Image: GeraldPHawkins/Wikimedia Commons
The San Francisco Bay Area yesterday became the first region in California to pass regulations governing development in areas prone to sea-level rise.
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) voted unanimously to pass a development plan for land within 100 feet of the coastline, giving the agency a tool to deny permits for development in coastal areas susceptible to flooding. Rising seas could put as much as 180,000 acres off-limits by 2050, according to state projections of 16 inches of rise by then.
The regulations will effectively force developers to assess risks associated with sea-level rise and submit an assessment to the state for a given project. Builders will also have to draft their own blueprints for dealing with shifting conditions, whether that means building farther back from the shore, creating tidal marshes or erecting levees to keep out the water (ClimateWire, Sept. 6).
Both environmental groups and developers saw victory in the regulations, which were changed in three drafts over the past two years to reduce emphasis on "prohibiting" development in areas prone to sea-level rise and increase references to "encouraging" the protection of tidal marshes and other shoreline areas. The rules also were changed to emphasize that the agency would look at plans on a case-by-case basis and would respect local governments' jurisdictions.
Agency officials said the essence of the policy -- to use the latest science to protect communities from flooding -- remained unchanged.
"When you say it will encourage one thing, you kind of automatically discourage the other," said BCDC Executive Director Will Travis. "Certain words were flash points for some, and some words were a comfort to others."
Builders happy; green groups split
Paul Campos, general counsel for the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, which represents homebuilders, contractors, architects and consultants, praised the final regulations. His and other builders' groups, as well as local governments in San Francisco, San Jose and other cities, had opposed previous versions, saying they would jeopardize development and economic growth.
"The initial language, perhaps BCDC didn't fully understand" the implications it would have for development, Campos said. "Now, all stakeholders are looking, which produced this better document."
Environmental groups were split. Save the Bay, which has been most active on the plan, maintained the regulations were as strong as ever.
"Anybody who interprets this language as different is not paying attention," said David Lewis, the group's executive director. Industry support reflects the rules' inevitability, rather than substantive changes to them, he said. "In the last couple months, I think they saw the writing on the wall."
Sierra Club members said they weren't as happy with the results. "The vote is a step in the right direction," said Megan Norris, a coastal issues organizer for the group's California chapter. "However, these policies could and should be more robust. Future regional planning efforts need to improve on these BCDC policies in order to ensure that our at-risk low-lying coastal areas are protected from the impacts of sea-level rise and coastal flooding by preventing further development in these areas."
Travis said the rules might not need to be actively enforced for some time. They should have an immediate effect on the kinds of investing and building decisions that would go before local governments before coming to the state agency, he said. BCDC is also in talks with Ceres, which advocates for climate policies on behalf of large investors, to work on insurers' policies for buildings in low-lying areas, he said.
"It's the investors who are making the decisions," he said.
The regulations now go to the state's Office of Administrative Law, followed by the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500.
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentSan Francisco has so many regulations you probably need a permit to fly an American flag.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, regulation sucks, until you see the mess that develops due to lack of regulation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, they do have regulations, and it is the most functional city I have ever lived in. There are a lot of people and businesses sharing a relatively small peninsula, and planning is necessary. This is not a political thing, its an issue of practicality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, in the ideal world you'd say caveat emptor. Tell the buyer that the land may be flooded at some time and it's their risk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, inevitably the buyer (who's often the kind of person that thinks government is always bad) will run to the government for help at the first sign of trouble and conveniently forget that they accepted the risk in the first place.
...not to mention, when scientists tell you that the sea level will be rising, and portions of your city are going to be submerged, it kinda makes your city, and its engineers, and its planners, look pretty inept when they ignore that and let people just build whatever they want, and then a short while later, the sea level rises and their homes are underwater. It is the wet dream of every insurance company.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know some peoples solution to this is to ignore the scary science man, and the mean ol city bldg dept, and build their mansions anyway... because they are exactly who we have these coastal overlays to protect [ourselves from litigation against].
Ran an AEC design firm in San Diego for a decade. The horror... the horror...
Subsidence of San Francisco Bay: Blame it on Salinia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://geology.gsapubs.org/content/23/6/559.abstract
Do you ever take these facts into consideration when developing your "hypothesis" that regulations are causing our country to decline?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. U.S. oil production peaked in 1970 and we've been in denial about this fact and its implications ever since. We use 20+% of the world's oil production but we have less than 5% of the reserves and no amount of "Drill Baby Drill" can change that. We spend $1B A DAY importing oil and that is about 1/2 of this country's total Trade Deficit.
2. We cut the Apollo moon program to fund the Vietnam War Machine. The return on investment for both activities couldn't have been more different. One brought the world together through American leadership and made people proud to be human while the other undermined American leadership, killed or damaged our best and brightest people, and misdirected a huge amount of our intellectual capital towards destruction instead of construction.
3. Ever since 1980, this country has adhered to the delusion that Supply Side Economics actually works. If tax cuts for rich people and less regulation were so great, how come REAL wages for the bottom 90% of workers have stagnated since 1980? If Milton Friedman was such a genius, how come all those tax cuts and deregulation left us with huge deficits, high unemployment and disillusioned workers? We've tried this same song and dance several times and all it does is take money out of the pockets of the poor and put it into the stock portfolios of the rich while bankrupting the government. Then, they use budget shortfalls to go after the very programs that the bottom 90%-ers need to get out of poverty like education and infrastructure.
It's not regulations, my friend. It's greed and the fact that money makes you more equal than others in our supposedly equal society.
DISLIKE
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother reason this regulation makes since: as a taxpayer, I don't want to shell out for developments in stupid locations. Developers don't care that an area is flood prone as long as they can sell it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRoads, water lines, sewer lines, etc. damaged in floods are repaired and replaced by state taxpayers (and the federal gov't helps if its declared a disaster). Flood insurance? It is not an insurance co.'s wet dream as someone announced. Insurance companies want to collect without have to pay out to replace flood-damaged property. That is why the federal government offers subsidized flood insurance. All so "economic development" can continue in bad locations, with the taxpayer picking up the bill.
Why not just issue an environmental regulation requiring permits and studies before the sea can rise, with the appropriate fines, sanctions and terms of imprisonment for violations? Look what a great job this has done in stopping volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, and maybe even the changes in solar output that are probably mostly responsible for most global warming anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter all, geological history indicates that the sea level has been bobbing up and down for millions of years, even before there were gasoline engines and barbeques. I wonder who caused this if there weren't people here? I hope all of these years of recycling things and no air conditioning weren't wasted.
Think about it. After all, our children's future is at stake, although I don't think too many people in San Francisco have children nowadays. Well, worry about your cats at least. At least we could all feel good about ourselves for doing something, you think?