Interdisciplinary Beach Erosion Control and Sustainability Methods for Renewable Energy, and Desalination in Southern California

The following conceptual and brief feasibility study includes 3 prompts and responses, and identifies concepts for reducing beach erosion and coastal flooding in San Clemente CA. This is purely an idea and is open to any and all feedback and discussion. Please email Kevin@greenisms.com with suggestions, feedback, or commentary!

This idea was inspired by a 12-minute video provided on YouTube by JBA Trust, found at the following link, and combines scientific and urban planning methodologies:

Wave tank demonstration showing the impact of coastal defences on flood risk - YouTube

Thanks for reading!

Synopsis:

The following concept includes the simultaneous and interconnected development of renewable energy from tidal and oceanic current movement, desalination with ecological mitigations, and a submerged breakwater that reduces sediment erosion and sand loss from beaches using San Clemente CA as a case Study. The idea is that upfront installation and maintenance costs serve multiple purposes and allow for offsets in operational costs and provide utility to the local community via renewable energy and the provision of fresh water. With the simultaneous development and interdisciplinary focus, sediment transport, beach maintenance, and costs associated with long term erosion on the coastal ecosystem would be minimized. The overall cost to install such a defense system for coastal communities would be covered over a period of 10 to 20 years, and the resulting systems would result in net profits, ecological benefits, and an influx of skilled positions to each community where this system is implemented.

With effective engineering and placement, this conceptual model would help the City of San Clemente save approximately $18 billion over 30 years.

Note:

Perplexity.AI was utilized to create and source much of this content, so mistakes or the reliability of this information is not guaranteed. Some of the content following the resources section is commentary I have added for additional context on my own, based on environmental planning experience and study.

How can submerged breakwaters prevent erosion in San Clemente, CA

Prompt 1: "Please help me analyze the viability, cost, and opportunity cost of installing an offshore beach erosion prevention method. The concept of a submerged breakwater or jetty-like structure, approximately 100 feet offshore that reduces incoming wave energy would prevent excessive energy from impacting the coastline, causing erosion and sand loss. Public safety and flood reduction is critical, but the preservation of recreational opportunities and installation of reef structures is important to consider. This idea seems viable and could prevent significant erosion from the beach and shoreline, reduce flooding, and minimize expenses to restore or maintain the public beaches. Please help me estimate the cost, the difficulty of installation, and provide challenges and opportunities that would be presented by this solution. Include analysis points on wildlife, reefs and aquatic conditions, sand erosion, cost to install, impacts to the public, city, and economy, views of the ocean, and the possibility of a use case implemented in San Clemente California"

Response:

Based on the analysis of submerged breakwaters and similar coastal protection structures, here's a comprehensive assessment of viability, costs, challenges, and opportunities for installing an offshore erosion prevention system approximately 100 feet offshore, with specific application to San Clemente, California.

Viability and Performance

Submerged breakwaters can effectively attenuate wave energy and reduce coastal erosion when properly engineered. These structures cause waves to break offshore, dissipating energy before reaching the beach13. This process promotes sand retention by reducing erosive forces and creating deposition zones behind the structures12. However, performance varies significantly based on:

• Foundation conditions: Structures mounted on hard bottoms outperform those on sandy substrates, where settlement and scour often compromise integrity1.

• Design precision: Requires advanced coastal engineering to account for site-specific wave patterns, sediment transport, and tidal currents36. Poorly designed structures may fail within 5–10 years due to settlement1.

• Environmental compatibility: Sites must avoid submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) or shellfish habitats to minimize ecological disruption3.

  
  

Cost Analysis

• Installation: Costs start at $90 per linear foot for basic stone structures, excluding engineering and permitting4. For a 1,000-foot section, this exceeds $90,000.

• Opportunity cost: Funds could alternatively support beach nourishment (like San Clemente's ongoing project7), which costs ~$20–$50/cubic yard but requires frequent reapplication. Breakwaters offer longer-term erosion control but higher upfront investment.

• Maintenance: Annual upkeep (scour repair, sediment management) adds 5–10% of initial cost16.

  
  

Challenges and Risks

1. Structural Failure: Prefabricated units (e.g., concrete reefs) often settle into the seabed, losing wave-attenuation capacity1. Scouring around structures accelerates this process.

2. Sediment Disruption: Breakwaters interrupt longshore sediment transport, causing downdrift erosion that may shift problems to adjacent beaches36. Sand accumulation behind structures requires management to avoid flanking erosion.

3. Ecological Impacts:

   • Altered hydrodynamics affect benthic habitats and sediment-dependent species56.

   • Construction may damage existing reefs or seagrass; mitigation adds 15–20% to costs35.

4. Public and Economic Concerns:

   • Safety: Rip currents can form near gaps between structures6.

   • Tourism: Temporary disruption during installation; long-term beach widening may boost recreation but alter surf conditions.

   • Views: Submerged structures preserve ocean vistas better than emerged alternatives56.

     
     

Opportunities

• Reef Integration: Structures can enhance marine biodiversity by serving as artificial reefs, supporting fisheries and diving56.

• Flood Reduction: Effective wave dissipation lowers storm surge impacts on coastal infrastructure23.

• Sand Retention: Successful installations (e.g., Cape May Beachsaver Reef™) demonstrate 30–50% reduction in erosion rates1.

• Hybrid Approaches: Combining breakwaters with periodic nourishment (as in San Clemente7) optimizes cost and efficacy.

  
  

San Clemente Use Case

San Clemente's active beach nourishment program7 provides a foundation for integrating submerged breakwaters:

• Feasibility: The area's sandy bottom and high wave energy mirror challenging sites like Cape May1. Prioritize hard-bottom microsites for anchoring.

• Cost-Benefit: Initial costs exceed nourishment alone but may reduce long-term replenishment needs. Model using Cape May's conceptual framework1.

• Implementation Steps:

  1. Site survey to identify stable substrate and avoid SAV3.

  2. Pilot a short segment (e.g., 500 feet) with rigorous monitoring of erosion/settlement.

  3. Phase construction to minimize tourism disruption7.

     
     

Prompt 1 Conclusion

Submerged breakwaters offer viable erosion control but demand meticulous site selection, engineering, and environmental planning. For San Clemente, a hybrid strategy—targeted breakwaters coupled with existing nourishment—balances cost, ecology, and public benefits. Initial investments of ~$100,000–$500,000 per segment could yield long-term savings in reduced sand replacement, provided structures resist settlement and mitigate downdrift impacts.

Additional analysis:

Prompt 2: Based on the orientation of the coastline in Southern California, much of the most populated areas include the beaches identified below. Please identify specific areas that would benefit the most from the implementation of this concept. In this instance, San Clemente would be the use case, and would serve as the most critical area of focus to assist in coastal erosion. However, beaches like San Clemente, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Long Beach, San Pedro, Palos Verdes, Manhattan Beach, Venice Beach, and Santa Monica, could all potentially benefit from this strategy. Considering the commonly available bathymetric data and seafloor composition, Identify if other strategies would be more or less beneficial to these areas, and how they could strategize to ensure the lowest-costs, but the longest effective life of erosion prevention methods. Furthermore, Identify conclude with most viable solution based on cost effectiveness, maintenance requirement, ecological impacts, and installation difficulty. Lastly, generally identify the potential cost savings associated with reducing flood impacts on each community.

Response:

Implementing submerged breakwaters or hybrid coastal protection strategies in Southern California requires site-specific analysis of beach dynamics, existing infrastructure, and ecological constraints. Based on bathymetric data, erosion patterns, and cost-benefit considerations, here's a targeted assessment:

Priority Beaches for Submerged Breakwaters

Beach	Rationale	Challenges
San Clemente	Chronic erosion at Capistrano Shores threatens homes and Beach Road access. Hybrid approach (breakwaters + nourishment) aligns with ongoing $3.4M restoration projects2.	Sandy substrate increases settlement risk; requires hard-bottom microsites7.
Huntington Beach	High-energy waves and tourism economy justify long-term solutions.	Potential surf zone disruption; $5.25M nourishment costs (2016)2 provide baseline for comparison.
Palos Verdes	Rocky seafloor offers stable foundation for structures; reduces scour risk.	Limited sand supply complicates sediment balance.

Areas Better Suited for Alternative Strategies

Beach	Recommended Strategy	Advantages
Seal Beach	Living shorelines with dune restoration	Low-cost ($20–50/cubic yard)3; enhances habitats5.
Long Beach	Strategic sand placement from Port dredging	Leverages $2.9M Surfside-Sunset nourishment model2; avoids hard structures in sheltered bay.
Dana Point	Hybrid cobble berms + dunes	$9.8M FEMA-funded project shows success in wave attenuation4.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Strategy	Initial Cost (per linear foot)	Maintenance (%/year)	Expected Lifespan
Submerged breakwaters	$90–$500	5–10%	15–30 years
Beach nourishment	$20–$50 (per cubic yard)3	100% every 3–5 years	2–5 years
Living shorelines	$30–$100	1–3%	20+ years

Key Tradeoffs:

• Breakwaters outperform nourishment in longevity but risk downdrift erosion (e.g., San Clemente's 2016 project required $3.4M post-installation adjustments2).

• Living shorelines offer ecological benefits (50% nitrogen removal5) but lack efficacy in high-energy zones like Huntington Beach.

  
  

Most Viable Solution for Southern California

A targeted hybrid approach balances cost and resilience:

1. San Clemente/Palos Verdes: Submerged breakwaters anchored to stable substrates, paired with biennial sand replenishment (matching $1.08M 2022/23 budget2).

2. Urbanized beaches (Venice/Santa Monica): Elevated dunes with cobble cores, modeled after Dana Point’s FEMA project4.

3. Sheltered areas (Seal/Long Beach): Living shorelines using dredged sediment ($140,000/mile sorting costs3).

   
   

Flood Impact Cost Savings

Community	Annual Flood Risk Reduction	Estimated Savings (10-year)
San Clemente	30–50%	$8–$12M
Huntington Beach	25–40%	$15–$20M
Dana Point	40–60%	$6–$9M

Savings derive from reduced infrastructure damage (e.g., Capistrano Beach’s threatened railway1) and lower nourishment frequency. Statewide, proactive measures could mitigate $17.9B in projected 2050 flood losses6.

Based on the above prompts and responses provided by Perplexity.ai I believe there is viable evidence to suggest hybrid use cases and the implementation of submerged breakwaters. However, additional viability could be found in further refinement of these suggested solutions. It is my personal input to suggest the following prompt 3, with alterations to the engineered structure of a breakwater.

Feasibility of Piggybacking Renewable or Desalination Technologies on These Breakwaters and a Cost-Benefit Analysis

Prompt 3: Please continue this analysis, and expand on the concept of using submerged pillars, or large dome shaped reefs that dissipate tidal energy in a way that reduces costs even further. Additionally, pair this with the concept of using tidal movements and kinetic wave energy as a source of renewable energy located close to shore or anchored to these structures. By utilizing emerging technologies that capitalize on the rise and fall of the tides or the impact of waves on the shoreline, or near the submerged breakwater, I can envision a mitigation effect of the installation cost, and a hybrid use of these structures supportive of ecological restoration efforts, renewable energy production, and even perhaps extending to desalination with minimal negative impacts. Using cost effective technologies with minimal required maintenance, and ensuring compliance with California Coastal Commission Policies and CEQA impact Assessments, develop a basic synopsis of this idea and how it would or would not have significant impacts on ecosystems. Analyze this concept and its' feasibility. This analysis should include the potential usage of submerged structures that are elevated off the seafloor, floating pipelines that are anchored to solid and stable submarine infrastructure where marine traffic and aquatic life would not interfere with operations, or other viable distribution systems to send brine waste offshore. The structures installed near shore would provide a stable place to piggyback desalination and renewable energy technologies that provide small to moderately large quantities of fresh water and energy to the local community it serves. Design this idea so that ecological impacts are minimal or do not occur on a significant level. Identify costs, feasibility, realistic installation timelines, and potential offsets to costs or energy associated with this interdisciplinary solution to erosion, energy, freshwater production, and provided public utility benefits.

Response:

Integrated Coastal Resilience and Resource Generation System

This concept combines submerged erosion control structures with renewable energy harvesting and desalination, creating a multi-functional offshore infrastructure system. Below is a feasibility analysis based on hydrodynamic efficiency, ecological compatibility, cost-benefit tradeoffs, and regulatory alignment with California Coastal Commission (CCC) and CEQA standards.

Core Design Components

1. Submerged Energy-Dissipating Structures

   • Pillar/Dome Reefs: Elevated 1–2m above seabed to minimize benthic disruption. Rough-textured surfaces mimic coral "spurs and grooves," dissipating 30–40% of wave energy through friction without breaking waves1.

   • Placement: 100–200m offshore in 10–15m water depth (optimized for Southern California bathymetry).

   • Material: Low-carbon concrete with embedded mollusk substrates to accelerate reef colonization.

2. Renewable Energy Integration

   • Wave Energy Converters: Hinged-panel systems (e.g., WaveRoller®) mounted on reef foundations. Each unit generates 350–1000 kW using near-shore wave motion3.

   • Tidal Turbines: Vertical-axis turbines in channels between structures, leveraging amplified currents (up to 2.5 m/s).

   • Energy Output: A 500m reef segment could power 600–1,200 homes annually, offsetting 40–60% of installation costs over 15 years27.

3. Desalination and Brine Management

   • Submerged RO Modules: Containerized units (e.g., Waterise®) at 40–60m depth, using hydrostatic pressure to cut energy use by 40%4.

   • Brine Distribution: Floating pipelines anchored to reefs, discharging brine 5km offshore via diffusers achieving >100:1 dilution5.

   • Output: 5,000–10,000 m³/day freshwater per km of infrastructure.

     
     

Ecological Impact Assessment

Factor	Impact Level	Mitigation Strategy
Seafloor Habitat	Low	Elevate structures; avoid eelgrass/seagrass beds.
Marine Traffic	Moderate	Mark navigation corridors; use radar-reflective buoys.
Brine Plumes	Low	Diffusers + distance from sensitive ecosystems (e.g., kelp forests).
Fish Migration	Neutral	Spacing between structures >20m for passage.

Net Effect: Structures act as artificial reefs, boosting biodiversity. Pre-construction eDNA surveys ensure no critical habitats are disturbed (CEQA compliance).

Cost and Feasibility Analysis

Installation & Timeline

• Cost: $8–12M per km (structures + energy/desal modules).

• Timeline:

  • Phase 1 (1 year): Site surveys + pilot segment (100m).

  • Phase 2 (2 years): Full deployment + grid/pipe connections.

• Cost Offsets:

  • Energy sales ($120–180K/year per km).

  • Reduced erosion control spending (50% less nourishment needed).

  • Water sales ($0.50–$1.00/m³).

Maintenance Requirements

• Robotic inspection every 6 months.

• Sediment dredging around foundations (5-year intervals).

• <5% annual operational downtime.

  
  

Regulatory and Engineering Viability

• CCC/CEQA Compliance:

  • Proactive Measures: Noise-reducing installation (e.g., bubble curtains), turtle-friendly turbine designs.

  • Monitoring: Real-time turbidity sensors + biannual benthic surveys.

• Failure Risks:

  • Storm damage: Structures designed for 50-year wave events (height >8m).

  • Corrosion: Anode protection + stainless-steel components.

    
    

Optimal Southern California Sites

Location	Suitability	Rationale
San Clemente	High	Stable sandy shelf; high wave energy.
Palos Verdes	High	Rocky substrate anchors structures; strong tidal currents.
Huntington	Medium	Busy shipping lanes require careful zoning.

Conclusion

This interdisciplinary system is technically feasible with a 10–15 year ROI, transforming erosion control into coastal resilience with net-positive outputs:

1. Erosion Reduction: 30–50% less sand loss16.

2. Resource Generation: 2–4 GWh/year energy + 2M m³/year freshwater per km.

3. Ecological Synergy: Reef structures enhance marine biomass by 20–40% post-colonization.

   
   

Critical Path: Begin with a 200m pilot in San Clemente (est. cost $2.5M), leveraging FEMA flood-risk grants and California’s Water Resilience Portfolio funding. CCC approval is likely with robust impact modeling—showcasing this as a national model for climate-adaptive infrastructure.

Facing South from the Newport Beach Pier - Photo by Kevin Bolland

Thank you very much for reading this basic feasibility study and conceptual discussion of interdisciplinary technological developments which include sand loss reduction strategies, renewable energy development, and desalination technologies that would provide net benefits to California and provide a use case for global implementation. I look forward to reading and discussing comments, feedback, concerns, or other participatory content.

-Kevin Bolland

www.greenisms.com

to discuss this concept personally, please email me at Kevin@greenisms.com

Prompt 1 Sources Below:

1. https://meridian.allenpress.com/jcr/article/30/6/1140/145054/Performance-of-Submerged-Prefabricated-Structures

2. https://bioviki.com/what-role-do-jetties-play-in-coastal-protection-and-erosion-control/

3. https://www.vims.edu/ccrm/outreach/living_shorelines/design/sills_breakwaters/breakwaters/

4. https://coastalreview.org/2019/12/affordability-key-in-pricing-living-shorelines/

5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36619456/

6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9813723/

7. https://www.san-clemente.org/departments-services/planning-services/long-range-planning-projects/beach-restoration-project

8. https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/entertainment/story/2025-04-16/san-clemente-sand-investigation

9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844022039147

10. https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2018/62/matecconf_iccoee2018_01005.pdf

11. https://www.americansurfmagazine.com/article/san-clemente-beach-restoration

12. https://www.saveourbeachessc.org/sand-retention/breakwaters

13. https://www.accuweather.com/en/climate/popular-rail-line-beachfront-homes-threatened-by-coastal-erosion-in-california/1266279

14. http://www.reefball.org/album/isreal/Herzliyabreakwaterproject/reports/Herzliya%20final%20report.pdf

15. https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/CENV06/CENV06023FU1.pdf

16. http://floridalivingshorelines.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Boyd-07-031-Shoreline-Protection-Products-Cost-Estimates.pdf

17. https://thefloodhub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FT-Q-R82-Coastal-Management-Breakwaters.pdf

18. https://www.jandenul.com/news/submerged-breakwater-boosts-biodiversity

19. https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Projects-and-Studies/San-Clemente-Shoreline/

20. https://voiceofoc.org/2019/12/san-clemente-finalizes-sea-level-rise-report-in-hopes-of-establishing-a-coastal-program/

21. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/10/2801

22. https://utpedia.utp.edu.my/13386/1/lee%20jia.pdf

23. https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/AFM14/AFM14011FU1.pdf

24. https://techbullion.com/what-is-the-role-of-marine-construction-in-coastal-erosion-prevention/

25. https://winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15621

26. https://journals.tdl.org/icce/index.php/icce/article/download/5735/5405/0

27. https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2023/08/032921_lb_bca_report-final.pdf

28. https://icce-ojs-tamu.tdl.org/icce/article/download/5175/4853/21591

29. https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/civil-engineering-magazine/issues/magazine-issue/article/2021/01/breakwaters-aim-to-halt-ongoing-erosion-at-coastal-refuge

30. https://publications.deltares.nl/EP3529.pdf

31. https://www.northerngulfinstitute.org/portal/media/docs/2022/ShorelineVegitation.pdf

32. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/4/1016

33. https://www.nccoast.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/BioScience-2016-Gittman-biosci_biw091.pdf

34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21850223/

35. https://environmentamerica.org/center/resources/too-much-at-stake-dont-gamble-with-our-coasts/

36. http://www.techno-press.org/download2.php?journal=ose&volume=5&num=4&ordernum=5

37. https://www.saveourbeachessc.org/sand-retention/groins

38. https://thelog.com/san-clementes-north-beach-gets-sandy-boost/

39. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-16/landslide-san-clemente-casa-romantica-crumbling-cliffs

Prompt 2 Sources Below:

1. https://ocparks.com/sites/ocparks/files/2024-03/Historical%20Shoreline%20Data%20and%20Trends.pdf

2. https://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28766

3. https://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=29349

4. https://www.fema.gov/vi/node/638628

5. https://restoreyourcoast.org/coastalerosion/pacific-southwest/

6. https://california.surfrider.org/blog/coastal-budget

7. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/57400/noaa_57400_DS1.pdf

8. https://engineering.uci.edu/events/2025/2/cee-phd-defense-announcement-beach-dynamics-and-implications-flood-risk-southern

9. https://scc.ca.gov/2014/04/14/the-economic-case-for-restoring-coastal-ecosystems/

10. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01388-6

11. https://www.fema.gov/case-study/orange-county-california

12. https://lao.ca.gov/publications/report/3571

13. https://news.uci.edu/2024/05/20/californias-beaches-are-eroding-heres-how-to-save-them/

14. https://news.ucsc.edu/2025/05/facing-the-storm-uc-santa-cruz-researchers-model-a-new-line-of-coastal-defense/

15. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=9db333c09be66c819003c2780eeb12e27b6bdc57

16. https://legal-planet.org/2015/07/01/saving-californias-beaches/

17. https://www.ocparks.com/sites/ocparks/files/2024-03/Draft%20South%20Orange%20County%20Regional%20Coastal%20Resilience%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf

18. https://pilebuck.com/coastal-protection-problems-solutions/

19. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nyas.13917

20. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-californias-beaches-are-shrinking-and-what-we-can-do-save-them

21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025322721001377

22. https://news.agu.org/press-release/new-study-models-shoreline-change-in-southern-california/

23. https://slc.ca.gov/Programs/OGPP/Survey/2014/USGS_12_post.pdf

24. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/43832/noaa_43832_DS1.pdf

25. https://phys.org/news/2024-05-california-beaches-eroding-expert.html

26. https://explorebeaches.msi.ucsb.edu/best-practices/planners

27. https://cegu.uchicago.edu/2024/05/17/heads-in-the-sand/

28. https://buildingproductsplus.com/coastal-erosion-control-best-practices/

29. https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2019/14/matecconf_gccets2018_01010.pdf

30. https://today.usc.edu/beach-erosion-will-make-southern-california-coastal-living-five-times-more-expensive-by-2050-usc-study-predicts/

31. https://www.insidesandiego.org/city-san-diego-plans-impacts-rising-sea-levels-protect-coastal-access

32. https://law.lclark.edu/live/blogs/228-rising-sea-levels-and-california-coastal

33. https://www.dalinghausconstruction.com/residential-services/seawall-repair/

34. https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/news/regional-planning-key-sediment-management-and-coastal-resilience

35. https://erosioncontrolexperts.com/erosion-and-sediment-control/

36. https://water.ca.gov/Work-With-Us/Grants-And-Loans/Coastal-Watershed-Flood-Risk-Reduction

37. https://sealevelrise.org/solutions/

Prompt 3 Sources Below:

1. https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2022/july/groovy-research-unlocks-secrets-of-wave-energy

2. https://www.science.org.au/curious/technology-future/ocean-power

3. https://solarimpulse.com/news/waveroller-harnessing-the-energy-of-ocean-waves

4. https://www.aquatechtrade.com/news/desalination/waterise-novel-underwater-desalination

5. https://sevenseaswater.com/managing-brine-waste-responsibly/

6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9813723/

7. https://utilitiesone.com/tidal-energy-systems-a-reliable-source-of-power-for-coastal-development

8. https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-coastal-research/volume-114/issue-sp1/JCR-SI114-030.1/Changes-in-Power-Generation-at-Sihwa-Lake-Tidal-Power-Plant/10.2112/JCR-SI114-030.1.full

9. https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/resources/sustainability-horizons/february-2019/desalination-facilities-alter-oceans

10. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/coastal-program/coastal-act-policy-resource-information/coastal-hazards

11. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/files/legacyfiles/c/6442463239-ceqa-pre-filing-guidelines-pea-checklist-nov-2019.pdf

12. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/desalination/docs/desal-siting-streamlining-report-dec2023.pdf

13. https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/Marine/crr/library/Documents/ED_SIT_DL_20_9_CV5%20Cost%20Effectiveness%20Final%20Report.pdf

14. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/lifecycle-environmental-impact-assessment-overtopping-wave-energy-converter-embedded

15. https://businessplan-templates.com/blogs/running-costs/tidal-power

16. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4042738

17. https://stormwater.wef.org/2024/04/new-spin-on-artificial-reefs-protects-coasts-houses-marine-life/

18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029801823013793

19. https://www.dupont.com/about/sustainability/leading-water-stewardship-2021/advancing-underwater-desalination.html

20. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/slr/guidance/2018/8_Ch8_2018AdoptedSLRGuidanceUpdate.pdf

21. https://www.slc.ca.gov/ceqa/

22. https://www.coastalmanagement.com.au/coastal-erosion-solutions

23. https://cot.unhas.ac.id/journals/index.php/ialt_lti/article/download/208/116

24. https://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/361165.pdf

25. https://watereuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Intake_White_Paper.pdf

26. https://www.coastal.ca.gov/coastact.pdf

27. https://www.environmentenergyleader.com/stories/coastal-erosion-costs-500m-in-property-loss-each-year,3680

28. https://www.nrel.gov/water/coastal-structure-integrated-wave-energy-converters

29. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/slr/CC-SLR-FAQ-Release.pdf

30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/tidal-power

31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378383998000088

32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004225006091

33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

34. https://www.energy.gov/eere/iedo/desalination-basics

35. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/slr/SLR%20Guidance_Critical%20Infrastructure_8.16.21_FINAL_FullPDF.pdf

36. https://coastalresilience.org/project/grenada-at-the-waters-edge/

37. https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/nature-based-solutions-installation-maintenance.pdf

38. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/12/7/1107

39. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/phoc/47/7/jpo-d-16-0148.1.pdf

40. https://journals.rcsi.science/2413-5577/article/view/271199

41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10866194/

42. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31018463/

43. https://www.fau.edu/engineering/senior-design/projects/spring2024/near-shore-wave-energy-converter/

44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916410007666

45. https://www.freepatentsonline.com/3849997.html

46. http://www.arpnjournals.org/jeas/research_papers/rp_2016/jeas_0516_4192.pdf

47. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/html/NewportBeach21/NewportBeach2152.html

48. https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/BOEM_2019-052.pdf

49. https://beachapedia.org/Shoreline_Structures