Whose Coast Is It Anyway? Climate Change, Shoreline Armoring, and the Public's Right to Access the California Coast

• Date: 01 November 2016

11-2016 NEWS & ANALYSIS 46 ELR 10971

Whose Coast Is

It Anyway?

Climate Change,

Shoreline

Armoring, and

the Public’s Right

to Access the

California Coast

by Lee A. Kaplan

Lee A. Kaplan received his J.D. from UCLA

School of Law in May 2016. He is a law clerk at

Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles.

Summary

e public trust doctrine provides that a state holds its

tidelands, submerged lands, and navigable waters in

trust for the benet of the general public. California has

codied the principles of this doctrine through various

statutes, including the California Coastal Act of 1976.

However, as climate change drives increased sea-level rise

and erosion along California’s coast, landowners have

sought to protect their property with hard armoring

structures that impede coastal access and cause the sea to

swallow previously accessible public beaches. is raises

the issue of who should bear the burden of the inevitable

property losses resulting from sea-level rise: private land-

owners, or the general public. is Article explores the

legal issues surrounding coastal armoring in California,

including the pending case of 

Commission, which could have broad implications for

coastal armoring and access rights in California.

You can travel the world, but nothing comes close to the

golden coast.1

Abutting the Pacic Ocean, California is home to some

of t he most beautiful beaches and coastal landscapes on

earth. Some may be surprised to learn that all 1,200 miles

of California’s famed coastline are legally open to the pub-

lic, at least in theory.2 e public trust doctrine, which has

its origins in Roman law and English common law, pro-

vides that the state holds its tidelands, submerged lands,

and navigable waters in trust for the benet of the general

public, ensuring the public’s right to access these areas.3

California legislators have embraced the public trust doc-

trine, arming it through provisions in the state constitu-

tion4 as well as in various state statutes, most notably in the

California Coasta l Act of 1976.5

California has been a leader in developing the public

trust doctrine and promoting the public’s right to access

the shoreline.6 However, the public’s ability to recognize

its right to access has come under threat in various ways.

Legally, al l land below the mean high tide line along the

California coast is state land and should be easily acces-

sible by members of the public.7 However, wea lthy own-

ers of beachfront property along the coast have gone to

great lengths to impede public access. Landowners have

been known to hire private security guards, post mislead-

ing signs, erect fences, and lobby against public transpor-

tation in order to discourage people from accessing the

public tidelands adjacent to their homes.8 While the state’s

tidelands are legally open to all, many of California’s most

beautiful beaches and coastal habitats have been eectively

closed to the public due to the eorts of beachfront prop-

erty owners.

ere are many challenges inherent to promoting and

preserving the public’s right to enjoy coastal lands, but

the single greatest threat to public access may be the one

posed by global warming and the resultant sea-level rise

and erosion already altering the topography of the Califor-

nia coast.9 Climate change has driven an alarming increase

in sea level over the course of t he past centur y.10 Globally,

the average rate of sea-level rise has been about 1-2 cen-

1. K P & S D, C G (Capitol Records 2010).

2. Robert García & Erica Flores Baltodano, 

, 2 S. J. C.R.  C.L. 143, 179 (2005).

3. Id.

4. C. C. art. X, §4.

5. C. C. C §670; C. P. R. C §30001.5; C. P. R.

C §30221.

6. García & Baltodano, supra note 2, at 179.

7. C. C. C §670.

8. García & Baltodano, supra note 2, at 164-65.

9. Meg Caldwell & Craig Holt Segall, -

 , 34 E L.Q.

533, 534 (2007).

10. Id. at 537.

       



Copyright © 2016 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.