California lawmakers rush to address the effects of rising sea - OCRegister

sea.indah.link

The flood of state bills addressing sea-level rise this year is surging faster than the ocean itself, as legislators recognize the urgency to prepare for the consequences expected in the decades ahead.

Among at least nine sea-level rise bills introduced so far, one would study the idea of relocating coastal railroad tracks, another would provide low-interest loans for cities to buy threatened coastal homes, and a third would investigate an early warning system for coastal bluff collapses.

“Sea-level rise and the overall need to protect our coast have always been important issues and with each passing year (they) grow more pressing, especially to the people of Orange County, with the second most endangered coastline in California,” said Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris, D-Laguna Beach, author of two of the bills and co-author of a third. She cited a Pacific Institute study that found that the county could have $17 billion dollars of property destroyed, second only to San Mateo County.

The uptick in sea-level bills actually began last year, on the heels of a December 2019 report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office warning of the dire consequences of sea-level rise if swift action wasn’t taken. However, COVID-19 limited legislative activity in 2020, contributing to a bigger wave of proposals this year.

The Ocean Protection Council, which prepares sea-level rise analyses for the state, has warned that preparations should be made for 3.5 feet of sea-level rise by 2050 and 7 feet or more by 2100. For every dollar spent preparing for disasters like floods and landslides, $6 in post-disaster losses are avoided, according to a federal study cited in the 2019 Legislative Analyst’s Office report.

It’s early in the legislative session, so details of the proposed laws are still evolving. But the overall legislative themes are clear.

“You’ve got a body of bills that look at how the state can support and facilitate preparations for sea-level rise, and how to finance them,” said Sarah Christie, legislative director for the state Coastal Commission, which regulates coastal development but has not yet taken a position on any of the measures.

Environmentalists and property rights advocates, sometimes at odds over how to respond to the issue, are also largely in a wait-and-see mode while the proposals are fleshed out, although environmental activists say they’re glad to see more attention being paid to the issue.

Seawall debate

Several of the measures, including the $5 million proposal to study moving San Diego County’s coastal rail line, would directly accommodate ocean and beach migration landward in a process dubbed “managed retreat.”

But not directly addressed, so far, is the growing debate over whether to use seawalls and similar coastal armoring to forestall that migration.

The Coastal Act of 1976, which details the Coastal Commission’s purview, says “protective structures” such as seawalls are permitted only for buildings constructed prior to the act taking effect. The restriction stems from the act’s premium on maintaining beaches for public use and the fact that protective structures typically result in the loss of beach by increasing beach erosion and retarding the natural landward movement of the beaches.

The commission’s enforcement of that mandate and its support of managed retreat has drawn the ire of property rights activists.

“While managed retreat is appropriate in certain areas, typically rural, to accommodate sea-level rise, alternative options should be pursued in developed areas of the coast,” said Carla Farley, president of Smart Coast California. The group was formed by real estate interests to influence coastal development policies.

However, the Coastal Commission has not shied away from promoting managed retreat in urban areas as well.

In one such case, a Laguna Beach couple extensively remodeled a beachfront rental property without commission authorization. The commission in 2018 ruled that the improvements constituted new development and ordered the removal of a 15-year-old seawall approved for the prior, pre-Coastal Act dwelling. That likely means most or all of the house would have to be removed as well. Courts have sided with the commission, with the property owners now appealing to the state Supreme Court.

Sen. Pat Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, last year proposed a bill that would have significantly changed the Coastal Act, removing the de facto ban on protective barriers for homes built after 1976 in Orange and San Diego counties. Bates said the bill was prompted in part by a 2019 bluff collapse in Encinitas that killed three beachgoers. Faced with considerable opposition, Bates withdrew the bill and said she planned modifications.

At the time, the commission’s Christie testified to a Senate committee that seawalls would not have prevented the collapse and that no one had ever applied for fortification at that location.

“The bill is designed to make it cheaper and easier to construct seawalls, primarily for the benefit of private property owners,” she told the Natural Resources Committee.

Alternatives to seawalls

Bates plans to introduce a coastal erosion bill this year and it could include an updated version of last year’s proposal, according Bates’ spokesman Ronald Ongtoaboc.

“Discussions are still ongoing,” he said. “Sen. Bates believes the Coastal Commission’s singular preference for managed retreat rather than considering the other options for bluff protection is detrimental because it lets erosion continue unchecked.”

Bates and Farley have said that in addition to seawalls, more consideration should be given to sand replenishment, artificial reefs and other types of shoreline protections that wouldn’t cause significant beach shrinkage.

Meanwhile, two of the bills proposed this session offer alternative approaches to key problems that such protective measures are intended to address: property rights and beach safety.

One of those proposals, SB 83, by Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, would establish a low-interest, revolving loan program that would allow local governments to buy vulnerable properties and rent them out until they are not longer safe in order to recoup the purchase price.

Another, AB 66, by Assemblywoman Tasha Boerner Horvath, D-Encinitas, would appropriate $2.5 million for research on coastal landslides and for recommendations on developing an early warning system for such cliff failures.

But in the end, the debate over protective structures will probably lead to a variety of solutions, an approach that environmentalists and property owners agree is appropriate.

“This is an ongoing issue that is only likely to be resolved on a case-by-case basis as local governments and the state weigh — and ultimately decide on — different adaptation strategies,” said Sean Bothwell, executive director of the environmental California Coastkeeper Alliance.

The Surfrider Foundation’s Jennifer Savage concurred, suggesting that there might also be different standards for those, like the Laguna Beach couple, who own income property, and long-time coastal residents of unimproved, pre-Coastal Act homes.

“You don’t want people who don’t have other resources to lose their homes,” she said.

Coordinating efforts

The Coastal Commission has been working with city and county representatives to develop an adaptation approach amenable to both sides, which is a challenge at times as the commission aims to protect the natural coastline while local governments’ constituents often have a greater concern for private property.

Proposed legislation would expand on that cooperative effort, including SB 1’s call for specific recommendations for each stretch of coast, AB 11’s creation of 12 regional climate change coordinating groups, and AB 50, which would establish a Climate Adaptation Center to provide technical support to local governments wrestling with sea-level rise.

One of the bills authored by Petrie-Norris, AB 67, would require a sea-level rise to be taken into account when planning for state infrastructure along the coast. The other, AB 72, aims to streamline the regulatory process for coastal adaptation to sea-level rise.

“The reason you are seeing more bills introduced this year on this issue is the problem is getting bigger and impacting more people,” said Laura Deehan, state director of Environment California.

“The (broader) issue of climate change is moving from the theoretical scientist’s computer to the living rooms of people in California. And when it gets into your living room, you want action.”

The Link Lonk


February 06, 2021 at 04:19AM
https://ift.tt/39U7z6I

California lawmakers rush to address the effects of rising sea - OCRegister

https://ift.tt/2CoSmg4
Sea