Nearly 70 percent of Californians live in coastal counties.  These 19 counties generate 80 percent of the state’s $4.5 trillion gross domestic product and 80 percent of its wages.  Indeed, California’s coastal economy exceeds the GDP of most nations, and direct ocean-related activity (fishing, recreation, tourism, etc.) generates over $50 billion and 500,000 jobs each year.

It is little wonder, then, that Californians overwhelmingly support state efforts to protect coastal resources.  In a recent statewide survey, some 93 percent of responding adults agreed that the condition of oceans and beaches is important or very important to the state’s economy, quality of life, and future.  And 82 percent of those surveyed (including 68 percent of Republicans) agreed that the Coastal Commission’s efforts to protect coastal resources and public access under the Coastal Act have been “mostly a good thing.”  At the same time, less than a third of coastal residents support more offshore oil and gas drilling.

Notwithstanding such strong community support for the mandates of the Coastal Act and the work of the Coastal Commission to implement those mandates over the last 50 years, the Trump Administration appears determined to override state prerogatives in favor of large multinational corporations that want to exploit California’s coastal resources.  The most recent assault comes in the form of the Department of Commerce’s formal review of California’s coastal zone management program.

The federal law at issue is the Coastal Zone Management Act.  Enacted in 1972, the CZMA is rooted in congressional concern that “[i]mportant ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values in the coastal zone which are essential to the well-being of all citizens are being irretrievably damaged or lost” by competing economic demands and “ill-planned development.”  Congress concluded that state and local planning and regulation of coastal uses were not adequate “to give high priority to natural systems in the coastal zone.”  The CZMA was intended to assist states in remedying that inadequacy.

Congress structured the CZMA to create a constructive partnership between the federal government and coastal states, which historically have managed coastal resources under their traditional police powers.  The law encourages this partnership by allowing states to seek so-called “consistency” authority for federal projects that may impact state coastal resources.  Once the federal government certifies a state coastal management program, the appropriate state agency reviews any proposed federal action for consistency with the state program.  This regime helps foster protective coastal programs while also honoring state sovereignty and priorities, and it ensures that private developers cannot bypass state law when seeking federal project approvals.

All coastal states except Alaska (which voluntarily relinquished its status under pressure from the oil industry) are certified for CZMA consistency review.  Most of those certifications occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and all are periodically reviewed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (within the Commerce Department) in accordance with the CZMA’s continuing review provisions.  The purpose of regular review is to foster and strengthen the federal-state partnership.  In more than 50 years, NOAA has never revoked a CZMA consistency certification.

All of that is about to change.  In May, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick directed NOAA to undertake a “performance review” of California’s coastal zone management program, despite the fact that a 2024 review by the Biden Administration identified no problems.  His announcement promised to apply “renewed rigor” in evaluating California’s alleged “failure to address . . . federal priorities related to spaceport infrastructure, offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, desalination projects, undersea cables, and other key priorities of national importance.”  Notably, the Secretary identified “no significant issues with the CZMA compliance of Florida, Texas, or Virginia,” even though both Virginia and Florida have imposed state barriers to offshore oil drilling.

The California CZMA review did not come out of the blue.  It explicitly implements Executive Order 14335, which directed federal agencies to remove regulatory barriers to the commercial space industry and “spaceport” development.  Vandenberg Base in Santa Barbara County is the premier West Coast “spaceport,” and Elon Musk’s Space X has been trying, over strong public opposition, to triple the number of annual commercial rocket launches from the base.  In April, shortly before Lutnick announced the new review, Space X and California entered into a settlement agreement, with the state relinquishing any right to exercise coastal permitting authority over commercial space launches at Vandenberg.

At this point, therefore, it appears that the Trump Administration’s new consistency program review is mostly about its desire to expand offshore oil production along the California coast.  The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is working on a new five-year plan that targets coastal Southern California for oil and gas leasing in 2027.  Tellingly, the Administration is not pursuing similar new drilling off Atlantic Coast states like Florida, where local opposition is equally strong and where most states, red and blue alike, have adopted restrictions on coastal drilling and associated infrastructure.

The Los Angeles Times now reports that, pursuant to its CZMA review, the Administration has “suspended” California’s consistency authority unless and until the state agrees to address outstanding disputes over the Sable oil pipeline in Santa Barbara and issues an official statement that California “will not categorically oppose initiatives led by certain entities, or relating to certain industries, such as oil and gas, or involving certain activities, such as offshore drilling.”

Over the last year, the Sable controversy has been ground-zero for the Administration’s power play along the California coast.  In 2015, a corroded and poorly maintained onshore pipeline on the Gaviota Coast ruptured, spilling more than 140,000 gallons of oil onto the beach and into coastal waters and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.  As part of a federal consent decree settling legal claims from the spill, the State of California, the federal government, and the pipeline operator agreed that the onshore pipeline (which is partially located on state parkland) could not reopen, if ever, unless and until California safety officials approve its compliance with state law.

Notwithstanding this court-approved decree, Sable Offshore Corp., a recently formed and seemingly undercapitalized Texas corporation, purchased the pipeline in 2024 and quickly sought the Trump Administration’s help to restart oil flow without necessary state and local approvals.  The Secretary of Energy just as quickly obliged, invoking the Defense Production Act to override all state and local laws – a truly unprecedented invocation of that Korean War-era law and a raw power grab to override state sovereignty.  Shortly thereafter, Sable also asked the Administration to use federal eminent domain authority to seize control of state parkland and other property over which the pipeline crosses, presumably to influence the outcome of pending litigation challenging the legality of the Secretary’s action.

By specifically calling out the Sable controversy, the draft document suspending California’s CZMA consistency authority suggests that the Administration might be considering further action on the reopened pipeline, which supplies only about three percent of the crude oil processed each day by California refineries.  Even at expected peak flow of 50,000 barrels a day, this pipeline provides a drop in the bucket of overall U.S. crude oil production, which averages at least 13,600,000 barrels per day.  These facts suggest that, for the Administration, the Sable dispute is less about the small amount of oil now flowing through the pipeline and much more about the federal government’s attempts to bring state officials and coastal communities to heel.

The Administration’s actions run directly contrary to the purpose and intent of the CZMA.  Congress directed the Commerce Secretary to consider state coastal management programs with an eye toward addressing the coastal management needs identified in CZMA sections 1452(A) through (K).  Those sections, much like the Coastal Act itself, focus on preserving and protecting coastal resources and public access to the shoreline.  The statute provides for suspension or withdrawal of CZMA consistency authority (and the small amount of federal funding to implement that authority) only when the state in question fails to adhere to its certified coastal management program.

In California, the state coastal management program is codified in the Coastal Act and implemented by the Coastal Commission.  Over the years, the Commission has rarely objected to a federal project.  As Executive Director Kate Huckelbridge explains, the “Coastal Commission has reviewed more than 3,700 projects.  In 97% of those cases, we approved that project as submitted or worked collaboratively to improve it so it could move forward.”  And if the Commerce Department truly believes that a particular consistency determination is improper – so far, one has not been identified – the CZMA gives the federal government ultimate authority to override that decision following a statutorily-prescribed process.

Nothing in NOAA’s draft review document, as reported by the L.A. Times, suggests that the Coastal Commission has not adhered to California’s coastal management program since the last review in 2024.  To the contrary, its efforts to protect coastal resources from the next oil disaster are entirely consistent with the Coastal Act and the CZMA.  As the Times reported, tens of thousands of Californians submitted comments during the CZMA public review period over the summer, with more than 95 percent supporting the state’s implementation of its long-certified program.

Something is terribly amiss, but it is not the Coastal Commission.  The current Administration has been quite transparent in its desire to politicize and weaponize previously bipartisan federal laws like the CZMA and the Defense Production Act, as a way to reward its corporate donors and, at the same time, run roughshod over communities it affirmatively dislikes.

Conservative lawmakers, once staunch champions of states’ rights, should be deeply troubled about this erosion of basic laws and norms.  If Trump’s actions here are legally and politically acceptable, what stops the next administration from mandating environmental protection and renewable energy projects in states that don’t want them?  As the old idiom goes, “you reap what you sow.”

***

Deborah Sivas is a leading environmental litigator, co-director of the Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, Director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Program, Luke W. Cole Professor of Environmental Law at Stanford Law School, and Professor at Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability.

This blog post reflects the views of the individual author(s) and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Program or Stanford Law School or University.