to surfers and boaters. But they also happen to create a unique wave that’s worth fighting for.”

It is shaping up to be a tough fight.

In dismantling the piers, Mobil is complying with an agreement signed by its predecessor, General Petroleum Co., before the piers were built in the 1930s.

The Seacliff pier complex--”Oil Piers” to the locals--consists of two wooden structures. The shorter pier is 350 feet long. The longer one extends 2,170 feet from the beach, with a 620-foot “spur” jutting off to one side.

37 Wells Below Plugged in ’94

Although some oil still remains beneath the surface, Mobil ceased pumping in 1993 after deciding extraction was no longer economical. All 37 wells drilled over the piers’ lifetime were plugged and abandoned in 1994.

“This is not unusual,” said D’Eramo of Mobil. “We’re just living up to our lease agreement that we would remove the piers and return the area to its natural environment.”

Still, the company has mounted a public-relations campaign, selling their plans in a slick brochure mailed to nearly 8,400 opinion leaders and selected residents in La Conchita, Seacliff, Ventura and Oxnard.

The mailers highlight efforts to protect wildlife during deconstruction and plans to use concrete rubble from the piers to create a habitat reef in the ocean outside the surf zone.

Deep inside the brochure, it explains why Mobil needs to close the beach during the $5-million dismantling project. And on the last page, it explains how removing the pier will leave surf conditions “virtually unchanged.”

But members of the Surfrider Foundation, Patagonia and lawyers with the Environmental Defense Center take issue with this finding. They are pushing the State Lands Commission to conduct a more thorough environmental review before the project is allowed to go forward. The commission is the lead agency on the project because the piers sit in state waters.

In an age when there are more surfers than good places to surf, the waves that break along oil piers are being presented as a precious natural resource as worthy of protection as any wetland, forest or endangered species.

A State Lands Commission study, however, has shown the oil piers have no effect on sand migration and wave action at the beach. The commission report suggests that nearby Rincon Island and the 1971 widening of the Ventura Freeway had more to do with wave creation that the pilings.

“We didn’t see that it had any major impact,” said Michael Valentine, senior staff attorney with the State Lands Commission.

The commission has, in turn, decided to conduct a fast-track environmental review released last week.

Tracking the Flow of Shifting Sands

Many who surf Oil Piers believe the agency’s analysis of sand migration and wave action is faulty. They say that it is too much a coincidence that the surf break follows the exact line of the pier.

“Mobil can make computer models that can basically say whatever they want it to say,” Holcombe said. “They want to get out as cheaply and quickly as they can.”

Under the direction of Patagonia founder and owner Yvon Chouinard, Holcombe has been researching environmentally friendly artificial surfing reefs for the past year.

Holcombe organized a petition drive in local surf shops last year, firing off 300 signatures to the State Lands Commission from surfers who want a more stringent environmental study and the idea of an artificial surfing reef considered if the break is destroyed.

Such a request is not without precedent.

When the California Coastal Commission gave Chevron Oil a permit in 1983 to build a rock groin in the water off El Segundo to protect refinery pipes, the commission held the company responsible if surfing conditions in the area were damaged.

In El Segundo, a five-year study concluded that the jetty wiped out natural sand bars on the ocean floor and diminished the quality of the waves.

Following another five years of talks, Chevron agreed to spend $300,000 to create an artificial reef made of sandbags.

The reef is still under review, but the Surfrider Foundation has hailed the move as the first time ocean waves were valued as a natural resource that demands protection.

Then again, when sports fishermen have complained in recent years that the removal of offshore oil platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel would hurt their favorite fisheries, California Coastal Commission officials did not hold Chevron Oil responsible. Agency officials called the enhanced fishing opportunities near the offshore platforms an “incidental benefit” that did not require protecting.

“If it is true that these wharves created a surfing benefit, I can see the same questions coming up,” said Alison Dettmer, who heads the California Coastal Commission’s energy permitting staff.

Those precedents will be tested at Oil Piers, as Surfrider and Patagonia try to persuade state officials that a surf break is a natural resource in jeopardy.

Considering the Natural Order

Bob Hight, executive officer of the State Lands Commission, said there is an inherent flaw in calling anything at Oil Piers “natural.”

“The question becomes, is the wave caused by the pier? And if it is, then I don’t think it’s natural,” Hight said.

In El Segundo, he points out, Chevron was held responsible because it was involved in a construction project to lay oil pipes.

“We’re a little bit apples and oranges here,” he said. “Clearly, if you’re going to build something, you have to mitigate for it. If you’re going to tear out something that wasn’t natural to begin with, that’s where we get into uncharted waters.”

Mobil officials say the company should in no way be held responsible for further studies or the cost of constructing an artificial surfing reef.

If independent groups want to build an artificial reef, D’Eramo said, they should try to gain approval through the state and county agencies once the pier removal process is complete.

A collection of business leaders who surf has proposed doing just that, beginning with taking over the lease to the beach.

They have formed the nonprofit Coastal Preservation Research Foundation, proposing to secure private liability insurance and to build a boardwalk from the pier’s timbers as well as a reef that would make waves peel perfectly along the shore.

“We want to turn it into a park, designed by surfers for surfers,” said Gary Ross, a foundation board member.

Release of the environmental document on the Oil Piers project triggered a 45-day public comment period that will end with a hearing before the State Lands Commission.

Mobil must also gain approval from six other agencies: the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, state Department of Fish and Game, California Coastal Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.

Dismantling is expected to begin in mid- to late fall, officials said, and Mobil said that for safety reasons it must close the beach for nine months when the work begins.

But restricting access to the beach has Coastal Commission officials concerned, Dettmer said. The commission has asked Mobil to list its reasons for needing to close off public access, as well as provide a list of possible alternatives to fencing off the area.

“Access is going to be a major Coastal Commission issue,” Dettmer said. “That’s going to be significant.”

On a recent afternoon, the beaches at Oil Piers were once again packed with surfers, jet skiers, sea kayakers and sunbathers.

Surprisingly, many did not want to see the piers go, eyesore or not.

“It’ll ruin the waves,” said surfer Luke Vickery, 19, of Oxnard. “That’s why this place is so good, because of those piers.”

Sitting next to his sea kayak, Matt Thompson, 24, of Ventura, admits that he kind of likes the piers, and so does everyone he has talked to at the beach.

“This is the only beach I come to,” he said, “probably because there’s a lot more girls than other places.”

Mark Harwell of Valencia and Jim Saunders of Simi Valley make their way to Oil Piers with their jet skis at least once a week.

They like the lax enforcement about jumping waves, riding near swimmers and being able to zigzag in and out of the pier pilings.

“If I didn’t like them, I’d go to another beach,” Saunders said.

But it is the surfing community that has become most vocal about Mobil’s plans.

Surfers Awash in Opinions

Take the local Surfrider chapter, which has been hotly debating the issue for months. Views vary. Some of the group’s 600 members want the piers to stay. Some want them to go. Others have even talked of suing Mobil over the potential loss of premium waves. A large contingent favors building an artificial reef, while others say putting anything artificial in the water is hypocritical.

“It is so difficult,” said Brian Brennan, an executive board member of the Ventura Surfrider chapter. “This is really an issue that tears up Surfrider philosophically.”

Surfrider member John Florez believes Surfrider should be arguing for the piers--or at least the pilings--to stay put for the benefit of surfing.

He contends that Surfrider has been invaded by non-surfing environmentalists who don’t see that preserving prime surf spots should be the group’s primary concern, not protecting the environment.

“The eyesore argument?” Florez said. “That can be applied to many different surf breaks. Just because something’s pretty or not pretty, I don’t think that should be the criteria for the removal of a recreational resource.”

At the other end of the debate, Glen Kent, the newly elected president of the Ventura Surfrider chapter, argues that it is unethical and in poor taste to look toward the “deep pockets” of Mobil to pay for an artificial surfing reef.

No one really knows what will happen to the surf when the piers are removed, he said. The surfing may even improve, he suggested. If not, he believes surfers should be thankful they had the break for as long as they did.

“If a fishing group wanted certain structures to enhance fishing in the ocean, we’d be against it,” the 41-year-old Oxnard resident said. “If they wanted to build a mooring for a jet ski area, we’d be against it. But to think we can put in a reef for our own purposes, that’s OK? If they had been proposing to put the piers in to drill for oil, we’d be against it. So why would we be against removing them?”