Big money and more intense planning to adapt to sea level rise may be on the way.
At least 17 bills are pending in the state Legislature that address the inevitable reconfiguration of the California coast by the growing Pacific Ocean. Many other measures deal more broadly with climate change, which is causing seas to rise around the world.
The marquee legislation, Senate Bill 1, seeks to provide $100 million annually for grants to coastal communities. SB 1, authored by Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins of San Diego, has a strong carrot provision.
“Local governments that have agreed most effectively and urgently to plan for and implement actions to address sea level rise shall have priority for the grants,” according to a Senate staff analysis of the bill.
The grant money would come from a $5.5 billion bond measure proposed in separate legislation (SB 45) to address climate change.
Officially known as the California Sea Level Rise Mitigation and Adaptation Act of 2021, Atkins’ bill also would create a new government entity and change policies to put sea level rise at the heart of coastal planning and actions at the local, regional and state level.
The staff report says there are three primary options to deal with sea level rise: build barriers for protection, adapt to accommodate regular and periodic flooding, and move facilities, buildings and infrastructure away from the immediate coast.
All of that can be difficult, costly and politically charged — particularly the latter when it comes to private property.
Collectively, the sea level rise bills, and the local planning financed by them, are likely to result in restricting coastal development, possibly to the point of banning construction on low-lying land certain to flood and eroding bluffs.
Think of the many disputes over whether to allow crumbling seawalls to be rebuilt, and then think of that on a scale like never before.
Governments at all levels must walk a legal tightrope regarding infringement on property rights. Even broaching the idea of “managed retreat” — the methodical moving of population and structures away from threatened areas — has been met with angry resistance up and down the California coast.
State and local officials mostly have focused on how to adapt or move public infrastructure, while urging private property owners to consider the alternative if they do not plan for the inevitable.
“Countless lives and businesses, from Crescent City in the North to Imperial Beach in the South, could be upended if California does not take action,” Atkins said in a statement.
Coastal erosion, sea level rise and climate change — concerns for years in San Diego County — have come into intense focus with the most recent Del Mar bluff collapse, which again has threatened the passenger and cargo rail line along the coast.
The SB 1 analysis mentions that incident, the 20-year effort to shore up the bluffs, and the expectation that building a tunnel for the tracks a bit inland could take a decade or so and cost billions of dollars.
Other big problems and changes up the coast along California’s iconic Highway 1 are also noted. A short stretch near Gleason Beach in Sonoma County was moved inland after a 15-year effort “and several homes were lost.” Moving another portion of the highway near Hearst Castle also took about 15 years for planning and approvals and cost $60 million.
In Pacifica, coastal erosion resulted in the city buying out bluff-top homes and apartment buildings.
Assembly member Tasha Boerner Horvath, D-Encinitas, has introduced Assembly Bill 66 that would provide $2.5 million in state funding to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography to research coastal bluff erosion and collapses, with the goal of developing an early warning system when a beachside cliff is about tumble.
The Atkins bill is making its way through the state Senate, and was passed by the Committee on Natural Resources and Water on March 16.
In addition to providing hundreds of millions of dollars for local planning and investment, SB 1 would fund community outreach and education for “disadvantaged communities along the coast.”
The measure also would direct the California Coastal Commission to take sea level rise into account regarding planning, development and mitigation efforts. The panel has been doing that for a while.
“The Coastal Commission does already deal with sea level rise. Every single meeting, almost every single item,” Commissioner Sara Aminzadeh told the Santa Cruz Sentinel. “But this bill would modernize the Coastal Act by calling sea level rise by its name, reaffirming the commission’s mandate to protect the coast and probably most importantly, committing the resources necessary to help local governments plan for future sea level rise.”
The bill calls for the creation of the California Sea Level Rise State and Regional Support Collaborative. This would include members of the governor’s Cabinet and appointees selected by the Assembly speaker and Senate Rules Committee, which is chaired by Atkins.
The bill’s analysis raises a red flag about creating a new cross-agency state panel, however. The issues the collaborative would deal with already are being addressed by various state agencies. The existing Ocean Protection Council coordinates coastal policy and includes some of the same officials who would be in the collaborative.
“It is not clear that a new collaborative would necessarily provide better coordination and consistency across all of the state entities already working in this space,” the analysis says.
The report recommends folding the proposed collaborative into the council.
Those bureaucratic concerns aside, the Atkins bill, if approved, will make sea level rise a top state priority within the broader effort to address climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
“A recent study by the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that California could experience up to seven feet of sea level rise in less than 80 years. But even half that amount of sea level rise would put San Diego at risk of major economic damage,” Atkins said in a column published by the Times of San Diego.
The Coast and Ocean Report of the state’s Fourth Climate Assessment, according to the SB 1 analysis, suggests the future choice “is not between spending for adaption or not spending, but it is between spending a great deal for adaptation and an unimaginably large amount.”
In other words, start paying now, or pay much, much more later.
Tweets of the Week
Goes to Margaret Sullivan (@Sulliview), Washington Post media columnist.
Before: “Biden’s first news conference Thursday is a big test for him. But it’s a bigger test for White House reporters...”
After: “Not one question about the pandemic. Almost all immigration. Plus ... Re-election plans? Running mate?”
March 28, 2021 at 07:00PM
https://ift.tt/3rthjKz
Column: Sacramento leans into sea level rise - The San Diego Union-Tribune
https://ift.tt/2CoSmg4
Sea
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/CZF6NULMVVMEXHOP7JK5BSPQUM.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment