Protecting Public Beach Access

Public Beach Access 

Riprap and other armoring structures are constructed to protect private properties from coastal erosion and sea level rise. While these aim to protect private interests, however, armoring structures wind up harming the public’s interest.

In 1967, the Oregon legislature passed the Beach Bill, and it was signed by Governor Tom McCall. The Beach Bill deems access to dry beach as a “birthright” of Oregonians. The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for protecting this right, ensuring that all people have access to the beach as a public recreation area.

In 1973, the legislature passed the Land Use Planning Act, which led to the adoption of 19 Goals that outlined statewide policies for land use and the protection of coastal resources. These policies included Goal 18, which restricted the use of armoring structures for properties developed after 1977. As scientists and policymakers became more aware of the hazards of shoreline armoring, Goal 18 functioned as a formal notice to the public that the practice of shoreline armoring would no longer be allowed for new properties, without penalizing those who previously built structures before 1977 without knowing the extent of the risks.

Since the Beach Bill’s passing, Oregonians and visitors to the state have enjoyed and benefited from the right to public beach access.  In comparison to the small, crowded sections of public beaches you may see in other states, like California, land use laws, like Goal 18, work to preserve Oregon’s signature stretches of long, uninterrupted beach that can be enjoyed by all.

Coastal Tribes and the Custom of Use

Even after the Oregon legislature passed the Beach Bill, opponents tried to challenge the law in court. But in 1969, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Beach Bill, protecting public access to beaches in Oregon to this day. The Supreme Court’s ruling was based on the public’s ancient and uninterrupted “custom of use” of the beach. Although opponents of public beach access tried to argue that historically people in Oregon did not exercise the right to use the beach, the Court rejected those arguments, recalling that “European settlers were not the first people to use the dry-sand area as public land.” 

It’s important to note that while the Oregon Supreme Court decision to protect the public’s right to the beach was based in part on Coastal Tribal Nations’ historical use of the beach, these same tribal nations’ use and enjoyment of the dry-sand beaches was interrupted by the arrival of the same European settler colonists mentioned by the Oregon Supreme Court in 1969.

For example, Coastal Tribes and Indigenous peoples have lived in relationship with and acted as stewards of the lands we now call the Oregon Coast since time immemorial. Long before the arrival of white settlers and the establishment of the State of Oregon, Indigenous peoples had used the coastline as a crucial “highway” for travel, trade, fishing, and more. Today, descendants of the original inhabitants of the lands now called the Oregon coast still live and work here, and many are members of federally recognized tribes including the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, Coquille Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, and non-federally recognized tribes such as Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes and Chinook Nation. Access to the beach was, and continues to be to this day, an essential aspect of the culture and stewardship efforts of many Coastal Tribes and Indigenous peoples.

Coastal Ecosystems

Shoreline armoring does not protect or conserve the beach, and has major ecological impacts.  Armoring a beach impedes natural sand movement, and blocks the ability of the beach to replenish itself in response to changes in sea level, storm waves, and other natural processes. Studies have also shown that armoring also greatly impacts biodiversity of beaches. For example, one study found that beaches with sea walls had significantly fewer and smaller intertidal species, three times fewer shorebirds, and four to seven times fewer gulls and other birds than unarmored beaches.

Climate Change

As sea level rise increases, due to climate change, more and more oceanfront properties will become threatened by an encroaching shoreline. In spite of growing awareness of climate change and its consequences, privately owned properties continue to be developed on the oceanfront, knowingly placing themselves on the frontlines of climate change. Cases similar to the Pine Beach case are sure to arise as the impacts of climate change intensify. It is important to set precedent now, in order to prevent a larger wave of private property owners seeking exceptions to the Oregon law at the cost of public access.