Trump Administration Takes Aim at California Coastal Protections

California’s Coastal Management Program includes the California Coastal Commission, the California Coastal Conservancy and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. NOAA will hold an in-person meeting and two virtual public hearings on the topic in August and will accept comments through Aug. 22.

Coastal experts said the probe is a not-so-veiled political ploy to force open the door to federal projects that align with the administration’s views and run counter to the state’s environmental goals. But they said the pathway to changing California’s authority isn’t an easy one and would likely result in litigation.

“It’s a blatantly political move,” said Mark Lubell, an environmental science and policy professor at UC Davis. “It may be political smoke and mirrors in the long run, but it’s going to take effort to kind of push back on it.”

The administration said it will review the state’s compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The federal law, established in 1972, allows states to develop programs to protect coastal resources and minimize hazards such as flooding and sea-level rise. It also gives states the power to review federal projects to ensure they comply with state rules.

Warner Chabot was part of the campaign that led to the act’s passage. He said the review is a way for the federal government to bypass the state’s objections to developing coastal waters for oil and gas.

“The Trump administration wants to gut or decapitate the Coastal Commission so they can have free rein for auctioning California coastal waters for offshore oil drilling, plain and simple,” Chabot said.

California Secretary for Natural Resources Wade Crowfoot called the review a “new attack” on the state and federal “collaborative relationship” in managing the coastline.

“The federal government is already working to open California’s coast to new offshore drilling,” Crowfoot said in a statement. “Our $51 billion coastal economy serves as a powerful engine for the state’s prosperity, and the people of our state must keep a seat at the table to protect it.”

Jennifer Savage, California policy associate director for Surfrider Foundation, a conservation group, said the review is “an incredibly serious issue” and an attempt to take the state’s authority from managing its coastline. Savage said the outcome could lead to the removal of oversight of federal projects and the loss of funding for those projects.

“It’s clear this is the Trump administration using a federal process to punish California,” Savage said. “We know that the Trump administration does not have California’s protections as their primary interest, and so we need to push back as hard as possible against this effort.”

Kristina Hill, a UC Berkeley environmental planning professor and expert in sea level rise issues, said federal efforts to undermine the state could lead to “contamination of the environment, lead to public health risks, beach quality and water quality issues.”

“It’s scary to see states’ abilities to protect public health and the environment [potentially] weakened,” Hill said.

Hill said that a decision to strip the state of the power to protect the environment would place the onus on local communities to push back against the federal government.