There is a growing rift between owners of real estate in threatened areas such as the California coastline and the authorities who are committed to preserving the natural beauty of our beaches, which recently found its way back into the headlines. This week in Half Moon Bay, the efforts of a group of homeowners to protect their properties from rising water were refused by the state. And the Court’s ruling could affect thousands of oceanfront properties from San Diego to the Oregon border by taking away their right to build seawalls.
The argument against seawalls is that they stop the natural inland movement of the beach. With no place for the sand to go, the water overtakes and covers it, and as the oceans rise, beaches are disappearing in areas where seawalls have been built.
Instead, the California Coastal Commission and increasing numbers of local agencies have been adopting a policy of “managed retreat”, which involves either moving homes and infrastructure that are in harm’s way to make them less susceptible to damage, or allowing these properties to be taken by the sea over time instead of being repaired.
The trouble with this policy is that real estate by definition isn’t movable, so when seawalls aren’t allowed it only leaves for owners of oceanfront properties to watch their homes deteriorate without being able to do anything about it, and often without any insurance to cover the loss. When you consider that sea level rise has been measured at 7-8 inches over the last century and is being estimated could rise another 66 inches by the end of this century, it paints a grim picture for coastal properties, which tend to be the most expensive in the area. But the impact of this attrition isn’t just on the rich property owners.
On the Westside, coastal erosion has started to interrupt the traffic patterns on West Cliff Drive. And in Pleasure Point, the largest seawall along East Cliff helps protect not only the coastal access for the public, but also the sewer line that serves the homes and businesses stretching inland back to Portola. In areas like these, the property rights of the individuals who own homes along the water have started to align more with the interests of the surrounding community, and when faced with the prospect of losing their infrastructure and access to the beach, people tend to want to do something to protect it.
When you add up the increasing restrictions on rights to protect against nature’s progress along with the spiraling costs of insurance for properties that enjoy the closest contact with the wonders of our forests and coastline, it could be that we end up only being able to afford to own real estate in an increasingly tiny swath where the government will still allow us to maintain our properties without having to fight mother nature, and where the insurance companies have determined that the risk of fire, erosion or flooding is minimal enough that they will continue to provide coverage.
I like to think better solutions will be forged on both a global and local level to help trend towards a brighter future for the properties and infrastructure along our coastline. But in the meantime, I suggest we enjoy these places where we get to live for all their worth.
