Connect with us

California

History's Lesson for Saving California's Beaches

Published

on

History's Lesson for Saving California's Beaches


July has been defined by heat waves across America. Nowhere was the heat more intense than in Southern California, where Palm Springs set an all-time record high of 124°. Days of blistering temperatures are both unpleasant and potentially dangerous, even for healthy adults. That reality sends people scurrying for any relief they can find, and in California, for many, that includes heading for the coast, where temperatures are less stifling.

This has been the pattern for more than a century. In the 1910s, when temperatures soared, Los Angeles families would camp out at the beach to sleep “on the cool damp sand.” More than a century later, in 2020, when the first COVID-19 lockdown led to beach closures in the midst of a heat wave, journalist George Skelton vigorously protested in the pages of the Los Angeles Times, arguing that going to the beach was a Californian’s “birthright,” a “trade-off for all the quakes, wildfires, mudslides and smog.”

Yet there is no guarantee that Californians — particularly in the hottest parts of the state — will have a beach to go to in another 100 years. Climate change threatens to erode California’s beaches. In 2017, a group of engineers and marine scientists who modeled shoreline response to climate change estimated that sea level rise could cause the complete erosion of  “31% to 67% of Southern California beaches.”

The irony of this story is that most of California’s beaches are artificial — man-made — and many were much narrower in their original, natural state. The history of their construction suggests that the only solution to the erosion today is to stop working against nature and start working with it.

Advertisement

In an 1872 memorandum to the U.S. Senate, a member of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey wrote that, when he had visited the bay from Santa Monica to Point Dume, “the high bluffs and cliffs came so sharply to the shore, and the arroyos there so deep that no road was practicable above high water.” In fact, according to A. G. Johnson, beach design engineer for the City of Los Angeles in the 1930s, the bay beaches, “in their natural state, before changes occurred due to activities of man,” had a uniform width of about 75 to 100 feet — a far cry from today’s 500-foot beaches.

A combination of engineering innovation, neglect, lack of scientific understanding of coastal ecology, and, most crucially, chance, spurred the dramatic transformation. In the 1930s, Southern California coastal elites all dreamed of attracting the world’s rich and famous by opening a yacht harbor. Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, and Redondo Beach all made the same mistake: they built a breakwater — essentially an offshore seawall built parallel to the coast — to create calm waters, which would be more hospitable for yachts. The problem was that the wall interrupted the sediment currents in that area. While sand quickly accumulated on the beach north of the breakwater, down south, the beach was starved of sand. Within a few years, all three towns had lost a beach. 

The loss reflected how beaches continuously shifted in shape and form — usually growing narrow in the winter and larger in the summer. But construction that disrupted that cycle led to erosion.

Read More: Threatened by Sea Level Rise, This New Jersey Town is Taking Matters Into Its Own Hands

As the beaches shrunk, engineers developed plans to counter the erosion they had created by pumping in sand from nearby dunes. In Los Angeles, the Hyperion dune field provided much needed material. In 1936, Works Progress Administration employees successfully deposited sand from Hyperion on some of Venice’s badly eroded beaches. The operation worked so well that, by the early 1940s, Johnson proposed excavating more sand to enlarge the beach from 75 to 275 feet and use the newly created space to build a coastal highway connecting Santa Monica to Venice. 

Advertisement

This plan, however, was judged too risky and abandoned. The yacht harbor fiascos were still too fresh in people’s minds for them to blindly put their trust in engineers. Nowhere had a road of that magnitude been built successfully on artificial strands. In addition, many coastal residents balked at the idea of a highway marring their view of the ocean. 

But Southern California’s beaches continued to grow more popular as the region’s population exploded after World War II. That meant severe crowding, and engineers continued to insist that they could solve this problem by making the beaches bigger. They received support from local businessmen and officials who campaigned for beach development and preservation.

The result was colossal beach replenishment operations throughout the 1950s and 1960s, using sand both from the Hyperion Dunes and the ocean floor. In 1948, for instance, the City of Los Angeles spread 14 million cubic yards of sand over six miles of beachfront between Santa Monica and El Segundo. Then, between 1960 and 1963, 10.1 million cubic yards of sand that was dredged up to allow the construction of the gigantic Marina Del Rey harbor was distributed on Dockweiler Beach. Yet, major construction on the coastline became less frequent thereafter, and other sources of sediment had to be found (the dunes had been completely excavated by then). In 1969-1970, a stretch of the Redondo Beach coastline was widened with 1.1 million cubic yards of sand dredged from an offshore source. 

In total, between 1945 and the late 1960s, nearly 30 million cubic yards of sand were deposited on the beaches of Santa Monica Bay. And studies in the 1960s showed that, while similar efforts failed elsewhere in the U.S. due to extreme weather and erosion, they worked in Southern California thanks to an array of unique factors. Among them: remarkable stability in terms of weather and temperature patterns, and being spared from sea-level rises experienced on other coastlines due to cold surface waters.

Read More: Rising Seas Are Going to Create a Huge Property Tax Headache for Coastal Communities

Advertisement

While this seemed like a success story — the ultimate in human manipulation of nature — things are now changing rapidly for several reasons. First, the climate cycle that left the waters cold and spared the beaches from sea-level rises has now ended. Additionally, the vast majority of the sand on Southern California beaches came from riverine sediments deposited on the coast during periods of heavy flooding. Yet, as flood-control efforts — including water-supply dams and channelized rivers — took place to protect people and buildings from flooding, they cut off the beaches from their main sediment supply. Environmental regulations also limited the coastal construction that, until the 1970s, had allowed for the dredging of sediments from the seafloor which could be added to the beaches.

The result of these changes has been severe erosion. Municipalities have responded by “armoring” the beaches — building seawalls, jetties, and groins to protect them. This provides some relief in the short term but risks exacerbating beach erosion in the long run or simply displacing it to another part of the coastline. As demonstrated by the breakwater fiascoes of the 1930s, building seawalls always disrupts coastal ecologies.

How can Southern Californians protect their beaches with many earlier options for replenishing or adding sand exhausted? The answer is to learn from the lesson of a century of history: working against nature does more harm to the beaches than good over time. That means ending armoring the beaches and instead implementing a plan for selective managed retreat. That would allow them to wax and wane seasonally, as they used to do before coastal engineering became ubiquitous. Once we stop interfering with hard structures, the natural flow of sediments can return. This, in combination with ongoing pilot projects involving, for instance, growing native plants that trap the sand and allow for dunes to form, will give beaches a fighting chance against sea-level rise. 

Safeguarding California’s beaches will also, however, require grappling with the cause of climate change fueling sea rises, especially our dependence on fossil fuels. No beach protection plan will prove successful in the long term without addressing this problem. These are no small tasks, but continuing business as usual will only deliver a future with narrower beaches, if not a beachless future altogether. In Los Angeles, history tells us that we have built those beautiful, vast beaches. But we are now slowly, but surely, destroying them.

Elsa Devienne is assistant professor in history at Northumbria University (UK) and the author of Sand Rush: The Revival of the Beach in Twentieth-Century Los Angeles (2024).

Advertisement

Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

California

Texas oil company fined $18 million for unapproved work along California coast

Published

on

Texas oil company fined  million for unapproved work along California coast


In an action cheered by state environmentalists, the California Coastal Commission has voted to fine a Texas-based oil firm $18 million for failing to obtain necessary permits and reviews in its controversial push to revive oil production off the Gaviota Coast.

After hours of public comment Thursday, the commission found that Sable Offshore Corp. has for months violated the California Coastal Act by repairing and upgrading oil pipelines near Santa Barbara without commission approval.

In addition to the $18-million fine, commissioners ordered the company to halt all pipeline development and restore lands where environmental damage has occurred.

“The Coastal Act is the law, the law … put in place by a vote of the people,” Commissioner Meaghan Harmon said. “Sable’s refusal, in a very real sense, is a subversion of the will of the people of the state of California.”

Advertisement

An anti-Sable shirt worn by an attendee at a California Coastal Commission hearing to consider sanctions for the Texas-based oil company trying to restart drilling on Santa Barbara’s coast.

(Michael Owen Baker / For The Times)

The decision marks a significant escalation in the showdown between coastal authorities and Sable officials, who claim the commission has overstepped its authority. The action also comes at a time when the Trump administration is actively encouraging oil and gas production in stark contrast to California’s clean-energy and climate-focused goals.

Sable insists that it has already obtained necessary work approval from the County of Santa Barbara, and that commission approval was necessary only when the pipeline infrastructure was first proposed decades ago.

Advertisement

It wasn’t immediately clear how the Houston-based company would respond to the commission’s action.

“Sable is considering all options regarding its compliance with these orders,” read a prepared statement from Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and governmental affairs. “We respectfully have the right to disagree with the Commission’s decision and to seek independent clarification.”

Ultimately, the matter may be end up in court. In February, Sable sued the Coastal Commission claiming it lacks the authority to oversee its work.

On Thursday, Rusch called the commission’s demands part of an “arbitrary permitting process,” and said the company had worked with Coastal Commission staff for months in attempt to address their concerns. Still, Rusch said his company is “dedicated to restarting project operations in a safe and efficient manner.”

Commissioners voted unanimously to issue the cease-and-desist order — which would stop work until Sable obtained commission approval — as well as the order to restore damaged lands. However, the commission voted 9 to 2 in favor of the fine — the largest it has ever levied.

Advertisement

The hearing drew hundreds of people, including Sable employees and supporters and scores of environmental activists, many wearing “Don’t Enable Sable” T-shirts.

“We’re at a critical crossroads,” said Maureen Ellenberger, chair of the Sierra Club’s Santa Barbara and Ventura chapter. “In the 1970s, Californians fought to protect our coastal zone — 50 years later we’re still fighting. The California coast shouldn’t be for sale.”

Santa Barbara Middle School students wait in line to speak during a California Coastal Commission hearing

Santa Barbara Middle School students wait in line to speak during a California Coastal Commission hearing to consider sanctions for the Texas-based oil company trying to restart drilling on Santa Barbara’s coast.

(Michael Owen Baker / For The Times)

At one point, a stream of 20 Santa Barbara Middle School students testified back-to-back, a few barely reaching the microphone. “None of us should be here right now — we should all be at school, but we are here because we care,” said 14-year-old Ethan Maday, a ninth-grader who helped organize his classmates’ trip to the commission hearing.

Advertisement

Santa Barbara has long been an environmentally conscious community, due in part to a history of major oil spills in the area. The largest spill, which occurred in 1969, released an estimated 3 million gallons of oil and inspired multiple environmental protection laws.

Sable hopes to reactivate the so-called Santa Ynez Unit, a collection of three offshore oil platforms in federal waters. The Hondo, Harmony and Heritage platforms are all connected to the Las Flores pipeline system and associated processing facility.

It was that network of oil lines that suffered a massive spill in 2015, when the Santa Ynez unit was owned by another company. That spill occurred when a corroded pipeline ruptured and released an estimated 140,000 gallons of crude near Refugio State Beach. Sable’s current work is intended to repair and upgrade those lines.

At Thursday’s hearing, Sable supporters insisted the upgrades would make the pipeline network more reliable than ever.

Mai Lindsey, a contractor who works on Sable’s leak detection system, said she found it “unfair” how the commission was asserting itself in their work.

Advertisement

“Are you in your lane for enforcing this?” Lindsey asked.

She said people need to understand that focusing on previous spills is no longer relevant, given how technology in her industry has drastically changed: “We learn and we improve,” she said.

Steve Balkcom, a contractor for Sable who lives in Orange County, said he’s worked on pipelines for four decades and he has no doubt that this one will be among the safest. He chalked up the controversy to a “not in my backyard” attitude.

“I know the pipeline can be safe,” Balkcom said.

Sable has argued that it can could proceed with its corrosion repair work under the pipeline’s original permits from the 1980s. The company contends such permits are still relevant because its work is only repairing and maintaining an existing pipeline, not constructing new infrastructure.

Advertisement

The Coastal Commission rejected that idea Thursday. Showing several photos of Sable’s ongoing pipeline work, Lisa Haage, the commission’s chief of enforcement, called Sable’s work “extensive in both its scale and the resources impacted.”

Commission staff have also argued the current work is far from identical from original permits, noting that recent requirements from the state fire marshal mandate new standards to respond to corrosive tendencies on the pipeline.

“Not only did they do work in sensitive habitats and without sufficient environmental protections and during times that sensitive species were at risk, but they also refused to comply with orders issued to them to address those issues,” Haage said at the hearing.

In a statement of defense, however, Sable said this project will “meet more stringent environmental and safety requirements than any other pipeline in the state.”

Carpinteria resident Jessica Norris holds a sign in an overflow room during a California Coastal Commission hearing

Carpinteria resident Jessica Norris holds a sign in an overflow room during the California Coastal Commission hearing.

(Michael Owen Baker / For The Times)

Advertisement

The company estimates that when the Santa Ynez Unit is fully online, it could produce an estimated 28,000 barrels of oil a day, according to an investor presentation, while also generating $5 million a year in new taxes for the county and an additional 300 jobs. Sable anticipates restarting offshore oil production in the second quarter this year, but the company acknowledges that some regulatory and oversight hurdles remain.

Most notably, its restart plan must still be approved by the state fire marshal, though several other parts are under review by other state agencies, including state parks and the State Water Resources Control Board.

Commissioners on Thursday were grateful for the community input, including from Sable employees, whom Harmon called “hard-working people” not responsible or at fault for the Coastal Act violations.

“Coastal development permits make work safe,” Harmon said. “They make work safer not just for our environment … they make work safer for the people who are doing the job.”

Advertisement

She urged Sable to work cooperatively with the commission.

“We can have good, well-paying jobs and we can protect and preserve our coast,” Harmon said.

But some environmentalists said Thursday’s findings should further call into question Sable’s larger project.

“How can we trust this company to operate responsibly, safely, or in compliance with any regulations or laws?” Alex Katz, executive director of the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center, said in a statement. “California can’t afford another disaster on our coast.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

California

‘Demonic’ sea lions that attacked people off California coast were sickened by toxic substance: scientists

Published

on

‘Demonic’ sea lions that attacked people off California coast were sickened by toxic substance: scientists


They were flippin’ poisoned! 

The horde of “demonic” sea lions that attacked people off the California coast in recent weeks lashed out because they were sickened by mind-warping toxic algae, scientists have discovered.

The normally adorable ocean critters — who mauled a surfer and bit a swimmer — were reduced to a zombie-like state due to a neurological flare-up that caused confusion, seizures and panic, marine experts said.

“These animals are reacting to the fact that they are sick,” John Warner, CEO Marine Mammal Care Center in Los Angeles, told BBC News.

Advertisement

“They’re disoriented, and most likely, most of them are having seizures, and so their senses are not all fully functional as they normally would and they’re acting out of fear.”

Hundreds of sea lions were sickened by toxic algae, causing some of them to lash out. Getty Images

The center tested hundreds of sea lions and found they suffered from the so-called “domoic acid toxicosis” from gobbling down fish exposed to the toxic bloom near the southern California shoreline.

At least 195 sea lions with the illness have been admitted to the center since late March, said Warner, who said they can recover with anti-seizure medications and sedation.

But the brain-bending condition often makes sea lions flip out with rage — like in the case of  Rj LaMendola, who was dragged from his surfboard by a sea lion on March 21.

“It looked possessed,” LaMendola, 40,  wrote later in Facebook post. “This creature looked like nothing I’d ever seen—its expression was feral, almost demonic, devoid of the curiosity or playfulness.”

Advertisement
Surfer RJ Lamendola was mauled by a sea lion that looked “demonic.” facebook/rjlamendola
Phoebe Beltran, 15, was bitten by a sea lion while training to become a life gaurd. KNBC

He escaped from the blubber-bellied beast with a bloody gash on his left butt cheek and was rushed to a hospital. 

“It felt like I was being hunted,” he said.“Today, I endured the most harrowing and traumatic experience of my 20 years of surfing.”

Nine days later, Phoebe Beltran, 15, was doing swim test in Long Beach to become a lifeguard when a sea lion repeatedly sunk its teeth into her right arm. 

“I was just so scared, so shocked, but I still felt the immense pain on my arms, like, over and over again,” the teen told ABC 7.

She was hospitalized but didn’t require advanced treatment after the unprovoked attack.

Advertisement

Others have reported bizarre behavior and aggressive sea lions as experts said attacks by the animals are “on the rise.” 

Jules Leon, a marine mammal responder with the Marine Mammal Care Center in San Pedro, uses a net to rescue a California sea lion suffering from domoic acid poisoning. ALLISON DINNER/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

The toxic algae bloom sprouted earlier than normal this year and has spread for roughly 370 miles along Southern California coastline.

Exposed sea lions often become lethargic or in a comatose state then turn aggressive as they recover from the poisoning, Warner said.

“Their behavior changes from what we’re used to, to something more unpredictable,” Warner said.

“If they’re still aggressive or not foraging properly, it tells us their brains aren’t functioning the way they should,” he said.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

California

California lawmaker announces ballot initiative campaign after voter ID bill fails

Published

on

California lawmaker announces ballot initiative campaign after voter ID bill fails


A bill to require voter ID and proof of citizenship to register to vote was rejected by California lawmakers Wednesday, though the Republican sponsor of the legislation vowed not to give up.

Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) announced that he plans to launch a campaign to qualify his proposal as a statewide ballot initiative for the 2026 election.

DeMaio described his proposal as a nonpartisan issue when it came before the Assembly Committee on Elections Wednesday morning. The bill failed on a party line vote of 3-2 over concerns from opponents that more requirements would disenfranchise eligible voters and embolden false claims that California’s elections are not secure.

“We have the lowest level of public trust and confidence in our elections that we have ever seen. All the polling shows that, and that is something that Democrats and Republicans should see as a democracy issue, not a partisan issue,” DeMaio said during the hearing.

Advertisement

Most Americans approve of requiring voters to provide identification and proof of citizenship, polls show. According to a Gallup poll last October, 84% of Americans support photo ID and 83% support providing proof of citizenship when registering to vote for the first time.

DeMaio believes the initiative will have widespread support in California, too, calling it “shameful” for his colleagues to kill the bill.

“Democrat, Republican and everyone in between, [voters] care about the health of our democracy. They demand more integrity from our elections,” he said afterward.

The bill, AB 25, would have required people to provide some kind of documentation of citizenship when registering to vote, and for registered voters to present a photo ID before voting in person. The legislation was co-sponsored by Assemblymember Bill Essayli (R-Corona), who last week was appointed as U.S. attorney for Los Angeles and surrounding areas.

According to a legislative analysis of the bill, it was unclear what kind of documents could be used to prove citizenship. A California Real ID can be obtained by permanent and temporary residents that are not citizens, and some people born in American territories, like in American Samoa, can obtain a U.S. passport as U.S. nationals but are not considered citizens.

Advertisement

Currently in California, people registering to vote sign a declaration under perjury that they are U.S. citizens and eligible to vote, but do not have to provide proof of citizenship — a stipulation that DeMaio called a “pinky swear.”

DeMaio’s bill would have required Californians voting by mail to provide the last four digits of a government-issued identification number, like a Social Security number or driver’s license. If the numbers didn’t match, the ballot would be disqualified.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states request or require voters to show some kind of identification at polling stations, although laws vary regarding photo ID.

California is one of 14 states, along with Washington, D.C., that uses other verification methods, such as matching signatures from a ballot to information on the voter’s registration file.

Forcing otherwise eligible voters to obtain government documents “amounts to what we consider to be an unconstitutional poll tax,” said Dora Rose, deputy director of the League of Women Voters of California, who testified in opposition of the bill. It would disenfranchise vulnerable groups of people, she said — women, people with disabilities, communities of color and the elderly.

Advertisement

Changing the law could also bring credence to claims of widespread voter fraud — which has repeatedly been debunked, Rose told committee members.

Chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), who voted against the bill, agreed.

“I hope that my colleagues on the committee will join me in rejecting baseless attempts to erode public trust in California’s elections,” she said. Pellerin suggesting that if elected state representatives didn’t believe state elections were valid, they should resign.

DeMaio’s Republican allies on the committee pushed back. David J. Tangipa (R-Fresno) said the argument that minorities were too poor or not intelligent enough to secure a government-issued ID was offensive.

Last week, California and a coalition of other states sued the Trump administration to block the president’s recent executive order seeking to radically reshape voting rules nationwide, including requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship, at the penalty of states losing access to federal funds.

Advertisement

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Trump’s order was an illegal attempt by the White House to strip states of their authority to govern elections.

Trump — who has falsely asserted that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him — has said the U.S. voting system is wildly outdated and alleged that fraud and voting by noncitizen immigrants is a major problem.

Trump’s order, if upheld by the courts, would require all voters in the U.S. to show proof of citizenship — such as a passport or Real ID — before they could register to vote in any federal election. Bonta said the president’s order is clearly unconstitutional and that it’s up to states to regulate and administer elections, and that California has decided that requiring voter ID is not necessary.

“There is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud, there is no evidence that proof of citizenship is needed to secure the integrity of our elections,” Bonta said during a news conference last week.

DeMaio’s bill in California also would have overhauled other election laws — in a state where some counties take a month to count ballots, even those postmarked on election day, the bill would have required all ballots to be counted within 72 hours.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending