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

Voter engagement was slightly higher in the June primary election than in recent years’ primaries, with more San Diego County voters registering and casting a ballot, data from the County Registrar of Voters show.

Meanwhile the county’s election results, which still have yet to be certified, show where support for each of the most popular governor candidates was strongest.

Republican Steve Hilton, the single most popular candidate in the county, won more votes than any of his competitors in wide swaths of East and North County, and in many Democratic-leaning neighborhoods including La Jolla and Clairemont. Democratic establishment candidate Xavier Becerra was solid in South County, Escondido and San Marcos, while fellow-party and more progressive candidate Tom Steyer captured many parts of San Diego city proper.

But primary votes are still being counted in Riverside County for what many agree will be the biggest competitive race involving San Diego this November: the 48th Congressional district, a race that will help decide which party controls the House.

The county has finished counting all valid ballots from the June primary, but there are 5,600 mail ballots that need to be cured, meaning they have a missing or mismatched signature. That number is equivalent to less than 0.6% of total ballots.

The county is giving those voters a chance to correct their ballot signatures. After unresolved ballots are cured and counted, the county registrar says it will certify election results by the evening of July 2.

More voters registered

Voter registration was up this year from the last primary, data from the county registrar show. Two million San Diego County residents registered to vote, compared to 1.9 million in 2024.

Political party makeup in the county hasn’t changed much since two years ago.

Democrats still dominate the county overall, but their numbers declined slightly from 2024. About 40.5% of the county’s registered voters filed as Democrats for this primary, down from 41.4% in 2024.

Meanwhile 27.4% filed as Republicans, about the same as in 2024.

A quarter of voters declined to declare a party preference, which is up by half a percentage point from 2024.

San Diego County’s political makeup falls in line with national trends, said Carl Luna, director of the Institute for Civil Engagement at University of San Diego. Republicans dominate the rural and exurban communities of East and North County, while Democrats dominate urban neighborhoods and areas with more young people.

Higher, but uneven turnout

This year’s gubernatorial primary drew higher voter participation than recent similar elections.

About 42% of county registered voters cast a ballot, which is higher than the county’s turnout in each of the past three non-presidential primary elections.

Turnout is also up significantly from the presidential primary two years ago, when it was only about 37%.

Geographic disparities remain. Many of the county’s lowest turnout rates were in the urban cores of El Cajon, Escondido, Vista and San Marcos, as well as precincts in San Ysidro, City Heights, Southeast San Diego, National City, Nestor and western and southern Chula Vista. Precincts in those communities had turnout rates below 30%, and in some cases below 20%.

Those low turnout rates are largely to the Democrats’ disadvantage, as all of those areas lean Democratic.

Turnout tends to correlate with age, education levels and socioeconomic status, said Brian Adams, political science professor at San Diego State.

Primary elections consistently see far lower turnout than general elections. In the 2024 general election, county voter turnout was 76%.

“When you get lower voter-turnout elections, you get biases in who’s voting and who’s not voting. Historically that usually favored Republicans,” Adams said.

The real test that will decide the winners of competitive races in November is which party can turn out more voters, he said.

“Most voters already made up their mind which party they’re supporting. The actual number of persuadable voters is very small. Because of that, what really matters is turnout,” Adams said.

Democratic votes split for governor

In a candidate field that saw far more competition for Democrats than Republicans, GOP candidate Hilton was the single most popular governor candidate in the county, capturing about 30% of the vote.

Democratic votes were split between former Attorney General Becerra, who captured the second most votes in the county with 27%, and billionaire Steyer, who captured the third most at 21%.

Unlike Becerra and Steyer, Hilton didn’t suffer as much from a split vote with Republican Chad Bianco, who got 8% of the county total.

San Diego County favored Hilton more than California as a whole, which gave Hilton about 25% of the vote. San Diego County voters were also less likely than voters statewide to support Steyer or Bianco.

Hilton captured more votes than any other candidate in Republican-dominated areas of the county — the exurbs and rural areas of East County and North County. But he also did well in many parts that lean Democratic, including La Jolla, Point Loma, Del Mar Heights, Scripps Ranch, eastern Chula Vista and parts of Clairemont.

That’s largely because the Democratic vote was split between Becerra and Steyer. It may also be because voters who turn out for primaries have tended to skew more conservative than general elections, Adams said.

“Different people may be voting in November, so we’ll have to see how that plays out,” he said. “When you get lower voter-turnout elections, you get biases in who’s voting and who’s not voting.”

Steyer, the more progressive Democrat, captured the plurality of votes in several parts of San Diego city.

But Becerra remained the clear Democratic favorite in South County, in the urban cores of Escondido and San Marcos, as well as most of Vista and Oceanside. Luna said that reflects Latino support as well as support for a more traditional establishment candidate.

With Republicans Hilton and Bianco combining to capture only 35% of the vote statewide in the primary, Luna and Adams are expecting Becerra to be ushered in easily. The biggest competition out of San Diego County, they said, will be the 48th Congressional district race.

Thanks to last year’s redistricting, the historically Republican seat — which sits partly in Riverside County — is now competitive between the two big political parties.

Republican county Supervisor Jim Desmond will face off with San Diego Councilmember Marni Von Wilpert, a Democrat, for the seat.

In the primary, Desmond won 42% of the vote within San Diego County, while Von Wilpert captured 22% in a field crowded with Democrats. The one other Republican candidate in the primary, Kevin O’Neil, got 3%.

The fate of the seat could help determine party control of the House. “The only significant race is the 48th,” Luna said.