Coastal resources: research: landslides and erosion: early warning system: County of San Diego.
The bill builds upon existing law by enhancing the state’s capacity to understand and mitigate the effects of climate change on coastal resources. It authorizes significant research that could inform policy decisions and provide communities with the information necessary to respond to coastal hazards effectively. By creating a framework for collecting and analyzing data on landslides, the bill aims to prevent future disasters, thereby protecting local communities, infrastructure, and natural resources from potential harm.
Assembly Bill No. 66, introduced by Boerner Horvath, focuses on addressing coastal erosion and landslide risks in the County of San Diego. The bill mandates the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, to conduct thorough research on coastal cliff landslides and ongoing erosion. This research aims to develop a robust database regarding bluff failure statistics, as well as conduct real-time measurements of land deformation at targeted locations. The research findings are to be reported to the California Legislature by March 15, 2025, alongside recommendations for implementing an early warning system for future incidents.
Overall sentiment surrounding AB 66 is positive, particularly among advocates for environmental protection and climate resilience. Supporters argue that proactive measures like this are essential in adapting to climate change effects, emphasizing the need for comprehensive research to inform state-level responses to natural disasters. However, there may be concerns regarding funding allocations and the execution timeline given the ambitious nature of the research required.
One notable aspect of contention lies in the bill’s provisions for limiting civil liability for the Regents of the University of California and its employees, which some stakeholders may interpret as an attempt to reduce accountability. Critics could argue that this provision might potentially hinder thorough investigations or lead to less transparency in research outcomes. Nevertheless, proponents see it as necessary to encourage scientific exploration without the fear of legal repercussions, thus striking a balance between innovation and risk management.