Defending California’s Coast: A Diverse Alliance of Leaders Speaks Out

On Aug. 10, Rep. Nanette Barragán joined other California leaders to rally opposition to Trump’s latest and most sweeping attack on the state — the first ever federal challenge to a state’s right to protect its own coastline via its Coastal Management Program.

Thirty-four states have CMPs, established under the 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), a law passed in response to the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, which affected 300 miles of coastline, from Pismo Beach to northern Mexico, and still haunts California’s memory to this day.

In more than 50 years, neither California nor any other state has had its CMP challenged, as the Trump administration is now doing. Significantly, California’s 2019 CMP went unchallenged during Trump’s first term. The challenge threatens to open up the coast to reckless offshore oil drilling, deep-sea mining, and who knows what other corrupt backroom deals Trump comes up with.

“Trump’s attempts to regulate our coast are for his own corrupt reasons,” Barragán said. “It’s to look out for his billionaire friends, big oil, and for his bottom line. That’s going to devastate our economy and our communities.”

California’s program had undergone a regular review in 2024, and a draft report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that California had successfully implemented and enforced its federally approved program. But a final report was never issued.

Instead, on May 10, Trump’s Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick — best known for lying about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein — lied about California’s model environmental stewardship. He ordered NOAA to ignore its previous evaluation and “conduct a full, formal review of California’s coastal management program,” falsely claiming that California had a “long record of obstructing technological innovation, economic development, and related Federal efforts in the name of environmental extremism” — a claim glaringly at odds with Trump’s approval of its 2019 plan.

Setting that aside, the charge of extremism was “a sham,” said Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney Joel Reynolds, speaking along with Barragán in advance of a public hearing NOAA held in Santa Monica on Aug. 10.

“If it’s extremism they’re after, clearly they should take a look closer to home,” Reynolds said. “Because what we’re seeing at the highest levels of our federal government — denial of climate change, deregulation of environmental safeguards, disdain for the rule of law and disregard for science and even for basic facts — what we’re seeing since January 2025 isn’t normal policy disagreement. It’s chaos. An attack on democracy driven by resentment, incompetence, corruption and a contempt for the United States Constitution.”

The only limit, Barragán noted, was “When Florida Republicans stood up and said, ‘Not our coast,’” and when that happened, “They said, ‘We’ll go after California.’ Talk about the corruption,” she said. “Talk about singling out California.”

Speakers Focus On Coast’s Value More Than Threats

While the attack was clearly bogus, speakers focused more on what was being threatened — California’s coast as central to the state’s shared identity, as well as a thriving, diversified economy. Tina Calderon, culture bearer of Gabrielino Tongva, Chumash and Yoeme descent, set the tone in her opening remarks. “We are community, and it doesn’t matter how you connect to the ocean, where your passions lie. The point is that we all love our beautiful salt waters,” Calderon said. “These are sacred waters and it’s up to us to be the voice. It’s up to us to cause no more human harm. We’ve done enough.”

Instead, she said, “We need to wake up. We need to protect our waters and our lands and we need to do this together.”

“This is a critical unprecedented moment.” said Wade Crowfoot, California secretary of natural resources. “Never before in the five decade history of this federal act has this sudden baseless review taken place on any state’s coastal management program. And never before in the history of this act has a coastal management program ever been revoked.”

And as for justifications, there were none, he added. “Make no mistake, there is no science involved. There is no established policy involved with this sudden review. It is politics.”

In his official written comments, Crowfoot refuted every accusation that California was stifling the activities that Lutnick cited in his letter — “spaceport infrastructure, offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, desalination projects, and undersea cables” — with a mix of historical information and cold hard facts.

Regarding spaceport infrastructure, for example, he pointed to Vandenberg Space Force Base, “an essential installation to our national security and an important launch site for space-bound travel,” and noted that California’s Coastal Commission has reviewed over 135 space launch projects, and only objected to two of them, which nonetheless “did not prevent these projects from moving forward.”

In short, Crowfoot concluded, “California has a clear and verifiable track record of responsibly exercising its authority under the CZMA to enable balanced coastal development. There is no legal basis to decertify California’s CMP.”

Other speakers spoke to the importance of the coast to California’s identity, culture and economy, and how the state’s stewardship of the coast had protected these.

“Reckless proposals to sell out our coastline threaten what we all know is so important: our thriving coastal economy, our unparalleled biodiversity, and the natural beauty that we treasure,” said County Supervisor Lindseay Horvath. “Los Angeles County rejects any and all efforts to allow oil and gas drilling or deep seabed mining off the California coast.”

Coastal Economy Threatened

Grant Bixby, with the Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast, spoke to the general economic importance of protecting the coast, while two other speakers — Vipe Desai and Anupa Asokan — spoke on behalf of the specific coastal economies which their organizations represented: Surf Industry Members Association and Fish On.

Bixby spoke first, giving a sense of the sweep of businesses involved. “We are chambers of commerce, visitors bureaus, realtors associations, fishing groups, outdoor retailers, major national and international brands, mom and pop shops, hotel ears, restaurant tours, businesses of all stripes and sizes, and we are the engine that drives the California coastal economy,” he said.

From a business perspective, he explained, the choice was clear.

“What businesses want is a clear understanding of the rules, predictability in governance, and the ability to plan,” he said, which is what they have had for 50 years, building a coastal economy worth $50 billion a year.

On the other hand, “The federal government, if they take unilateral action here to weaken the CCMA or to decertify California outright, the new regulatory landscape that will result will be one of chaos and unpredictability,” Bixby warned. “This is not what we want.”

“Surfing is so deeply woven into the identity of this state that it is officially recognized as the state sport of California,” said Desai. “On behalf of the California surf industry, our message is clear. Protecting our coast is protecting our businesses, our communities, our way of life, and an incredibly valuable piece of the California economy. We have far too much riding on this coastline to put it at unnecessary risk.”

While fishing is only a small part of the coastal economy, “For many people, it’s also a way to put food on the table, to connect with family, create community, and experience the ocean firsthand,” said Asokan. “We cannot be sacrificing an economy that supports millions of Californians and a coast that belongs to all of us in order to make it easier for a handful of polluting industries to develop here. … The coast belongs to all of us, and we should be the ones deciding what happens to it.”

“The brand of California is not offshore oil and gas. Nor should it be. Offshore mineral resources make up 1%,” Bixby noted. “Should we put 99% of the other employment at risk for the benefit of one dirty industry that can close and devastate all other businesses? I don’t think so,” he said. “It’s pretty simple math, right? 1%. 99%.”

A Broader, Deeper View

Tony Cordiero, an Indigenous representative on the board of Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples, shifted focus to a broader perspective: “The perspective of those of us who have called this coast our home since time immemorial.”

While it’s true the coast is “a source of sustenance and livelihoods … a place to recreate and to find respite from our hectic and stressful lives,” she said, “To us, it is much more than that. It is a vital part of our homelands, and all of its inhabitants are our relatives. They are part of our family. They make us whole. Our circle is not complete without them. And the ocean provides for us as a mother provides for her children.”

And Marcela Gutierrez Groudin, a board member at the State Coastal Conservancy, spoke to the history of how Californians have protected the coast.

“Our governance programs in California that have been around for 50 years take beautiful intentions and beautiful words into everyday reality,” she said. “We do this while burgeoning and supporting one of the most important economies in the world, a $50 billion economy. This is the California that we know. This is what we need to expand and grow further,” she said. “California’s coast is for the people, not for crony capitalism.”

The coast is “an essential part of what it means to be a Californian,” Orange County Rep. David Min noted, and not just for those who live on it. “When I talk to folks from all over California, including in the Inland Empire in places like Corona and Riverside, they all have a beach that they identify as their own. That’s part of what we are as Californians. It’s why access to the coastline and to our beaches is part of our constitution.”

In the end, he said, “It’s not lost on me that Republicans like to talk about states’ rights and local control, until it comes to California and our coastline here. So, I’m asking the folks in NOAA, please respect the will of California’s voters. Protect states’ rights. Let local control govern. Stop this rigged review.”

“As the crook in the White House continues to bribe energy companies with taxpayer dollars to terminate offshore wind projects, including one off the central coast to reinvest those funds into fossil fuels, we’re going to continue to stand up and we’re going to continue to fight back,” Barragán said. And she promised that when Democrats get power back in November, “We’re gonna hold those crooks accountable. And we’ll continue to fight.”