Coastal Protection on the Edge: The Challenge of Preserving California’s Legacy
By Gary Griggs and Charles Lester
The California coast is an edge. It's the place where 1,100 miles of shoreline meets the largest ocean on the planet. Many different forces collide there, and a lot of exciting things happen. The coast is a geological edge, zippered to North America by 800 miles of the San Andreas Fault and battered by the Pacific Ocean.
It's also a social, political, cultural, spiritual, economic and technological edge. It is where the most populous state and sixth-largest economy in the world is exposed to wind, waves, tides, El Niños, earthquakes and tsunamis. These forces made California's coastline rugged, beautiful and beckoning.
But the natural beauty that has drawn so many to the edge of the Golden State has been seriously impacted by human actions. Forty-four percent of California residents live along the southern California coast, from Ventura to San Diego counties, and you can't squeeze 18 million people into 233 miles of coast without some impacts. If they all went to the beach at the same time, each resident would have less than an inch of shoreline.
In 1972 California launched a great experiment to protect its coast. The resulting California Coastal Act sought to protect public shoreline access, wetlands and threatened coastal habitats. It also limited development to protect the beauty and grandeur of the shore for future generations.
Today California's coastal management program is recognized around the world for its success, even as the state's coast and ocean economy thrive. But new challenges loom large, including sea level rise, ocean acidification and proposals for offshore wind and wave energy development. California's population continues to grow, and an internet-driven vacation-rental economy threatens the character of many coastal cities and towns.
Impacts of the Postwar Boom
The coast of California has attracted humans since the earliest Americans arrived, perhaps 15,000 years ago, and still draws them today. About two-thirds of the Golden State's 39.6 million people live in coastal counties, and for good reasons. Some 75 percent of the state's jobs are based in coastal counties. California has the nation's largest ocean economy, valued at about $44 billion. Nearly half of that is provided by tourism and recreation.
The state's population more than doubled between 1945 and 1970, and many of these people settled in coastal counties. Cliffs, bluffs and low-lying shoreline areas were developed as more and more new residents arrived to get their piece of the Golden State's coast. This period of rapid coastal growth coincided with a calm climatic cycle with fewer El Niño events than the previous decades. As a result, the coast experienced relatively few damaging storms and generally mild and welcoming weather.
Rapid growth reduced public access to the shore, polluted coastal waters and led to habitat loss and development of rural agricultural lands. In 1978 the climate shifted to a 20-year period of more frequent and severe El Niños. Homes, businesses, roads, park facilities and other infrastructure—some of it newly built—suffered significant losses in the winters of 1978, 1983 and 1997-98.
Sea otters, once hunted close to extinction along the Pacific coast, are making a comeback in Central California.
Managing Coastal Development
In 1972, tired of inaction by the legislature, voters passed Proposition 20, building on the model of the San Franciso Bay Conservation and Development Commission—the nation's first coastal management program. Proposition 20 launched a statewide planning process to create the California Coastal Plan—a citizen-based document that set out a vision to protect the coast for the "benefit of present and future generations" while using the resources of the coast sustainably.
At the same time six regional commissions and a statewide commission implemented an interim regulatory process for new development, acting on more than 16,000 permit applications between 1973 and 1976. The scope of this planning and regulatory scheme was unprecedented, addressing issues from marine protection to community design and character.
In 1976, the legislature enacted the California Coastal Act, which created the Coastal Commission to oversee coastal development. The law required public access to and along the shoreline, and prioritized visitor services and recreational development. It also required the protection of sensitive resources like wetlands, streams and habitats for endangered and threatened species. To battle urban sprawl, it directed new development to already existing urban areas while protecting agricultural lands and scenic rural landscapes. A state Coastal Conservancy was also created to help acquire, protect and restore sensitive lands.
Guarding the Shore
The Coastal Act has been a clear success. Although California's population has doubled again since 1970, the urban footprint along the coast is largely the same today as it was in 1972. The Coastal Commission and local governments have acted to reduce losses of wetlands and riparian areas and protect many coastal habitats. Visitors from around the world marvel at protected scenic landscapes like the Big Sur Coast.
The commission has fought risky federal offshore oil development and oil-tankering proposals, and rigorously evaluated the marine life and water quality impacts of ocean water intakes and outfalls at electric power plants and industrial desalination facilities. It has set a gold standard for addressing noise in the marine environment through such actions as limiting the use of sonar in U.S. naval exercises to avoid potential impacts on sensitive marine mammals.
California is well-known for protecting public beach access and coastal trails. Since the 1970s the Coastal Commission has required thousands of property owners to provide public access across their property in exchange for developing along the coast. This has enabled residents and visitors to freely use such beautiful and previously exclusive beaches as Stillwater Cove at Pebble Beach and "Billionaire's Beach" in Malibu—a decades-long legal battle. The commission has even required coastal trails and beach access at the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Rising Seas and Rising Prices
California has shown that rigorous coastal protection and a strong economy can go hand in hand. But sea level rise driven by climate change threatens to literally erode away many of the gains of the last four decades. One recent study projects that up to two-thirds of Southern California's beaches may be gone by 2100. According to current estimates, sea levels could rise 12 to 18 inches by 2050 and 3 to 4 feet by 2100, possibly higher.
Huge investments will be needed to help communities adapt to increased flooding and storm impacts. Critical public infrastructure is at risk, including Highway One along the coast and dozens of wastewater and other industrial facilities. Climate change also will alter coastal ecology as sea level rise inundates wetlands and intertidal zones. Temperature changes shift habitats both on- and offshore, making it even more challenging to protect them.
Fortunately California is embracing these challenges. The Coastal Commission is leading a sea level rise planning effort, and more than two-thirds of California's 76 local governments on the outer coast have completed or are undertaking coastal hazards vulnerability assessments. In 2018 voters likely will consider a new bond measure that would direct hundreds of millions of dollars to climate adaptation projects on the coast.
Another alarming trend is that the shore is becoming less accessible for many Californians. The state has largely failed to protect affordable housing along the coast, and coastal communities are gentrifying at a breakneck pace. New campgrounds are rare, and overnight accommodations are increasingly too expensive for the average visitor.
Continuing to meet the lofty aspirations and legacy of California's first 50 years of coastal management won't be easy. It will require renewed commitment to coastal protection and environmental justice, major new investments in coastal adaptation, and increased collaboration among all of California's coastal stakeholders and citizens.
Gary Griggs is the director of the Institute of Marine Sciences and distinguished professor of Earth & Planetary Sciences, at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Charles Lester is a researcher in the Institute of Marine Sciences, at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Reposted with permission from our media associate The Conversation.
By Sharon Zhang
Back in March, when the pandemic had just planted its roots in the U.S., President Donald Trump directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do something devastating: The agency was to indefinitely and cruelly suspend environmental rule enforcement. The EPA complied, and for just under half a year, it provided over 3,000 waivers that granted facilities clemency from state-level environmental rule compliance.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A rare celestial event was caught on camera last week when a meteoroid "bounced" off Earth's atmosphere and veered back into space.
- Asteroid Could Strike Earth Before Election Day But Won't Cause ... ›
- Water May Have Originated on Earth, Study Finds - EcoWatch ›
By Bob Jacobs
Hanako, a female Asian elephant, lived in a tiny concrete enclosure at Japan's Inokashira Park Zoo for more than 60 years, often in chains, with no stimulation. In the wild, elephants live in herds, with close family ties. Hanako was solitary for the last decade of her life.
Hanako, an Asian elephant kept at Japan's Inokashira Park Zoo; and Kiska, an orca that lives at Marineland Canada. One image depicts Kiska's damaged teeth. Elephants in Japan (left image), Ontario Captive Animal Watch (right image), CC BY-ND
Affecting Health and Altering Behavior<p>It is easy to observe the overall health and psychological consequences of life in captivity for these animals. Many captive elephants suffer from arthritis, obesity or skin problems. Both <a href="https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2620.1826-36" target="_blank">elephants</a> and orcas often have severe dental problems. Captive orcas are plagued by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2019.05.005" target="_blank">pneumonia, kidney disease, gastrointestinal illnesses and infections</a>.</p><p>Many animals <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.09.010" target="_blank">try to cope</a> with captivity by adopting abnormal behaviors. Some develop "<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.05.003" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">stereotypies</a>," which are repetitive, purposeless habits such as constantly bobbing their heads, swaying incessantly or chewing on the bars of their cages. Others, especially big cats, pace their enclosures. Elephants rub or break their tusks.</p>
Changing Brain Structure<p>Neuroscientific research indicates that living in an impoverished, stressful captive environment <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2019.05.005" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">physically damages the brain</a>. These changes have been documented in many <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.903270108" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">species</a>, including rodents, rabbits, cats and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0917" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">humans</a>.</p><p>Although researchers have directly studied some animal brains, most of what we know comes from observing animal behavior, analyzing stress hormone levels in the blood and applying knowledge gained from a half-century of neuroscience research. Laboratory research also suggests that mammals in a zoo or aquarium have compromised brain function.</p>
This illustration shows differences in the brain's cerebral cortex in animals held in impoverished (captive) and enriched (natural) environments. Impoverishment results in thinning of the cortex, a decreased blood supply, less support for neurons and decreased connectivity among neurons. Arnold B. Scheibel, CC BY-ND<p>Subsisting in confined, barren quarters that lack intellectual stimulation or appropriate social contact seems to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1590/S0001-37652001000200006" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">thin the cerebral cortex</a> – the part of the brain involved in voluntary movement and higher cognitive function, including memory, planning and decision-making.</p><p>There are other consequences. Capillaries shrink, depriving the brain of the oxygen-rich blood it needs to survive. Neurons become smaller, and their dendrites – the branches that form connections with other neurons – become less complex, impairing communication within the brain. As a result, the cortical neurons in captive animals <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.901230110" target="_blank">process information less efficiently</a> than those living in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.420020208" target="_blank">enriched, more natural environments</a>.</p>
An actual cortical neuron in a wild African elephant living in its natural habitat compared with a hypothesized cortical neuron from a captive elephant. Bob Jacobs, CC BY-ND<p>Brain health is also affected by living in small quarters that <a href="https://doi.org/10.3233/BPL-160040" target="_blank">don't allow for needed exercise</a>. Physical activity increases the flow of blood to the brain, which requires large amounts of oxygen. Exercise increases the production of new connections and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2622" target="_blank">enhances cognitive abilities</a>.</p><p>In their native habits these animals must move to survive, covering great distances to forage or find a mate. Elephants typically travel anywhere from <a href="https://www.elephantsforafrica.org/elephant-facts/#:%7E:text=How%20far%20do%20elephants%20walk,km%20on%20a%20daily%20basis." target="_blank">15 to 120 miles per day</a>. In a zoo, they average <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150331" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">three miles daily</a>, often walking back and forth in small enclosures. One free orca studied in Canada swam <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-010-0958-x" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">up to 156 miles a day</a>; meanwhile, an average orca tank is about 10,000 times smaller than its <a href="https://www.cascadiaresearch.org/projects/killer-whales/using-dtags-study-acoustics-and-behavior-southern" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">natural home range</a>.</p>
Disrupting Brain Chemistry and Killing Cells<p>Living in enclosures that restrict or prevent normal behavior creates chronic frustration and boredom. In the wild, an animal's stress-response system helps it escape from danger. But captivity traps animals with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215502109" target="_blank">almost no control</a> over their environment.</p><p>These situations foster <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000033" target="_blank">learned helplessness</a>, negatively impacting the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6391686" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">hippocampus</a>, which handles memory functions, and the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.02.024" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amygdala</a>, which processes emotions. Prolonged stress <a href="https://doi.org/10.3109/10253899609001092" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">elevates stress hormones</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.10-09-02897.1990" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">damages or even kills neurons</a> in both brain regions. It also disrupts the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.03.021" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">delicate balance of serotonin</a>, a neurotransmitter that stabilizes mood, among other functions.</p><p>In humans, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0917" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">deprivation</a> can trigger <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00367" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">psychiatric issues</a>, including depression, anxiety, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00367" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">mood disorders</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858409333072" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">post-traumatic stress disorder</a>. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-010-0288-3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Elephants</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050139" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">orcas</a> and other animals with large brains are likely to react in similar ways to life in a severely stressful environment.</p>
Damaged Wiring<p>Captivity can damage the brain's complex circuitry, including the basal ganglia. This group of neurons communicates with the cerebral cortex along two networks: a direct pathway that enhances movement and behavior, and an indirect pathway that inhibits them.</p><p>The repetitive, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2014.05.057" target="_blank">stereotypic behaviors</a> that many animals adopt in captivity are caused by an imbalance of two neurotransmitters, dopamine and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.02.004" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">serotonin</a>. This impairs the indirect pathway's ability to modulate movement, a condition documented in species from chickens, cows, sheep and horses to primates and big cats.</p>
The cerebral cortex, hippocampus and amygdala are physically altered by captivity, along with brain circuitry that involves the basal ganglia. Bob Jacobs, CC BY-ND<p>Evolution has constructed animal brains to be exquisitely responsive to their environment. Those reactions can affect neural function by <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/311787/behave-by-robert-m-sapolsky/" target="_blank">turning different genes on or off</a>. Living in inappropriate or abusive circumstance alters biochemical processes: It disrupts the synthesis of proteins that build connections between brain cells and the neurotransmitters that facilitate communication among them.</p><p>There is strong evidence that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0577-11.2011" target="_blank">enrichment</a>, social contact and appropriate space in more natural habitats are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1090.2003.tb02071.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">necessary</a> for long-lived animals with large brains such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152490" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">elephants</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2017.1309858" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cetaceans</a>. Better conditions <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5543669/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reduce disturbing sterotypical behaviors</a>, improve connections in the brain, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/cdd.2009.193" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">trigger neurochemical changes</a> that enhance learning and memory.</p>
The Captivity Question<p>Some people defend keeping animals in captivity, arguing that it helps conserve endangered species or offers educational benefits for <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.574.3479&rep=rep1&type=pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">visitors to zoos and aquariums</a>. These justifications are questionable, particularly for <a href="https://animalstudiesrepository.org/acwp_zoae/8/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">large mammals</a>. As my own research and work by many other scientists shows, caging large mammals and putting them on display is undeniably cruel from a neural perspective. It causes brain damage.</p><p>Public perceptions of captivity are slowly changing, as shown by the reaction to the documentary <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfish_(film)" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">"Blackfish</a>." For animals that cannot be free, there are well-designed sanctuaries. Several already exist for elephants and other large mammals in <a href="https://www.elephants.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tennessee</a>, <a href="https://globalelephants.org/overview/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brazil</a> and Northern <a href="http://www.pawsweb.org/about_our_sanctuaries.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">California</a>. Others are being developed for large <a href="https://whalesanctuaryproject.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cetaceans</a>.</p><p>Perhaps it is not too late for Kiska.</p>
By Tara Lohan
Maybe we can blame COVID-19 for making it hard to hit the streets and gather signatures to get initiatives on state ballots. But this year there are markedly fewer environmental issues up for vote than in 2018.
While the number of initiatives may be down, there's no less at stake. Voters will still have to make decisions about wildlife, renewable energy, oil companies and future elections.
Here's the rundown of what's happening where.
Return of an Apex Predator<p>Wolves are on the ballot in Colorado. <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/reintroduction-and-management-gray-wolves" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Proposition 114</a> would require the state's Parks and Wildlife Commission to create a plan by 2023 for the reintroduction and management of gray wolves (<em>Canis lupus</em>) in areas west of the continental divide.</p><p>Gray wolves once roamed across the western United States but were mostly eradicated by the 1930s. Slowly efforts are being made to bring them back. The reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park in 1996 has been hailed as a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/25/yellowstone-wolf-project-25th-anniversary" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rewilding success</a>.</p><p>"The argument is that by putting back in wolves — an apex predator that has evolved alongside their prey species — we're putting things back into ecological balance," University of Colorado Boulder ecology professor Joanna Lambert <a href="https://therevelator.org/wolf-reintroduction-colorado/" target="_blank">told <em>The Revelator</em></a> in a February interview about the science behind wolf reintroductions.</p><p>The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Colorado Farm Bureau are two of the top donors to the opposition groups.</p><p>The measure does include compensation for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves.</p><p>"What we're all hoping for is a landscape where we can coexist with the species that were originally here, but also acknowledging that humans need to make a living and that the costs of this initiative will be felt by some folks more than others," Lambert said.</p>
Confusion Over Clean Energy<p>In Nevada voters will take a second swing at a constitutional amendment to require that electric utilities source 50% of their electricity from renewables by 2030. Voters passed the same measure, <a href="https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=8826" target="_blank">Question 6</a>, in 2018, but state law requires that constitutional amendments be passed in two consecutive even-numbered election years.</p><p>More clean energy for the state may seem good. But there's concern that enshrining 50% renewables by 2030 in the state's constitution isn't that ambitious and it will make it harder to continue the push for 100% renewables in the future. To do that would be another constitutional amendment that would again take four years and two consecutive ballot wins to move the needle.</p><p>Also, the state is already on its way to the same renewable goal.</p><p>A legislative effort to achieve 50% renewables by 2030 — but with a slightly different timeline for the increments to get there — was signed into law in April 2019 by Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak. Renewable advocates hope the state will do even better than that benchmark, but passing Question 6 would make it harder.</p>
Paying a Fair Share<p>If California's <a href="https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures/" target="_blank">Proposition 15</a> passes, commercial and industrial properties will need to start paying taxes based on their current market value, instead of paying based on the purchase price from decades prior (which stems from Proposition 13 passed back in 1978). The initiative would exempt agricultural land, small businesses, renters and homeowners.</p><p>Reassessing the worth of large commercial properties could bring in between $7.5 billion and $12 billion a year that would go toward supporting local governments, school districts and community colleges.</p><p>Most of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020)" target="_blank">opposition</a> has come from big business and anti-taxation groups.</p><p>The California Teachers Association Issues PAC is the biggest supporter of the effort, but a number of <a href="https://www.yes15.org/endorsers-environment" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">environmental groups</a> have also endorsed the measure, which would likely see oil companies and other big industrial polluters having to kick in more money.</p><p>"The oil industry has used Prop. 13 loopholes to evade tens of millions of dollars in property taxes," <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/victoria-rome/nrdc-announces-support-californias-proposition-15" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrote Victoria Lome</a>, California legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Companies like Chevron, Exxon, Phillips 66, Shell and Tosco are paying taxes based on assessments taken prior to 2000. Prop. 15 would end this hidden subsidy to dirty energy."</p><p>Oil companies could stand to lose in Alaska, too. Voters there will weigh in on <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_1,_North_Slope_Oil_Production_Tax_Increase_Initiative_(2020)" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ballot Measure 1</a>, which would increase taxes on big oil producers (those that have produced more than 400 million barrels overall or 40,000 barrels a day in the past year) operating in three established oil fields in the North Slope.</p>
Taking the Wind Out of the Sails of the Electoral College<p>Colorado's <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/adopt-agreement-elect-us-president-national-popular-vote" target="_blank">Proposition 113</a> isn't about environmental issues directly but could cause big shifts in how presidential elections are run and what states and issues are considered important.</p><p>The initiative would add Colorado to the <a href="https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation" target="_blank">National Popular Vote Interstate Compact</a>. That effort is aimed at ensuring the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote wins the election. It doesn't eliminate the Electoral College, but it saps its power.</p><p>The compact needs states representing at least 270 Electoral College votes to go into effect. It's currently at 196.</p><p>If Colorado's proposition is passed, and if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact eventually gets enough votes to go into effect, then Colorado's nine electoral votes would go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote, not to the one who gets the most votes in Colorado.</p>
- 5 Key Environmental Ballot Measures to Track at Your Election ... ›
- Trump Is Losing Farmer Support. Will They Swing the Election ... ›
- The Environment Is on the November Ballot — Here's Where and ... ›
By Alexander Freund
The World Health Organization, along with its global partners in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, has announced that it will provide 120 million rapid-diagnostic antigen tests to people in lower- and middle-income countries over the next six months. The tests represent a "massive increase" in testing worldwide, according to the Global Fund, a partnership that works to end epidemics.