Preparing for Rising Seas: How the State Can Help Support Local Coastal Adaptation Efforts

analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Preparing for Rising Seas: How the State Can Help Support Local Coastal Adaptation Efforts GABRIEL PETEK LEGISLATIVE ANALYST DECEMBER 2019 www.lao.ca.gov i analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Cover Photo: The cover image of high tides along the Embarcadero in San Francisco was taken by Dave Rauenbuehler, @daver6 via Flickr. ii LLEEGGIISSLLAATTIIVVEE AANNAALLYYSSTT’’SS OOFFFFIICCEE analysis full gutter AANN LLAAOO RREEPPOORRTT Table of Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 California Faces Threat of Rising Seas and Tides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Coastal Adaptation Activities Can Help Lessen SLR Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Local Responses to SLR Will Be Key to Statewide Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 California Is in Beginning Stages of Preparing for Sea-Level Rise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Strong Case Exists for Local Governments to Accelerate Adaptation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Local Adaptation Efforts Face Key Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 State Can Help Expedite Local SLR Adaptation Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Recommendations for Legislative Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Funding Options for Implementing Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 wwwwww..llaaoo..ccaa..ggoovv iii analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT iv LLEEGGIISSLLAATTIIVVEE AANNAALLYYSSTT’’SS OOFFFFIICCEE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Executive Summary Important for Coastal Communities to Begin Preparing for Sea-Level Rise (SLR) California Faces the Threat of Extensive and Expensive SLR Impacts. California’s coast could experience SLR ranging from about half of 1 foot by 2030 up to about 7 feet by 2100. Periodic events like storms and high tides will produce even higher water levels and increase the risk of flooding. Rising seas will also erode coastal cliffs, dunes, and beaches which will affect shorefront structures and recreation. Most Responsibility for SLR Preparation Lies With Local Governments, However, the State Has a Vested Interest in Ensuring the Coast Is Prepared. Most of the development along the coast is owned by either private entities or local governments—not the state. Additionally, most land use policies and decisions are made by local governments, and they are most knowledgeable about their communities. Local governments will need to grapple with which existing infrastructure, properties, and natural resources to try to protect from the rising tides; which to modify or move; and which may be unavoidably affected. However, given the statewide risks, the state can play an important role in encouraging and supporting local efforts and helping to alleviate some of the challenges local governments face. Many Coastal Communities Are Only in the Early Stages of Preparing for SLR. The progress of SLR preparation across the state’s coastal communities has been slow. Moreover, few coastal communities have yet begun implementing projects to respond to the threat of rising seas. Coastal communities must increase both the extent and pace of SLR preparation efforts if California is to avoid the most severe, costly, and disruptive impacts in the coming decades. Delaying SLR Preparations Will Result in Lost Opportunities and Higher Costs. Planning ahead means adaptation actions can be strategic and phased, helps “buy time” before more extreme responses are needed, provides opportunities to test approaches and learn what works best, and may make overall adaptation efforts more affordable and improve their odds for success. The next decade represents a crucial time period for taking action to prepare for SLR. Local Adaptation Efforts Face Several Key Challenges Funding Constraints Hinder Both Planning and Projects. Local governments cite funding limitations as their primary barrier to making progress on coastal adaptation efforts. Limited Local Government Capacity Restricts Their Ability to Take Action. The novelty of the climate adaptation field makes it hard for local governments to locate and hire individuals with appropriate experience and expertise. Adaptation Activities Are Constrained by a Lack of Key Information. Local governments cite a need for additional data and technical assistance to help inform their adaptation decisions. Few Forums for Shared Planning and Decision-Making Impede Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration. Even though the interrelated effects of SLR make cross-jurisdictional planning essential, local governments lack formal and strategic ways to learn from each other or make decisions together about coastal adaptation issues. www.lao.ca.gov 1 analysis full gutter Responding to SLR Is Not Yet a Priority for Many Local Residents or Elected Officials. Because many California residents are not yet aware of how and when SLR might affect their communities, coastal adaptation actions are not a high priority for them to request from their local governments. Protracted Process for Attaining Project Permits Delays Adaptation Progress. Achieving regulatory approval for coastal adaptation projects is complicated and takes a long time. LAO Recommendations for Supporting Local Adaptation Efforts While our recommendations represent incremental steps that will not be sufficient to address all the anticipated impacts of SLR, they represent prerequisites along the path to more robust statewide preparation. Foster Regional-Scale Adaptation • Establish and assist regional climate adaptation collaborative groups to plan together and learn from each other regarding how to respond to the effects of climate change. • Encourage development of regional coastal adaptation plans to address key risks that SLR poses to the region, as well as strategies the region will take to address them. • Support implementation of regional adaptation efforts by contributing funding towards construction of projects identified in regional plans. Support Local Planning and Adaptation Projects • Increase assistance for cities and counties to conduct vulnerability assessments, adaptation plans, and detailed plans for specific projects. • Support coastal adaptation projects with widespread benefits such as those that pilot new techniques, protect public resources, reduce damage to critical infrastructure, or address the needs of vulnerable communities. • Facilitate post-construction monitoring of state-funded demonstration projects to learn more about which adaptation strategies are effective. Provide Information, Assistance, and Support • Establish the California Climate Adaptation Center and Regional Support Network to provide technical support and information to local governments on adapting to climate change impacts. • Develop a standardized methodology and template that local governments can use to conduct economic analyses of SLR risks and adaptation strategies. • Direct the California Natural Resources Agency to review and report back regarding how regulatory permitting processes can be made more efficient. Enhance Public Awareness of SLR Risks and Impacts • Require coastal flooding disclosures for real estate transactions to spread public awareness about SLR and allow Californians to make informed decisions about the risks of purchasing certain coastal properties. • Require that state-funded adaptation plans and projects include robust public engagement efforts to help develop societal awareness about SLR, build acceptance for adaptation steps, and ensure the needs of vulnerable communities are addressed. • Direct state departments to conduct a public awareness campaign about the threats posed by SLR to develop public engagement in and urgency for taking action. 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION State’s Climate Change Response Will risk presented by SLR is an issue of statewide Require Both Mitigation and Adaptation. In importance, most of the work to prepare for and recent years, California has taken steps to limit respond to these changes has to take place at the the effects of climate change by enacting policies local level. This is because most of the development and programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse along the coast is owned by either private entities or gases. While these efforts—if combined with similar local governments—not the state. Additionally, most global initiatives—ultimately may constrain the land use policies and decisions are made by local total amount of warming the planet experiences, governments, and they are most knowledgeable scientists are conclusive that some degree of about the needs and specific circumstances facing climate change already is inevitable. The changing their communities. However, the state can play climate will have several consequential effects an important role in encouraging and supporting on California over the coming decades. Indeed, local efforts and helping to alleviate some of the such impacts have already begun. In recent years, challenges that local governments face in preparing the state experienced a severe drought, multiple for SLR. Given the importance of protecting the serious wildfires, and periods of record-breaking state’s residents, economy, and natural resources heat, all of which scientists suggest likely are from considerable damages, this report focuses on harbingers of future conditions. In addition to how the Legislature can help support and expedite these more episodic events, science has shown progress in preparing for rising seas at the local that the changing climate will result in a gradual level. (While the state will also need to take action and permanent rise in global sea levels. Given the to prepare for potential impacts to assets for which significant natural resources, public infrastructure, it has primary responsibility—like coastal highways housing, and commerce located along California’s and state parks—consideration of those steps is 840 miles of coastline, the certainty of rising seas outside the scope of this report.) This focus and poses a serious and costly threat. As such, in the our recommendations represent a continuation coming years the state will need to broaden its of the state’s long-standing role in facilitating and focus from efforts to mitigate the effects of climate incentivizing implementation of state objectives at change to also undertake initiatives centered on the local level. While adopting our recommended how communities can adapt to the approaching actions will not be sufficient to address all the impacts. projected impacts of SLR, they represent important Report Responds to Increasing Legislative incremental steps towards greater preparation Interest in Climate Adaptation. This report across the state. responds to increasing legislative interest in Findings Informed by Extensive Interviews determining how the state can best prepare for and Research. The findings and recommendations the impacts of climate change, including sea-level presented in this report are informed by interviews rise (SLR). In recent years, the Legislature we conducted with over 100 individuals. These has held several hearings on SLR and coastal interviewees represented local governments adaptation, formed two related select committees, from across the state, academic researchers, and deliberated multiple legislative proposals on community groups, nongovernmental organizations, these topics. In addition, the Governor and some federal agencies, and state departments. We also legislative members have indicated interest in placing reviewed relevant reports and academic literature, a new general obligation bond on the 2020 ballot for including several statewide surveys conducted on voter approval that would provide funding for climate the topics of coastal adaptation, climate change adaptation activities. preparation, and local government planning. The Report Focuses on How State Can Support resources we reference within the report are listed in Local Coastal Adaptation Efforts. Although the the “Appendix.” www.lao.ca.gov 3 CALIFORNIA FACES THREAT OF RISING SEAS AND TIDES Coast Will Experience Encroaching Seas chance of occurring). The top end reflects the in Coming Decades. Climate scientists have upper bound of a higher risk and more impactful developed a consensus that one of the effects scenario (with a projected 1-in-200 chance of of a warming planet is that global sea levels will occurring). As shown, the range between these rise. The degree and timing of SLR, however, is scenarios is greater in 2100, reflecting the still uncertain, and depends in part, upon whether increased level of uncertainty about the degree of global greenhouse gas emissions and temperatures climate change impacts the planet will experience continue to increase. Figure 1 displays recent further in the future. scientific guidance compiled by the state for how Figure 2 displays a detailed map of how current sea levels may rise in various coastal areas of SLR projections translate into potential flooding in California in the coming decades. As shown, the the San Francisco (SF) Bay Area. The map shows magnitude of SLR is projected to be about half of flooding projected to occur with 2 feet of SLR 1 foot in 2030 and as much as 7 feet by 2100. The combined with a ten-year storm surge (that is, the estimates shown in the figure represent the range temporary flood effects from a storm that has a between how sea levels might rise across the state one-in-ten likelihood of occurring in a given year). under two different climate change scenarios. The This combination of events would result in a total bottom end of the range reflects the lower bound water level of over 4 feet. As shown, under this of a “likely” scenario (with a projected 66 percent scenario—and given existing shoreline protections and conditions—many portions Figure 1 of the SF Bay shoreline would become inundated. For example, Range of Sea-Level Rise as highlighted in the map, this Projections for the California Coasta would result in severe flooding for Foster City, the Oakland 8 International Airport, and the 7 toll plaza for the SF Bay Bridge in Oakland. This combination of 6 SLR and storm is well within the 5 range of possibilities that could occur within the next 50 years. 4 Combining a significantly high-tide 3 event with SLR would result in even more severe flooding across 2 the region than that shown in this 1 map. Storms and Future Climate Impacts Could Raise Water 2030 2050 2100 Levels Further. Although they would have substantial impacts, a Estimates represent the range between "likely" scenarios with a 66 percent chance of occurring and scenarios with a 1-in-200 chance of occurring. Range does not include estimates associated with "extreme" scenarios the SLR scenarios displayed incorporating the effects of potential ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which are significantly higher. in Figure 1 likely understate From the State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document published by the California Natural Resources the increase in water levels Agency and the California Ocean Protection Council. that coastal communities will actually experience in the 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE teeF nI analysis full gutter Crescent City 7.1 6.96.9 6.7 San Francisco Monterey 5.9 Los Angeles San Diego 1.91.91.8 2.0 2.4 2.32.1 2.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0 0 . . 5 8 0 0 . . 5 8 0 0 . . 5 7 0 0 . . 9 6 0.7 1.11.11.01.2 0.3 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Figure 2 Potential Impacts of Sea-Level Rise (SLR) and Flooding in the San Francisco Bay Area Predicted Shoreline Flooding With 2 Feet of SLR and a Ten-Year Storm Surgea Fairfield Vallejo Pittsburgh San Rafael SF Bay Bridge Oakland Richmond Toll Plaza Mill Valley Alameda Berkeley Oakland Oakland International San Francisco Airport 12+ Feet Hayward South San Francisco San Bruno 0 - 2 Feet Fremont Foster City San Mateo Palo Alto Milpitas a A ten-year storm surge represents the temporary flood effects from a storm that has a one-in-ten likelihood of occuring in a given year. Map courtesy of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Adapting to Rising Tides Bay Shoreline Flood Explorer. SF = San Francisco www.lao.ca.gov 5 analysis full gutter coming decades. This is because climate change completely eroded by the year 2100. Such a loss is projected to contribute to more frequent and would impact not only Californians’ access to extreme storms, and the estimates shown in and enjoyment of key public resources, but also Figure 1 do not incorporate potential increases in beach-dependent local economies. While no sea levels caused by storm surges, exceptionally entity has completed a comprehensive economic high “king tides,” or El Niño events. These periodic assessment of beach-related recreation across events could produce notably higher water levels the state, a 2016 report by the Center for the than SLR alone. Moreover, the data displayed Blue Economy estimated that California’s ocean in the figure do not include significantly higher economy—including tourism, recreation, and estimates associated with “extreme” scenarios that marine transportation—is valued at over $44 billion incorporate the effects of potential ice loss from the per year. West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The likelihood of these SLR Impacts Could Have Fiscal Implications severe scenarios occurring is still uncertain, but at Both Local and State Levels. The potential possible. If there is considerable loss in the polar impacts of SLR also could have negative impacts ice sheets, scientists estimate that San Francisco on the economy and tax base—both locally and could experience over 10 feet of SLR by 2100. statewide—if significant damage occurs to certain SLR Impacts Have Potential to Be Extensive key coastal infrastructure and other assets. These and Expensive. The potential changes in sea levels include ports, airports, railway lines, beaches and and coastal storms will impact both human and parks used for recreation, and high-technology natural resources along the coast. These events companies located along the SF Bay. Furthermore, will increase the risk of flooding and inundation if property values fall considerably from the of buildings, infrastructure, wetlands, and increased risk and frequency of coastal flooding, groundwater basins. A 2015 economic assessment over time this will affect the annual revenues upon by the Risky Business Project estimated that if which those local governments depend. To the current global greenhouse gas emission trends degree local property tax revenues drop, this also continue, between $8 billion and $10 billion could affect the state budget because the California of existing property in California is likely to be Constitution requires that losses in certain local underwater by 2050, with an additional $6 billion property tax revenues used to support local schools to $10 billion at risk during high tide. A recent be backfilled by the state’s General Fund. study by researchers from the U.S. Geological SLR Threatens Vulnerable Populations. Not Survey (USGS) estimates that by 2100, roughly all of the assets threatened by SLR are expensive 6 feet of SLR and recurring annual storms could homes and affluent communities. In contrast, many impact over 480,000 California residents (based communities with more vulnerable populations on 2010 census data) and $119 billion in property also face the risk of more frequent flooding. Such value (in 2010 dollars). When adding the potential populations include renters (who are less able impacts of a 100-year storm, these estimates to prepare their residences for flood events), increase to 600,000 people and over $150 billion of individuals not proficient in English (who may not be property value. able to access critical information about potential Rising seas will also erode coastal cliffs, dunes, SLR impacts), residents with no vehicle (who may and beaches—affecting shorefront infrastructure, find it more difficult to evacuate), and residents houses, businesses, and recreation. The state’s with lower incomes (who have fewer resources Safeguarding California Plan cites that for every upon which to rely to prepare for, respond to, and foot of SLR, 50 to 100 feet of beach width could recover from flood events). For example, a 2012 be lost. Moreover, a recent scientific study by study conducted by the SF Bay Conservation and USGS researchers predicted that under scenarios Development Commission’s (BCDC) Adapting of 3 to 6 feet of SLR—and absent actions to to Rising Tides Project found that SF Bay Area mitigate such impacts—up to two-thirds of locations at risk of inundation from SLR included Southern California beaches may become more than 9,000 renter-occupied households, 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT over 2,500 linguistically isolated households, 15,500 individuals living in households earning less over 2,000 households with no vehicle, and over than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. COASTAL ADAPTATION ACTIVITIES CAN HELP LESSEN SLR IMPACTS While the estimates cited above highlight the balancing other—and sometimes competing—land potential damages, costs, and disruption that use objectives. As we discuss in the box on SLR could cause, strategies for moderating such page 9, SLR presents particular challenges for impacts exist. coastal jurisdictions—and the state—seeking to Three Primary Options Exist for Adapting expand the supply of housing units. to SLR. The state, coastal communities, and Undertaking Coastal Adaptation Activities private property owners essentially have three Likely Less Costly Than Avoiding Action. categories of strategies for responding to the The types of adaptation efforts described in threat that SLR poses to assets such as buildings, Figure 3 can not only help mitigate disruptive SLR other infrastructure, beaches, and wetlands. As impacts, in many cases they also make sense from shown in Figure 3 (on page 8), they can (1) build a fiscal perspective. That is, while such activities hard or soft barriers to try to stop or buffer the might require up-front investments, the costs of encroaching water and protect the assets from failing to adequately prepare for the impacts of flooding, (2) modify the assets so that they can SLR likely would cost even more. Recent research accommodate regular or periodic flooding, or found a strong benefit-to-cost ratio for undertaking (3) relocate assets from the potential flood zone mitigation projects ahead of disasters compared by moving them to higher ground or further inland. to spending on disaster response and recovery. Each of these options comes with trade-offs, as Specifically, a Federal Emergency Management discussed in the figure, and not all strategies will Agency (FEMA)-sponsored study by the National work in every situation. Communities and residents Institute of Building Sciences found that for every are understandably reluctant to relocate existing $1 the federal government invested in various properties, as this will be disruptive, expensive, and types of pre-disaster mitigation activities in recent in some cases not logistically possible. Armoring years, it avoided public and private losses totaling much of the coast to protect most assets, however, $6. Designing new structures to be more resilient also is not practical. Not only would such an to natural hazards was also found to be financially approach be prohibitively expensive and have advantageous. For example, in the case of riverine decreasing effectiveness over the years as more flooding, the study estimates that for every extra intense wave action migrates inland, it also would $1 spent to build new buildings higher out of the disrupt natural erosion processes such that it would floodplain than international building codes require, cause much of the sand on the state’s beaches to $5 in flood damage-related costs was avoided. disappear. While the study was based on retrospective data on other types of disasters and did not consider future Selecting which combination of SLR adaptation SLR-related coastal flooding, similar principles likely approaches to use in a particular location is an apply. That is, investing in adaptation activities that involved process necessitating scientific research, will help to mitigate significant flooding, damage, locally specific information, public and stakeholder disruption, and erosion that will otherwise occur input and support, both high-level and detailed from SLR is almost certainly a less costly approach planning, and—in many cases—additional funding. overall compared to not taking such actions. Local governments planning for SLR are also www.lao.ca.gov 7 analysis full gutter Figure 3 Three Key Strategies for Adapting to Sea-Level Rise (SLR) PROTECT Place hard or soft barrier between development and the sea to reduce exposure to flooding or erosion. Hard protection (“armoring”) consists of constructing physical structures to keep water back, such as seawalls, groins, revetments, and levees. Soft protection consists of efforts to enhance natural infrastructure’s ability to buffer against the water, such as building up sand dunes, adding sand to beaches, and expanding wetlands. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Can allow existing development and infrastructure to remain Hard protection can contribute to beach erosion and increased in place. Can be less costly than other alternatives. flooding in adjacent areas. Soft protection likely will become a less viable strategy once sea levels rise to the higher stages of projected levels. ACCOMODATE Modify or design development in ways that will withstand SLR without damage, such as by elevating buildings or infrastructure, floodproofing structures, and building on floating structures. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Can allow existing development and infrastructure to remain Can be difficult and costly, especially to modify in place once modified. Can allow for new development in existing development. areas that may face flooding in the future. RELOCATE Remove or move existing development to less risky areas and limit the construction of new development in vulnerable areas. This could include physically moving an asset or facility that is at risk, or adopting zoning policies that prohibit new development or require that it be “set back” from potential hazard zones. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Can provide space for beach and wetlands to migrate Can be difficult, costly, or impossible to relocate existing inland as water rises. Ensures development locations development. Renders certain parcels of land unavailable for are/will be safe from flooding. development. 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT SLR Complicates State’s Housing Objectives The potential impacts of sea-level rise (SLR) create complications for a different state and local priority—increasing housing availability and affordability. California faces a serious housing shortage, and the state’s coastal areas are experiencing the most acute population growth, high housing costs, and demand for more affordable housing. Our office has estimated that on top of the 100,000 to 140,000 housing units typically built in the state each year, California probably would have to build as many as 100,000 additional units annually—almost exclusively in its coastal communities—to seriously mitigate housing affordability problems. In recent years, the state has implemented a number of measures intended to encourage local governments to build more housing, including providing additional funding and instituting new penalties for jurisdictions that fail to comply with state housing laws. Flooding caused by SLR poses two serious impediments to coastal jurisdictions seeking to meet these state housing objectives. First, over the coming decades some existing housing units along the coast will experience regular flooding and become uninhabitable. Second, some parcels of land that do not currently contain housing—and therefore may seem like apt locations for new development—also face the likelihood of flooding in future years. While local governments may be reluctant to adopt policies restricting development on these parcels given their current viability, the future hazards make them risky locations to construct new housing. Certain adaptation strategies described in Figure 3 could help to safeguard some existing properties and land parcels from the effects of SLR—including protecting them through armoring, or building or retrofitting structures such that they can accommodate flooding. As described in the figure, however, these strategies come with trade-offs, including costs and effects on adjacent areas. The degree of SLR that is predicted over the next century clearly will affect land use decisions and create additional challenges for local governments—and the state—as they seek to expand housing options for Californians in coastal regions. LOCAL RESPONSES TO SLR WILL BE KEY TO STATEWIDE PREPAREDNESS Most Responsibility for SLR Preparation from the rising tides; which to modify or move; and Lies With Local Governments . . . Most of the which may be unavoidably affected. development along the coast is owned by either . . . However, the State Has a Vested private entities or local governments—not the state. Interest in Ensuring the Coast Is Prepared. Additionally, most land use policies and decisions As discussed in more detail later in this report, are made at the local level, and local governments the 1976 California Coastal Act grants the state are most familiar with the specific circumstances special jurisdiction over land use decisions along facing their communities. As such, responsibility the coast. Specifically, unlike other areas of to prepare for and respond to the impacts of SLR California, along certain portions of the coast the lies primarily with the affected local communities. state possesses the authority to regulate activities Deciding how to confront these challenges and that change the intensity of use of land, with the implement the strategies described in Figure 3 will intended goal of balancing development with be both difficult and costly. Local governments will protecting the environment and public access. need to grapple with which existing infrastructure, This authority, combined with a motivation to properties, and natural resources to try to protect minimize costly and traumatic damage for residents www.lao.ca.gov 9 analysis full gutter and their property, creates a strong rationale and transportation infrastructure, and other essential incentive for the state to help ensure that local facilities such as hospitals and schools. Moreover, jurisdictions plan for and take action to adapt to the state is charged with overseeing natural SLR. Californians could experience serious public resources on behalf of the public trust and, thus, health and safety impacts if local governments do is responsible for ensuring the preservation of not take proper steps to prepare for how SLR will public access to the coast and the health of coastal affect certain coastal infrastructure. Such impacts wetlands, wildlife, and habitats. As discussed include threats to drinking water (from impacts to earlier, SLR damages also would have fiscal coastal groundwater aquifers and water treatment implications, which the state will want to try to plants, and damage to levees in the Sacramento minimize. San Joaquin Delta), sewage treatment, local CALIFORNIA IS IN BEGINNING STAGES OF PREPARING FOR SEA-LEVEL RISE In this section we discuss how the state, federal, state highways along the coast. Another is the and local governments currently are engaged in Department of Water Resources, which manages preparing to adapt to the impacts of SLR. the State Water Project, a water conveyance system that is highly dependent on the integrity of State-Level Efforts the levees in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta to Multiple State Departments Have successfully move drinking water from the northern SLR-Related Responsibilites. As summarized to the southern part of the state. in Figure 4, a number of state departments are Additional Departments May Have More engaged in efforts to prepare for and respond Involvement With SLR Adaptation in the Future. to the impacts of SLR. Additionally, senior-level Two state departments not shown in Figure 4 that staff from each of the departments shown in the have had limited involvement with SLR activities figure—together with representatives from the thus far but may have increased roles in the Delta Stewardship Council—meet periodically to future are the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) discuss statewide policy and priorities through a and California Office of Emergency Services Sea-Level Rise Leadership Team they have formed. (CalOES). Currently, SGC administers several state Besides the activities described in the figure, programs that are primarily designed to reduce many state departments also are taking initial greenhouse gas emissions, and its engagement on steps to assess how SLR will impact the state SLR-related issues has been relatively limited. As facilities and essential services for which they are the state expands its focus beyond climate change responsible. Such steps were spurred by Governor mitigation into a greater emphasis on adaptation, Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-13-08 (which however, the Legislature may choose to task SGC in 2008 directed state agencies to begin planning with additional responsibilities given the Council’s for SLR and climate impacts), and several iterations experience in managing climate-related programs. of the Safeguarding California Plan (which was Additionally, CalOES directs disaster preparedness compiled by the California Natural Resources and response activities in California, including Agency [CNRA] and serves as the roadmap for overseeing local disaster mitigation planning efforts steps that state agencies and departments should and administering associated federal programs and take to respond to the changing climate). One funding. Correspondingly, as California communities department managing significant state assets that increase preparation for and begin to experience are at risk from SLR is the California Department the impacts of SLR, CalOES likely will play a role in of Transportation (Caltrans), which manages supporting such efforts. 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT State Has Been Engaged in SLR Planning, consists of multiple companion reports), four Data Collection, and Information Dissemination. California Climate Change Assessment reports The state has published a number of reports in (also encompassing multiple companion reports), recent years concerning SLR projections and steps the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the state and local governments might take to Paying It Forward: The Path Toward Climate-Safe respond. Among these is the State of California Infrastructure in California. Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document, which was Additionally, pursuant to Chapter 606 of 2015 initially adopted in 2010 and most recently updated (SB 246, Wieckowski), the Governor’s Office in 2018. This document—developed by the Ocean of Planning and Research (OPR) operates the Protection Council (OPC) in coordination with other Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resilience partner agencies—provides (1) a synthesis of the Program. This program is intended to develop a best available science on SLR projections and cohesive and coordinated response to the impacts rates for California, (2) a stepwise approach for of climate change across the state and has two state agencies and local governments to evaluate components. First, a Technical Advisory Council those projections and related hazard information helps OPR and the state improve and coordinate in their decision-making, and (3) preferred coastal climate adaptation activities. Second, OPR has adaptation approaches. Other SLR-related plans created a searchable online public database of and reports the state has released in recent years adaptation and resilience resources—known as include several iterations of the aforementioned the State Adaptation Clearinghouse—including Safeguarding California Plan (each of which some related to SLR and coastal adaptation. The Figure 4 State Departments With Major Sea-Level Rise (SLR) Related Responsibilities Department Primary SLR-Related Responsibilities California Coastal Regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone, excluding the San Francisco (SF) Bay Area. Commission (The coastal zone generally extends 1,000 yards inland from the mean high tide line.) Reviews and approves Local Coastal Programs (LCPs)—plans that guide development in the coastal zone. Maintains permitting authority over proposed projects in areas in the coastal zone with no approved LCP and for state‑managed lands such as state parks. SF Bay Conservation and Reviews and issues regulatory permits for projects that would fill or extract materials from the SF Development Commission Bay, and works to preserve public access along the bay’s shore. Participates in the SF Bay Area’s multiagency regional effort to address the impacts of SLR on shoreline communities and assets. Administers the Adapting to Rising Tides Program to support SLR‑related planning and projects in the SF Bay Area. Ocean Protection Council Allocates grants for SLR and coastal adaptation projects and research. Conducts and distributes data and information to help local jurisdictions and state departments plan for SLR, including developing the State of California Sea‑Level Rise Guidance Document. State Coastal Conservancy Allocates grants for and undertakes projects to preserve, protect, and restore the resources of the California coast and the SF Bay Area. Provides grants for planning and projects through its Climate Ready Program to increase the resilience of coastal communities and ecosystems to climate change impacts such as SLR. State Lands Commission Stewards sovereign state lands, including those located between the ordinary high water mark of tidal waters and the boundary between state and federal waters three miles offshore. Monitors sovereign state lands the Legislature has delegated to local municipalities to manage in trust for the people of California. Governor’s Office of Administers the Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resilience Program, which includes a web‑based Planning and Research clearinghouse that compiles information about climate change adaptation research and projects, including those related to SLR. Department of Owns and manages more than one‑quarter of California’s coastline. Responsible for protecting and Parks and Recreation conserving these beaches, wetlands, and other coastal resources on behalf of the public. www.lao.ca.gov 11 analysis full gutter Clearinghouse includes resources such as local Environmental License Plate Fund ($17.5 million) plans, educational materials, policy guidance, data, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund research, and case studies. ($14.8 million). Much of this funding has been State departments have undertaken certain other or will be used for grants to local governments initiatives to support SLR-related activities around and nongovernmental organizations for planning the state, some of which are mentioned in Figure 4. and projects, including through SCC’s Climate For example, BCDC has developed the Adapting Ready Program. The totals shown in the figure to Rising Tides Program which provides adaptation include $25 million for OPC and nearly $4 million planning support, guidance, tools, and information for SCC appropriated in the 2018-19 Budget Act to SF Bay Area agencies and organizations. BCDC that can be used for coastal adaptation projects, has also developed detailed maps of how potential some of which likely has not yet been allocated future flooding might impact the SF Bay region. The for specific projects. In addition, a portion of the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) has developed funds have been used for state department staff to additional SLR resources and helps to coordinate undertake activities that assist local governments, the California Coastal Resilience Network, which such as staff support from BCDC and the Coastal presents monthly webinars on coastal adaptation. Commission for local planning efforts. OPC has undertaken several initiatives, including In addition to the funding specifically for coastal a recently enacted contract to conduct a relatively adaptation shown in Figure 5, some other state small-scale public awareness campaign about the funds have supported related work in recent years. risks associated with SLR. This includes a program run by the Division of State Has Provided Limited Funding for Boating and Waterways within the Department of Coastal Planning and Projects. In addition to Parks and Recreation (State Parks) that allocates undertaking state-level planning and research, the grants for local beach erosion control and sand state has also provided some limited funding for replenishment projects. Some other funding has SLR planning and projects. Figure 5 summarizes been provided through sub-grants from other the funding appropriated by the Legislature for state departments. For example, both BCDC and coastal adaptation activities over the past five years some local governments have received funding (2014-15 through 2019-20), totaling $67 million. from Caltrans for coastal adaptation planning and These funds have been provided from a variety projects that involve transportation infrastructure. of sources. The Legislature has utilized bonds as Some of BCDC’s work supporting adaptation the largest source of funding for these coastal planning in the SF Bay Area has also been adaptation activities ($26 million), followed by the supported by some small grants from the Delta Stewardship Council, and SCC has received grants from the California Figure 5 Department of Fish and Wildlife for Summary of Recent State Funding for Coastal Adaptation wetlands restoration projects. 2014‑15 Through 2019‑20 (In Millions) Federal-Level Efforts Department Primary Uses Amount Ocean Protection Council Grants for adaptation projects, statewide $34.6 Federal Government Has research projects. Supported Some Coastal State Coastal Conservancy Grants for sea‑level rise planning, grants for 15.4 Adaptation Activities in adaptation projects. California. In general, the federal California Coastal Grants for local adaptation planning and 14.0 government’s role in preparing for Commission to update Local Coastal Programs, staff SLR in California has largely been support for those local planning efforts. to support the state and local San Francisco Bay Regulatory review of adaptation projects, 3.3 Conservation and grants for sea‑level rise planning, staff agencies by providing technical Development Commission support for regional planning efforts. assistance, scientific research Total $67.3 and information, and some limited 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT funding. The primary federal agencies engaged in initiatives. In addition, NOAA annually provides SLR-related activities in California are the National funding to the three state departments designated Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to help implement the Coastal Zone Management and USGS. As discussed in the nearby box, Act—the Coastal Commission, BCDC, and SCC. FEMA has not had much involvement in coastal Between 2016 and 2019, NOAA allocated a total adaptation activities thus far, but likely will play a of about $11 million to these three departments larger role in the future. for their ongoing coastal management activities, NOAA Provides Technical Assistance and of which about $1.8 million was explicitly for Some Funding. NOAA works collaboratively SLR-related projects and policy development. with the state to implement the federal Coastal NOAA has also provided some specific one-time Zone Management Act and help protect coastal grants to state departments and local governments resources. Significant SLR-related initiatives that for SLR-response initiatives in California, including NOAA is undertaking in California include providing $690,000 to San Diego County for a coastal training on coastal adaptation planning, developing resiliency project described below. tools (including the “Sea Level Rise Viewer” that USGS Provides Scientific Research and SLR provides detailed digital maps of potential SLR Modeling. Unlike NOAA, USGS does not give flooding), and collaborating on data collection out grants to the state or local agencies; rather, Role of FEMA in Coastal Adaptation FEMA Helps Communities Prepare for and Respond to Disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) works with the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) to help prepare for and recover from disasters. Therefore, like CalOES, FEMA likely will play a role in supporting the state’s coastal communities as they get ready for and respond to sea-level rise (SLR) impacts. Such efforts could include providing federal disaster mitigation funding for projects designed to reduce the future impacts of SLR. After a state experiences a federally declared disaster, FEMA provides it with funding to undertake activities intended to lessen the impacts of future disasters through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. For example, in 2018 (after experiencing several wildfire disasters) California received over $500 million in disaster mitigation funding from FEMA. The state also received close to $500 million in 2017, when federal disasters were declared after wildfires and severe storms. FEMA Funds Could Be Used for Coastal Adaptation Projects. While the Legislature could help identify priorities for the use of such funds, thus far it has deferred to CalOES to select which areas of focus and specific projects to support—subject to approval from FEMA—when the state receives disaster mitigation funds. In general, CalOES has opted to use such funds to prevent future disasters of the type that recently occurred. For example, it plans to use essentially all of the 2018 funding on wildfire mitigation projects. However, this is not a FEMA-imposed requirement. While FEMA does have some requirements around how disaster mitigation funds must be used—including that funded projects meet its cost-benefit analysis parameters—it allows these funds to be used to help lessen the potential impacts of many types of disasters, not just those that a state recently experienced. As such, the state could use FEMA pre-disaster funds for coastal adaptation projects to mitigate future SLR-related flooding—even if FEMA provides the funds after the state experiences wildfire-related disasters. CalOES indicates it plans to use about $50 million from the 2017 allocation of federal disaster mitigation funds for coastal projects. In general, however, this has not been a primary area of focus for such funds thus far. www.lao.ca.gov 13 analysis full gutter USGS undertakes scientific research, which those policies as part of their adaptation strategies. agencies can then utilize. The largest SLR-related These could include imposing limits on (1) where activity in which USGS is engaged in California and when hard armoring may be used (in order is development of the Coastal Storm Modeling to prevent the erosion of beaches), (2) new System (CoSMoS). This is a dynamic modeling development, or (3) rebuilding in certain coastal approach that integrates predictions for (1) future areas. SLR, (2) future coastal storms, and (3) long-term The process described in Figure 6 represents evolving coastal trends such as erosion to beaches a deliberate, strategic approach to undertaking and bluffs. Because it forecasts the potential coastal adaptation. However, state law does interactions of these multiple events and impacts, not require that local governments progress this tool—which USGS has already completed sequentially through the steps described in the for most of the state—allows for more detailed figure—nor, indeed, that they undertake each local predictions of future coastal flooding than step at all. (As noted earlier, Coastal Commission models which only predict SLR. (The state has staff does encourage local governments that are also contributed some funding to help develop updating their Local Coastal Programs [LCPs] to CoSMoS.) In addition to developing CoSMoS, undertake SLR vulnerability assessments.) Local USGS is engaged in various other scientific governments could opt to skip the first several research endeavors that relate to SLR, including proactive planning steps of this process and monitoring coastal erosion and groundwater instead implement response activities on a reactive hazards, sea-floor mapping, and the Hazard basis once they begin to experience SLR impacts. Exposure Reporting and Analytics project that As we discuss later, however, to the degree local assesses the potential socioeconomic impacts of communities avoid undertaking proactive risk SLR within California’s coastal communities. assessment and planning activities in the near term, they may lose some opportunities for minimizing Local-Level Efforts damage and disruptive SLR impacts in future years. Local Governments Can Undertake Multiple Many Coastal Communities Have Begun Steps to Prepare for SLR. While the magnitude Preparing for SLR, but Only in Early Stages. and timing of SLR still are unknown, many of Data suggest that many communities around the California’s coastal communities have begun state have begun to prepare for the effects of preparing for what level of risk they face and how climate change. For example, OPR’s statewide they might respond over the coming decades. Annual Planning Survey found in 2018 that Figure 6 highlights the key steps in this process. As 60 percent of responding cities and counties have shown, the first step for local governments typically plans or strategies to adapt to the impacts of is to conduct an assessment to ascertain how climate change. (This survey did not ask about SLR their residents, infrastructure, and services might specifically.) However, a closer look at the status of be affected under different SLR scenarios. Next, adaptation planning around the state suggests that they develop a high-level adaptation plan for how even for those jurisdictions that are beginning to they might address those identified vulnerabilities. address the impacts of climate change, the majority Subsequently, they begin to undertake the three of coastal jurisdictions still are only in the initial stages of actually applying adaptation strategies stages of the SLR preparation process displayed to mitigate those risks—developing detailed in Figure 6. Specifically, a recent statewide survey plans, constructing projects, and undertaking called the 2016 California Coastal Adaptation ongoing monitoring and modifications to ensure Needs Assessment Survey—conducted as part of effectiveness. While in many cases communities California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment— may undertake adaptation projects—such as asked coastal professionals about the current building up sand dunes or restoring wetlands to status of their adaptation work. Respondents serve as a wave buffer, or relocating infrastructure included representatives from the local, state, and out of flood zones—they also may implement new federal levels of government, as well as private 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT consultants and nongovernmental organizations. by the OPR survey data. That is, this survey’s About one-third of respondents indicated they responses seemingly over-represented coastal were primarily engaged in detecting and gathering professionals who are engaging in adaptation information—such as by conducting vulnerability work and under-represented those communities assessments. About half of respondents said they that have not yet begun this type of work. That were developing adaptation and project plans—the even within this skewed sample group so few second and third steps of the adaptation process respondents indicated they are implementing shown in Figure 6. Only 16 percent indicated projects underlines how much preparation work that they had transitioned to implementing and remains to be undertaken statewide. monitoring projects and policies. While these Several Types of SLR Planning Efforts responses show slight progress compared to a Underway at Local Level. While some local similar survey conducted in 2011—in which a governments are undertaking SLR vulnerability larger share reported they were still assessing assessments and adaptation plans on their own their climate risks—the results show that few initiative, such efforts are also prompted by three communities are yet ready to begin implementing key statutory requirements. First, as described SLR adaptation projects. in the box on the next page, the 1976 California Moreover, the fact that most of the survey Coastal Act encouraged coastal communities to respondents indicated that they are engaged develop LCPs, which include policies to govern in some phase of adaptation work is not new and existing development along the coast representative of the whole state, as highlighted and protect coastal resources in accordance with Figure 6 Key Steps for Local Governments to Prepare for Sea-Level Rise (SLR) Conduct Vulnerability Assessment Develop understanding of how SLR might affect the local jurisdiction. Model various SLR inundation scenarios and assess the potential exposure and impacts to key assets (such as infrastructure, property, and natural resources) and local services (such as drinking water and emergency response). Develop Adaptation Plan Based on assessed vulnerabilities, determine specific strategies that can be undertaken to reduce the amount of risk and damage the community will experience from SLR. Identify overall approach and priorities, policies, potential projects, and time lines. Develop Detailed Project Plans and Policies Develop specific implementation plans for adaptation projects including engineering design, environmental permitting, costs, funding sources, deadlines, and anticipated performance measures. Research and draft new policies and solicit public feedback. Implement Adaptation Projects and Policies Construct projects. Adopt and enforce policies. Monitor and Evaluate Effectiveness of Projects and Policies Conduct multiyear monitoring to assess how well projects and policies are meeting anticipated objectives as conditions change and whether modifications may be necessary to maintain or improve outcomes. www.lao.ca.gov 15 analysis full gutter State Has Special Jurisdiction Over Land Use Decisions in the Coastal Zone Enacted in 1976, the California Coastal Act gives the state a unique role in planning and regulating the use of land and water along the coast. Specifically, within the coastal zone—unlike other areas of California—the state possesses the authority to regulate the construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters. (The land covered by the coastal zone is specifically delineated in statute and varies in width from several hundred feet in highly urbanized areas up to five miles in certain rural areas, and excludes the San Francisco Bay Area.) The basic goals of the Coastal Act are to balance development along the coast with protecting the environment and public access. The Act includes specific policies that address issues such as shoreline public access and recreation, habitat protection, landform alteration, industrial uses, water quality, transportation, development design, ports, and public works. The Coastal Act tasks the California Coastal Commission with implementing these laws and protecting coastal resources. As such, entities seeking to undertake development activities within the coastal zone must first attain a coastal development permit from the Coastal Commission. (In general, local governments make decisions about land use outside the coastal zone.) The Coastal Commission may delegate some permitting authority to the 76 cities and counties along the coast if they develop plans—known as Local Coastal Programs (LCPs)—to guide development in the coastal zone. The LCPs specify the appropriate location, type, and scale of new or changed uses of land and water, as well as measures to implement land use policies (such as zoning ordinances). The Coastal Commission reviews and approves (“certifies”) these plans to ensure they protect coastal resources in ways that are consistent with the goals and policies of the Coastal Act. Local governments have incentives to complete certified LCPs, as they can then handle development decisions themselves (although stakeholders can appeal such decisions to the Coastal Commission). In contrast, any project undertaken in the coastal zone in communities without certified LCPs must attain a permit from the Coastal Commission. To date, nearly 90 percent of the applicable geographic area is covered by a certified LCP. state law. Since most LCPs were developed around the Coastal Commission reports that between 30 years ago—before the need to account for the 2013 and September 2019, it provided 50 grants potential effects of climate change—some coastal totaling nearly $7 million to 37 local jurisdictions for communities are beginning to work on updates to SLR-related LCP updates. address SLR. The Coastal Commission reports that Second, Chapter 608 of 2015 (SB 379, Jackson) 39 jurisdictions are in the process of updating their requires communities to update the safety element LCPs for SLR, including 30 that have completed of their General Plans to address the risks posed vulnerability assessments. (Coastal Commission by climate change no later than 2022. Data suggest staff encourages using SLR vulnerability that local jurisdictions still are in the process of assessments to inform LCP updates.) Thus far, working to meet this requirement. Specifically, only three local governments have completed all about 30 percent of the cities and counties that stages of updating their LCPs for SLR and had responded to OPR’s 2018 survey reported that they them certified by the Coastal Commission. As have addressed climate adaptation in their adopted shown earlier in Figure 5, state funding grants General Plan policies. have partially supported these efforts. Specifically, 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Third, Chapter 592 of 2013 (AB 691, Muratsuchi) to informally share information, none has worked required certain coastal cities and special districts on developing a regional SLR or climate adaptation to conduct an assessment of how they propose to plan, and typically, they do not have permanent address SLR on the granted public trust coastal dedicated funding or staff. In some cases, local lands for which they are responsible. (These are jurisdictions are only eligible to participate in their sovereign state lands for which the Legislature region’s collaborative if they are willing and able has delegated management to local municipalities to pay an annual administrative fee. As such, not for specified uses, such as piers, ports, harbors, all cities and counties located within the regions airports, and recreation.) For each applicable encompassed by these ARCCA groups are jurisdiction, these assessments must include: active participants that benefit from the potential (1) an inventory of public trust assets that are collaboration. (Orange County is the only coastal vulnerable to SLR; (2) how SLR may impact those county not encompassed by any of the ARRCA assets in the short, medium, and long term; (3) an regional collaboratives.) evaluation of the financial costs associated with The SF Bay Area has made the most progress those SLR impacts—including for nonmarket on multicounty regional SLR collaborative efforts. In asset values such as recreation and ecosystem a survey of SF Bay Area stakeholders conducted by services; and (4) a description of how potential University of California (UC), Davis, researchers in SLR adaptation strategies could address the the fall of 2018, close to 60 percent of respondents identified vulnerabilities and a proposed time frame reported that they had shared information about for implementing such measures. The State Lands SLR with other organizations in the last year, and Commission is in the process of reviewing these about 45 percent said that they had engaged in reports, which had to be submitted by July 2019. some joint SLR planning with other organizations. Some Examples of Regional Collaboration Moreover, in 2016, voters in the nine-county region on SLR Planning Exist, but Efforts Are Limited. passed Measure AA, establishing the SF Bay Because the effects of SLR do not stop at the Restoration Authority and imposing a parcel tax city border or county line, local jurisdictions would that is projected to raise about $25 million annually benefit from working together with their neighbors for 20 years to fund projects to protect and restore on a regional basis to collaborate on plans for the bay. To support this effort, the Authority has addressing the interrelated impacts. While some established—and funded—the “SF Bay Restoration regional collaborative efforts have been initiated Regulatory Integration Team,” which is intended across the state, these initiatives still are emerging to expedite and simplify the permitting process and uneven. Perhaps the largest effort consists of seven regional Figure 7 groups that have formed in various Groups Participating in the areas of the state to work on Alliance of Regional Collaboratives for Climate Adaptation climate change adaptation issues— including but not limited to SLR— 9 Bay Area Climate Adaptation Network as highlighted in Figure 7. The Local Government Commission 9 Capital Region Climate Readiness Collaborative and OPR help facilitate a network 9 for these groups to communicate, Central Coast Climate Collaborative known as the Alliance of Regional 9 Los Angeles Regional Collaborative for Climate Action and Sustainability Collaboratives for Climate Adaptation (ARCCA). However, 9 North Coast Resource Partnership these regional groups have 9 experienced varying levels of San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative participation and activity. Most of 9 the groups meet only intermittently Sierra Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Partnership www.lao.ca.gov 17 analysis full gutter for wetland restoration and flood management and SCC) called the “Resilient Coastlines Project of projects. Additionally, BCDC is initiating efforts Greater San Diego” to coordinate several local SLR to coordinate the development of a “Regional initiatives, gather scientific information on a regional Adaptation Plan” for the SF Bay Area. basis, develop tools and resources, and connect Other limited examples of regional collaboration community members and scientific experts to work related to SLR exist around the state at the county together. level. For example, some counties have conducted In an effort to help encourage regional climate vulnerability assessments and adaptation planning adaptation efforts, the Legislature recently specifically to address the threat of SLR across the passed Chapter 377 of 2018 (SB 1072, Leyva). jurisdictions within their counties. These include This legislation creates a program to assist Marin and San Mateo. San Mateo County also under-resourced communities in developing the just received statutory approval to reconstitute capacity to access grant funding for climate change an existing special flood district to specifically mitigation and adaptation projects. SGC will address the anticipated impacts of SLR across the administer the program, and still is in the process county. Additionally, San Diego County undertook of determining its structure, selection criteria, and a three-year initiative (funded by grants from NOAA funding sources. STRONG CASE EXISTS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ACCELERATE ADAPTATION ACTIVITIES The relatively limited progress that local significantly encroach on the coast would enable governments have made in preparing for SLR may local governments to benefit in several important not seem overly concerning, given that most of ways, as summarized in Figure 8 and discussed the intense impacts of SLR still are decades in below. the future. However, waiting too long to initiate Planning Ahead Means Adaptation Actions adaptation efforts likely will make executing an Can Be Strategic and Phased. Time allows cities effective response more difficult and costly. Taking and counties to (1) be strategic, phased, and action ahead of when sea levels are projected to Figure 8 Benefits of Taking Action Early to Prepare for Sea-Level Rise (SLR) 9 Planning Ahead Means Adaptation Actions Can Be Strategic and Phased. Early planning can allow coastal communities to adopt a phased approach that undertakes escalating actions when certain predetermined conditions or “triggers” are reached. 9 Undertaking Near-Term Actions Can “Buy Time” Before More Intensive Responses Are Needed. Putting certain adaptation projects and strategies in place now can help postpone and extend the period before which subsequent, more difficult‑to‑implement actions are needed. 9 Early Implementation Provides the Opportunity to Test Approaches and Learn What Works Best. Acting to implement adaptation strategies in the near term will provide the opportunity to monitor, evaluate, and revise them in the coming years before SLR threats become more pressing. 9 Taking Action Earlier May Make Overall Adaptation Efforts More Affordable. Undertaking a multiyear, multistep strategic plan for coastal adaptation can allow local governments to spread costs over a longer period of time. 9 Coming Decade Represents a Key Window for SLR Preparation. Some adaptation strategies—such as fortifying certain tidal marshes—may not be effective against SLR unless they are implemented before sea levels rise to higher levels. 18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT thoughtful about which approaches will work best restoration projects will be at buffering the force of for their communities; (2) gather community input; waves during more severe coastal storms. Acting and (3) implement projects and policies that may to implement adaptation strategies in the near term take many years to put into effect. Planning ahead will provide the opportunity to monitor, evaluate, and can allow coastal communities to adopt a phased revise them in the coming years. This can help the approach for when it will undertake escalating state and local governments ascertain which types actions that is dependent upon when certain of approaches will be best for particular locations predetermined conditions or “triggers” are reached. and/or for widespread application as SLR threats For example, such a strategy might state that the become more pressing. community will relocate its wastewater treatment Taking Action Earlier May Make Overall plant once sea levels are observed to have Adaptation Efforts More Affordable. Undertaking risen by 1 foot locally, and that in the meantime, a multiyear, multistep strategic plan for coastal stakeholders will identify a new location for the adaptation can allow local governments to spread plant, develop detailed project plans, and acquire costs over a longer period of time and thereby funding so they are ready to implement the project make them more affordable. A multiyear financing once the identified threshold has been reached. approach—such as utilizing bonds—for large A phased approach based on defined triggers projects also provides the opportunity for costs can also help address community concerns that a to be borne by both current and future taxpayers, local government might be acting “prematurely” to which is reasonable since such projects are intended address SLR and thereby affecting their property to provide benefits over many years. Moreover, if values unnecessarily. The State of California local governments take the opportunity to test out Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document encourages SLR response approaches, they and other coastal coastal communities to utilize “adaptation communities can learn “best practices” from those pathways” with multiyear, progressive steps—but pilot projects and likely will be able to replicate such an approach requires time to develop and similar approaches in more efficient, cost-effective implement. ways in the future. Undertaking Certain Near-Term Actions Can Coming Decade Represents Key Window “Buy Time” Before More Intensive Responses for SLR Preparation. Experts suggest the next Are Needed. Putting certain adaptation projects ten or so years represent a crucial time period for and strategies in place now can help postpone taking action to prepare for SLR. After that point, and extend the period before which subsequent, sea levels may already have risen by around 1 foot more difficult-to-implement actions are needed. For in many locations, as shown earlier in Figure 1. example, building up wetlands or sand dunes in Once sea levels have risen to higher levels, the certain areas could help buffer the effects of SLR planning window narrows and options for how local and coastal storms and protect the development governments can respond become more limited. behind them for the coming few decades. Even if For example, a comprehensive scientific study of such a strategy would have decreasing effectiveness the SF Bay, The Baylands and Climate Change, once sea levels rise to higher levels, implementing suggests tidal marshes that are established by 2030 such a project in the near term could delay the date are more likely to flourish and provide wave-buffering at which the buildings begin to regularly flood and benefits. After that point, marshes may not have need to be relocated or elevated. sufficient time to develop and fortify—by building Early Implementation Provides Opportunity to up sediment and growing plants—and will instead Test Approaches and Learn What Works Best. become submerged. Coastal communities that delay Near-term action allows for time to test theories and SLR response activities until coastal flooding is more determine the most effective approaches. Because imminent lose opportunities to implement proactive, SLR poses a unique set of challenges, many incremental, and ground-tested adaptation uncertainties exist around which potential adaptation responses. Instead, they will be forced into a more strategies might be most effective. For example, reactive mode with the need to address the threat scientists are unsure of how successful wetland immediately. www.lao.ca.gov 19 analysis full gutter LOCAL ADAPTATION EFFORTS FACE KEY CHALLENGES Despite the significant threats posed by the Funding Constraints Hinder Both projected changes in the coming years and the Planning and Projects compelling reasons to take action soon, most local governments still are only in the early stages Local Governments Cite Funding Limitations of preparing for SLR, as discussed earlier. Data as Primary Barrier to Making Progress on suggest that local governments’ progress in Coastal Adaptation Efforts. Funding for both adapting to the impacts of SLR is constrained coastal adaptation project implementation and by a number of key challenges. For example, planning are paramount concerns for local Figure 9 displays the top eight barriers that coastal governments seeking to prepare for SLR. These professionals identified in the 2016 California funding challenges were identified in nearly all Coastal Adaptation Needs Assessment Survey of the interviews we conducted in researching as being “big hurdles” in their adaptation efforts. this report, and also are reflected as the first The academic literature on coastal adaptation and and third most cited hurdles, respectively, in the the many interviews we conducted in researching survey data displayed in Figure 9. A different this report identified some additional common statewide survey conducted in 2017 asked local obstacles. Figure 10 summarizes our compilation government representatives specifically which of key challenges, which we describe in more detail adaptation-related activities they needed funding in this section. to conduct over the coming five years. (This survey did not ask about SLR or coastal adaptation specifically.) The responses are displayed in Figure 11 on page Figure 9 22. As shown, comparatively Survey Results Highlight lower—but still significant— Significant Barriers to Coastal Adaptation proportions of respondents Percent of Coastal Professionals Indicating Barrier Is a Big Hurdle indicate the need for funding to conduct initial assessment and Lack of funding to implement a plan planning activities, with a much Insufficient staff resources to higher share needing funding analyze/assess information to implement and evaluate Lack of funding to projects. That survey also asked prepare a plan local governments whether they Current pressing issues are all-consuming had yet acquired the necessary funds to undertake the identified Lack of leadership from elected officials adaptation activities—fewer than Lack of public demand to 2 percent responded affirmatively. take adaptation action About 32 percent of respondents Lack of social acceptability indicated they had secured some of adaptation strategies funding, whereas about two-thirds Lack of coordination responded they had secured none 10 20 30 40 50 60 70% of the needed funding. From: S. Moser, J. Finzi Hart, A. Newton Mann, N. Sadrpour, P. Grifman (Susanne Moser Research & Consulting and Responses from our U.S. Geological Survey), 2018. “Growing Effort, Growing Challenge: Findings From the 2016 California Coastal Adaptation Needs Assessment Survey.” California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. interviewees and both of the above surveys appear to align with the trends cited earlier—that 20 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT many but not all communities have made headway from existing sources to respond to a large, in beginning to plan for climate change impacts long-term, uncertain threat such as SLR is difficult (which is why comparatively fewer cite the need for when local governments have to balance such planning funds), but few have moved into enacting expenditures against many other immediate those plans. Moreover, these data suggest that short-term priorities. Such priorities might include funding is a primary contributor to that lack of housing shortages, homelessness, schools, progress. The expressed need for funding likely is aging infrastructure, and other climate-related a result of constraints on available local funding as impacts such as increased wildfires. (Competing well as on funding from state, private, or federal funding commitments likely also are factors for sources. the 53 percent of survey respondents shown in Limited Local Funding Faces Many Figure 9 who cite the challenge of facing many Competing Priorities. Even though responsibility other pressing, all-consuming issues as a big for addressing SLR lies primarily with local hurdle in addressing SLR.) Additionally, California governments, our interviews indicated that they local governments’ ability to generate new revenues struggle to identify local funding sources they for activities is constrained by certain constitutional can dedicate to preparation activities. This is limitations, including Proposition 13 (1978, which echoed by the 2016 California Coastal Adaptation limits increases in local property taxes) and Needs Assessment Survey, with respondents Proposition 218 (1996, which requires meeting a indicating that only about one-third of the funding two-thirds local voter threshold in order to raise currently supporting their adaptation activities certain local taxes and fees). Moreover, local comes from local sources. One chief explanation revenues available for adaptation activities may for these responses is that allocating funding be further constrained in the future by SLR. This Figure 10 Local Adaptation Efforts Face Key Challenges 9 Funding Constraints Hinder Both Planning and Projects. Local governments cite funding limitations as their primary barrier to making progress on coastal adaptation efforts. This is largely because local funding faces many competing priorities and constraints, and only limited amounts of adaptation funding have been available from other sources. 9 Limited Local Government Capacity Restricts Their Ability to Take Action. The novelty of the climate adaptation field makes it hard for local governments to locate and hire individuals with appropriate experience and expertise to plan for the impacts of sea‑ level rise (SLR). These capacity limitations are particularly challenging for small and disadvantaged communities. 9 Adaptation Activities Are Constrained by a Lack of Key Information. Local governments cite a need for additional data and technical assistance to help inform their adaptation decisions, especially around the costs, trade‑offs, and potential economic implications of SLR impacts. The novelty of coastal adaptation efforts means that this type of information is even more in demand—and limited. 9 Few Forums for Shared Planning and Decision-Making Impede Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration. Even though the interrelated effects of SLR make cross‑jurisdictional planning essential, local governments lack forums and resources for discussing and planning for SLR on a regional basis. 9 Responding to SLR Is Not Yet a Priority for Many Local Residents or Elected Officials. Because many California residents are not yet aware of how SLR might affect their communities or consider the threat as being far off in the future, coastal adaption actions are not a high priority for them. This makes it difficult for local elected officials or government staff to champion unpopular SLR response actions. 9 Protracted Process for Attaining Project Permits Delays Adaptation Progress. Achieving approval for coastal adaptation projects is complicated and takes a long time, in part because they represent a new challenge for the existing environmental regulatory system. This is particularly problematic because coastal communities face a pressing need to make progress on preparing for SLR before its impacts become more widespread. www.lao.ca.gov 21 analysis full gutter is because existing property values in some areas from foundations or other private sources and of the coast likely will decrease if those buildings 9 percent from the federal government. become or are at risk of becoming flooded, thereby Limited Local Government Capacity over time affecting the property tax revenues generated for the local jurisdiction. Restricts Ability to Take Action Only Limited Amounts of Adaptation Local Governments Lack Sufficient Staff and Funding Have Been Available From Other Technical Expertise to Address SLR. Inadequate Sources. Local government respondents to internal capacity to undertake adaptation planning the 2016 California Coastal Adaptation Needs and projects is also a significant barrier to local Assessment Survey indicated that while local governments’ SLR preparation efforts. We heard sources have provided one-third of their coastal this frustration expressed repeatedly in our adaptation funding thus far, state funds provided interviews, with local government staff indicating the largest share—45 percent. As shown earlier in they need to address adaptation planning activities Figure 5, however, these funds have been relatively in addition to their primary job responsibilities. modest. Nevertheless, these findings highlight the Additionally, local government interviewees important role that state resources have played indicated that staffing constraints often mean in encouraging the coastal adaptation activities that they do not have the capacity to complete that have occurred to date. Responses to the the work necessary to compile successful grant aforementioned survey indicate that funding they applications for the funding that the state offers have received for their adaptation activities from for adaptation planning and projects—thereby other sources are even more limited—10 percent compounding their challenges in making progress on coastal adaptation efforts. Figure 11 In OPR’s 2018 Annual Planning Survey, 60 percent of responding Local Governments Express Need for cities and counties indicated they Funding to Advance Adaptation Activities had very little or no staffing and Survey Respondents Indicating Need For technical capacity to address Funding for Adaptation Activity in Next Five Years (2017) climate change or adaptation. Activity These findings are mirrored in the Implement adaptation survey responses highlighted in strategies Figure 9. Specifically, insufficient staff resources to analyze and Evaluate implemented assess information was the actions second most commonly cited hurdle to coastal adaptation Engage with community efforts, cited by 58 percent of respondents. Interestingly, some progress to address these Prepare a plan capacity issues appears to have been made in recent years, as a Conduct vulnerability comparatively higher percentage assessment of coastal professionals responding to the 2011 version 20 40 60 80 100% of the same coastal needs From: S. Moser, J.A. Ekstrom, J. Kim, S. Heitsch (Susanne Moser Research & Consulting, Department of Water assessment survey indicated Resources, Local Government Commission and ICF), 2018. “Adaptation Finance Challenges: Characteristic Patterns Facing California Local Governments and Ways to Overcome Them.” California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. insufficient staff resources as California Natural Resources Agency. 22 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT being a big hurdle—67 percent compared to coastal adaptation was a lack of information to help 58 percent in the 2016 survey. guide decision-making. Specifically, local entities Adaptation Expertise Is Not Widespread. A expressed uncertainty about how to proceed with couple of key factors may explain these capacity SLR preparation because they are unsure about challenges. The first is a direct result of the funding details such as: constraints noted earlier—limited funds often • Trade-Offs of Adaptation Options. Data translate to a limited ability to hire a sufficient cadre and examples that might help inform which of qualified staff. Additionally, because climate adaptation options might be most appropriate adaptation is a new field, local governments find it for their community and what factors to hard to locate individuals with appropriate scientific, consider when making those decisions. engineering, and legal experience and expertise • Cost of Adaptation Options. Rough to know how to plan for the impacts of SLR, even estimates for how much different options if they could manage to secure the funds to hire might cost to implement and what factors more staff. The 2016 California Coastal Adaptation influence those costs. Needs Assessment Survey report states that “most • Economic Implications of Adaptation coastal practitioners are still essentially learning Options and SLR Impacts. The potential about adaptation ‘on the job’ rather than through economic impacts of implementing various formal training opportunities.” Specifically, the adaptation options, including the “no action” survey found that only about 40 percent of local alternative. government respondents indicated that they had received any formal training in adaptation. • Locally Specific SLR Projections. Specialized estimates and maps for how Small and Disadvantaged Communities exactly SLR and coastal storms might Particularly Challenged by Capacity Limitations. affect specific locations, neighborhoods, Our research indicates the challenges associated infrastructure, and resources in their with limited government capacity to address climate communities. adaptation needs are especially pronounced for smaller communities and those whose residents • Legal Clarifications. A legal analysis clarifying have a lower average income and/or lower property the responsibilities—and liabilities—local values. These communities often have smaller governments face with regard to SLR, government administrations and fewer financial, particularly related to how potential changes in business, philanthropic, and community resources the mean high-tide line, land use policies, and upon which to draw. As such, these communities city services might affect private properties. likely find it even harder than their larger and The first four information priorities were also better-resourced neighbors to hire and maintain cited by city and county respondents to the 2016 experienced staff dedicated to adaptation work— California Coastal Adaptation Needs Assessment which in turn also makes it even more challenging Survey when asked which types of information they to compete for limited grant funding. This raises perceive as most useful for assessing the risks an important social equity concern about how from climate change to local coastal resources. adequate preparation for SLR may be influenced Specifically, about 75 percent rated information on by the relative size and wealth of a particular the trade-offs of adaptation as very useful, and a community. similar percentage said the same about information Adaptation Activities Constrained by on the costs of adaptation (representing the top two responses to the question). The usefulness of Lack of Key Information economic and community vulnerability assessments Local Governments Cite a Need for Additional each were rated as very useful by about 60 percent Data to Help Inform Adaptation Decisions. In the of respondents. (The survey did not ask about legal interviews we conducted in preparing this report, information.) one of the most frequently cited obstacles to www.lao.ca.gov 23 analysis full gutter The lack of information on the potential planning and projects. Our interviews and available economic impacts that SLR might have on the research, however, suggest use of this website is community was raised repeatedly throughout the not yet widespread. This is due both to a lack of interviews we conducted for this report. Even awareness about the resource, and also because for the local governments that have conducted users find it overwhelming and difficult to navigate. initial SLR planning activities, few vulnerability Rather, local entities express a desire for (1) models assessments include these types of considerations. and planning templates they can recreate or modify Similarly, only a handful of completed adaptation to meet their local circumstances, and (2) experts plans across the state include an analysis of they can call upon to discuss and help address the economic trade-offs of employing potential their specific needs. The Clearinghouse has only adaptation strategies. For example, this could limited examples that meet the first need and does include evaluating and comparing the short- and not have staff available to address the second. long-term costs and benefits of approaches Some entities have provided technical assistance like building seawalls, adding sand to beaches, for coastal adaptation efforts within their regions— restoring wetlands, and relocating infrastructure. such as the Adapting to Rising Tides Program Feedback from our interviewees suggests they have administered by BCDC in the SF Bay Area and not undertaken these types of analyses because the University of Southern California Sea Grant they are complicated and expensive to conduct, program in Los Angeles—but these resources are with few examples available to serve as models. not available statewide. Yet without an understanding of the economic Few Forums for Shared Planning implications associated with SLR or the costs and benefits of the steps they could take to address and Decision-Making Impede those impacts, local governments are constrained Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration in determining the best path forward. Local Governments Lack Robust Forums for Novelty of Coastal Adaptation Efforts Discussing and Planning for SLR on a Regional Means Information Is Even More in Demand— Basis. Local governments across California lack and Limited. Interviewees who were able to formal and strategic ways to learn from each gather the necessary information to complete other, share information, or make decisions vulnerability assessments and high-level adaptation together about coastal adaptation issues. As noted plans indicated that they were unclear how to earlier, while some regional collaborative efforts determine what specifically they should do next. are underway across the state, such initiatives That the coastal adaptation field is so new is a are largely informal, they lack funding and staff, large contributor to this information gap. These and their level of activity and participation vary uncharted waters present a double challenge— by region. Moreover, with the exception of a local governments have never undertaken such couple of countywide plans, no region has yet work before and therefore are urgently in need of developed a coordinated plan for how it will guidance, examples, and data to help them make address SLR impacts on a regional basis. This these novel decisions. However, such information lack of coordination was frequently mentioned is not widely available because few others have as a significant concern by the individuals we undertaken such work either. interviewed, and was highlighted as a big hurdle Technical Assistance Not Widely Available. by about one-quarter of survey respondents in Interviewees cited a lack of—and desire for— Figure 9. When UC Davis researchers surveyed entities to which they might be able to turn for stakeholders in the SF Bay Area about the largest advice, technical assistance, comparison data, barriers they face in working collaboratively with and real-world examples to help inform their other stakeholders on SLR issues, the most adaptation decisions. As noted earlier, OPR created common response was the lack of an overarching the Adaptation Clearinghouse, which provides regional plan to address SLR. an online database of resources for adaptation 24 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Cross-Jurisdictional Planning Is Challenging. and stakeholders—such as utilities, railroads, Distinctions across local governments—including Caltrans, State Parks, refineries, and ports—who bureaucratic and administrative differences, as will be necessary participants in making future land well as varying interests and priorities—always use decisions for the region. make cross-jurisdictional planning and coordination Responding to SLR Is Not Yet a difficult. Interviewees indicated that addressing the needs of their own jurisdictions already presents Priority for Many Local Residents or a challenge, and the prospect of incorporating Elected Officials those of their neighbors into their planning efforts Many California Residents Do Not See Need feels like an overwhelming task. Moreover, they for Immediate Action to Address SLR. Two expressed concerns that regional planning efforts of the barriers cited in the survey data shown might prioritize the requests of other jurisdictions in Figure 9 relate to public perceptions about over their own—especially if their city is small or the risk of SLR—the lack of public demand to wields comparatively less political influence—and take adaptation action and the lack of social also that finding common ground around adaptation acceptability of adaptation strategies. These actions could be difficult. Finally, interviewees dynamics were echoed in many of the interviews stated that regional collaboration would require we conducted in preparing this report, and have additional staff time—particularly to organize and been on display in some high-profile community attend forums for such discussions to take place— mobilization efforts against proposed SLR and their resources already face constraints. adaptation actions in certain coastal communities Interrelated Effects of SLR Make in recent months. Cross-Jurisdictional Planning Essential. Given Much of the public lack of engagement about or these complications, the lack of collaborative resistance to coastal adaptation efforts seems to efforts around SLR is not surprising. However, the stem from two key factors. First, many California widespread impacts of SLR make coordinated residents are generally unaware of projections regional planning fundamental to effective about how SLR might impact them. Few preparation—and the lack of such efforts is communities have undertaken public awareness therefore particularly concerning. Local jurisdictions campaigns about SLR or broadly disseminated planning on their own will not be able to address maps of areas that are projected to flood in the the SLR impacts that might have substantial coming years. Moreover, potential SLR coastal impacts on their own community but are dependent flooding is not currently required to be disclosed upon their neighbors taking action. For example, during real estate transactions—in contrast with the residents of one city may be precluded from getting risks associated with forest fires, earthquakes, or to and from their homes or work or from accessing floods. (Existing flood risk notifications are based emergency services if a key transportation on historical flood events and therefore do not take thoroughfare floods in a neighboring city. Moreover, potential SLR impacts into account.) California law SLR response actions taken by one jurisdiction requires that these potential hazards be disclosed could have significant effects on their neighboring to prospective property buyers. Because residents cities. For example, if one city decides to construct may not know about SLR predictions or see hard armoring structures—such as seawalls—to many obvious SLR-related impacts happening protect structures along much of its coastline, the now, coastal adaptation actions likely are not a ensuing erosion processes could remove most of high priority for them to request from their local the sand from the beaches in a neighboring city. governments—especially compared to more current These interconnected SLR impacts increase the pressing concerns. Second, even many coastal importance of coordination, shared input, and joint residents who have some awareness that sea planning. Even multi-jurisdictional planning efforts levels are projected to rise likely view the threat of might be insufficient to adequately address future SLR as being far off in the future. They therefore SLR impacts if they fail to include key landowners feel that for their local governments to take SLR www.lao.ca.gov 25 analysis full gutter response actions that might affect their property SLR preparation activities, and examples exist of values or lifestyle in the near future is premature local elected officials around the state taking a and inappropriate—even if those actions are only leadership role in such efforts. planning for what future adaptation responses Protracted Process for Attaining might be. For example, several coastal communities that drafted adaptation plans mentioning the Project Permits Delays Adaptation possibility of relocating infrastructure in the future Progress before it becomes flooded (sometimes referred Several coastal professionals with whom we to as “managed retreat”) have faced vociferous spoke in preparing this report reported that the public backlash—largely because of residents’ lengthy process for attaining approvals from state concerns that such changes might impact their and federal agencies to implement adaptation own properties now or in the future. projects is a significant barrier to getting more Local Elected Officials Currently Face projects underway. Disincentives to Champion Unpopular Achieving Approval for Coastal Adaptation SLR Response Actions. Resistance against Projects Is Complicated and Takes a Long Time. taking aggressive action on SLR now is also As with any development project along the coast demonstrated in the attitudes and actions of or SF Bay, adaptation projects must go through many local government leaders. As shown in a review and approval process and attain permits Figure 9, 29 percent of the survey respondents from numerous state and federal agencies to identify the lack of leadership from elected officials ensure they are not causing undue harm to the as a big hurdle to making progress on coastal environment. Although such projects often differ adaptation activities. This dearth of enthusiasm from traditional construction and infrastructure about adaptation may be somewhat predictable, projects in that they may be nature-based (such as as local officials typically try to reflect the priorities sand dune or wetland restoration projects), they of their constituents. Additionally, the most intense are not exempt from the standard environmental impacts of SLR likely will not manifest for at least review process. Agencies that typically must grant a decade—and perhaps multiple decades—into regulatory approvals for coastal adaptation projects the future. Many current public officials may be include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. disinclined to face the backlash and potential Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA National Marine political consequences from enacting unpopular Fisheries Service, the Regional Water Quality policies now when the evidence for and benefits of Control Board, the California Department of Fish taking those actions may not be experienced until and Wildlife, the Coastal Commission (for projects long after they are out of office. A lack of public in the coastal zone), and BCDC (for projects along support also makes it difficult for local governing the SF Bay). These agencies review potential entities to advance proposals for raising additional projects to ascertain how they might affect fish and revenues—such as through new fees or taxes—to wildlife and their habitats, water quality, and public undertake adaptation projects now. Moreover, access to the shoreline. local officials may be reluctant to undertake any In general, project proponents must submit adaptation actions or policies that would limit future separate permit applications (and associated fees) development or reduce existing property values in to each of the applicable agencies, each of which fear of restricting or reducing the local revenues then undertakes its own independent review on its on which they currently rely to provide government own time line. In addition, each regulatory reviewer services. typically imposes its own permit requirements, Despite these disincentives, reluctance to such as requiring activities to help mitigate any champion coastal adaptation efforts is not a anticipated environmental impacts. Because these universal position across California’s cities and reviews are conducted independently from each counties. Rather, as noted earlier, many California other, in some cases one agency may impose cities and counties are making some progress on 26 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT permit conditions that can duplicate or even Similarly, to protect coastal resources the contradict those required by a different agency. Coastal Commission has a rigorous process for For example, while federal and state fish and evaluating and permitting coastal development— wildlife agencies work to minimize project impacts such as hotels, houses, parking lots, or water on at-risk species, BCDC seeks to maximize public treatment plants—that has historically posed a access to the bay shore. These goals can be in risk to such resources. The Coastal Commission’s direct conflict, as imposing permit requirements regulatory review structure has not typically to add public access infrastructure and increase been faced with how to evaluate natural human visitors can negatively impact wildlife. In infrastructure projects that are intended to make such cases, the project proponents must negotiate the coastline more resilient and that can benefit between the agencies to develop a set of project the environment—such as “living shoreline” requirements that they are capable of implementing. projects that add sand and plants to the shore to Due to the delays associated with these myriad buffer wave action and enhance coastal habitats. reviews and ensuing requirements, SCC estimates (Certain other types of adaptation projects, such as that attaining permits for a typical adaptation relocating a road or infrastructure inland, however, project can take at least one year from when such may more closely resemble traditional development applications are submitted. As discussed below, projects.) Because existing regulatory review this protracted time line is particularly problematic policies were not developed to evaluate these for coastal adaptation efforts given the relatively new types of projects, they can face increased narrow window for implementing certain types of scrutiny, requirements, and delays compared to projects. more traditional and familiar projects (such as SLR and Coastal Adaptation Projects adding piles of rocks to the shore to armor the Represent New Challenge for Existing coast ahead of a storm). The increased rigor, Environmental Regulatory System. In general, complication, and time for these reviews can in the existing set of regulatory requirements for turn create disincentives for coastal communities to coastal projects was established several decades attempt innovative or nature-based approaches. ago to protect against environmental damage Permitting Approach Is Particularly that might be caused by development along the Problematic for Climate Adaptation Projects. coast or SF Bay. Most of these requirements were Complaints that the environmental permitting developed long before SLR became a concern, system is complicated and protracted are not and as such did not contemplate the types of unique to coastal adaptation projects. Such adaptation projects currently being proposed or the criticism has often been raised by proponents of coming challenges such projects are intended to many types of projects, including for traditional address. For example, BCDC has long had policies types of construction and development as well against allowing sediment to be dumped or added as nature-based projects such as those that within tidal waters to avoid filling in the SF Bay, restore streams or remove dead trees and dense which was a significant concern in the 1960s that underbrush from forests. However, such issues led to BCDC’s creation and underlying statutory raise particular concerns for coastal adaptation authority. However, many bay shore adaptation projects for two key reasons. First, coastal projects require the addition of sediment to build communities face a pressing need to make up existing tidal marshes and wetlands to enable progress on preparing for SLR before its impacts them (and the wildlife that live there) to withstand become more widespread, and this need will higher water levels and waves. This disconnect has become increasingly urgent in the coming years led to problems and delays with attaining BCDC’s as sea levels continue to rise. As discussed earlier, approval for proposed wetland restoration projects the next decade represents a crucial time period in recent years. (As noted later, BCDC recently for implementing certain types of projects—such modified its Bay Fill policy to address this concern.) as enhancing coastal marshes—before rising water levels preclude their effectiveness. As such, coastal www.lao.ca.gov 27 analysis full gutter communities cannot afford to wait at least a year to example, as noted earlier, the SF Bay Area has attain approvals for each project—nor, collectively, created the regional SF Bay Restoration Regulatory can the state, if it wants to improve SLR Integration Team to expedite and simplify the preparedness levels across California. Second, the permitting process for certain projects. This team state should be encouraging a wide complement is coordinating permit review and requirements of potential approaches to address SLR, including across all the applicable state and federal agencies, innovative natural infrastructure projects that however only for SF Bay Area wetland projects provide environmental benefits. As discussed, the funded with local Measure AA funds. Additionally, current regulatory review regime may be having the CNRA has formed a work group to look into ways opposite effect. to coordinate and expedite regulatory review While some limited examples of efforts to processes, but thus far that effort is limited to address these issues exist, they do not apply permits for forest health projects and does not to coastal adaptation projects statewide. For apply to coastal adaptation. STATE CAN HELP EXPEDITE LOCAL SLR ADAPTATION EFFORTS As discussed earlier, the state has a strong facilitate coordination across jurisdictions and take interest in helping to ensure that local governments advantage of economies of scale by collecting and take sufficient actions to mitigate the potential disseminating helpful information statewide. The economic, environmental, and public health risks state can also take action to ensure public trust associated with SLR. Moreover, given that delaying resources like beaches, wetlands, and coastal adaptation work can result in missed opportunities access are preserved. Additionally, the state can and higher costs, a strong case exists for the state help ensure that local adaptation efforts adequately to help remove barriers at the local level in order to address the needs of vulnerable communities that expedite such work. might not have the political or financial resources State Can Play Key Role in Supporting to guarantee they receive sufficient preparation and Local Adaptation Efforts. Coastal communities protection. must increase both the extent and pace of SLR State Cannot Bear Majority of Costs of preparation efforts if California is to avoid severe, SLR Preparation . . . The state does not have costly, disruptive, and harmful impacts in the the fiscal resources to fund most of the coastal coming decades. The state has neither the capacity adaptation activities that ultimately will be needed nor the authority to assume primary responsibility to prepare for SLR. Nor would expecting statewide for planning, developing policies, or implementing taxpayers to fully subsidize such activities be response activities across California’s many coastal appropriate, given that most coastal properties communities. Furthermore, local governments and infrastructure are owned by and primarily are most attuned to the particular needs and benefit local governments or private entities. Local circumstances facing their communities. However, governments have the primary responsibility for this does not mean the state should avoid any planning, authorizing, maintaining, and operating involvement in coastal adaptation activities—the their local infrastructure, and they—and their statewide risks and potential impacts of inadequate residents—correspondingly should pay the costs preparation are too great. The state can play an associated with those activities, including how important role in encouraging and supporting their infrastructure may need to be modified for local efforts and helping to alleviate some of the SLR. As is the case with most local infrastructure challenges local governments face. For example, costs—including construction and maintenance of the state can use its over-arching position to help water and sewer systems, roads and transportation 28 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT systems, and school facilities—the bulk of funding state funds play a particularly important role in for climate adaptation activities will need to come helping support these initial stages of adaptation from local sources. work. State funds can also be a key factor enabling . . . However, State Investments Can Help the construction of adaptation projects, pairing Spur Other Actions. Because of the state with local funds to help partially offset what still will interest in ensuring that coastal communities be significant upfront costs for local governments. are adequately prepared, however, the state has This is consistent with the role the state has played made and will want to continue making some as a contributing funder for many other types of contributions to assist local governments in their local infrastructure projects. For example, the state SLR adaptation efforts. State dollars can serve as frequently funds portions of local water supply “seed money” that help to spur adaptation project and transportation projects, and contributes to planning efforts for which local governments cannot the construction of local public school buildings. generate sufficient impetus or funding to get started State funds could be especially important for on their own. Local governments report they often large regional adaptation projects (which are more find obtaining local funding sources—such as new difficult and complicated to implement) and projects dedicated taxes, bonds, or loans—easier when in economically disadvantaged communities (which they are requesting the monies to construct specific often face additional challenges in generating local projects, in contrast to planning activities. As such, funding). RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGISLATIVE STEPS LAO Recommendations Figure 12 Intended to Help Address Key Summary of LAO Recommendations to Support and Enhance Local Barriers, Help Expedite Coastal Adaptation Efforts Adaptation Progress. While effectively preparing for and 9 responding to SLR will be a difficult Foster Regional-Scale Adaptation task for local governments, the • Establish and assist regional climate adaptation collaborative groups. threat is on its way. Consequently, • Encourage development of regional coastal adaptation plans. • Support implementation of regional adaptation efforts. the challenges local jurisdictions face will become significantly 9 Support Local Planning and Adaptation Projects greater if they do not make • Increase assistance for cities and counties to plan for sea‑level rise (SLR). additional progress in the coming • Support coastal adaptation projects with widespread benefits. years. We believe the Legislature • Facilitate monitoring of state‑funded demonstration projects. can play an important role in 9 helping to increase the types, Provide Information, Assistance, and Support • Establish the California Climate Adaptation Center and Regional Support Network. pace, and scale of coastal • Develop a standard methodology for economic analyses of SLR risks and responses. adaptation efforts around the • Require a review of how regulatory permitting processes can be made more efficient. state. In this section, we make 9 several recommendations for how Enhance Public Awareness of SLR Risks and Impacts the Legislature can help alleviate • Require coastal flooding disclosures for real estate transactions. some of the key barriers to coastal • Require that state‑funded adaptation plans and projects include robust public adaptation that local governments engagement. • Direct state departments to conduct public awareness campaign about threats posed are experiencing. Figure 12 by SLR. summarizes our recommendations, which we discuss in more detail below. www.lao.ca.gov 29 analysis full gutter Foster Regional-Scale Adaptation In implementing this recommendation, the Legislature will want to carefully consider how to More widespread collaboration and planning define and delineate regions, how many regions to for the inter-jurisdictional effects of SLR not fund, and which entities should serve as the fiscal only will help contribute to greater statewide and administrative agents for the groups. These coastal preparedness, it can also help address collaborative groups should be large enough to coastal communities’ challenges with limited encompass impacts that will affect the whole region funding, information, and capacity. We have three and take advantage of economies of scale, but recommendations for how the Legislature can not so large that they inevitably overlook important foster adaptation efforts at the regional scale. issues, concerns, and constituents specific to the Establish and Assist Regional Climate region. Moreover, they should consider natural Adaptation Collaborative Groups. We processes that will impact participants similarly recommend the Legislature support climate (such as tidal impacts and sand migration patterns) adaptation work at a regional scale. Specifically, around which regional planning makes particular we recommend establishing collaborative groups sense. Based on existing regional models and in several regions across the state to plan together feedback we solicited in researching this report, and learn from each other regarding how to we think the state should look to fund around 10 or respond to the effects of climate change. These 12 collaborative groups. Because of its experience groups can help build on some of the nascent administering climate mitigation programs and collaborative efforts on climate adaptation that are its current work establishing a regional program already underway in some regions but help make pursuant to SB 1072 (as mentioned on page 18), them more consistent, sustainable, and available we recommend the Legislature direct SGC to across all areas of the state. administer this program, including developing By sharing information and resources, such criteria for selecting regions and regional groups have the potential to address many of leads, soliciting applications, and choosing the the adaptation barriers identified by coastal collaborative leads for each region. The seven professionals. They can help with coordinating how existing ARCCA groups highlighted in Figure 7 on to respond to cross-jurisdictional climate impacts, page 17 may be appropriate entities to lead this creating efficiencies and economies of scale, and effort in some regions because of their previous building capacity through shared learning and work and relationships, but this may not be the pooling of resources. Participants should primarily case in all areas of the state. Moreover, not all include representatives from local governments, counties are covered by the existing ARCCA but the groups should also create a forum for them groups. to liaison with other key planning partners such as In order to sustain the regional groups on an community-based organizations, state agencies, ongoing basis, we recommend providing them and utilities. with an annual appropriation. The amount of While collaboration will be particularly helpful for state funding to provide to each region should SLR preparation because of the cross-jurisdictional be sufficient to support a couple staff members, effects of coastal flooding, we believe limiting the administrative costs, and regular opportunities scope of these groups solely to coastal regions to plan and share information together (such as and issues would be a missed opportunity. Local meetings and conferences)—perhaps around governments must confront and plan to address $500,000 per region annually. The overall cost to multiple climate-related challenges, including an the state will depend upon how many regions the increased risk of wildfires, droughts, and incidents Legislature chooses to fund. This level of consistent of extreme heat. Working with and learning from base funding should make certain the groups can regional neighbors will be not only helpful but be sustained, however it will not be sufficient to essential in all of these interrelated efforts. fund all of their activities. To ensure local buy-in and accountability that the groups’ work remains helpful 30 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT and relevant to them, collaborative participants regional collaborative groups described above, we should also be expected to contribute to the similarly recommend the Legislature task SGC with groups’ costs and operations. These contributions their administration. We recommend the Legislature could include in-kind staff time and involvement as direct SGC to develop criteria for what the plans well as a physical location to house the staff and should include (pursuant to priorities specified group’s operations. in legislation), what types of entities should be Encourage Development of Regional Coastal included in the development process, as well as Adaptation Plans. In addition to establishing and a process for reviewing and approving the plans sustaining forums for regional collaboration around once they have been developed to ensure they climate issues, we also recommend the Legislature meet the required elements. We recommend the support those groups in developing coastal Legislature appropriate funding for grants that SGC adaptation plans. These plans should address would allocate to the regional collaborative groups key vulnerabilities and risks that SLR poses to to support the development of these plans. The the region, as well as adaptation strategies the state has provided funding for regional plans in region will take to address them. We envision such other sectors that can serve as models for these a regional plan as distinct from planning efforts coastal adaptation plans. These include regional occurring at the individual city and county levels in transportation plans, integrated regional water that it would focus on more broad, interconnected, management plans, and sustainable communities cross-jurisdictional issues that would be outside strategies. Based on these examples, we estimate the scope of single-jurisdiction plans and projects. that a few million dollars per region is a reasonable Additionally, we view these plans as an opportunity amount to provide for plan development. Assuming to incentivize the region to work together to help the state establishes between six and eight address the needs of under-resourced communities collaborative groups that encompass the coast, that might not be able to adequately prepare if left adopting this recommendation would have an to plan their own, as well as public trust resources overall one-time cost of $15 million to $30 million. which benefit all local constituents. The plans This amount likely would not be sufficient to cover should not be simply a collection of unrelated all costs for these planning efforts, but we believe vulnerabilities and projects compiled by the region expecting that local governments contribute a but rather should be focused on issues that have share of the costs is reasonable. cross-jurisdictional importance. To ensure this While the state’s regions face a number of emphasis, we recommend the Legislature require climate-related challenges for which they have to that these plans be focused on three categories of prepare, we recommend focusing state support regional issues: for this initial planning effort on coastal adaptation. Because of its cross-jurisdictional impacts and • Interrelated natural effects such as erosion imminence, we think SLR is a fitting issue for and sand migration patterns, as well as the state to select for a pilot regional adaptation wetlands that buffer wave action. planning initiative. As such, only the regional • Interrelated human impacts such as collaborative groups containing coastal counties addressing potential flooding in important would be eligible for this proposed planning transportation corridors and for important grant. Limiting the exercise in this way can help infrastructure that affect multiple jurisdictions. participating cities and counties undertake and • Key regional priorities such as addressing accomplish the work more quickly compared to if the needs of vulnerable communities, they had to also address potential regional impacts preserving public access to the shoreline, and from wildfires, droughts, and heat. (The state protecting natural resources such as beaches should not prohibit regional collaborative groups and coastal habitats. from widening the scope of their adaptation plans should they wish to do so, but should only provide Because these regional coastal adaptation funding for a targeted coastal focus.) If this regional plans would be coordinated and developed by the www.lao.ca.gov 31 analysis full gutter planning exercise proves to be productive and making a commitment to help assist in the funding effective, the Legislature could consider funding of projects—even if it might be appropriated across similar efforts to address other climate threats in multiple years—will help incentivize participants the future. to spend time on collaborative planning. State In areas where planning efforts already are contributions for implementing larger-scale, underway, regional coastal adaptation plans can multiyear coastal adaptation projects will be build upon and connect work that has already particularly important because such projects likely been undertaken by individual cities and counties, will be more logistically complicated and expensive help fill in gaps, and focus the emphasis on issues to undertake if multiple jurisdictions are involved. of regional importance. In other areas of the As discussed earlier, we recommend the state state where fewer planning efforts have yet been require that local governments also acquire funding undertaken, more initial research and planning will contributions from other sources for these projects. be needed. Additionally, an overall regional plan Estimating an appropriate range of funding could encompass sub-regional plans and projects for the state to provide for coastal adaptation based on what makes the most sense for the projects is difficult until regional plans and region. For example, the adaptation plan for the SF priorities are developed and submitted. However, Bay Area may be divided into a set of interrelated stakeholders whom we interviewed for this report strategies for the North Bay that differ from those emphasized that having some certainty that developed for the East Bay. project implementation funding will be available Consistent with many other local planning and forthcoming from the state will be a critical efforts—including LCPs—we do not propose factor for ensuring robust participation by local making the development of regional coastal governments in the planning process. Given the adaptation plans a required state mandate. Even magnitude of the threats posed by SLR, regional if the Legislature were to make these planning projects could easily cost billions of dollars. efforts optional, we believe most jurisdictions and Because local governments likely will not be ready regions would participate. This is because coastal to spend these funds for a few years—until after communities already have a rationale to seek to they complete regional plans and initial project avoid the potential damages and disruption from design work—the Legislature could select an initial SLR; the state providing a forum, structure, and target amount to plan to set aside now and revisit funding to undertake regional planning can help that amount as plans and project proposals are remove barriers and facilitate those communities developed, particularly in the context of its other taking essential steps to meet those objectives. spending priorities. For example, if the Legislature Additionally, implementing our recommendation to is considering asking voters to approve a new provide future project funding that is contingent general obligation bond for climate adaptation upon the development of these plans—as in the coming years, it could reserve a portion discussed next—would provide incentives for cities of these funds for regional coastal adaptation and counties to participate in these regional efforts. projects. Support Implementation of Regional Support Local Planning and Adaptation Efforts. Once they have developed Adaptation Projects coastal adaptation plans, we recommend the Legislature provide some funding to help regions Not all SLR preparation efforts are appropriate begin implementing the projects identified in those to undertake at the regional scale. Individual cities plans. Because of its experience in allocating and counties also will need to address anticipated grants for coastal projects, we recommend the impacts within their own jurisdictions that do not Legislature task SCC with administering this have a regional impact. Moreover, communities program. As noted earlier, the need for funding to around the state share the need to learn more undertake projects is a primary barrier for coastal about which types of coastal adaptation strategies communities seeking to prepare for SLR. The state 32 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT are most effective. We have three recommendations funding is the most significant barrier to adaptation to help achieve these objectives. progress cited by coastal professionals, and state Increase Assistance for Cities and Counties funding plays a crucial role in helping to spur to Plan for SLR. While some SLR impacts would investments from other sources. However, limited be covered by our proposed regional planning state funding should not be used to benefit a small effort, this would not preclude the need for cities number of private property owners, but rather be and counties to plan for how they will address their targeted for projects with widespread benefits. more localized vulnerabilities. We recommend the To this end, we recommend the Legislature Legislature provide additional support for individual appropriate funding explicitly to support these jurisdictions to continue to plan for the effects of types of projects. Specifically, we recommend the SLR. Specifically, we recommend the Legislature Legislature provide funding to SCC to administer a appropriate funding to SCC for a grant program competitive grant program for coastal adaptation that would offset a portion of local governments’ projects that fall under at least one of the following costs for conducting vulnerability assessments, four categories: adaptation plans, and detailed plans for specific • Pilot Demonstration Projects to Test projects. This would continue previous efforts Adaptation Strategies. Such projects funded through SCC’s Climate Ready Program. should be designed to experiment with The funding would help communities that have not innovative approaches, learn about which yet completed the initial steps of the SLR planning strategies are—or are not—most effective process. Moreover, even cities and counties in different conditions, and include methods that have completed vulnerability assessments for disseminating lessons learned to other and adaptation plans report a need for financial jurisdictions. assistance in developing detailed project plans • Projects With Broad Public Benefits. Such and feasibility studies, and in proceeding through projects should protect public resources such the environmental permitting process—activities as beaches, wetlands, shoreline access, and for which obtaining private financing is often more fish and wildlife habitat. difficult. • Projects for Critical Infrastructure. Such Based on indications from previous rounds of projects should demonstrate that they Climate Ready Program grant funding, we find that address significant risks to public health and roughly $5 million per year for the next five years safety by reducing potential damage to public would be reasonable to help local governments infrastructure such as water treatment plants make additional progress in SLR planning. After or highways. five years the Legislature can reassess the need • Projects Addressing the Needs of to continue providing these planning funds, Vulnerable Communities. Such projects or whether by that point the local demand for should benefit communities in which a large funding has largely shifted from planning to project proportion of residents have comparatively implementation. These planning funds would be low incomes and therefore likely would not in addition to the $1.5 million per year in ongoing otherwise be able to undertake adequate SLR Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund monies the preparation. Coastal Commission currently uses to support local governments in planning for SLR and updating their Facilitate Monitoring of State-Funded LCPs. (The Coastal Commission uses half of these Demonstration Projects. We recommend the funds for local grants and half for staff support.) Legislature facilitate some multiyear monitoring, Support Coastal Adaptation Projects With evaluation, and future modification—or “adaptive Widespread Benefits. In addition to planning management”—of coastal adaptation projects. funds, we also recommend the Legislature support Specifically, we recommend that state grants local jurisdictions in undertaking coastal adaptation provided for construction of coastal adaptation projects. As discussed, project implementation projects intended to pilot new approaches—as www.lao.ca.gov 33 analysis full gutter described above—also include sufficient funding questions of “how well does the strategy work, to conduct several years of post-construction does it last, and how can we make it work better?” follow-up activities. The Legislature can direct To this end, we recommend the state require that SCC to design adaptation project grant awards to as a condition of receiving state funding, local support these additional costs. grantees must submit regular project reports In order to verify which types of coastal to SCC summarizing project performance and adaptation projects are most effective, project lessons learned. SCC could then disseminate this implementers will need to continue to observe information through the aforementioned regional and potentially modify them after construction is climate collaborative groups and the California completed. While ongoing monitoring and adaptive Climate Adaptation Center and support network we management is recommended for any type of propose below. project—especially those that are nature-based— While the amount needed for these follow-up such practices are particularly essential for coastal activities will vary by project, a rough guideline adaptation projects for two reasons. First, because might be about 10 percent of the amount provided of the unprecedented challenge that SLR presents, for construction. For example, if SCC allocated a many response strategies will necessarily be new grant of $10 million to construct a living shoreline and untested. Second, conditions will shift as sea project, it might then also provide an additional levels rise, potentially affecting the project’s original $1 million to be used over several years for design and performance. These uncertainties add monitoring and adaptive management. This to the need to monitor the project to evaluate proportional approach likely will not cover all of whether modifications are necessary in the coming the associated costs. As with project construction years. costs, state funding can help enable and enhance In most cases, when the state provides grant monitoring efforts, but project proponents funding for capital projects, responsibility for should be expected to help pay the full costs of undertaking—and paying for—post-construction post-construction activities. activities such as maintenance and monitoring falls In addition to project-specific follow-up to the grantees. Because of the oft-mentioned activities, we recommend the Legislature allow fiscal constraints local governments face, however, SCC to use a portion of adaptation project funds such activities do not always take place at a robust to conduct—or award grants for another entity level. For these coastal adaptation projects, we to conduct—large-scale scientific monitoring on believe a strong rationale exists for the state to help coastal conditions. For example, this could include support such costs and ensure that meaningful tracking changes in beach width along a whole scientific monitoring and adaptive management region of coastline—rather than each jurisdiction or occur. This is because of the statewide usefulness project grantee having to conduct such monitoring of learning lessons from new and innovative coastal for its own portion of beach. Such larger scale adaptation projects, as well as the importance to monitoring not only could take advantage of the public of ensuring their ultimate success in economies of scale, it also could allow for analyses mitigating SLR impacts. We believe that the state across different locations to test the effectiveness helping to fund such follow-up work will ensure of strategies employed in one area as compared to that it takes place and thereby help to inform the those in another. quality and amount of knowledge about effective Implementing this recommendation need adaptation strategies across the state. That, in turn, not require a separate appropriation from the can help address the need that local governments Legislature. However, the Legislature should cite for additional information about the trade-offs consider these post-construction costs when of coastal adaptation strategies. Post-construction determining the overall amount it wants to follow-up activities can help answer the key appropriate for coastal adaptation. 34 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Provide Information, Assistance, and governments. These regional staff should seek to Support develop robust relationships at the local level and be engaged in local planning and collaborative As discussed earlier, local governments are meetings and efforts. Regional-based staff should struggling with how to determine next steps work together with Center-based staff as a network in preparing for SLR and seeking tools to help to share information and best practices across make such decisions. The state is uniquely the state, disseminate updates and guidance from positioned to take advantage of economies various state agencies to local governments, as of scale, centralized communication forums well as provide feedback from local governments and expertise, and state-level authority to help back to state policymakers about challenges and support local adaptation efforts. We have three needs at the local level. The Center should also be specific recommendations to help advance these charged with establishing formal partnerships with objectives. the state’s universities and coastal researchers to Establish California Climate Adaptation help provide a bridge between local governments Center and Regional Support Network. We and the latest scientific information. Because of its recommend the Legislature establish a system work overseeing the Integrated Climate Adaptation for providing technical support and information to and Resilience Program, we recommend the local governments on adapting to climate change Center be housed under OPR as an expansion of impacts. The goal of this system would be to that effort. As discussed earlier, that program is connect practitioners undertaking adaptation intended to develop a cohesive and coordinated work with state policy and guidance, useable response to the impacts of climate change across scientific information, and technical assistance the state. that is both easily accessible and applicable. This Develop Standard Methodology for Economic system would seek to address local governments’ Analyses of SLR Risks and Responses. We frequently expressed need for “a person to call” recommend the Legislature require OPC to contract to answer their questions and provide real-world for development of a standardized methodology advice, guidance, expertise, and examples of and template for conducting economic analyses of how to proceed with adaptation work. Because of SLR risks and adaptation strategies. This template the many climate-related challenges facing local can serve as a model for local governments to governments, we recommend this effort not be use in conducting their own analyses to assess limited to coastal adaptation and the threat of SLR their local risks and the best options for taking but rather be designed to support a broad array of action. It should guide local governments on climate adaptation efforts. how to undertake such an analysis, as well as Specifically, we recommend the Legislature include a database of pre-populated statewide establish the California Climate Adaptation Center data (such as employment data by sector) which with funding for a staff of roughly 20 employees. local governments can download in lieu having to We estimate this would cost a few million dollars search for it on their own. In addition to traditional annually. We recommend that about half of these market-based factors, this methodology should employees be located in a central location—such provide a framework for how local governments as Sacramento—and represent expertise in several might assign value to nonmarket factors such disciplines essential to adaptation work. For as ecosystem services and maintaining—or example, these could include experts in planning, losing—local beaches. Moreover, it should help engineering, land use law, finance, and community local governments in evaluating the economic outreach. The remaining staff could be located in implications of a no action alternative to help them regional locations—ideally co-located with staff truly assess the trade-offs of potential adaptation from our proposed regional climate collaborative steps they might be considering. groups—so they can be an easily accessible Providing such a tool for local governments and familiar “go-to” resource for nearby local across the state to use would achieve three www.lao.ca.gov 35 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT important goals. First, the availability of such a undertaking to help simplify and expedite the tool likely would lead to more local governments permitting process for forest health projects. CNRA conducting in-depth analyses of how SLR might identify ways to improve current processes might impact their communities. This increased without changes to statute or additional resources, awareness can in turn help spur additional such as by directing departments to consult with preparation efforts across the state and make each other during their permit review process and sure such efforts are more data driven and cost to coordinate the conditions and requirements effective. Second, the state completing this they impose on project proponents. CNRA’s review activity can take advantage of economies of scale might also reveal that changes to current law or and save taxpayers the costs of many individual regulations are needed to address existing permit local governments having to develop or pay the complications. For example, BCDC recently revised full costs of such work on their own. While local its policies to allow for the placement of increased governments still will incur some costs to undertake amounts of sediment along the shore of the a customized local economic assessment, SF Bay for projects that will restore and enhance their expenses will be lower since they will not the natural habitat. Additionally, CNRA should have to start “from scratch.” Third, a consistent look at the degree to which additional funding methodology would allow the state to compare and might be necessary to help expedite review and compile data across jurisdictions that conduct such implementation of coastal adaptation projects. The analyses to get a sense of statewide economic risk agency should also evaluate the example of the and inform how future state investments should be SF Bay Restoration Regulatory Integration Team targeted. to see if similar practices could and should be Understanding the costs and benefits of various replicated in other regions of the state. adaptation approaches—including the implications The state’s environmental permitting system is of avoiding taking action—is essential input for local designed to protect valuable public trust resources. governments weighing the trade-offs of how they We are not recommending these important should proceed. Moreover, such information will be protections be repealed, removed, or ignored. key for them to explain and defend their decisions However, the current protracted review process to local constituents—especially when such is both causing undue delays for implementing decisions might be politically unpopular. coastal adaptation projects and inhibiting innovative In order to support the development of a approaches that need to be tried and tested. standardized methodology and template, we Because the state has a vested interest in local estimate that OPC would need roughly $1 million in governments making progress in preparing for one-time funding. A handful of examples of such SLR and avoiding potential damage—and in them economic analyses exist that can serve as models taking such action soon—we recommend reducing for developing a statewide template, including regulatory obstacles that currently prevent them those conducted for San Diego County, the City from doing so. of Imperial Beach, and the five-state Mid-Atlantic Implementing this recommendation will not region along the east coast of the U.S. have any upfront costs for the state. CNRA’s Require Review of How Regulatory Permitting review, however, could conclude that significantly Processes Can Be Made More Efficient. We expediting permit review time lines would require recommend the Legislature direct CNRA to explore hiring additional state department staff. The and implement options for a more coordinated Legislature could then decide if a compelling case and efficient regulatory review process for coastal exists that departments cannot implement CNRA’s adaptation projects, and to report back to the suggested changes within existing resources and Legislature on suggestions for improvement. whether to provide additional funding to improve This would be similar to the work the agency is permitting processes. 36 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Enhance Public Awareness of SLR requires real estate disclosures. The state has Risks and Impacts already determined that despite the inherent uncertainty, alerting purchasers when a property Coastal communities cite the lack of support faces a potential risk of future damage from for—and, in some cases, direct resistance to— earthquakes, fires, or floods is important public coastal adaptation activities from the public and policy. The same rationale applies to potential— locally elected leaders as a key barrier to SLR and, in some areas, probable—coastal flooding. preparation. This is primarily due to a lack of Indeed, the case for coastal disclosures is public awareness about coming threats and the arguably even stronger since the certainty of need to address SLR. As such, we offer three some amount of SLR occurring is greater than recommendations for how the state can help build that associated with threats such as earthquakes. such awareness. We acknowledge that implementing this Require Coastal Flooding Disclosures for recommendation has the potential to impact local Real Estate Transactions. We recommend the property tax revenues if such disclosures result Legislature adopt legislation requiring that the sale in a reduction in the market value of affected of coastal properties in areas at risk of flooding coastal properties. Specifically, if a property sells from SRL be accompanied by a “Vulnerable for a lower price than it otherwise would have Coastal Property Statement.” This would help to because of the buyers’ heightened awareness of ensure that buyers are aware of the risks posed SLR-related flood risks, the local governments by SRL and other coastal hazards. Instituting would receive less local property tax revenue such a requirement would be comparable to than if it sold for a higher price. As noted earlier, the real estate disclosures currently required for to the degree local property tax revenues drop, properties at risk of forest fires, earthquakes, this also could affect the state budget. This is or other types of flooding. Requiring this because the California Constitution requires that information would help spread awareness about decreases in certain local property tax revenues SLR among the public and allow Californians to used to support local schools be backfilled by make informed decisions about the risk they are the state’s General Fund. Despite these potential assuming before purchasing coastal properties. implications, we believe a strong case still exists Implementing this recommendation would for the state to facilitate greater public awareness necessitate the state determining how to define about the risks that buyers are assuming when which areas—and encompassed properties— purchasing certain coastal properties. Moreover, should be designated as “vulnerable” and require the value of properties that experience flooding disclosures. Moreover, the state would have when sea levels reach higher levels will eventually to decide which time lines and assumptions to decrease regardless of whether or not the state make in selecting from the many potential SLR requires disclosure warnings. scenarios that scientists have developed. Several Require That State-Funded Adaptation tools exist that could be utilized to draw these Plans and Projects Include Robust Public maps, including the CoSMoS system developed Engagement. If the Legislature opts to establish by USGS that incorporates coastal erosion trends. new grant programs to support coastal adaptation We recommend the Legislature direct OPC to planning and projects at the regional and local assemble a technical advisory committee to help levels, we recommend it ensure public outreach determine the best approach for implementing and engagement are key components of those this recommendation, including a process for programs. Specifically, in the statutes it adopts how often the maps should be updated to reflect to create these programs, we recommend updated projections. directing implementing departments—such as While uncertainty exists around the degree SGC and SCC—to include meaningful public and time line for SLR, this is no different from involvement requirements in the criteria they the natural hazards for which the state already develop for adaptation planning and project www.lao.ca.gov 37 analysis full gutter grant programs. We also recommend requiring with SLR and develop a sense of engagement that the administering departments validate in and urgency for taking action. Not only could the adequacy of the public engagement efforts this reduce the active public resistance that that were undertaken by grant recipients before some local governments are encountering in approving final plans and grant awards. That is, their SLR preparation activities, it could foster an final approval of plans and grants by the state atmosphere of organized support and advocacy should be contingent upon the grantee showing for such efforts. Moreover, greater awareness evidence that it met state requirements for public could build encouragement for—and pressure engagement. on—local officials to take action. Another key Outreach to and participation of the advantage of undertaking such a campaign on a public will be essential to both regional and statewide basis is that it would preclude the need single-jurisdiction planning processes to help for each individual coastal community to develop develop societal awareness about SLR and such materials and strategies on its own, thereby climate risks and to build acceptance for the saving taxpayer money. adaptation steps that will be undertaken. We recommend the Legislature direct state Moreover, to ensure the needs of vulnerable departments to focus on increasing public communities are included and accurately reflected awareness and disseminating information in the plans and proposed projects, undertaking within their existing resources by making it a broad-based outreach efforts in coordination with priority within their regular operations. This community-based organizations is important. could include BCDC, SCC, and the Coastal Direct State Departments to Conduct Public Commission dedicating a small portion of the Awareness Campaign About Threats Posed by annual funding that they receive from NOAA to SLR. We recommend the Legislature direct state implement the federal Coastal Management Act departments to intensify their efforts to increase towards expanding public awareness activities. public awareness of the time lines, risks, and Additionally, OPC reports that it recently entered options for addressing SLR. This should include a contract for roughly $200,000 to initiate a developing resources which local governments public awareness campaign about SLR, which is can use in their own local public education efforts, a positive step in this effort. We recommend the such as templates for social media campaigns, Legislature request regular updates from OPC posters and signs, and easily customizable on the progress and perceived effectiveness of inundation maps. While certain state departments this campaign and what additional steps might have developed some resources—such as be merited—including, potentially, expanding the reports, fact sheets, and webinars—most are not scope and reach of this work. The Legislature can widely disseminated and many are not particularly then evaluate whether additional appropriations user-friendly. For example, many documents might be merited in the future to make these contain technical scientific language and do not efforts more widespread and effective. The “Save clearly explain how SLR will affect California Our Water” water conservation campaign that residents’ daily lives in the coming years. the state undertook during the recent statewide drought can serve as an example of this type We believe that state-level efforts to educate of effort, however that was a more expansive the public about SLR can help local governments and expensive initiative than what we are in several ways. Among the most important recommending here. potential benefits would be to help the public better understand the potential risks associated 38 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT FUNDING OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS Multiple Funding Options Available. Given sources upon which the state has historically relied the relatively limited level of state involvement and for coastal activities—the General Fund, general funding in supporting local coastal adaptation efforts obligation bonds, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction thus far, many of our recommended actions— Fund, and the Environmental License Plate Fund— unsurprisingly—would result in additional costs. We the Legislature could also prioritize other existing do not identify specific funding sources for each sources to increase support for coastal adaptation activity, as the Legislature has multiple options upon activities. For example, the Legislature could direct which it could rely. CalOES to use a portion of the federal funds the Some of the costs associated with our state often receives from FEMA through the Hazard recommendations could be significant, such as if Mitigation Grant Program for these purposes. As the state opts to play a large role in supporting and discussed earlier, the state receives significant expanding implementation of coastal adaptation amounts of these funds in years after it experiences projects. The state would need to rely on funding federally declared disasters. The Legislature sources that can support significant—multimillion historically has deferred to CalOES on how to utilize dollar—levels of spending for such projects, such as these funds, and with a few limited exceptions, the General Fund or the Greenhouse Gas Reduction thus far the department has not targeted coastal Fund. Other recommended actions, however, adaptation projects as a priority area of focus. encompass more modest steps that are intended to The Legislature could also direct Caltrans and the help support local governments in their preparation California Transportation Commission to place a efforts. For these activities—such as supporting greater priority on SLR adaptation projects in its use regional climate collaborative groups or developing of transportation funds along the coast. a template for undertaking economic analyses— Similarly, local governments likely also will need the Legislature also has the option of using to identify funding sources to support intensified funding sources that are able to support smaller, climate adaptation efforts. This could include less-costly expenditures. Such sources include the designing adaptation projects that allow them to Environmental License Plate Fund, which provides take advantage of other available funding sources roughly $50 million annually from the sale of license such as those targeted for transportation, recreation, plates for environmental programs and projects. The or water system infrastructure maintenance and state has used this fund to support some coastal replacement projects. For example, if a local activities in the past. Additionally, over $30 million government already has plans to upgrade an aged remains unappropriated that voters authorized for water treatment plant using rate-payer funding, it coastal restoration and adaptation activities via could incorporate features that would make the Proposition 68, the 2018 natural resources bond. project more resilient to future SLR, such as by The Legislature could direct these resources for elevating or moving key components of the facility. implementing some of our recommendations— Local governments could also pass new taxes, particularly for supporting adaptation projects. As fees, or bonds at the local level. A few examples of noted earlier, the Legislature is also contemplating such strategies have already been approved by local proposals to ask voters to approve a new general voters. These include Measure AA in the nine-county obligation bond targeted for climate adaptation SF Bay Area (which imposed a new parcel tax to be activities, which would obligate future General Fund used for shoreline restoration projects), Proposition dollars to repay the bond. A in the City of San Francisco (which authorized Both State and Local Governments Could a $425 million local general obligation bond to Look to Alternative Funding Sources to Support repair and improve the Embarcadero seawall), and Adaptation Activities. In addition to the funding Measure W in Los Angeles (which imposed a parcel www.lao.ca.gov 39 analysis full gutter tax to be used for stormwater capture projects that down unfunded pension obligations, and expanding improve water quality and may also increase water access to child care and health care—all of which supply in the face of climate change and increased could create pressures for additional state funding. droughts). Moreover, multiple indicators suggest an economic Larger Fiscal Context of Implementing slowdown could be on the horizon, which would LAO Recommendations. For all of the state constrain state revenues and further complicate the funding sources we have identified as options for Legislature’s budget decisions. The same types of implementing our recommendations—both large fiscal trade-offs also exist at the local level. and comparatively smaller—the Legislature already We note, however, the coming decade is a faces many competing priorities. Directing funding to key period for escalating the pace and scale of implement our recommended actions and support adaptation progress. As discussed, taking action local governments in their coastal adaptation efforts soon will allow coastal communities—and the would mean less funding available from any of these state—to be more strategic about phasing in sources for other state expenditures. As with all its responses to SLR, and to learn what approaches budgetary decisions, the Legislature will have to work best before the risk of severe flooding balance its multiple priorities. While spending on becomes imminent. We believe that this sense of coastal adaptation now to prevent higher disaster urgency and the costly implications of failing to response and recovery costs in the future makes adequately prepare for SLR merit consideration sense, this is not the only pressing issue facing the of our recommendations alongside other state state and its budgetary resources. For example, priorities, especially while the state is still in a strong the Legislature has also set important goals for fiscal position. addressing housing and homelessness, paying CONCLUSION Recommended Actions Represent Next Step them in these tasks in the near term will help lay in What Will Be a Multiyear, Multistage Process. the groundwork for local governments to tackle the The overall goals of our recommendations are to more difficult—and costly—decisions and actions in prompt more widespread progress in local coastal future years as floodwaters become more imminent. preparation efforts. We believe implementing our Given the scope of this report, we developed recommended steps would help build partnerships our recommendations specifically to expedite and capacity at the local level that will both extend coastal adaptation progress at the local level. Yet adaptation activities to more coastal communities we believe adopting our suggested actions could and assist those that are already engaged in help facilitate state-level adaptation efforts as well. planning efforts to transition into implementing Specifically, several of our recommendations also policies and projects. While these are incremental would benefit the state departments responsible for steps that will not be sufficient to address all preparing state-owned assets—such as highways the anticipated impacts of SLR, they represent and parks—for the impacts of climate change prerequisites along the path to more robust and SLR. For example, state department actions statewide preparation. Specifically, in order to could be informed and improved by the expertise adequately address the potential impacts of SLR housed within our proposed California Climate and avoid costly damage and disruption, local Adaptation Center. Similarly, state departments governments must first establish collaborative that need to evaluate the potential economic cross-jurisdictional relationships, strengthen their impacts of SLR on state assets could avoid knowledge base about which strategies work (and incurring some additional costs if they could rely which do not), and increase public awareness on a state-developed standardized methodology to about the coming threats. The Legislature assisting conduct such analyses. 40 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Additional Issues Will Need Legislative existing housing shortage, and therefore an Attention in Future Years. This report is meant effective response will require thorough and to be a preliminary step at looking at how the strategic state-level planning and guidance. Legislature can help address the specific climate The Legislature may want to consider how challenge of SLR. Additional activities and to help local governments confront land use investments will be needed as coastal impacts decisions complicated by SLR, including how become more pressing and prevalent in the future. to facilitate and encourage needed relocations, We knowingly did not address certain issues within whether to place restrictions on rebuilding after this report, either because they were too complex a flood event, and how to support innovative for us to study in detail within our time frame or and resilient approaches to building and because they fell outside of the scope we identified development. for this report. In order for local governments and • Responding to Changes in Insurance the state to effectively tackle the coming challenges Markets. As has started to occur in areas of presented by SLR and other climate risks, however, high wildfire risk, the cost and availability of the Legislature will need to confront some of these property insurance in coastal communities difficult topics in the coming years. These include: likely will change as the risk of SLR-related flooding increases. The Legislature may want • Clarifying Uncertain Legal Questions. At to determine what role the state should play some point, statutory clarification likely will be to support California residents and business needed to address some unprecedented legal owners when property insurance becomes issues. These include questions about when unaffordable or unavailable for some existing and where seawalls can be built and fortified, properties. given the associated trade-offs between • Addressing Additional Climate-Related protecting the assets behind them and the Risks and Challenges. Clearly, SLR is not the resulting erosion of nearby beaches. only way that the effects of climate change will • Defining Statewide Priorities and impact California. The Legislature will also need Responsibilities. As threats become more to determine how to prepare—and help local pressing, the Legislature may want to set governments to prepare—for other challenges statewide priorities and expectations for such as increases in intense heat events, responding to SLR. For example, it will have droughts, wildfires, and inland flooding from to weigh whether the state should step in to severe storms. compel local jurisdictions to protect health and safety and public resources if they fail to Further legislative involvement in addressing these adequately prepare for coastal flooding or if issues will be important—particularly when statutory they plan to implement actions that will have changes are needed to clarify and resolve issues, negative impacts on beaches. The Legislature offer guidance, or provide funding. The Legislature may also consider establishing statewide has many avenues through which to engage in these decision-making guidelines for which types of topics, including holding policy and select committee resources and facilities should be protected hearings, proposing and participating in robust and which might have to be abandoned as sea deliberation over legislation, and requesting research levels rise. and input from experts within state departments • Rethinking How and Where We Build. As and universities. While the challenges facing the water levels rise and areas of the coast begin state’s coastline are daunting, the science is clear— to experience regular flooding, it will constrain sea levels are rising. The impacts these coming where new development can take place, changes ultimately will have on California’s residents, and some existing properties will have to be economy, and natural resources will depend directly renovated or relocated. These challenges upon the actions that local governments and the will be particularly difficult given the state’s state take to prepare in the coming years. www.lao.ca.gov 41 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT APPENDIX Selected References Moser, S, J.A. Ekstrom, J. Kim, S. Heitsch (Susanne Moser Research & Consulting, Barnard, P., L. Erikson, A. Foxgrover, J. Finzi Department of Water Resources, Local Government Hart, A. O’Neill, M. van Ormondt, S. Vitousek, Commission and ICF) (2018). “Adaptation N. Wood, M. Hayden, and J. Jones (2019). Finance Challenges: Characteristic Patterns “Dynamic flood modeling essential to assess the Facing California Local Governments and Ways coastal impacts of climate change.” Scientific to Overcome Them.” California’s Fourth Climate Reports. Change Assessment, California Natural Resources California Natural Resources Agency (2016). Agency. “Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Moser, S., J. Finzi Hart, A. Newton Mann, Plans.” N. Sadrpour, and P. Grifman (Susanne Moser California Natural Resources Agency and Ocean Research & Consulting and U.S. Geological Survey) Protection Council (2018). “State of California (2018). “Growing Effort, Growing Challenge: Sea-Level Rise Guidance: 2018 Update.” Findings from the 2016 CA Coastal Adaptation Kildow, J., C. Colgan, and P. Johnston (2016). Needs Assessment Survey.” California’s Fourth “Coastal and Ocean Economic Summaries of the Climate Change Assessment. Coastal States: Update 2016.” National Ocean Nutters, H. (2012). “Addressing Social Economics Program, Center for the Blue Economy, Vulnerability and Equity in Climate Change Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Adaptation Planning.” Adapting to Rising Tides Monterey. Project, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Lubell, M., F. Vantaggiato, D. Bostic (2019). “The Development Commission. Governance of Sea Level Rise in the San Francisco Risky Business Project (2015). “From Boom to Bay Area: Results From a Survey of Stakeholders.” Bust? Climate Risk in the Golden State.” Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior, San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Department of Environmental Science and Policy, Goals Project (2015). “The Baylands and Climate University of California, Davis. Change: What Can We Do.” California State K Porter; Scawthorn, C.; Huyck, C.; Coastal Conservancy. Investigators: Eguchi, R., Hu, Z.; Reeder, A; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Schneider, P. Multihazard Mitigation Council (2018). Development Commission. Adapting to Rising Tides “Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2018 Interim Bay Shoreline Flood Explorer web-based mapping Report.” National Institute of Building Sciences, tool. Washington, D.C. Vitousek, S., P. L. Barnard, P. Limber, L. Erikson, and B. Cole (2017). “A model integrating longshore and cross-shore processes for predicting long-term shoreline response to climate change.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface,122, 782– 06. www.lao.ca.gov 43 analysis full gutter LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Rachel Ehlers and reviewed by Brian Brown and Anthony Simbol. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 44 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE