Dealing with sea level rise along the California coast is not going to be easy. One of the options that cities are encouraged to consider is something called “managed retreat.” In a nutshell, that’s when homes are moved away from the coast as it crumbles toward the sea. With so many expensive California homes perched on oceanside cliffs, the idea has become very controversial. There’s even debate over the use of the term “managed retreat.” (1)Hi, I'm Kathy Fettke and this is Real Estate News for Investors. If you like our podcast, please subscribe and leave us a review. Managed retreat is a concept that’s been around for a while. It’s been used after natural disasters that have flooded whole communities. As reported by the SF Chronicle, The town of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin, began relocating about 600 homes in 1979, after the Kickapoo River had flooded 25 times. It cost more than $27 million in federal, state, and local funds to buy new land and move 70 buildings, including 24 homes.“Managed Retreat” to Fight Rising Sea LevelsNow, with increased concern about rising sea levels because of climate change, there’s been more discussion about how to deal with it, and “managed retreat” is one of the options. But it’s not being embraced by everyone. Managed retreat is something that goes against the desirability and value of oceanside real estate.As the Chronicle reports, it “represents a radical departure from decades of coastal development philosophy and runs counter to our proclivity to build houses and cities up against the ocean.” And now cities along the shore have a tremendous challenge to deal with. As UC Santa Cruz professor, Gary Griggs, puts it: “Dealing with sea level rise and (cliff) retreat… is the biggest challenge that human civilization may ever have to face.”The Cost of California Sea Level RiseIn a 2019 study that was published in the journal Scientific Reports, researchers estimated that sea level rise along California’s 1,271 mile-long coast could negatively impact $150 billion in property and 600,000 people. Two thirds of the impact is expected to hit the San Francisco Bay Area. But the same study predicts substantial erosion in Southern California over the next 80 years, and the disappearance of 67% of its beaches.California has already tried to fight erosion with other less aggressive measures such as seawalls, the reinforcing of cliffs, and the building of levees and jetties. Professor Griggs says the state has used these methods to protect about 10% of the coastline, but they are expensive and they don’t last forever. They need maintenance and updating in the race to keep ahead of climate change.In some places, sand has been added to help keep the ocean at bay. The city of Santa Cruz has been doing this for decades. The Chronicle reports that Santa Cruz has dumped additional sand onto beaches 58 times since 1965. The price tag? Almost $18 million.Pacifica’s Crumbling Cliff and Lost HomesOne well-known example of the need for the relocation of homes has made headlines in San Mateo County. Winter storms in 2010 and 2015 caused so much damage to the cliff along Esplanade Drive in Pacific, the city was forced to condemn, purchase, and demolish several homes and apartment complexes. But even in a situation like this, it is not easy to tell people they must relocate because homes are at risk of falling into the sea. In 2015, the Coastal Commission asked cities to study how they would deal with sea level rise. Pacifica considered the use of managed retreat but after feedback from the community, rejected it. The city council said that it did not align with the city’s goals or the desires of the residents.SF State economist Philip King told the Chronicle: “When you ask people to leave their homes, even if you could fully compensate them 100% economically, you still would be pulling them away from their community.” He says: “It’s an issue we’re going to have to face in California.”The Term “Managed Retreat” Conveys “D