Photo by Jennifer Savage
NOAA's draft findings on California's Coastal Management Program confirm what Surfrider and thousands of Californians warned about this summer: this review was never about coastal management. It was about leverage.
According to the 92-page draft quoted in the Los Angeles Times' Oct. 24 story, "Trump wants to strip California of coastal protections unless state meets list of demands," NOAA's Office for Coastal Management says future federal funding for California's coastal program is suspended until the state completes more than a dozen "corrective actions." Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, failing to complete them can lead to NOAA withdrawing approval of California's program altogether.
What's at stake
Federal approval of California's program is what gives the state a say over federal activities that affect our coast, from offshore leasing to pipelines to rocket launches. Without it, decisions about California's beaches get made in D.C., with Californians shut out. And if it can happen here, it can happen to any coastal or Great Lakes state.
Rocket launches and oil drilling
At the top of the federal government’s demand list: The California Coastal Commission must meet with SpaceX and with Sable Offshore Corp., the Texas company trying to restart a dormant oil operation off Santa Barbara. The Commission must also issue a statement by January pledging not to "categorically oppose" offshore drilling or the oil and gas industry.
That isn't a performance review. It's a demand that a state agency promise outcomes to specific companies before it has seen their applications.
Californians spoke – and 95% were ignored
More than 23,000 written comments were submitted, and about 95% backed California's record. Hundreds of surfers, fishers, business owners, tribal leaders and scientists, many Surfrider members among them, waited hours to testify at the August hearing in Santa Monica.
NOAA labeled just 22 of those comments "complex,” then built its corrective actions around the roughly dozen that criticized California. Its own memo concedes that parts of California's program are excellent and lead the nation. And the "known interested parties" NOAA notified directly include the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, Meta, Amazon and a string of law and lobbying firms.
The law sets limits
Section 312 of the CZMA (16 U.S.C. § 1458) directs NOAA to evaluate how well a state carries out the program NOAA itself approved. The review must be open and public, and NOAA must respond in writing to the comments it receives. Before suspending funds, NOAA must give the Governor written specifications and a schedule for corrective actions, and any suspension runs 6 to 36 months. Withdrawing program approval requires notice and an opportunity for a public hearing.
Nothing in the CZMA framework should turn a performance review into a tool to sell off California’s ocean waters. California's program rests on the Coastal Act, which the Commission must apply evenly to every applicant, from a homeowner to an oil company.
What comes next
According to the Los Angeles Times story, the Coastal Commission, State Coastal Conservancy and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission will have until November 16 to respond. The Commission has requested a 15-day extension. NOAA will then issue final findings.
Surfrider calls on NOAA to drop the corrective actions that have nothing to do with coastal management, answer the 23,000 Californians who commented, and honor a partnership that has protected our coast for 50 years. We call on California's leaders to hold the line.
And we ask those who love and depend on the California coast to stay ready: When NOAA issues its final, public findings, we'll need your voice again.