WE HAVE inherited a shoreline that was zealously built up in ignorance of the dynamic beach environment, along with reactionary practices that prevail, basically unchanged, even today. Although we know that many of California's beaches are disappearing, no statewide or regional policy has been put in place to address the problem of shoreline erosion. As a result, individual property owners have little choice but to build seawalls and other hard structures, and coastal fortification increases after every big storm.

Seawall construction at Broad Beach, Malibu 1996

A look at the coast of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties is instructive. Between the early 1920s and the late 1940s, some 60 miles of this 150-mile stretch of coastline were urbanized. In the early days of development, the word "setback" was not in the developers' vocabulary, and houses and streets were constructed literally on the backshore and even on the unstable front beach.

Early encounters with storms, high tides, and huge waves soon brought the first generation of groins and seawalls. As development continued, efforts to armor and protect new coastal property kept pace, with virtually all these efforts focused on the backshore. By now, some 65 percent of the Ventura county shoreline and 25 percent of the Santa Barbara County shoreline are backed by hard structures. Little was done in the way of long-term beach restoration or enhancement.

The tendency to build as close as possible to the water's edge has continued, despite the Coastal Act. To this day, despite a long record of property damage, no regional shoreline erosion management plans have been implemented, either along the Santa Barbara-Ventura Counties' shoreline or elsewhere along the 1,100-mile California coast. In their absence, the state's de facto policy essentially dictates the use of hard structures. The beach erodes, and the owner, in the absence of other alternatives, resorts to seawalls and revetments.

If these reactionary practices continue - and there is no reason now to think that they will not - it seems clear that many of our beaches will vanish within the next hundred years.

In the light of the Everts Illumination we can start to look at shoreline protection in new ways. If we focus on ways to maintain healthy beaches by using methods that include man-made structures, we may be able to lessen dramatically the need for backbeach fortification.

These structures might not be the familiar groins, seawalls, and rock revetments. Although these have all proven effective in certain settings, they are often controversial, may exacerbate bluff and beach erosion, and are generally viewed as ugly intrusions upon the shore. The nonstructural alternative, beach nourishment, can also be problematic and is perceived by some critics as "throwing good money after bad," as imported sand is washed away and must be repeatedly replenished.

The Everts Illumination invites us to consider techniques that mimic Mother Nature in the ways she stabilizes a coastline. We might, for instance, bring sand from behind dams and from debris basins, sand that has been held back from its natural flow to the shore. We might mimic such natural shoreline barriers as rocky points, armor beaches with natural cobble to retard erosion, or build offshore reef and berm structures to alter wave patterns so as to induce beach growth. These ideas and others arise as we shift our focus from backshore protection to beach enhancement.

Carpinteria, where the shoreline has been seriously eroded since the 1950s, might serve as a real-world example. Although seawalls have long been considered to protect threatened houses there, a more innovative approach would be to manipulate offshore Sandy Point Reef and alter the local wave climate. If done thoughtfully and carefully, this might restore the city's beach without detrimental side effects. As the beach builds, existing fortifications might be buried and perhaps never again needed. Such a reef enhancement project would offer potential environmental and recreational benefits, giving the term "shoreline defense" a whole new meaning.

Without funding to realize them, of course, new plans will be of little value. Three steps must be taken:

• Federal coastal storm damage reduction guidelines must be rewritten to give priority to regional beach enhancement practices. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' current procedural guidelines are too narrowly focused and do not recognize the enormous benefits that beaches contribute to the California economy.
• The state must become financially involved in regional shoreline management. It should be the catalyst that brings together federal and local cosponsors.
• Politicians and planners must discuss the uncomfortable issue of cost with local communities. The old adage "there's no such thing as a free lunch" certainly applies to regional shoreline and beach enhancement projects. Benefits to local constituencies are obvious, and the days of looking for state or federal help to handle every local problem are over.

If, however, we look for more innovative ways to manage the shoreline, we will likely enjoy some pleasant surprises. Costs may not be as overwhelming as some fear, and benefits may go far beyond our conservative expectations. Most important of all, if we at last assume responsibility for our shoreline and embark on the noble path of beach enhancement, everyone will emerge a winner. 

Jon T. Moore is a coastal engineer at Noble Consultants, Inc., in Irvine. He has practiced for over 25 years, the last 11 in southern California.