Sea level rise: working group: economic analysis.
The bill requires state-funded infrastructure projects located in areas vulnerable to sea level rise to undergo an analysis to mitigate risks during their operational life. New or expanded infrastructure can only receive funding if it meets specific resilience criteria. It also allows certain existing projects, such as minor repairs, to be exempt from the analysis if they adhere to designed standards relating to sea level impact, thereby streamlining processes for projects that contribute positively to environmental resilience and conservation efforts.
Assembly Bill 67, known as the Sea Level Rise Preparedness Act of 2021, mandates that state agencies consider the current and anticipated impacts of sea level rise when planning and investing in coastal infrastructure. This legislation aims to ensure that projects funded by the state are resilient to expected sea level rise, thereby reducing future risks to critical infrastructure such as airports, highways, and wastewater treatment plants. It emphasizes the importance of integrating climate projections into the decision-making process for state-funded projects, promoting the development of adaptable structures and systems.
The overarching sentiment surrounding AB 67 has been largely positive among environmental advocates and some policymakers, as it marks a proactive step towards addressing climate change impacts in California. Supporters argue that such measures are essential for safeguarding coastal communities and infrastructure. However, there are concerns regarding costs associated with these new requirements and the potential bureaucratic complexities that could arise, which may affect project timelines and funding availability for smaller municipalities and developers.
Notable points of contention include the balance between environmental protection and development, as some stakeholders argue that strict guidelines may impose excessive burdens on new infrastructure projects. Critics express concern that the extensive analysis and planning requirements could slow down necessary development in coastal areas, potentially limiting economic opportunities. Moreover, the implementation of this bill may generate debates over the equitable distribution of resources among various communities, especially those that are low-income or marginalized.