As the early salvos of a historic El Niño weather system reach California shores in the form of heightened sea levels and powerful storms, the California Coastal Commission finds itself between a rock and a hard place. Already, the unusually heavy storms have caused extensive damage in Southern California, including in the communities of Dana Point and Newport Beach, where high surf has ripped open buildings, destroyed boardwalks, and rendered numerous homes uninhabitable. On September 21, 2026, Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency in anticipation of the El Niño, which the National Weather Service predicts is likely to exceed the strength of all prior El Niño events on record.

One of the ways that El Niño impacts the West Coast is through “Kelvin” waves—slow-moving underwater pulses that shift warm equatorial ocean water eastward, temporarily raising both temperatures and sea levels along California. The state saw its first such wave of the season this month. In Santa Monica, for example, scientists recorded sea levels eleven inches above predicted tides, and water temperatures up to 8 degrees warmer than average. Other communities experienced flooding, even without significant storm activity. More Kelvin waves are expected over the coming months and could exacerbate the impact of winter storms.

Calls for Walls

Communities watching their homes fall into the sea understandably want relief as quickly as possible. And many land on a common refrain: they want seawalls.

“If we all had rocks, the ocean would have been protected better; our houses would have protected better,” said one homeowner in Dana Point, where eight homes were “red-tagged” following large swells in early September.

Seawalls and similar coastal “protective devices” create a conundrum—and a PR nightmare—for the Coastal Commission, the lead agency in charge of managing the state’s coastal zone. The reason is that seawalls, rock revetments, retaining walls and other structures come with significant long-term consequences, from accelerating coastal erosion to blocking public beach access. This is especially problematic in Southern California, where more of the coastline is armored and beaches are rapidly shrinking.

“The real threat to California’s beaches isn’t the waves — it’s the concrete we pour after they hit,” wrote Charles Lester, a former Coastal Commission director in a recent op-ed.

Because of their negative long-term impacts, the Coastal Commission—and California’s Coastal Act itself—disfavor such artificial fortifications. Under normal circumstances, the Commission can only permit rock walls and the like to protect “existing structures” built prior to January 1, 1977 (the effective date of the Coastal Act) from erosion, or to serve “coastal-dependent” uses like coastal trails. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30235; Casa Mira Homeowners Assn. v. California Coastal Com. (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th. Accordingly, the Commission treats new development, and some remodels, as ineligible for protective devices like seawalls, regularly including a waiver of any future right to such fortifications as a condition of permit approval. In recent years, property owners have targeted the waivers through litigation, so far with limited success.

However, in emergencies, some of the Coastal Act’s prohibitions on protective devices break down and pressure on the Commission to approve temporary fortifications increases. The result is a loophole that allows temporary armoring of post-1977 structures that then is difficult and costly to undo.

Under Section 30624 of the Coastal Act, the Commission can approve emergency coastal development permits (CDPs) “without compliance with the procedures” otherwise applicable. The Commission’s regulations define an “emergency” as a “sudden unexpected occurrence demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services,” so, per the Commission, “perceived threat from upcoming storms” generally doesn’t qualify. However, the Commission has already approved emergency rock walls in connection with storms this season—most recently approving rock-revetment permits for two dozen homes in Dana Point—and extending emergency permitting for riprap to protect a segment of railway along the coast in San Clemente.

The Problem with Emergency Permitting of Coastal Armoring

These recent events expose major problems with the way in which the Coastal Act addresses armoring, especially in emergency situations. The Act’s provisions often leave no one happy. Even though the long-term consequences of coastal armoring are well-known, the Act’s allowance of armoring for pre-1977 structures causes a disjointed management framework in which some structures are eligible and others aren’t – even on the same beach. Then, when emergencies arise, the Act does grant the Commission limited authority to permit temporary armoring, even of post-1977 structures. In the case of damage from El Niño-driven storms, which is neither “sudden” nor “unexpected” and thus does not fit the definition of “emergency,” ad hoc seawalls should arguably be off the table entirely. Yet, as the examples above suggest, that is not what always plays out in practice.

Additionally, even though emergency permits only authorize temporary fortifications – when the emergency permit expires, a permittee must either remove the fortifications or seek a regular CDP – permittees are often loathe to remove infrastructure they just spent a lot of money building. “Once the rock goes on the beach it’s very hard to bring it back up,” says Charles Lester, the former Coastal Commission director.

This can lead to unfortunate face-offs between permittees and the Coastal Commission, in which permittees do nothing and wait for the Commission to come after them. Occasionally, the Coastal Commission does, as when it recently levied a $1 million administrative penalty against a homeowner who left an unauthorized seawall in place. 11 Lagunita, LLC v. California Coastal Com. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 904. Historically, however, the Commission reports that many emergency-permitted protective structures remain in place, even without new authorization. See Cal. Coastal Comm’n, Staff Report F12b (App. No. 3-12-030) (Pebble Beach Company) at 17 (June 2013). Regardless, the burden is on the Coastal Commission to enforce violations of its emergency permits, sinking time and money into dispute resolution while the beaches shrink and public access is impacted.

Pressure Building

If this year’s El Niño shapes up as expected, winter storms combined with higher-than-usual sea levels could pose major problems for the state. “The worst case scenario could be really, really bad,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Dylan Flynn in a recent interview. And this could simply be a preview of future years, when sea levels across the state are expected to rise substantially.

This week, the Surfrider Foundation released a report drawing attention to the inadequacy of current emergency permitting rules in coastal states across the country when it comes to preventing temporary armoring from lapsing into permanence. Among the criteria considered were whether states’ definitions of “emergency” exclude long-predicted hazards; whether construction of emergency armoring requires prior written authorization; whether emergency work is restricted to certain kinds of structures or work types, such as repair and replacement; and enforcement mechanisms for violations. California received a “C” grade. No state got an “A.”

Governor Newsom’s State of Emergency Proclamation instructs the California Coastal Commission to expedite its review timeline for both regular and emergency coastal development permits. In combination, this year’s threat of coastal destruction and abbreviated review timelines will test the Commission’s resolve to hold the line on seawalls and may well expose the limitations of the Coastal Act itself when it comes to combatting sea level rise.

***

Lowry Yankwich is the Climate and Oceans Legal Fellow in the Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Program at Stanford Law School.

This blog post reflects the views of the individual author(s) and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Program or Stanford Law School or University.

Cover photo from the California Coastal Commission King Tides Project.