Surfrider Foundation: Mitigation Through Surf Enhancement

APPENDIX B
History of Coastal Zone Management In California
(Page 1 of 2)

In 1931 California had a population of over 5.5 million. Between that time and 1964, the population increased to over 18 million. Such an increase in population was and is unparalleled in the nation's history. Coinciding with this population explosion was the dawning of environmental awareness in reaction to immanent threats to the environment (Downs, 1972). In response to these conditions, in 1964, California sponsored a conference on California and the world ocean. This conference resulted in the creation of a governor's Advisory Commission on Ocean Resources which operated under both the Edmund G. (Pat) Brown and Ronald Reagan administrations (Squire and Scott, 1984). Subsequent hearings produced the Marine Resources Conservation and Development Act of 1967. The goal of this act was to inspire research and guidance, it was not intended to control coastal development. The Act did charge the governor to create a comprehensive ocean management plan for which a staff was created including various key state department heads (DeGrove, 1984).

    The first major step towards direct management of California's coast occurred in 1965 when the California legislature established the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The BCDC was initially created as a temporary body mandated to begin a permitting program in the Bay area, largely in response to indiscriminate filling of the San Francisco Bay. The commission was also charged to create a development plan for the Bay area. The BCDC's comprehensive plan was presented to the legislature in 1969 and at this time the BCDC was made a permanent agency and it's permitting authority was continued (DeGrove, 1984). Although the formation of the BCDC marked the beginning of California's legislative history on coastal management and the direct control of coastal development was first established, I would argue that the most important aspect of the development of the BCDC was the citizen activism and concentrated efforts by conservation groups. These groups, most noticeably the Sierra Club, Audobon Society and PACE (People, Access, Coastal Environment) rallied around the "Save the Bay" campaign which created momentum among activists (Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1983). This wave of activism was critical to the formation of coastal legislation in California over the following 4 years and I argue this activism is still visible today as seen by the efforts of the Surfrider Foundation, among other groups.
    Although some progress toward coastal management had been made in the late 1960's, concern for the coast was elevated by a number of horror stories that again motivated concerned citizens and environmental groups. A major chain built one of its large hotels right on the Monterey Bay beach and a developer began construction of a gigantic residential tract called Sea Ranch, about 100 miles north of San Francisco, that would have blocked public access to over 10 miles of beach (DeGrove, 1984). Similar activities were occurring in Southern California and the public became worried that their right to access public beaches was being stripped away from them. Although local governments, who maintained substantial powers in the area of land use, supported these projects in the name of economic progress, the citizen's of the state did not. There was an increasing feeling by concerned citizens that local government was failing to protect and conserve the natural resources of the coast. Growing public concern about public access and conservation prompted legislative action in coastal management.
    In 1970, the California Legislature received four major coastal proposals, each would have established a state commission for land-use regulation and planned development. None of these bills could get past the republican-dominated state congress for two primary reasons. One, state intrusion into local land-use plans was vigorously opposed by many well organized and established interests groups, including: County Supervisors Association of California, the state Public Utilities Commission, real estate associations, land developers, utilities and others (Squire and Scott, 1983). These groups were organized, experienced and able to protect their interests. Second, by the same token the conservationists and environmental groups were new at the game of influencing politicians and lacked the organization to mount an effective front (Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1983).
    By 1971 things had changed significantly. The Democrats, who were sympathetic to the coastal legislation, had succeeded in winning the majority in both the House and the General Assembly in the 1970 elections. In response to these victories and the new potential for passing coastal legislation, the California Coastal Alliance was formed by Janet Adams, who had been successful in the effort to pass the BCDC. The Coastal Alliance became a key group responsible for organizing and coordinating environmental support for coastal legislation. By March 1971, a Coastal Alliance drafting team had outlined a coastal bill. The bill was supported by California assemblyman, Alan Sieroty. With a bill in the works, the Coastal Alliance mounted an intensive campaigning effort dubbed the "Save Our Coast" campaign which earned bi-partisan support both in and outside the legislature (DeGrove, 1984). The Coastal Alliance made repeated attempts to negotiate the bill with opposing groups. However the opposition, coming off a strong victory in 1970, were smug in their overconfidence and refused to negotiate any of the terms of management requirements with the Coastal Alliance. This created an adversarial atmosphere and the issue quickly became polarized between those in favor of state run coastal legislation and those opposed. With strong support of the Democratic party the bill passed the assembly with a two-thirds margin. The bill was then assigned to the Senate Natural Resources Committee where once again the bill was defeated (DeGrove, 1984). This defeat proved only to motivate the citizens and the environmentalists.
    During the time of these two defeats the environmental groups had "gotten their act together" and were by no means ready to accept defeat. By this time it was becoming clear that legislative control was maintained by a small group of business interests that were influencing the politicians. The Coastal Alliance considered the loss a temporary setback. As the Coastal Alliance and others prepared for another legislative battle in 1972 they also began discussing the idea of going directly to the California citizens in an initiative drive. Fortunately for the conservationists and other supporters of coastal protection, Article IV of the California Constitution established an initiative process that provided an alternative to the repeated vetoes in the legislature. The initiative required, (1) that a bill be drafted, (2) that the necessary signatures (5% of the state's electors) be obtained to put it on the statutory ballot, and (3) that the initiative proposition obtain approval of a majority of the electorate in a November election (Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1983). An initiative proposal was drafted and held ready to be unfolded in the face of another legislative defeat. The legislative effort of 1972 was played much the same as the drive in 1971. The bill successfully passed the house and was again defeated by the Natural Resources Committee.

table of contents

Surfrider Foundation USA:
122 S. El Camino Real #67
San Clemente, CA 92672
tel. (949) 492-8170
fax (949) 492-8142

Email addresses:
Reef issues: cnelsen@surfrider.org
Other: info@surfrider.org

See our feedback page.
Surfrider Website INDEX