When the U.S. military built the Camp Pendleton Harbor complex just north of Oceanside in 1942, it didn’t set out to steal Oceanside’s beaches for decades to come. 

But that’s exactly what’s been happening for the past 73 years. 

In 1953, the federal government admitted that construction of harbor jetties at Camp Pendleton was directly contributing to the erosion of Oceanside’s beaches. The jetties block the ocean’s currents that carry sand along the coast, which causes Oceanside’s beaches south of the military base to lose out on sand that would have naturally flowed to them. 

Rising sea levels caused by climate change also play a part, but in Oceanside, naturally occurring erosion has been exacerbated by the military base. 

But the military is only just now stepping in to help. While the government’s admission of guilt seemed like a win, it somewhat backfired; because the federal government was on the hook for the entire cost, the project got swallowed by a bureaucratic black hole. Tired of waiting, Oceanside launched its own plan to save its beaches, one the military now refuses to help fund. 

What Took so Long 

In 2000, Congress passed a law mandating the Army Corps to study how it could restore Oceanside’s beaches to pre-harbor conditions. 

The government was supposed to pay for the study and complete it in 44 months. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finally released the draft report of the study earlier this month – 26 years later.“Studies require both authorization and funding,” said Shawn Davis, public affairs specialist for the Army Corps, via email. “While the study was initially authorized in 2000, there have been gaps in funding that have impacted the timeline to complete the study.”  

Those funding gaps happened until 2022 when Rep. Mike Levin, D-San Juan Capistrano, whose district includes much of North County’s coastal cities, helped secure $1.8 million in federal funding and another $2.27 million in 2025 to complete the study.  

So, why did the funding dry up for so long at the federal level? According to Davis, “federal projects can only proceed and continue with appropriations from Congress.”  

In other words, the project was stuck in bureaucratic limbo; it had the legal authorization to exist, but it couldn’t secure funds in a highly competitive budget that favored bigger projects. 

Jayme Timberlake, Oceanside’s coastal zone administrator, told Voice of San Diego that the city and its representatives tried lobbying Congress for years, but there are often a lot of unknowns when it comes to Army Corps projects. 

“It’s very political. It’s very much dependent on what the rest of the nation is going through and where the funds are going and how they’re getting allocated,” Timberlake said. “It’s very tough to navigate and there’s a lot of risk associated with it, meaning we can’t really rely on it.”  

Other coastal cities received a plan before Oceanside did: The Corps completed similar studies for two sand replenishment efforts. One is a joint effort in Encinitas and Solana Beach, the other in San Clemente. Congress has already approved both of these projects for sand deliveries every seven to 10 years for the next 50 years. 

“The difference is that the … projects that are happening in Encinitas, Solana Beach and San Clemente were initiated by a request to the Army Corps from these cites, and they were cost shared,” Timberlake said.  

That means these cities are paying 35 percent of the costs, and the federal government is paying 65 percent. That also applies to sand deliveries every seven to 10 years. These types of projects can cost upwards of $100 million. 

“In Oceanside, our mitigation project, at least the study was not cost shared. It was the full responsibility of the federal government because they admitted fault,” Timberlake said. “So, it’s really unfortunate that the mitigation for Oceanside beaches didn’t happen before those requested projects.” 

Meanwhile, Oceanside’s Sand Was Disappearing 

While Oceanside officials and residents waited for the government’s help, the city’s beaches were rapidly disappearing before their eyes. 

Previous Army Corps studies estimate the Harbor has caused a loss of 1.4 to 1.6 million cubic yards of sand volume from Oceanside’s beaches since 1942, with some areas retreating at a rate of 6.6 feet per year. That’s 84 years of consistent and severe sand loss. 

El Niño conditions over the years have also exacerbated the problem. 

“There was such a dramatic loss of sand that the community really started asking for solutions,” Timberlake said. “There’s a whole generation that has been able to use the beach and then have it be gone, so it has triggered a lot of community interest.” 

After 20 years of waiting, Oceanside decided to take matters into its own hands. 

“Once there was momentum to fix the problem itself and not rely on the Army Corps any further, the city did a feasibility study in 2020, and that study really unearthed all the possible things that Oceanside could do in the short and long term to fix its beaches,” Timberlake said.  

A few years later, city officials held a competition that brought together three design teams from around the world to develop sand retention pilot projects. They chose a concept that includes the construction of two headlands that will aim to stabilize sand on the back beach, with an offshore artificial reef aimed at slowing down nearshore erosive forces.  

The project is called RE:Beach and it’s already funded up to the construction phase, Timberlake said. The city has applied for a few different grants to cover construction, which will cost upwards of $60 million.  

Timberlake said the city asked the Army Corps to help fund the rest of the RE:Beach project, and the Army Corps denied the request. 

The Government’s Plan 

Oceanside’s RE:Beach project and the federal government’s recent recommendations won’t conflict with each other, Timberlake said. In fact, the two projects will complement one another. 

The Army Corps’ draft feasibility report identified beach nourishment (a lot of sand) as the tentatively selected plan to restore Oceanside’s beaches.  

It calls for dredging 4 million cubic yards of sand from an offshore borrow site and then placing it along Oceanside’s beaches, with the goal of sustaining a minimum 85-foot wide beach from Oceanside Harbor south to Buena Vista Lagoon. Sand replenishment would be 1 million cubic yards the first cycle, then repeated every 10 years. 

Realistically, though, it could be another couple decades before Oceanside’s beaches start receiving sand, Timberlake said.  

That’s because there are other competing projects the Army Corps is working on. Plus,, Congress still has to appropriate funding for the rest of the project to move forward once the feasibility study is completed. Initial costs of construction are currently estimated to be $243,540,000, Davis, spokesperson for the Army Corps, said via email. 

It’s still unclear if the government will cover the full costs of construction and the subsequent sand renourishments for Oceanside, but Levin told Voice he thinks it’s unlikely. 

“I will advocate for every penny to come from the federal government, given that the government did acknowledge responsibility,” Levin said. “But I do also know how the Army Corps works, and it’s very likely they’ll want some sort of cost share.” 

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is proposing major funding cuts to the Army Corps’ budget for fiscal year 2027. If those cuts are approved by Congress, it could have an impact on projects like this one.  

Related Posts

JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) – The Supreme Court of Alaska will be taking up the case of the State of Alaska, Division of Elections v. Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.

The oral arguments will be held Monday at 10 a.m. via Zoom, according to an order and opening notice.

The document also specifies that a decision is expected to be made before noon on Tuesday.

According to documents from the Division of Elections, the state must start printing ballots at noon on the same day.

This comes after an Anchorage Superior Court Judge ordered Dan J. Sullivan on to the ballot Friday.

See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com

California State Senator Scott Wiener was harassed for his stance on Gaza during the San Francisco Trans March on Friday, to the point where it was no longer safe for him to remain, Wiener said. 

A group of people were so “physically and verbally aggressive that it was impossible for me to safely remain in the park,” Wiener stated, adding that this was the first time he did not participate in the march.

Wiener was surrounded by people who made statements about his “Israeli handlers, among many other inaccurate, extreme, and vile statements,” Wiener said.

“We f***ing hate you. You stopped being queer the moment you started supporting Israel,” one person yelled in a video later shared on social media.

Wiener stated that while he has no objection to anyone disagreeing, opposing, or protesting him, the “harassment, including cornering me, touching me, or trying to physically bully me out of a public event, that crosses a line.” 

“In San Francisco, we’re better than that,” he added.

Mayor Daniel Lurie made a statement on X/Twitter condemning the harassment, calling the language used “targeted, hateful, and antisemitic.”

In San Francisco, we welcome disagreement and respectful dialogue around issues many of us feel passionately about – but we cannot allow harassment and threats of violence,” Lurie wrote.

The California State Senate Democratic Caucus also released a statement on X, condemning the hate Wiener received. 

“The harassment and violence shown from yesterday’s march in San Francisco towards Senator Scott Wiener is unacceptable and must be called out,” the statement read.

The caucus also pointed to Wiener’s work on legislation “advancing the rights and protections for Transgender, Gender Expansive and Intersex people.”

“The CA Senate Democratic Caucus and CA LGBTQ Caucus jointly denounce the verbal harassment and attacks he experienced,” the statement said.