By

Steven Aceti, JD
Executive Director
California Coastal Coalition
1133 Second Street, Suite G
Encinitas, CA 92024-5021

Oc. Claudia Avendaño
Sustainable Cities Doctorial Fellow
University of Southern California
3620 South Vermont Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90009

California’s beaches are inextricably linked with its culture and identity. Mention California to most non-residents and the first image that comes to mind is wide, sandy beaches, meandering bicycle paths and seaside homes, all of which are important to the state’s quality of life. The state’s beaches are a valuable natural resource and habitat for a wide variety of marine life such as the least tern and grunion. Coastal tourism is an integral part of state and local economies.

But there’s trouble in paradise. The state’s beaches, primarily in southern and central California, are eroding at an alarming rate.^5,8,12 Over the past few decades, there has been a lack of commitment on the part of the state to restore this resource which is so critical to California’s environmental and economic well-being. Fortunately, that may be changing.

Most of the wide, sandy beaches that have made California famous were created artificially, the beneficiaries of large harbor and marina construction projects undertaken from the 1930’s to the 1960’s (Table 1).^2,12 The massive amounts of artificially-placed sediment derived from those projects was supplemented for many years by beach-quality sediment flowing to the shoreline from upland rivers and streams. Over the past three decades, however, the beaches have been deprived of sand, an essential ally in fighting erosion. Beach nourishment projects are no longer as large or as frequent as they had been. ^2,12 Jetties, groins, dams, flood control projects, and the urbanization of California’s coastline have interfered with sediment transport, severely hampering the ability of beaches to rebound from changes in sea level and winter storms, particularly the recurring "El Niño" events that are unique to the West Coast.^2,14 Although efforts are currently underway in Ventura and Malibu to restore natural sediment flow to the coast by decommissioning dams (Matilija and Rindge, respectively), it is clear that California’s beaches will need substantial amounts of artificial nourishment in order to overcome the effects of structures and urbanization.^2,6,9,10,15

In some areas of northern San Diego County, the most seriously eroded portion of the state’s shoreline, there is no beach at high tide and even at low tide, many of the beaches are nothing more than cobble berms.^6,10 After the winter storms of 1998, a majority of residents in the city of Encinitas, located in northern San Diego County, ranked the lack of sand on local beaches as a more serious concern than traffic or crime.¹³

Over the past two decades, the erosion problem in California has been studied at length by a number of regional, state and federal agencies.^{2,3,5,8,10,11,15} Coastal communities have developed a clear understanding of what needs to be done and how to do it, but implementation of beach restoration projects has been a challenge, mainly due to a lack of funding. The problem is simple; California is not investing enough money to restore its beaches. Without a dedicated funding source of its own, California has been unable to attract its share of federal shoreline protection projects, which require non-federal sponsors to share in the cost. As shown in Figure 1, over the past five years California has received significantly less than its coastal counterparts in Florida, New Jersey and New York, all of which have well-funded beach restoration programs.⁴ Something had to happen before the state’s beaches disappeared and the turning point seems to be the El Niño storms experienced during the winter of 1997-1998 and the devastating effect it had on beaches from Eureka to San Diego.⁵

During the fall of 1996, the California Shore and Beach Preservation Association (CSBPA), with assistance from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), a regional planning agency, drafted legislation to create the state’s first dedicated fund for beach nourishment. The bill, introduced in January, 1997 as "The California Public Beach Enhancement Act" (AB 1228), sought to create an annual fund of $15 million for sand replenishment projects to be administered by the California Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW). By law, DBW is responsible for rehabilitating eroded beaches, but over the past three decades, the agency’s beach restoration efforts have been severely under-funded. What little was appropriated by the state for this purpose was done on a per-project basis, an unpredictable process dependent each year on the priorities of the legislature and the Governor as they battled over the state budget.

Proponents of AB 1228 lobbied for its passage armed with information developed from several sources. DBW commissioned San Francisco State University to ascertain the impact of beaches on California’s economy. The results were impressive. In 1995, the year the survey was performed, it was estimated that the state’s beaches were responsible for $10 billion in direct spending (updated in 1998 to $14 billion), $1 billion in state taxes and more than 500,000 jobs. The spending, with a multiplier effect, was almost 3% of economic activity in the state in 1995. Beach-related jobs constituted 3.5% of the state’s employment.⁷

Although California’s beaches are an integral part of the state’s economy, the state has not been investing much money to maintain this revenue source. Research conducted by CSBPA in 1997 compared the amount of money being spent by California vis-a-vis other coastal states for shoreline protection. As reflected in Table 2, the research showed that California’s financial commitment to its beaches was significantly less than that of Florida, New Jersey and New York.

AB 1228 was passed by the state Assembly during the 1997-1998 legislative session, but it stalled in the Senate after proponents of the bill were unable to convince the leadership to include funding for it in the state budget. CSBPA board members and numerous elected officials worked hard for two years, lobbying the legislature and then Governor Pete Wilson on behalf of AB 1228, but despite their efforts, it became clear that beach restoration was not a high priority in the state capitol.

In lobbying for the passage of AB 1228, CSBPA and coastal communities learned an important lesson; they needed to get organized. Under its charter, CSBPA was limited in the amount of political activity it could engage in. As a result, the message behind AB 1228 was somewhat scattered as CSBPA and elected officials from coastal communities approached legislators on an ad hoc basis. The campaign to create a state beach restoration program needed to be more focused and better financed.

The problems surrounding AB 1228 were discussed at a CSBPA dinner meeting in the spring of 1997. Huntington Beach City Engineer Bob Eichblatt was in the audience that evening and he left the meeting with the resolve to create an organization of coastal cities and counties to lobby for beach-related legislation. Eichblatt was able to convince the Huntington Beach City Council to fund the start-up costs and, with the help of senior engineer Doug Stack and a consultant hired by the city, Bob Fisher, CalCoast was organized as a not-for-profit advocacy group in July 1998. Bob Fisher was CalCoast’s first Executive Director and the senior author replaced him in October 1998 when Fisher became Deputy Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors.

CalCoast began soliciting members shortly after it was organized and it currently has 26 cities and 5 counties as members, as well as businesses, trade groups, associations and individuals. The group held its first meeting of coastal cities last fall. Water quality, wetlands restoration and other shoreline concerns were mentioned as important for CalCoast to work on, but it was decided among the elected officials present that the initial focus of the organization would be to renew the effort to create a state beach restoration program. Shortly thereafter, a successor bill to AB 1228 was introduced by Assembly Member Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-National City), who had also authored AB 1228. CSBPA and CalCoast were the drafters and co-sponsors of the bill.

The new bill, known as "The California Public Beach Restoration Act" (AB 64), was nearly identical to its predecessor, with one important difference. AB 1228 would have made funding available for the construction of sand retention structures. In response to objections raised by environmental groups to the sand retention aspect of AB 1228, it was decided that funding under AB 64 would only apply to sand replenishment projects. The appropriateness of structures has always been a hotly-contested issue in California³, as well as in other parts of the country, and proponents of sand replenishment did not want the debate over structures to hold up a bill which most everyone agreed was a step in the right direction in the fight to save the state’s shoreline.

The existence of a statewide advocacy organization would help gain passage of AB 64, but coastal communities were also working on developing support for coastal issues from the ground up. Organizations of this type had existed for over a decade in some parts of the state. SANDAG established a regional shoreline restoration committee in the mid-eighties and, at about the same time, the counties of Ventura and Santa Barbara established a beach erosion joint powers authority known as "B.E.A.C.O.N." (Beach Erosion and Controlled Operations for Nourishment). As of the time CalCoast was created, the cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside had beach erosion committees comprised of council members, residents and staff and the success of those organizations lead to the creation of similar groups in Encinitas and San Clemente during the past year. As the focus on beach erosion problems increased in California, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors established a regional beach task force in the fall of 1998 and Orange County did the same last winter.

The effort to establish a state beach preservation program benefited significantly from the existence of local and regional organizations up and down the coast. With a network in place, CalCoast was able to develop a support base for letter-writing campaigns and the other activities necessary to pursue a grass-roots lobbying effort.

In order to highlight the need for the beach restoration program sought to be established by AB 64, CSBPA and CalCoast held an event in Sacramento, entitled "Beach Restoration Day ’99," at the beginning of the legislative session. Legislators and staff, as well as local elected officials from coastal communities, environmentalists and the press were invited to a breakfast in the Capitol at which various speakers explained the problem facing the state’s beaches and the need for legislative action. The event was a huge success. CalCoast membership grew from 16 cities, counties and business groups to almost 40 in the weeks leading up to Beach Restoration Day and, within days of the event, a dozen legislators signed on as co-authors of AB 64. Shortly after Beach Restoration Day, AB 64 attracted a broad-base of support from groups such as Surfrider Foundation, the California Coastal Commission, the California Chamber of Commerce, engineering firms and several tourism industry trade associations. The bill was picking up some much-needed momentum at an early stage of the session.

As originally drafted, AB 64 would have established a sand replenishment program at a funding level of $105 million over three years. The figure was derived from a 1998 survey of coastal communities conducted by DBW which sought to quantify the need for nourishment projects in the state.⁹ After making its way through several committees, the bill was passed by the Assembly and the Senate. Along the way, a regional spending formula was inserted, as well as a requirement that DBW and the State Coastal Conservancy study ways to restore the natural flow of sediment, including the removal of structures such as groins, dams and jetties, where possible. In addition, the bill was amended to provide a one-time allocation of only $7 million for one year ($3.5 million from the state's General Fund and $3.5 million from DBW's budget). In other words, the program would not exist in future years unless money was placed in the state budget for that purpose.

Proponents of the bill were encouraged that the legislature was willing to create a state-sponsored program, but disappointed that lobbying for beach restoration funds was going to be an annual event. This was a fairly minor setback, however, compared to what happened after the legislature sent its budget to Governor Davis with AB 64 funds included. Stating that beach restoration projects were "typically not funded from the General Fund,"¹ the governor deleted the $3.5 million allocation from this source and reduced the remainder of AB 64's funding to $500,000.

After a hard-fought campaign, CalCoast and CSBPA succeeded in creating a state-sponsored beach restoration program. Convincing the state to increase its financial commitment to the program will be one of the challenges facing coastal communities in the next legislative session.

With $500,000 in the newly-created Beach Restoration Program, DBW will not be able to do much more than fund the sediment study called for in the law. But, it is clear that by organizing, coastal communities and their allies have been able to make beach erosion and its impacts an important issue in Sacramento. CSBPA, CalCoast and their allies have been able to gain the legislature’s support and they will work with the Davis administration next year to increase funding for the beach erosion program. An adequately-funded state program will not only enable DBW undertake its own projects, but it should also help the state attract more federal funds. In this year’s Water Resources Development Act, more California cities than ever before were awarded funding for shoreline reconnaissance studies to be conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As the demand for federally-funded projects in California increases, so will the need to increase the amount of money allocated to the Beach Restoration Program in order to assist communities with the cost-share requirements of those projects. Unless the state makes a stronger commitment to preserving its beaches, it risks not only losing an important natural and economic resource, but also its identity.