19 HASTINGS WEST NORTHWEST J. ENVTL. L. & POL’Y 463 (2013) COMBATTING SEA-LEVEL RISE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: HOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN SEIZE ADAPTATION OPPORTUNITIES WHILE MINIMIZING LEGAL RISK Megan M. Herzog* and Sean B. Hecht** As the primary coastal land use decisionmakers in Southern California, local governments will make choices that will shape the region’s resilience to sea-level rise. To implement adaptation plans effectively, local governments must understand the ways law enhances their adaptive capacity by providing them with the necessary legal authority to take actions to adapt to changing sea-level conditions. Additionally, local governments must appreciate legal risks—that is, potential legal limitations on adaptation tools, as well as potential liability to private parties for harms related to the adverse effects both of adaptation actions and sea-level rise itself. This article identifies how local governments can harness legal doctrines to support aggressive, innovative strategies to achieve successful sea-level rise adaptation outcomes for Southern California while minimizing legal risk. We broadly outline likely sea-level rise impacts in Southern California, and evaluate the risks and opportunities of potential protection, accommodation, and retreat adaptation strategies that local governments could deploy. We focus primarily on four categories of legal issues that may be implicated as Southern California localities plan for the impacts of sea-level rise: 1) the California Coastal Act, 2) the public trust doctrine, 3) the constitutional takings doctrine, and 4) the California Environmental Quality Act. We divide our analysis of these legal doctrines into their potential interactions with both private development and critical municipal infrastructure like roads, power plants, and ports. Overall, we demonstrate how Southern California local governments can harness their existing regulatory authority to support aggressive sea-level rise adaptation strategies and, through proactive planning and smart decisionmaking, mitigate potential legal liabilities. I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2 II. Background: Sea-Level Rise and the California Coast ............................................................ 4 III. Planning for Sea-Level Rise in Southern California ................................................................ 7 A. Public Trust Doctrine ........................................................................................................ 12 B. Takings Doctrine ............................................................................................................... 13 C. Coastal Zoning and Permitting ......................................................................................... 16 D. The Role of Environmental Impact Assessment ............................................................... 18 IV. Private Development .............................................................................................................. 22 A. Protection .......................................................................................................................... 23 1. Hard Armoring .............................................................................................................. 23 2. Soft Armoring ............................................................................................................... 27 * UCLA Emmett/Frankel Fellow in Environmental Law and Policy, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA 90095- 1476, [email protected]. ** Executive Director, Environmental Law Center, and Director, Evan Frankel Environmental Law and Policy Program, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476, [email protected]. The authors are grateful to University of Southern California Sea Grant, and Sea Grant researchers Phyllis Grifman and Dr. Juliette Finzi Hart, for their support of this research; to Xiao Zhang for her research assistance and other contributions; to John Echeverria for his invitation to participate in this symposium; and to the editors of the Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy. 1 19 HASTINGS WEST NORTHWEST J. ENVTL. L. & POL’Y 463 (2013) B. Accommodation ................................................................................................................ 29 1. Local Coastal Programs ................................................................................................ 30 2. Permit Exactions ........................................................................................................... 32 3. Rebuilding After a Disaster .......................................................................................... 34 C. Retreat ............................................................................................................................... 35 1. Preventing Hard Armoring ........................................................................................... 37 2. Regulatory Setbacks...................................................................................................... 46 3. Permit Exactions ........................................................................................................... 49 4. Transfer of Development Rights ................................................................................... 49 V. Critical Municipal Infrastructure ............................................................................................ 51 A. Protection .......................................................................................................................... 53 1. Impacts to Private Property ........................................................................................... 55 2. Port Master Plans .......................................................................................................... 58 B. Retreat ............................................................................................................................... 61 VI. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 61 I. INTRODUCTION The world-famous shoreline that has long defined the culture of Southern California is changing. Research projects sea levels on the Southern California coast will rise five to twenty-four inches above 2000 levels by 2050.1 Rising sea levels threaten thousands of coastal residents and billions of dollars of coastal property with increased risk of flooding, storm damage, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, and wetland loss.2 The impacts of sea-level rise will be acute along the densely developed Southern California Bight, which spans from Point Conception to the Mexico border. The Southern California coastal zone includes portions of five counties (Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego) and thirty-nine municipalities.3 The region boasts two of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States, Los Angeles and San 1 NAT’L RESEARCH COUNCIL COMM. ON SEA LEVEL RISE IN CAL., ORE., & WASH., SEA-LEVEL RISE FOR THE COASTS OF CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND WASHINGTON: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE 108 (2012), available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389 [hereinafter NAT’L RESEARCH COUNCIL]. 2 See INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, CLIMATE CHANGE 2007: SYNTHESIS REPORT, CONTRIBUTION OF WORKING GROUPS I, II AND III TO THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE 48-53 (2007), available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm. 3 Although the four counties of Kern, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial are also commonly understood to be located within Southern California, these counties are not in the coastal zone and therefore are outside the scope of this article. Southern California’s thirty-nine coastal zone municipalities include (from north to south): Guadalupe, Goleta, Santa Barbara, Carpinteria, San Buenaventura (City of Ventura), Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Malibu, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Long Beach, Avalon (on Catalina Island), Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Irvine City, Laguna Beach, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, San Clemente, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, San Diego, Coronado, National City, Chula Vista, and Imperial Beach. See CAL. COASTAL COMM’N, SUMMARY OF LCP PROGRAM ACTIVITY IN FY 11-12 (2012), available at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/la/docs/lcp/FY11_12_LCPStatusSummaryChart_FINAL.pdf. The coastal counties have jurisdiction over unincorporated lands in the coastal zone. 2 19 HASTINGS WEST NORTHWEST J. ENVTL. L. & POL’Y 463 (2013) Diego,4 and the country’s two busiest seaports at Los Angeles and Long Beach.5 The coastline also supports thousands of private homes, vast amounts of public infrastructure, coastal power plants, iconic sandy beaches, piers, harbors, and wetlands. Historically, public debates over coastal access, conservation, and development in this region have been fierce,6 but preparing its urbanized coast for sea-level rise undoubtedly will be Southern California’s greatest land use challenge. Adaptation choices inevitably will result in tradeoffs between the preservation of coastal ecosystems, which