In the early 1970s, California voters recognized a grave threat to the California coastline with large coastal developments popping up, closing off swaths of beautiful coastline to the public and harming coastal resources. Californians acted in 1972 to pass the precursor to the Coastal Act, Proposition 20, to ensure the protection of the California coast as a public resource for this and future generations. Four years later the California Coastal Act was passed by the state legislature and codified the state coastal management program, which put a heavy emphasis on protecting against shoreline armoring. In fact, it called for no shoreline armoring (or seawalls) to be used to protect new structures.
Surfrider Foundation is staunchly opposed to hardened armoring of our natural coastline because hardened shoreline structures, like seawalls, cause beaches significant damage and are usually put in place to protect one or few private properties to the detriment of the public beach. Seawalls and other hardened coastal armoring fix the back of the beach in one place, rather than allow for dynamic shoreline processes and natural erosion. As sea levels rise, this creates narrower beaches and eventually destroys the sandy beaches enjoyed by public beachgoers.
There is now a case in the California court system that will interpret key provisions of the California Coastal Act, which includes coastal protection provisions discouraging shoreline armoring. The case will opine on whether to allow for seawalls to protect any structure on the beach or only those built before the Coastal Act’s inception. As news outlets report, this case could well reshape the California coast. This key court case revolves around a townhome complex two miles north of downtown Half Moon Bay, adjacent to Miramar Beach. In 2016 and 2017, the complex owners obtained two emergency permits from the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) to put riprap on the beachfront side of the development due to concern of severe storms and continued bluff collapse. The property owners later came to the CCC in July 2019 seeking a permit to construct a 250 foot tied-back concrete seawall to replace the rip rap. This proposed seawall would reportedly also protect a smaller pre-existing property at 2 Mirada, a portion of the California Coastal Trail, and a sewer line.
Surfrider Foundation testified at the relevant July 2019 Coastal Commission hearing to oppose the terrible precedent of allowing shoreline armoring. Surfrider argued that the Coastal Trail is not a coastal-dependent use, but can be relocated slightly inland and therefore is not entitled to shoreline armoring. The Coastal Commissioners agreed and only allowed the portion of the seawall that protects the property at 2 Mirada (constructed in 1972) and not the extended seawall to protect the post-Coastal Act sewage line, 10-unit Condominium Building (constructed in 1984) and Coastal Trail.
Rapid shoreline armoring of the California coast in the face of sea level rise would be extremely detrimental to the coast and Californians who enjoy and rely on it. Beaches, wetlands and other coastal habitats backed by fixed development would not be allowed to migrate inland as water levels rise and will become permanently inundated over time. The California Coastal Act is designed to protect against this destruction of coastal recreational resources, accessibility and ecosystems that are integral to the California coast. Among the harms brought about by seawalls are the reduction of beach access to and along California beaches, degradation of natural shoreline, potential to produce rubble (making swimming and ocean recreation more dangerous), and creation of a false sense of security that promotes increased development in fragile coastal areas.
The legal issue in this case is one of statutory interpretation of the term “existing” in Coastal Act Section 30235, stating seawalls “shall be permitted when required to…protect existing structures.” The “existing structures” designation should only apply to pre-Coastal Act existing structures, or those that were erected before the date of Coastal Act implementation: January 1, 1977. This interpretation is not only what the drafters of the California Coastal Act intended but is the only way to prevent the rampant coastal armoring of California’s shoreline that would result if any and every building along the coast, whether built in 1923 or 2023, were entitled to coastal armoring under the law.
Opening the floodgates to coastal armoring would be disastrous, particularly at a time when regulators and planners need to be nimble and creative in addressing sea level rise and coastal protection. Recognizing this in their investigation of sea level rise and coastal protection, the California Coastal Commission has made the prohibition on armoring for post-1977 structures explicit, especially since publishing their Sea Level Rise Guidance document in 2015. The Commission has long interpreted the Act in this way: per a December CCC staff report, “[s]ince 2000, as the issue has become increasingly contentious, with a few exceptions, the Commission has not found that a structure built after 1977 qualifies as an ‘existing structure’ for purposes of Section 30235. Rather, it has been increasingly consistent in finding that ‘existing structures’ as the phrase is used in Section 30235 refers to structures that were legally in existence as of January 1, 1977, the effective date of the Coastal Act.”
In addition, Section 30235 should be read in a manner that comports with the remainder of the California Coastal Act, including Section 30253 requiring that “new development shall…neither create nor contribute to erosion…or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.” Furthermore, the access and resource protection policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act mandate protection of public access and recreation along the coast, coastal habitats, and other sensitive resources, as well as minimization of risks from coastal hazards.
Except for the pre-1977 structures explicitly protected by Section 30235, every pertinent Coastal Act policy militates against armoring the coast. Consider the impacts of a seawall: it reduces, and in most cases eventually will eliminate public access; it similarly constrains and will eventually eliminate most forms of public recreation; it has significant impacts upon marine resources; it degrades the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal area; and it causes a permanent alteration of the natural land forms of the area. Given these multiple potential impacts to resources protected by Sections 30210 (Public Access), 30220 (Recreation), 30230 (Sensitive Habitat), and 30251 (Scenic and Visual), it is understandable that the Legislature in section 30253(c) required that new development not require the construction of these harmful protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms. Additionally, seawalls are inequitable, as they provide benefit only to the individual property owner behind the wall at the expense of the general public and the ecosystem.
Surfrider Foundation is committed to ensuring the court correctly interprets the Coastal Act’s resource protection provisions, particularly in light of the importance of this precedent in shaping the California coast and allowing access to precious coastal resources.
Header photo credit: U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") https://storms.ngs.noaa.gov/storms/2023_california/index.html#17.8/37.492963/-122.459433 using OpenMapTiles.org.