0

OVERVIEW OF

PROJECTAdaptingtosea levelriseraisesAdaptingtosea level

Environmental Law Institute June 2017

Legal Risk Analysis for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies in San Diego

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PhotoCredit:NOAA

1

Sealevelriseraisessignificantlegalquestionsforlocalgovernments,especiallyinCalifornia.Ontheonehand,takingactioncoulddecreaserisktothecommunity,butincreaselitigationriskfromaggrievedpropertyownersorpublicinterestgroups,dependingonthenatureoftheaction.Ontheotherhand,alocalgovernmentcoulddecidenottoact,exposingpeopleandinfrastructuretoexcessrisk,whilepotentiallyexposingitselftolitigationifthelackofactioncausesharmtoindividualsorpublictrustproperty.Riskisthusunavoidable.However,differentadaptationstrategies(includingdecidingnottotakeaction)carrydifferentriskprofiles.ThisExecutiveSummarybreaksdownthefindingsofafullreport,1whichconciselysummarizesthelegalrisksandadministrativehurdlesassociatedwithdifferentadaptationstrategiesinordertofacilitateinformeddecision-making.Theinformationprovidedinthisdocumentisnotlegaladvice,butdesignedtobeaprimeronmultipletypesoflegalriskandadministrativehurdlesassociatedwithsealevelriseadaptationforSouthernCaliforniamunicipalities.Background

In2015,severallocalgovernmentsinSanDiegoCountybegantoevaluatesealevelrisevulnerabilities,andembarkedonupdatingtheirLocalCoastalPlans(LCPs)toreflectplannedadaptationstotheserisks.ThroughacoordinatedeffortledbytheSanDiegoRegionalClimateCollaborative,theselocalgovernmentsidentifiedseveralchallengestheyexpectedtofaceinundertakingtheLCPupdates.Thisincludedalackofexpertiseandknowledgeaboutthelegalliabilitiesassociatedwithsealevelriseadaptationstrategies.WithfundingfromtheNationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration’sRegionalCoastalResilienceGrantprogram,thisreportisintendedtoaddressthatknowledgegap,andprovidethelocaljurisdictionswithintheareaencompassedbyTheResilientCoastlinesProjectofGreaterSanDiegoaneasy-to-understandlegalguidetoinformtheirdecision-making.

1TheFullReportisavailablehere:https://www.eli.org/research-report/legal-risk-analysis-sea-level-rise-adaptation-strategies-san-diego

PhotoCredit:K.Mengerink

2

OverarchingLegalPrinciplesCertainlaws,legaldoctrines,andpoliciesareimportantforCalifornia-basedsea-levelriseadaptationstrategies.Theprinciplesareexpandedinthefullreport.LegalPrinciple Summary

PublicTrust

Doctrine

Thepublictrustdoctrineprovidesthatallnavigablewaterwaysandlandbelowthemeanhightidelineareheldintrustbystatesforpubliccommerce,navigation,andfishing.Inotherwords,stateseffectivelyowntrustlands,includingcoastalareasexpectedtobeimpactedbysealevelrise.ItisimportanttonotethatthepublictrusttheoreticallymoveswiththerisingseasandthepublictrustisparticularlystronginCaliforniaduetostatelawandprecedentinpastcases.

TakingsClause TheTakingsClauseoftheFifthAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitutionstatesthatthegovernmentcannot“take”privatepropertywithoutprovidingjustcompensation.Atakingwithoutjustcompensationissometimescalled“inversecondemnation.”Theclearestcaseofatakingisdirectappropriationofproperty,or“physical”taking.Aregulationorothergovernmentactioncanbeatakingifit“goestoofar”bydeprivinganownerofalleconomicallybeneficialuseoftheproperty.Ifthereisonlyapartialdiminutioninpropertyvaluethreefactorsarebalanced:(1)economicimpactoftheregulation;(2)reasonableinvestment-backedexpectationsofthepropertyowner;and(3)characteroftheregulation(i.e.whetherisappliesgenerallyforthepublicgood).Permitexactions(conditionsthatrequirecertainactionstoreceiveapermit)aresubjecttotheNolan-Dollantest:theymusthaveanexusandroughproportionalitytotheimpactofthepermittedactivity.Inotherwords,requiringapropertyownertodosomethinginapermitisnotatakingaslongasitisofthesamegeneralnatureandextentasthedevelopment’simpact.

CoastalAct TheCaliforniaCoastalActdetailspermitting,planning,andregulatoryrequirementsforthecoastalzone,generallyextending1000yardsinlandfromthehightidelinetothreemilesoffshore.Localgovernments(citiesandcountieswhichlieinthecoastalzone)implementtheCoastalActthroughLocalCoastalProgramsconsistingofaLandUsePlanandaLocalImplementationPlan.Mostdevelopment(broadlyconstruedundertheAct)inthecoastalzonerequiresaCoastalDevelopmentPermit(CDP)frommunicipalitieswithcertifiedLocalCoastalProgramsandtheCaliforniaCoastalCommissionincertaininstances.Localgovernmentsmayattach“reasonabletermsandconditions”toCDPstofurtherlocalpolicies.

California

Environmental

QualityAct

TheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)requiresstateandlocalagenciestoanalyzewhetherdiscretionaryactions(includingcarryingoutprojects,planningactions,grantingpermits,andapprovingprivateactions)haveasignificanteffectontheenvironment,oftenthroughEnvironmentalImpactReports.

Endangered

SpeciesAct

TheEndangeredSpeciesActseekstominimizeharmtoprotectedspeciesandprotecttheecosystemsonwhichtheydepend.

CleanWater

Act

TheCleanWaterActforbidsdischargeofpollutantsintonavigablewatersoftheU.Swithoutapermit.Point-sourcedischargesrequireaNationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystempermitundersection402oftheCWA(administeredbytheEPAandstates).Permitsarealsorequiredfordredging-and-fillingofnavigablewatersundersection404(administeredbytheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers).Manyprojectsinoraroundcoastalareasthatinvolvedredgingorfillingalsorequireapermitundersection10oftheRiversandHarborsAct,alsoadministeredbytheCorps.

3

AdaptationStrategiesAnalysisMunicipalitieshavethreeover-archingoptionstoadapttosealevelrise.

• Protection:hardarmoring(i.e.seawallsandrevetments)andsoftarmoring(i.e.beachnourishment,dunerestoration,andoffshoreprotections)

• Accommodation:zoningandlandusetoolstoincreaseresilience(i.e.preventingarmoringincertainareas)

• Retreat:strategicallymovingawayfromrisingseasandpreventingfurtherat-riskdevelopmentInpractice,everyLocalCoastalProgramreviewedusessomecombinationofthesethreestrategies,whichdetermineswhetherresiliencegoalsaremet,thecostsandbenefitsofcoastalmanagement,andthelegalrisksinvolved.Thefirsttwooutcomes—whetherresiliencegoalsaremetandthecostsandbenefitsofcoastalmanagement—arethefocusofotherpartsoftheResilientCoastlinesProjectofGreaterSanDiego.Here,wesummarizelegalrisk,includingadministrativehurdles.Itisimportanttonotethatdifferentmunicipalitieswillhavedifferenttolerancesforrisk.Localitieswithlegalstaffmayprimarilybeconcernedwithlosinglawsuits.Others,withlimitedcapacityforhiringlegalexperts,maybejustasconcernedwithcontestinglawsuits,alongwiththeadministrativehurdlesassociatedwithlongpermittingprocesses.Itisessentialforlocalgovernmentstafftoreviewthejustificationsforthefollowingrisksummariesandadjustaccordinglyforspecificrisktolerances.Consideringbothlegalriskandadministrativedifficulty,wesummarizedriskasfollows:

• Lowrisk(allofthefollowingelementsapplicable):nomajorhurdlesfromCEQAortheCoastalActbeyondobtainingpermits,takingslawsuitunlikely,nomajorlegaluncertaintyaboutapplicationofCoastalActortakingslaw,nootherclearlegalissues;

• Moderaterisk(atleasttwoapplicable):someCEQAhurdlesdependingonresourcesimpacted,CoastalActambiguousonpermitting,moderateprobabilityoftakingslawsuitbutlowprobabilityoflocalgovernmentlosingcase,otherpossiblelegalissues(i.e.ESA);

• Highrisk(atleasttwoapplicable):difficultCEQAprocess(dependingonthelocationandnatureoftheproject),CoastalActprovisionatissueisinvolvedinlitigationoruncertaininapplication,highprobabilityoftakingslawsuitanduncertainriskoflocalgovernmentlosingcase,othermajorlegalissues(i.e.ESA).

Someadaptationstrategiesfellinbetweentheriskcategorizations(i.e.“low-moderate”or“moderate-high”).Methodologyandcompleteanalysisareinthefullreport.

PhotoCredit:DavidRoche

4

Strategy#1:BeachNourishmentGeneral

LegalRisk

Low-moderate,dependingonscopeoftheproject.Generally,regionalprojectspresentahigherlegalrisk,duetothedifficultyofattainingbuy-infromnumerousstakeholderswithvaryingperspectives.

Overview

ofLegal

Context

Beachnourishmentprojectsoccurmostlyonpublictrustlandsorhavesubstantialimpactsonpublictrustlands.Thus,theyarecarriedoutbytrustees(usuallythelocalgovernmentsthemselvesinconjunctionwithfederaland/orstateagencies).Indecidingtoundertakebeachnourishment,trusteesfacealengthypermittingprocess.Thismakestheadministrativedifficultysomewhathigh—itmaybedifficulttoobtainthenecessarypermitstomoveprojectsforward.However,thelegalriskisreducedifthereisbuy-infromaffectedstakeholders,includingNGOsandhomeowners,duringthepermittingprocess.Inbiggerprojects,whereitisdifficulttoensurebuy-induetonumerousstakeholders,bothadministrativehurdlesandlegalrisksarehigher.But,asalways,legalriskandadministrativehurdlesaresite-andproject-specific.

Discussion BeachnourishmentandassociateddredgingprojectsrequireheftyenvironmentalanalysisunderCEQAtoevengetofftheground.ThatCEQAreviewmustberobustandthorough.Controversialprojectscouldfacelawsuitsfrompublicinterestorganizationsorothersduringthisprocess.DuringtheCEQAreview,therewillbeconsiderationstakenunderotherstatutesaswell,liketheEndangeredSpeciesAct,whichcouldaddtimetothepermittingprocess.Consequentially,itisoftenessentialtojustifyprojectswithapublictrustpurpose,suchaslandpreservationandhabitatprotection.AbeachnourishmentpermitisnotparticularlylikelytofacesubstantivechallengesoutsideofCEQAunlesstherearesite-specificimpacts.Oneexampleispollutingnavigablewaterswithoutapermit,whichwouldimplicatetheCleanWaterAct.However,itispossiblethatprivatepropertyownerscouldmakeaninversecondemnationortakingsclaimifperiodicfloodingorotherharmoccursasaresultoftheproject.

Scenarios • Smallopportunisticuseprojects.Legalrisk:low.SmallerprojectswillusuallyhavereducedscopeandhavelesschanceofraisingatakingsclaimorCEQAlawsuit,dependingonsite-specificfactors.• Large,regionalprojects.Legalrisk:moderate-high.Largerprojectscanresultinincreasedenvironmentalimpactsandmorepotentialtoleadtoa takings lawsuit,dependingon site-specific factors. Itmaybe important to considerinsuranceandbondingforthesetypesofprojects.• Sandsourcedfromorplacedinenvironmentally-sensitiveorhabitatarea.Legal

risk:moderate-high.Proximity to marine protected areas and designated habitat under the EndangeredSpeciesActcouldinfluencelitigationriskfromNGOsunderCEQAorotherstatutes.• Sandplacednearlagoonorrivermouth.Legalrisk:moderate.

ProjectsnearwaterbodiesandwetlandshavepotentiallygreaterhabitatimpactsandcouldresultinlitigationunderCEQA,theCleanWaterAct,orintortclaims.Apossibilityofdisruptingwaterflowwillincreaselitigationrisk.

5

Strategy#2:DuneRestorationandEnhancementGeneral

LegalRisk

Low,butwithpossiblevariationdependingonthelocation.Thelegalriskanalysisforduneprojectsissimilartobeachnourishment,butwithlessprecedentinregardstolawsuits.

Overview

ofLegal

Context

Mostofthetime,dunerestorationandenhancementprojectsareundertakenonpublictrustlandsbelowthemeanhightidelineorpubliclandsabovethemeanhightideline.Insomeinstances,duneprojectscrossprivateland,requiringtheprojectapplicanttoobtainaneasementfromthelandowner.TheseprojectsareusuallyinitiatedbyapublicentityinaccordancewithpermitsundertheCoastalActandaCEQAanalysis.Dunesareoftenenvironmentallysensitivehabitats.Whereduneprojectareasincludehabitatforprotectedspecies,theCEQAanalysisfortheseprojectsusuallyincludesconsiderationoftheEndangeredSpeciesAct.Often,theseprojectsco-occurwithbeachnourishmentprojects,andinthoseinstances(andanyotherswherethereareotherprojectsinclosevicinity)itisimportanttoconsidercumulativeimpactsunderCEQA.Ifadunerequiresaneasementorobstructsoceanviews,itcouldbechallengedasatakingwithoutjustcompensation.

Discussion Coastaldunerestorationandenhancementprojectsrequirepermits(i.e.,CDP)andoftenenvironmentalanalysis(CEQA),buttheyhavenotbeensubjecttomanylawsuitsinCalifornia.Thisisprobablyduetostakeholderoutreachandinvolvementintheproject.Atakingslawsuitcouldbebroughtbyaprivatepropertyownerwhodoesnotwanttograntaneasementforaduneprojectonhisorherland,orwhoobjectstoobstructedviewsorsecondaryflooding.Onthewhole,though,duneprojectsseemrelativelylowriskwhentheyareimplementedstrategically.

Scenarios • Smallhabitat-orientedprojects.Legalrisk:low.

Smaller habitat projects could be exempt from CEQA, would involve a lessburdensomepermittingprocess,andareunlikelytoresultinatakingsclaimiftheydonotrequireaneasementacrossprivateproperty.

• Large projects to prevent flooding of private and public property. Legal risk:

moderate.

Larger projects focused on flood protection likely involve significant duneenhancement, which would require CEQA review and could face legal andpermitting hurdles if the project includes threatened or endangered specieshabitat.Thesubstantiveriskofatakingsclaim is likely lowsincefloodprotectionbenefits would offset compensation required for an easement or loss of oceanviews. Butwith big projects, the risk of a lawsuit being brought is ever-present,evenifunlikelytosucceedonthemerits.

6

Strategy#3:OffshoreProtectionsGeneralLegal

Risk

Low-ModeratetoHigh,dependingonthelocationoftheproject.Offshoreprotectionprojectsundergoacomplexpermittingprocessforapproval,involvingstateandfederalagencies.Theseprojectsalsomayalsobesubjecttolitigationfromenvironmentalandusergroups,dependingonanticipatedimpacts.

Overviewof

LegalContext

Offshoreprotections(likebreakwaters)avoidmostofthethornytakingsissuesraisedbyprojectsonprivateproperty.However,theseprojectsraisepotentialpermittingissuesrelatedtotheinterplayofmultiplepermittingentitiesandstakeholders.Breakwaterprojectsminimizelegalriskwhentheirpurposeistoprotectthecoastlinefromerosion,theydonotcauseadverseenvironmentalimpacts(suchasdisturbingbenthichabitat),andtheydonotresultinimpactstoestablishedsurfbreaksorshippinglanes.

Discussion Offshoreprotectionsaremajorprojectsthatlikelyrequireallocatingasignificantamountoftimetomovethroughthepermittingprocess.Thisintroducesadministrativehurdles.LegalriskforapplicantscouldderivefromcasesfiledbyNGOsconcernedaboutenvironmentalorrecreationimpacts.ThetypesofimpactsthatresultfromoffshoreprotectionprojectsneedtobeconsideredthoroughlyintheCEQAprocess.Somelegalriskarisesafterconstructionfromfloodingoravulsioneventsthatresultfromtheconstructionofabreakwater.However,normalerosionovertimeisunlikelytosupportatakingsclaim.

Scenarios • Sandretentionbreakwater.Legalrisk:low-moderate

Permittingmaybetime-consumingduetoCEQAanalysisandthemultiple federalandstateagenciesinvolvedinthepermittingprocess.However,lawsuits(suchasatakingsclaim)fromprivatelandownersareunlikelyandanylandthataccretesduetothesandretentionbelongstothestate.• Multi-usesites(e.g.,artificialreefsthatalsoserveasbreakwaters).Legalrisk:

low-moderate.

If thebreakwaterhasmultipleuses, it is unlikely to change legal risk, though it couldaffectsomeCEQAanalysisduetodifferentenvironmentalimpacts.• Offshoreprotectioninasurf-breakarea.Legalrisk:high.

Surf breaks are vigorously protected by citizens and NGOs, and any new breakwaterconstructionthatmayaffectsurfbreaksislikelytobechallenged.• OffshoreprotectionnearanMPA.Legalrisk:moderate.

Breakwaters and other protections affect water and sediment transport over largeareas.Thus,proximitytoanMPAcouldintroducehigherhurdlestomitigatingadverseimpacts.• Offshoreprotectioncausescoastalerosion.Legalrisk:moderate.

Gradual erosion over time is unlikely to support a successful takings claim based oncurrent precedent. However, given the state of flux of takings law across the UnitedStates, such a lawsuit could be successful depending on the fact pattern (e.g.landownersprovethatdamagetotheirlandamountedtopermanentphysicalinvasionorencroachment).

7

Strategy#4:HardArmoring(SeawallsorRevetments)General

LegalRisk

ModeratetoHigh

PermitsforhardarmoringprojectscanfacechallengesfromenvironmentalNGOs,coastalresidents,ortheCoastalCommission,ifthesegroupsbelievesufficientconditionsarenotinplacetoaddressimpacts,suchaserosionofadjacentpropertyorlossofpublicbeach.Ontheotherhand,privatepropertyownersandproperty-rightsNGOsmayfilecomplaintsifpermitsarenotgranted,orifthesegroupsbelievethatattachedconditionsaretooonerous.

Overview

ofLegal

Context

Seawallsandrevetmentsaretypicallyconstructedandmaintainedtoprotectprivateandpublicproperty.LCPsoftenoutlinepermittingrequirementsandpoliciesonseawalls.Thisremovessomediscretionheldbythepermittingentity(seethesectiononLandUseandZoningbelow).Theprimarylegalissuesraisedbytheseprojectsincludetakings,CoastalActcompliance,andCEQAcompliance.SeawallsconstructedbymunicipalitiesandtheCoastalCommissionareoftencontroversial,creatingpotentiallyhighlegalriskandadministrativeburden.

Discussion Whenmakingseawallandrevetmentpermittingdecisions,theanalysishingesontwoelements:

(1) WhethertheCoastalActallowsseawallsforexistingstructures.MostcourtshaveheldthatthepurposeoftheCoastalActmustbereadbroadly,andthatthereisnoabsoluterighttoaseawallbeingbuilttoprotectexistingstructuresconstructedafterthepassageoftheCoastalAct.However,becausetheSupremeCourtofCaliforniaiscurrentlyreviewingthisissue,theirdecisioncouldresultinsubstantialimplicationsforfuturelegalrisk,dependingonitsscope.Inaddition,AB1129wasintroducedinthe2017legislativesession;ifpassed,itwoulddefine“existingstructure”tomeanexistingatthetimeoftheCoastalActpassagein1976.

(2) Whetherthepermitdecisionorconditionscanbecloselytiedtothepublictrust.

ThiswillinvolveanindividualizeddeterminationbasedontheprioritiesoutlinedintheCoastalAct.Permitconditionsarelesslikelytobechallengedsuccessfullyiftheyaredirectlytiedtotheimpactsfromtheindividualseawallorrevetment(toensurenexusandroughproportionality),andalsoreferenceCoastalActandpublictrustprioritieslikepublicaccess,recreation,andenvironmentalprotection.Whenamunicipalitydeniesapermitduetoitspublictrustresponsibilities,itcanjustifyitsdecisiononthegroundsthatreasonable,investment-backedexpectationsshouldincludesealevelrise.Inlitigation,astrongdefenseforamunicipalityisthatthepublictrustdoctrineisabackgroundprincipleofpropertylawthatoverridesthelandowner’sinterestinarmoring.

LitigationcouldalsoariseunderCEQApriortoseawallconstructionorexpansionduringtheprojectreviewphase.Environmentalimpactsmustbeconsidered,focusingonlocalizederosionandflooding.Partiescouldbringinversecondemnationclaimsafterseawallconstructionifdamageiscausedtoprivateproperty,withasimilaranalysisasinthebeachnourishmentsection.

Scenarios • Privatepropertyownerswhosehomesorbusinessesareendangeredbysea-level

rise challenge conditions placed on their permits. Legal risk: low to moderate

8

dependingoncondition.Permit conditions could constitute a taking if they do not pass theNollan-Dolantakings test of nexus and rough proportionality. Some argue that Coastal ActSection30235allows,withoutqualification,seawallstoprotectcurrentstructures.It isessential tomake individualizeddeterminations,ensuringthattheconditionsare tied to potential impacts and the priorities of the Coastal Act, including thepublictrustdoctrine.

• Refusingpermitforprivatepropertyowners.Legalrisk:ModeratetoHigh.Anaggrievedpropertyownercouldarguethatheorshebearsadisproportionatelyhigh burden of property loss relative to the impact of a seawall constructionprojectonherproperty,andthatrefusingthepermitviolatesboththeCoastalActand the Takings Clause. The public trust provides a strong legal basis to defendagainsttheclaim.

• Issuingpermitwithoutconditions.Legalrisk:High.Ablanketissuancewouldplacatepropertyowners,butwouldlikelyviolateCoastalCommissionpolicyandresultinchallengesfromenvironmentalNGOs.

• Municipality constructs seawall to protect publicworks, utilities, or services in

imminentdanger.Legalrisk:lowtomoderate.Coastal Act Section 30611 allows for the construction of emergency seawalls insome instances when there is imminent danger (this could apply to a rail linepotentiallythreatenedbythenextstormcycle).CEQAwouldalsonotapplyinthisinstance.However,ifaseawallfailsorcausesfloodingonanadjacentproperty,themunicipality could face an inverse condemnation claim. The outcome woulddependonthespecificfactsofthecase.

• Municipality constructs seawall to protect publicworks, utilities, or services in

non-imminentdanger.Legalrisk:moderatetohigh.CoastalActSection30611wouldnotapplyifthedangerwasnotimminent(i.e.inthenextstormcycle).Thepermittingprocesswouldbeburdensome,requiringabalancingofthepublicgoodandpotentialharms.Iftheseawallcauseddamage,itcouldbesubjecttoatakingslawsuit.Theoutcomewoulddependonthespecificfactsofthecase.

9

Strategy#5:ZoningandLandUseGeneral

LegalRisk

Lowtohigh,dependingontheextentofregulation.Municipalitieshavebroaddiscretiontoexercisezoningandlanduseauthority,butcertaindecisionscarrymorelegalriskthanothers.

Overview

ofLegal

Context

LocalCoastalProgramssetoutzoningandlandusepoliciesthatdeterminehowmunicipalitieswillimplementtheCoastalAct.LCPsarewheretherubbermeetstheroadincoastalplanning—manyofthestrategiesdescribedabovearepre-determinedbyLCPguidelines.Whileundertakingaspecificstrategylikebeachnourishmentissubjecttolegalrisk,theLCPsthemselves(anddecisionsmadeunderthem,suchasthoserelatedtoarmoringpermits)arealsosubjecttolegalrisk.Forexample,ifLCPsattempttorestrictprivatepropertydevelopment,theycouldbesubjecttolitigationinitiatedbyprivatepropertyownersallegingatakingorviolationoftheCoastalAct.IfLCPsdonotadequatelyaddresssealevelrise,theymayberejectedormodifiedbytheCoastalCommissionand/orchallengedbyenvironmentalgroupsasviolatingtheCoastalActorenvironmentalstatuteslikeCEQA.

Discussion Somepropertyownersandproperty-rightsorganizationsinterprettheCoastalActasprovidinganearlyunqualifiedmandateforissuingarmoringpermitsforallstructures.Meanwhile,manylegalscholarsandenvironmentalgroupsarguethat,undertheCoastalAct,therighttoseawallpermitsfor“existingstructures”onlyappliestostructuresbuiltbeforetheActwaspassedin1976.Thatissuehasyettoberesolvedbythecourts.MunicipalitiesarelessvulnerabletochallengeiftheirdecisionsareguidedbyscientificdeterminationsinvulnerabilityassessmentsandanexplicitdiscussionofhowtheLCPpoliciesaresupportedbythepublictrustdoctrine.Municipalitiesretainbroaddiscretiontoregulatezoninginenvironmentallysensitivehabitatareas,establishsetbacksandoverlays,andtogenerallyestablishacomprehensivezoningscheme.LCPprovisionsarereviewedbycourtsforanabuseofdiscretion,soitisimportantthattheycloselyrelatetothegoalsoftheCoastalActandtheprinciplesofthepublictrustdoctrine,withoutdirectlycontraveninganystatutoryprovisions.Inaddition,anysetbackoroverlaydistrictcouldfaceatakingslawsuitasaregulatorytaking,meaningthatcourtswillbalancethepublicgoodagainsteconomicimpactandanyreasonableinvestment-backedexpectations.

Scenarios • Triggeredsetbacksorotherpoliciesshortofremovaltiedtoerosionrates.Legal

risk:low.Establishing a trigger is likely not an action that is “ripe” to be tried. Since thetrigger has not occurred, no harmhas occurred. Theoretically, a property ownercould argue that the mere presence of a trigger causes a partial diminution inproperty value, constituting a taking. However, that argument would likely failsincesea levelriseadaptation isapublicgoodthatappliesgenerally. Inaddition,triggers could make municipalities less vulnerable to future takings lawsuits byestablishing reasonable investment-backed expectations for property ownersbasedonsealevelrise.

• Triggerpolicytiedtoremoval.Legalrisk:moderate-high.

Triggerstiedtoremovalrequirementscouldbeatgreaterriskduetotheextentofthepropertyvalueatissue.Whilethelawiscurrentlyunsettled,apropertyownercould argue that such a trigger reduces property values, counter to reasonable

10

investment-backedexpectations.• LCPrequirementforbiddingconstructionofseawalls.Legalrisk:highforpre-1976

structures,moderate-highforstructuresbuiltpost-1976.The debate about the meaning of “existing structures” has yet to be resolved.Forbidding armoring will likely subject a municipality to legal risk until theCalifornia SupremeCourt releases its decision in the Lynch case (or legislation ispassedclarifyingthemeaningofthephrase).

• NonewarmoringprovisionsinCDPs.Legalrisk:low.Sincethe1980s,manyCDPshaveincludedtheseconditions,andtheyareunlikelytofaceacrediblelegalchallenge.

• LateralconservationeasementsinCDPs.Legalrisk:lowtomoderate.The Public Trust Doctrine and public access priorities of the Coastal Act providesupport for easements.However, an individualizeddeterminationmustbemadethattiestheeasementconditionstotheproposeddevelopment.

• Removal/abandonment requirements for properties subject to sea level rise.

Legalrisk:high.While the Public Trust Doctrine theoretically provides a hook for removalrequirementsasabackgroundprincipleoflaw,suchrequirementswouldlikelybesubject to litigation, since they involve an important property interest. Theoutcome would depend on the specific facts of the case. Legal risk would bereduced if therewerefaircompensation,thoughthatwouldraisefinancial issuesinhighlydevelopedareas.

11

SHORTANSWER:Undercurrentlaw,itisunlikelythatalocalgovernment’sfailuretoactinandofitselfwillgiverisetotakingsliability.Itisimportanttokeepinmind,however,thatthelawcontinuestoevolve.Inaddition,byfailingtoadaptlocalgovernmentsmaybemorevulnerabletoothertakingsclaims(e.g.whereapublicimprovementlikealeveedamagesprivateproperty,whichmayoccurmorefrequentlywithclimatechange).

SHORTANSWER:Totheextentadaptationmeasureswouldbeconsideredanupgradeto,asopposedtomaintenanceof,thecurrentsystem,itisunlikelyalocalgovernmentwouldbefoundliableforatakingsclaim.

LiabilityforFailingtoTakeActionAnotherquestionthatmayariseiswhetherlocalgovernmentsmaybeliableforfailingtoactinthefaceofclimatechange(e.g.failingtousesomeoftheadaptationstrategiesweidentifiedabovetoadapttosealevelrise).Theanswertothatquestionwilllargelydependonthefactsatissue.Belowwelayoutthreepotentialscenarios,andoutlinesomegeneralprinciplesregardingalocalgovernment’sliabilityforfailingtoact.

SCENARIO1:Alocalgovernmentfailstoact,leadingtofloodingofprivatehomesandproperty.Wouldthelocalgovernmentbeliableforthedamage?

SCENARIO2:Inthefaceofclimatechange,acity’sstormwaterdrainagesystemcannolongerkeepupwiththestormwater,leadingtofloodingofprivateproperty.Wouldthecitybeliableforthedamage?

SCENARIO3:Thegovernmenthasnegotiatedeasementswithprivatepropertyownersforpublicaccesstothebeach.Duetosealevelrise,theeasementsbecomesubmerged.Whathappenstotheeasements?

SHORTANSWER:Thecasessuggestthattheeasementswillnot“migrate”withtheland,butwillbelosttothesea.Notethatthequestionaddressedinthisscenarioisdifferentfromthediscussionaboverelatedtothemigrationofpublictrustlandsinlandassealevelrises.Thisscenarioinvolveseasementsonprivateproperty(i.e.thegovernmenthasnegotiatedaneasementwithaprivatepropertyownerforaneasementoverthatowner’slandsothatthepubliccanaccesspublictrustresources).

12

Conclusion

Sealevelriseadaptationrequiresactinginthefaceofuncertainty.Partofthatuncertaintyderivesfromtheimpactsofsealevelrise—itisdifficulttoknowexactlywhenvariousactionsarerequiredtoavoidsubstantiallyharmingthepublicgood.Butperhapsevenmoreoftheuncertaintyinvolveshowtobalancetheenvironmental,economic,andlegalimplicationsofactingonbehalfofthepublicgood.ThisreportsummarizessomeofthelegalconsiderationsofsealevelriseadaptationinSanDiego.Themostimportanttakeawayisthatlegalriskishighlyfact-specific.Inmanyinstances,thereisnoeasyanswerastohowmuchriskanactioncarries,orhowthatriskshouldbebalancedagainsttheriskofinaction.Thisreport,ratherthanprovidinganswerstosite-specificquestions,servesasareferencedocumentforplannerstounderstandwhy,when,andhowlegalriskmayarise.Theseaisrising.Withtherisingtidescomestheneedforstrategicadaptation.Whilelegalriskcanneverbecompletelyaverted,itcanbeminimizedbyfocusingonstakeholderbuy-inbeforetakinglarge-scaleactions,combiningtheentirelanduseandplanningtoolkitwithpublicoutreach.Throughlong-term,strategicadaptationplanning,thepublicgoodandprivateinterestscanbebothachieved.

PhotoCredit:NOAACoastalResilience