The monstrous waves that pounded Oahu’s North Shore last week didn’t just bring the thrills of “The Eddie.” As the advancing ocean flooded the highway, knocked down seawalls and threatened homes clinging too close to the shoreline, we were reminded of an inescapable fact — we are losing our beaches, and it will only get worse.
Local experts report that 70 percent of Oahu’s beaches are eroding, and predict that parts of the shoreline could retreat inland by as much as 20 feet by midcentury.
The speed of this geographic evolution, linked in part to a rapidly warming climate, demands a forward-looking public policy that acknowledges the uncomfortable reality that houses and other structures built right on the ocean’s edge — be they modest homes or mega-mansions — eventually need to get out of the way.
The state’s “longer-range plan is to encourage people to move landward away from erosion hazard areas,” said Sam Lemmo, administrator of the state Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands.
That makes sense. Protecting such properties at any cost would mean building stronger and higher seawalls that destroy beaches, leaving the shoreline inaccessible to the public. This contravenes state law and policy, which generally prohibits private erosion-protection structures that could interfere with waterline activities.
But in the meantime, the DLNR wants to help those now living on the edge to protect their homes from the advancing sea.
Senate Bill 1125 and its companion, House Bill 956, would allow the state to speed up the granting of easements for property owners whose lawful seawalls and other revetments have been overcome by the high wash of the waves, and now find their structures encroaching on state land. The bills would allow the state’s Land Board to grant easements at below market value, avoiding a lengthy property assessment process and making it easier for landowners to maintain their seawalls. In exchange, the landowner would be required to acquire insurance and indemnity protection, sheltering taxpayers from potential liability.
It sounds like a reasonable short-term fix to deal with an immediate problem. But the inertia of government bureaucracy has a way of turning what should be a temporary practice into a permanent one. Should the streamlined easement process become standard operating procedure, applied to hundreds of properties with seawalls, the state could be complicit in hastening the further loss of Hawaii’s beaches.
It is true that landowners cannot unilaterally harden a shoreline; should they want to, they face a lengthy review process.
However, landowners may claim a “hardship” because of a perceived threat to their property. Critics call the hardship claim a loophole, which, given the current reality, makes some sense. Building or living on a shoreline is an obviously risky business — unless the landowners can convince the state or county planning departments to put their interests ahead of the public’s right to protect priceless beaches.
The state and counties need to hew to a long-term strategy that addresses the reality of rising seas and eroding beaches. They should consider an outright prohibition of new seawalls that impede the free movement of sand. And they should plan for eventually removing government protection for those who, in defiance of common sense, choose to ignore the inevitable and insist on living right next to an ocean lapping at their doorsteps.
