Click HERE if you’re having trouble viewing the gallery on your mobile device.

Obscure language in the massive state budget that Gov. Jerry Brown signed this week could force Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla to permanently open Martins Beach in San Mateo County to the public.

Khosla, who co-founded Sun Microsystems and has a net worth estimated at $1.5 billion, bought 89 acres surrounding Martins Beach, south of Half Moon Bay, in 2008 and closed the gate to a private road that the public had used for generations to access the shoreline, sparking a controversy that has gained national attention.

The new state budget that Brown signed on Wednesday contains three paragraphs that would create a new $1 million account within the State Lands Commission, giving the agency a key tool to acquire a public easement over the road that runs from Highway 1 through Khosla’s property to the sand.

Most important, the language, inserted by state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, in a budget trailer bill SB 854, also allows the commission to acquire the easement — essentially a legal right for the public to use the road — using eminent domain if Khosla refuses to sell. And it allows private donors, foundations and non-profit groups to contribute to the fund to help pay expenses.

“We’re excited,” said Sarah Damron, a spokeswoman for the Surfrider Foundation, a nonprofit group that has battled Khosla to permanently reopen public access.

“If we don’t fight for public access here, then it stands to set a terrible precedent,” Damron said. “Anybody with enough money can take way public access to Califoria’s beaches, and we’re not about to stand for that.”

Jeffrey Essner and Dori Yob Kilmer, attorneys for Khosla, did not respond to a request for comment.

The key question now: Will the State Lands Commission crack down on Khosla?

Established in 1938, the commission is a low-profile agency in Sacramento that oversees millions of acres of riverbeds, lake bottoms and submerged tidelands from the shoreline to three miles offshore. It is governed by a three-member board made up of Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, state Controller Betty Yee and state Finance Director Michael Cohen.

The commission on Thursday provided few details about when, or if, it might move to take the public access easement by force from Khosla.

“It’s a positive step in the right direction,” said Rhys Williams, a spokesman for Newsom, of the new law. “There are a lot of options on the table, a lot of moving pieces, and there is a strong desire to restore public access at this beach. That’s the direction we’re headed.”

Sheri Pemberton, a spokeswoman for the State Lands Commission, said the agency is still studying the new law.

“The commission’s commitment to restoring access to Martins Beach is well established and unwavering, and they will avail themselves of every tool possible,” she said.

The State Lands Commission appraised a public right-of-way over the 6.4 acres of Martins Beach Road at $360,000. But Khosla said he would only sell it for $30 million, nearly as much as he paid for the entire property. If the commission takes the access route by eminent domain, a court would ultimately decide on its fair market value.

Sources familiar with the case say that the commission may be wary of using eminent domain because, if Khosla loses ongoing legal battles, it would be paying for something the public might get for free, and setting a precedent with other landowners. Others, however, believe that taking the access might render Khosla’s legal challenges moot because he would no longer own the rights to the road.

Meanwhile, the issue may be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court

After Khosla closed the gate, the Surfrider Foundation sued him in 2013, arguing that he violated California’s Coastal Act, approved by voters in 1972, when he blocked access without receiving a permit from the California Coastal Commission.

Khosla argues that it is an infringement of his private property rights to require him get a permit to close a gate.

“To me, the Martin’s Beach dispute, however unpopular and damaging, is about principles of not being extorted or coerced into giving up property rights, a tactic many coastal property owners have detailed for me as routine practice by the Coastal Commission,” Khosla wrote in a blog post in May.

Critics, however, say that Khosla knew when he bought the property that the Coastal Act requires any property owner along California’s coastline to obtain a state permit not just for building a house, business or other structure, but also for “change in the intensity of use of water, or of access.”

Courts have so far dismissed Khosla’s argument. He lost first in San Mateo County Superior Court. Then last year, the First District Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 3-0 against him and ordered him to open the gate immediately.

The California Supreme Court refused to hear Khosla’s appeal. In February, he hired Paul Clement, one of the nation’s top U.S. Supreme Court attorneys, and appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court asked Surfrider earlier this month to submit briefs, leading to speculation it may take the case in October, which could potentially re-write California’s coastal access laws.

Khosla has kept the gate open most days while he has continued to fight the case, and the San Mateo County sheriff’s office says it will not arrest anyone for trespassing if they use the road to access the beach.