North Carolina and California: Divergent Approaches for Dealing with Sea Level Rise
Posted June 8, 2012 in Living Sustainably, Solving Global Warming, U.S. Law and Policy
As you may have heard (or even seen) by now, North Carolina legislators are circulating a bill that would require the NC Division of Coastal Management to only use historic rates of sea level rise to project future changes in sea level, ignoring the reality of accelerated sea level rise rates caused by melting glaciers and expansion of the oceans due to global warming.
The difference between a scenario that relies on historic rates of sea level rise and one that considers climate change is substantial. In 2010, the state’s Science Panel on Coastal Hazards took into consideration historic and projected future rates of sea level rise and recommended that the state plan for a rise in sea level of 39 inches (3.3 feet) by 2100. If based solely on historic rates, sea level would be projected to only rise 8 inches by 2100—a difference of over 2.5 feet.
- Coastal flooding in Elizabeth City, NC (courtesy of U.S. Coast Guard)
As affirmed by the IPCC, National Research Council, and NOAA, to name but a few, the rate of global sea level rise is accelerating. Sea level rise puts many communities along the North Carolina coast at risk from tidal flooding, storm surge, and erosion. A recent analysis by Climate Central estimates that 76,000 people, 56,000 homes, and 1.2 million acres of land in the state lie within 4 feet of the local high tide line. In nearly half of North Carolina’s 20 coastal counties, at least 10 percent of the population would be at risk.
As if ignoring the science on sea level rise wasn’t bad enough, the bill would also require any public body (state, county, or local) to adhere to the rate of sea level rise developed by the Division of Coastal Management. If an “official” rate has not been established, any sea level rise policies or guidelines developed would be prohibited from including any sea level rise rates. It’s a shame that some legislators in North Carolina are so eager to stop local governments from taking meaningful action to prepare for the grave threat that sea level rise poses to coastal communities.
In stark contrast, legislators in California are being proactive and demonstrating strong leadership when it comes to protecting the state from sea level rise. Last week, the California State Senate passed SB 1066, which authorizes the State Coastal Conservancy to fund and implement projects to address climate change impacts, including sea level rise, storm surge, erosion, saltwater intrusion, flooding, and other coastal hazards. This legislation recognizes the risks that sea level rise poses to the state’s people, public and private property, infrastructure, beaches, coastal habitat, and other precious coastal resources.
SB 1066 clarifies existing law and establishes clear authority for the Coastal Conservancy to address climate change. It will help to maintain public access to the coast; protect wetlands; build coastal resilience to climate impacts; and protect infrastructure, including ports, highways, bridges, and hiking and biking trails; among numerous other benefits. It also will provide technical assistance to help local agencies address climate risks.
And this bill is just the latest in a long line of actions that the state government is taking to prepare for climate change threats, as detailed in our Ready or Not report. According to a recent survey of nearly 600 coastal professionals in California, 93 percent are taking steps to address climate change risks in their communities. Fortunately, they are receiving much-needed support and leadership from state authorities.
In one corner, you have North Carolina, which is trying to legislate away the ability of local communities to prepare for rising seas. In the other, you have California, which is making concerted efforts to ensure that communities are adequately prepared for climate change threats. Who do you think will be better off?
Join the Conversation
Comment on this post:
All pertinent comments offered in the spirit of civil conversation are welcome! Off-topic comments, commercial spam, obscenity and other rude behavior are not, and will be removed. We are also required to remove any express or implied statement endorsing or opposing any political party or candidate for political office. Valid email addresses are required. (NRDC respects your privacy; we will not use, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)
Comments (Add yours)
BS — Jun 8 2012 01:55 PM
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
It's rather convenient indeed that claims that sea levels are rising at an increasing rate tend to leave out the data from the past 10 years. I've posted the data from 1993-2011 do demonstrate a better picture.
If you are going to claim that oscillations in the rate of increase of sea levels for the few years starting around 1992 are an indication of an increasing rate of sea level rise, then you will be thrilled to note that the rate of increase declined starting around 2002.
Sea levels actually declined in 2010 (although have since rebounded). Whatever change in the trend starting around 1992 has been more than offset by 2002-2011. In fact, the net change in sea levels during the previous 2 year period was essentially zero.
The only real increase in the rate of sea level rise occurred in the 1920s (see figure 7.2 in the NAP link in the article above). But even as carbon emissions increased exponentially since then, the long term trend has been steady.
Bill Price — Jun 9 2012 12:44 PM
National and International media have been criticizing the NC General Assembly, by joking that a Draft NC Law intends to stop Sea Level from rising or accelerating .
Real funny.
Obviously, no one disputes that Sea Level has been rising since the last Ice Age - very slowly; and certainly, if Sea Level Rise (SLR) is or will accelerate rapidly, we need to know about it, and plan for it; but , in short, it seems that the General Assembly want’s actual proof , instead of using an Ouija Board to predict acceleration of Sea Level Rise.
The issue arose because the CRC, Science Panel (SP) and scientists said,
- SL has been rising 18 inches / 100y ,
- 1 foot of SLR would inundate up to 2 miles of tidelands,
and then, using UN IPCC guesstimates, jumped to proposing Planning Policy for 39” SLR by 2100.
However, there are Real world concerns with the SP’s science:
- A visual comparison of post 1850’s US Government Coast Survey surveys of NC tidelands, with recent surveys, don’t show 4 miles ( 150 y @ 18 inches / 100y ), or even 1 mile of inundation.
- Validity of tide gage data presented by the SP was found to be suspect.
- the SP’s Literature Search, was a one sided selection of Pro AGW and Pro SLR reports, with no other viewpoints presented.
When asked about this, the SP , scientists, and an educational institution have refused to answer questions, declined to do the studies, and refused to participate in an Open Public Forum.
Admittedly, I have received a maelstrom of studies on erosion, but none definitively answer the question. Why not ? IF a comparative study of inundation has been done, it should be easy enough to post the pages for everyone to see.
As no one is omniscient, and being responsible to protect the property rights of all the citizens of NC, it looks like the General Assembly is just saying, we need comprehensive verifiable science, before making important public policy decisions.
Bill Price Pine Knoll Shores
Frank Tursi — Jun 10 2012 05:31 PM
The N.C. Coastal Federation has a contest going on its Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/NC-Coastal-Federation/185345054061) for other absurd solutions to pressing state problems. The federation hopes a state senator will turn the best ones into amendments when the state Senate votes on the bill.
Lola Sandvik — Jun 11 2012 10:08 AM
If (inter)national ridicule doesn't work perhaps North Carolinians should let their legislators know exactly how awful this denial is: change.org petition http://www.change.org/petitions/north-carolina-s-general-assembly-do-not-pass-nc-hb-819-coastal-management-policies
BS — Jun 11 2012 10:48 AM
What denial? The rate of sea level rise has not increased. The information exists in black and white for any eye, trained or untrained, to see.