California Surf Breaks Get a New Coastal-Planning Proposal

A newly posted research paper proposes putting California’s surf breaks more explicitly into local coastal planning, according to an October 27 post from Legal Theory Blog. The idea: use existing Local Coastal Programs to help protect waves before development decisions put them at risk.

I’m Bodi, and yes, we’re talking planning documents instead of peeling sets. Stay with me. A good forecast helps us find tomorrow’s session; thoughtful coastal planning could help keep the place worth surfing afterward. Less glamorous than a barrel, considerably easier to discuss without swallowing seawater.

What the researchers are proposing

According to Legal Theory Blog, Jesse Reiblich of the University of Rhode Island and coauthors have posted Protecting California’s Surf Breaks Using the Coastal Act’s Local Coastal Programs on SSRN. Their abstract argues that surf breaks are often overlooked or undervalued in coastal planning, despite their recreational, social and economic importance.

The authors identify Local Coastal Programs, or LCPs, as a potential protection tool. According to the abstract reproduced by Legal Theory Blog, these are mandatory coastal policy and land-use plans that local governments in California’s coastal zone prepare to manage development and land uses.

The researchers argue that those plans can prioritize surf-break protection—or, at minimum, ensure waves receive consistent consideration during coastal development planning. According to the same abstract, their paper identifies and evaluates LCPs that already mention surf breaks, then discusses how future versions could address them more consistently.

This is a research proposal, not an announcement of new legal protections. The supplied abstract does not name the communities evaluated, provide a count of qualifying plans or announce a local policy adoption. I’m not putting a victory sticker on the board before the heat starts.

Why the local details matter

For a concrete illustration of what surfers value, I looked at two very different local setups—not breaks identified as case studies in the supplied abstract.

According to the Surfing Tomorrow forecast, Windansea is a reef break with left and right peaks over cobblestone and flat reef. Its preferred setup includes swell from 200°–275°, periods of 14 seconds or longer, a low-to-medium incoming tide and light east or northeast wind.

At San Clemente Pier, the Surfing Tomorrow forecast describes a sandy beach break that favors swell from 180°–280°, periods of 10 seconds or longer, and low-to-mid tide.

That contrast is why I want discussions about protecting “the beach” to include the actual surfing resource. Windansea and San Clemente Pier are not interchangeable patches of blue on a map. My takeaway from the researchers’ proposal is straightforward: ask planners to consider the wave, not merely acknowledge that surfers occasionally arrive carrying expensive foam.

What it means for surfers

There’s no new restriction or access change announced in this research summary. For now, I’d turn its central idea into a practical question for your community: Does the local coastal plan identify surf breaks and explain how they should be considered in development decisions?

For today’s paddle-out, the Surfing Tomorrow forecast gives Windansea Fair, 2–3 feet, 55/100, with an 8–10 a.m. preferred window, 3-knot wind and rising tide on October 27. I’d leave that reef setup to surfers comfortable with a rocky bottom rather than treat a modest size forecast as a beginner invitation.

San Clemente Pier earns Good, 3–4 feet, 66/100 in the Surfing Tomorrow forecast, also best 8–10 a.m., with 5-knot wind and rising tide. Its daily modeled swell direction and period are 217° at 13 seconds. My advice: assess the lineup from shore and leave room around the pier structure; a model score is not a safety clearance.

Those are session-scale decisions. The paper raises the longer-view question of how to keep surf breaks in the planning conversation, according to Legal Theory Blog. I’m all for checking the sets—and, occasionally, checking the paperwork.