Sea level rise is one of the most pressing challenges to California’s future. The patchwork political system of state and local governments tasked with creating policies to deal with rising seas has struggled to develop sound adaptation measures. Paralyzed by conflicts between those who stand to lose property from sea level rise and the state agencies tasked with protecting California’s beaches, California’s political system is failing to find compromise.

In order to protect California’s beaches, discourage illegal armoring that would damage the environment, prevent structural collapses that create risks to the ocean and public, and minimize the risk that politics gets in the way of good policy, some form of managed retreat (a policy that removes vulnerable structures) needs to be adopted. 

Past iterations of managed retreat have proven politically nonviable because they fail to recognize that peoples’ homes have both economic and emotional value. These plans fail to adequately address either of these concerns, hence their failure to garner public support. Members of the public do not see the economics of sea level rise rationally – a view policymakers struggle to accept – causing the disconnect between policy and public support.

A new, compromise version of managed retreat is necessary, one that preserves homeowners’ agency, does not create moral hazard, is politically viable, and still effectively adapts to sea level rise. This plan, called compromise / gradual retreat, grants governments the opportunity, when a coastal home is put on sale or ownership is transferred, to buy that home for fair market value. Such a plan allows governments to buy out vulnerable structures without being forced to purchase risky assets and allows homeowners to remain in their homes as long as they desire or is safe. This compromise plan anticipates both the economic and emotional concerns of homeowners, making it likely to be a politically viable compromise.