Managed retreat, the planned relocation of homes and structures in response to rising sea levels, has generated a political firestorm in the state of California. Pushed largely by the powerful Coastal Commission, managed retreat's implementation has largely been blocked by local governments due to immense public opposition to the policy. Local governments and some state officials that have attempted to implement the policy -- most famously Pacifica's mayor John Keener and Commissioner Charles Lester -- have been ousted. 

The result? Local governments have largely turned their planning focus to sand replenishment or seawalls, two measures largely blocked by the Coastal Commission. Because of these opposing forces, California's coastal policy has reached a stable policy equilibrium: inaction. 

Something has to give. I argue that a compromise position on managed retreat needs to arise, and that the biggest barrier to compromise is a fundamental disparity in the ways the public and government think and talk about managed retreat. 

My analysis finds that governments and the public do talk about managed retreat in systematically different ways, with the public focusing on themselves and their homes, whereas governments talk about adaptation and the future. However, I find that while the substantive focus of managed retreat conversations differ, governments and the public do not have significant differences in sentiment (the way they feel about managed retreat). 

Thus, despite managed retreat's controversial reputation, there is a chance for compromise on the policy, but it will require governments -- and the public -- to rethink the role managed retreat will play in California's future.