For an island state, Hawaii agencies have a remarkably poor mastery of regulatory protection of shorelines.

Especially now that sea-level rise and erosion have loomed larger on the horizon of land use concerns, government must jettison its current approach, which is piecemeal management.

If there would be better coordination of policies implemented by state and county agencies, and efforts to evaluate conditions more regionally, problems such as the Mokuleia seawall controversy would arise less frequently.

As things stand, however, there seems to be no justification for approving the seawalls without considering alternative solutions to the erosion problem and, at a minimum, fully resolving the shoreline right-of-way issue.

That public-access matter is what makes a Mokuleia case particularly knotty. The Hoomana Place permit application represents just the latest example of seawalls that don’t adequately counter erosive forces but are being considered on a case-by-case basis anyway, sometimes after they already have been built.

This particular petition before the city Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) is for just such an after-the-fact shoreline setback variance. The beachfront structures are cemented boulder revetments fronting two neighboring private residential parcels, owned by Grand View Apartments Inc. and by Fred and Holly Clark.

Between the private parcels sits the right-of-way leading to the public shoreline. In 2015 the seawalls incurred $31,000 in fines from the state Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR).

The board directed that $1,000 of that, covering administrative costs, be paid in 60 days but allowed one year for the rest to be applied toward developing a remediation plan. If they got city approval of the plan and the required variance, they then could ask BLNR to consider a Conservation District Use Application.

The plan is described in an environmental assessment that was submitted for the variance, with a decision by DPP due by late July. Kathy Sokugawa, acting DPP director, has declined comment.

The public, by contrast, has had plenty to say. Among the most outspoken, state Sen. Gil Riviere, who represents the district, said the proposed shoreline-access fix is unacceptable.

Riviere said there’s been a history of trouble with this right-of-way, at one point being gated off by the city Department of Parks and Recreation. According to the plan’s environmental assessment, the erosion problem became acute when the shoreline took an especially heavy pounding by surf about five years ago, and the waves scoured out the right-of-way parcel and undermined the seawalls and supporting structures.

Peter Young, the former BLNR chairman now representing the applicants before the city, said the hazards of the leaning structures drove Grand View, which previously owned both private parcels, to reinforce the structures without seeking a permit first. The enlarged revetment also was built to block the beach accessway to prevent further damage, he said.

The remediation plan proposes ways to restore access through constructing concrete or aluminum steps, but Riviere said that remains a barrier to the public. He’s right.

This patchwork response to correct illegal shoreline construction cannot be the way government agencies respond to what will continue to be a coastal concern, and at an accelerated pace.

The state and city both have agencies convened to handle issues of climate change, sea-level rise and erosion, among other sustainability concerns. They owe the public better results.

A coordinated response to these coastal changes, including policies of increased shoreline setback and more regional planning, is what is needed — but has been, so far, completely lacking.