Coastal Commission’s Nonsensical “Managed Retreat” Policy Thwarts State’s Larger Goals

by Wendy Bucknum & Dan Kalmick

The California Coastal Commission’s recent decision to reject the Poseidon Desalination Plant, a proposed water project in Huntington Beach, was in part due to concerns about sea level rise.

Those concerns are valid; according to NASA, the sea rises by an additional .13 inches every year.

But the Coastal Commission’s apparent approach – embracing “managed retreat,” or essentially moving people and development from and denying permits in areas with a risk of flooding in the next 25-100 years (a timeframe sometimes exceeding the life of the project itself) – is dangerous and short-sighted on numerous fronts.

The Commission’s approach prioritizes managed retreat as the single most pressing risk our state faces. While state policymakers required the Commission to “identify, assess, and, to the extent feasible and consistent with their statutory authorities, avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts of sea level rise,” they did not grant Commissioners omnipotent power. And policymakers did not mandate that the Commission’s authority should be wielded like a hammer on coastal development and the people that live and work there.

California is a beautiful state, but one where nature does presents substantial risks. To mitigate those risks, the state spends considerable tax dollars creating fire breaks in wildfire areas and mandating bracing and bolting homes and businesses in earthquake-susceptible regions. Just as building in fire and earthquake prone areas can be engineered and threats mitigated (see the state’s recent efforts to help rebuild the Northern California town of Paradise after the devasting 2018 Camp Fire), building in the coastal zone can also be safely engineered rather than needlessly prohibited.

The state does not stop development or require houses and businesses in those regions to “retreat” in fire or earthquake prone areas and the Coastal Commission should follow the same policy when it comes to the coastal zone.

If managed retreat becomes a de facto policy decision, it will completely eclipse the State’s other pressing policy priorities. California is mired in a housing crisis that is decades in the making. Governor Newson, a tireless advocate for affordable housing, said at a recent press conference described homelessness as “the one, two, three, and four issue in our state.”

New housing projects or densification has already been denied in communities up and down California’s coast. Communities are trying to meet the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s housing goals as outlined in the recent Statewide Housing Plan released in March but finding themselves in direct conflict with the California Coastal Commission’s Sea level rise policy.

The state’s plan calls for 2.5 million new homes to be built in California over the course of the next eight years. Not only do these conflicting policies make achieving that goal an extremely difficult task, but they also result in increased housing prices, limited supply, and a devastating impact on local economies.

A policy of managed retreat is also harmful for residents who do not currently live along the coast. Relocating residents would be an enormous cost for all California taxpayers, especially those who can, in fact, afford it the most. The inequity of relocating wealthy coastal residents in multimillion dollar homes would be poor public policy.

Members of the California Coastal Commission are to be commended for protecting our coastline and ocean, but they must be mindful that their job is to protect both present and future generations.

Managed retreat cannot be used as a default policy to stop all development, especially when that development offers tangible benefit for Californians, including increased housing supply at a time when inventory is low, and costs are skyrocketing.

Instead, the Commission should harness the tremendous resources of our state, universities, private companies, and residents to develop solutions that minimize risk from climate change and natural disasters, protect coastal economies, and allow the state to address the desperate need for more housing and infrastructure.

Wendy Bucknum is the current Mayor of Mission Viejo and OCCOG Chair, SCAG District 13
Dan Kalmick is a city council member in Huntington Beach