Because I live at the beach in a large condo project, I have LOTS of concerns about rising ocean. I live in North Coast Village (NCV), a 550 unit complex on the beach next to the mouth of the San Luis Rey River in Oceanside CA. The ocean has already risen an inch or so, and we can see how much damage it does to our beachfront homes during the winter storms. As you know, the ocean is expected to continue to rise. The warmer ocean is contributing to some of the cyclones/hurricanes that typically hit Baja California to move a little further North. I believe meteorologists predictions that it is only a matter of time until those storms start hitting San Diego. When we have storms during high tides, the waves wash up to the cottage doors. If we have a hurricane -- or even the fringe winds from a hurricane, NCV could end up with an expensive disaster on our hands. I believe many other beachfront homeowners will have similar problems. It is so nice most of the time at the beach, that most people are willing to take chances on those random storms. The East Coast homes and cities on barrier islands is an even more glaring example.
I don't agree with the "managed retreat" solution. Geologists say that 90-95% of the sand on our beach came from upstream during normal river flowing and periodic flooding. The remainder came from shoreline erosion. We have dammed up most of the rivers, and we're pumping groundwater (for example upstream on San Luis Rey River) such that almost no river water reaches the ocean. (The mouth of the San Luis Rey River has not opened for over 3 years because of drought combined with enhanced percolation due to groundwater pumping). Why should the beachfront residents now be "taxed" to pay for all of the sand replenishment by giving up their land?
The managed retreat philosophy is being loudly argued by a small but vocal minority of members of the Surfrider Foundation, and the Sierra Club. I used to be a member, and supported most of their causes. No longer because I think they have clearly gone "off the track" on beachfront issues. Their policy and statements seem to say that beachfront owners are all unfairly wealthier than the general public, and can afford to give up their land to erosion to help the general public. I believe that by not allowing owners to protect their property, it is the equivalent of Government "illegal taking" (see this document) as determined in the June 2015 US Supreme Court decision: Koontz vs St.John's Water District If those same advocates lived along a river that flooded, I'm sure they would expect to be permitted to build levees to protect their home. If they lived in an area of fire danger, they would think it permissible to clear an area of forest near their home to protect from fires. Somehow they think that beachfront owners aren't worthy of the same rights to protect their property. Mortgage lenders and insurance companies must have similar concerns about their rights.
In 1972, California voters approved Proposition 20 which started the process that created the current California Coastal Commission with the Coastal Act of 1976. Peter Douglas pushed for Proposition 20, and then led the unmanageable group of politicians who created the Coastal Act. He then led the Coastal Commission almost until his death in April 2012. I had just moved to California in 1972, but I agreed with the main premise of Prop 20 and the Coastal Act: Waterfront access for all citizens. Many waterfront owners had gone to great lengths to make the beach in front of their homes inaccessible to everyone but themselves. The clarion call for the legislation was to open up that access by using eminent domain to purchase rights-of-way to gain access to those "privatized" beaches. Peter Douglas also slipped into the proposition and Coastal Act some other requirements, such as protection of endangered species, accessibility for "less affluent" citizens, and protection of the "beauty" of the coast. The Coastal Commission was provided funds for their army of lawyers, but no funds for actually buying access rights. So the army of lawyers, very creatively, responded by using a form of "extortion" to gain land and beach access. Any time any beachfront owner wanted to make any change to their property, they needed a permit. In order to get a permit, the owner had to give up as much land or other rights as the Commission could squeeze out of them. For example, Murphy and Pruitt, the North Coast Village developers were "treated" to the commission's extortion. The developers had won their California Supreme Court case confirming that since their construction started prior to passage of Proposition 20, the NCV apartment building was legal. However,a few years later, when the developer was forced to convert to Co-Op, the Commission made him give up most of his land, agree to lateral access (a boardwalk option), buy land along the railroad tracks, pave it and turn it over to the city for parking lot, and build a large low-income housing project. Those terms pushed the developers into bankruptcy.
Now the Commission has resolved most of the beach access issues in the state. The relatively idle army of lawyers are busy working those "lower level" goals -- environmental protection, endangered species protection, beachfront housing for less affluent people, and protecting the recreational value and beauty of the coastline. They interpret that as preventing riprap sea walls (like ours at NCV which they think is ugly) and, of course, managed retreat.
I think the correct policy for all coastal states is to encourage owners --maybe with tax credits -- to build improved walls for protection. The Federal Governemt, should establish nationwide standards for design and construction and encourage neighbors to connect to each other to provide linkage and protection for everyone else inland. Waterfront owners will certainly come up with money necessary to protect their property--but the Government bureaucracy needs to step out of the way.
I believe that NCV eventually will have to build a new, modern seawall -- but maybe can hold off for 10 or 15 years. It is estimated now to cost in the $1.5 million range.
Steve
No comments:
Post a Comment