In past blogs, I have discussed coastal flooding due to climate change and examined vulnerable areas, such as Balboa Island in Newport Beach. Yet, other seaside communities, such as Stinson Beach, just north of San Francisco, could lose the majority of their fabled beach to erosion by 2085 if sea levels continue to rise. According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sea levels are expected to increase by 3.5 feet by 2085. If this is the case, not only Stinson Beach would flood, but so would most other California coastal cities, including Marina Del Rey, San Francisco Bay, Santa Barbara, Long Beach, and San Diego County.
Mitigation is a strategy that environmental planners use to combat the effects of climate change. This includes rerouting roads, building seawalls, enhancing infrastructure, and in extreme cases, moving populations. New Orleans, lying approximately 3 to 6 feet below sea level, is an example of a city that should be abandoned and its populace relocated elsewhere because it is too expensive to build mitigation frameworks to keep seawater from entering the city.
At Stinson Beach, it is estimated that the 500 homes under threat would need to spend $1.2 billion on mitigation efforts, or $2.4 million each. Already, Stinson Beach has experienced considerable beach erosion. Without mitigation and intervention, the price tag will be significantly higher and could render the homes less valuable or even useless. Already in California, we are seeing a reluctance among buyers to purchase coastal properties due to concerns about severe erosion and wave action.
One of the mitigation efforts for Stinson Beach that could serve as a model for other coastal communities is a series of channels to move water away during floods and relocate roads. Often discussed is the idea of placing homes on elevated stands high enough to prevent seawater intrusion into homes. All of this is costly. If no preventive action is taken and a 100-year storm occurs when sea levels have risen another 3.3 feet, it would prove to be catastrophic. The result would be no more beaches, roads, or homes.
The question arises whether taxpayers should be responsible for paying for mitigation efforts for private homes that may or may not be habitable in the coming decades. Money would be better spent protecting popular beaches, lagoons, and fishing areas that are popular with the general public. If climate change produces extended heat waves, as the IPCC suggests, then places like Stinson Beach would be a valuable resource for escaping the heat.
It will be tough, if not impossible, at this point to meet greenhouse gas emission targets by 2050. Even if we do, the results of past climate change actions will still lead to a rise in sea levels. Therefore, adaptation and mitigation are essential tools for all of us to consider.
Disclosure: BFSG does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, timeliness, suitability, completeness, or relevance of any information prepared by any unaffiliated third party, whether linked to BFSG’s website or blog or incorporated herein and takes no responsibility for any such content. All such information is provided solely for convenience purposes only and all users thereof should be guided accordingly. Please remember that different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that the future performance of any specific investment or investment strategy (including those undertaken or recommended by BFSG), will be profitable or equal any historical performance level(s). Please see important disclosure information here.
