At the core of the meeting was the presentation by the project manager, Bethany McLennan, from the Army Corps of Engineers. The flood wall project, which includes flood walls, pump stations, a detention pond, and floodgates, was introduced as a measure to mitigate the long history of flooding in the area. Despite the technical emphasis of the presentation, which included renderings of the proposed flood wall alignment in Veteran Park and Smug Harbor, the council and public engaged in an exhaustive discussion about the project’s feasibility, cost, and potential impact on the community.

One of the most issues addressed was the impact on private properties and public recreational facilities, including basketball courts and playgrounds. Residents expressed their worries about maintaining access to the water, with the council assuring that collaboration with property owners would seek to address these concerns. Questions regarding the increase in taxes to maintain the flood wall, management, and additional costs were also raised, with the council providing some responses while acknowledging that some details remained undetermined.

Environmental concerns were highlighted by the public, particularly regarding the potential pollution from construction materials, the impact on sea life, and the consequences of the wall on beach erosion. The Army Corps of Engineers clarified that while the project was authorized by Congress, the town has discretion in its acceptance. They also explained that the wall is designed to withstand statistical future storm events, referencing a similar flood wall in Kingsburg that remained intact during Hurricane Sandy.

The meeting also delved into the potential litigation costs and the need for staff and workers to manage the wall. The benefits of the project, such as protection from wave action and safeguarding infrastructure, were juxtaposed against concerns about the aesthetics of the wall, the safety implications for park visitors, and the skepticism about its effectiveness based on past flooding experiences.

Residents inquired about whether flood insurance would still be a necessity and sought clarity on federal support for the project if the community did not endorse it. The specifics of the project’s design, its phasing, and the impact on private properties and beaches were also topics of debate. Additionally, the process for voting on the project was discussed, with explanations on the steps involved in putting the project on the ballot.

Alternatives to the flood wall were discussed, with suggestions including filling in the town to the required elevation and constructing a barrier across the river. The council emphasized the cost-effectiveness of the proposed mitigation options and the reliance on federal funding.