SACO — The city of Saco is under a time crunch as it looks to make a decision regarding whether it should lend its support to a proposal to mitigate beach erosion.

The Saco River jetty was built in the late 1800s by the Army Corps of Engineers to create a smoother shipping channel in the river. The stone jetty, which juts out 6,600 feet into the ocean at the mouth of the Saco River, has long been blamed for disrupting the natural flow of sand and causing erosion along Saco’s coast.

In 2007, $26.9 million was allocated by Congress for a project to mitigate beach erosion caused by the jetty, but the project has yet to get under way.

The Corps has recommended a proposal, known as Plan 6, that would include a 750-foot stone spur jetty, running perpendicular to the main jetty and replenishing the beach with about 225,000 cubic yards of 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 plan known as Plan 25A, which would include a 500 foot spur jetty in addition to two 400 foot breakwaters. City officials believe this proposal would better mitigate the effects of the jetty and would require less beach re-nourishment in the future.

However, the Corps is looking for a project that can be completed within the $26.9 million budget, said Saco City Administrator Kevin Sutherland at a public meeting on Tuesday night at City Hall

“They’re limited in terms of the amount of money they’re allowed to spend,” Sutherland said. “The best project, the most value for our community, is not what they are proposing.”

Sutherland wrote a letter to the Corps in the fall stating that Plan 25 A was the preferred option by the city. However, the city would support the Corps moving forward with Plan 6, if the city would not be held responsible for maintenance of the jetty and periodic replenishment of beach sand in the future.

The Corps is standing by its original proposal, which is to move forward with Plan 6 and the spur jetty, and require the city to be responsible for future periodic beach nourishment and maintenance of the jetty.

If the city wants to support the Corps plan, it needs to provide the Corps with a letter of support by Feb. 15, said Sutherland.

Sutherland presented the audience with two options regarding the direction the city chooses move forward.

The majority of audience members thought the city should write a letter of support for Plan 6 and work with the Corps on an agreement to get money approved by Congress.

This option would require a rushed process to get paperwork in due to timelines, and it would not allow the city to further research Plan 25A, which the city feels may be more cost-effective in the long run, said Sutherland.

Sutherland said the city council advocates for an alternative option, in which the city would not advocate for Plan 6. If the city decides not lend it’s support to Plan 6, the Corps will shelve the project. IF the project were shelved, the city would go back to Congress and the Corps after a year having done research regarding project solutions and funding.

The City Council will decide on Monday whether the city should present the Corps with a letter of support for the Corps’ preferred erosion mitigation plan.

— Liz Gotthelf can be reached at 780-9015 or by email at [email protected].