NOAA’s draft cites “a pattern of jurisdictional and regulatory overreach” and suspends future coastal grants until the cited deficiencies are addressed; California officials call the review preordained, and the three state agencies face a Nov. 16 deadline.
A draft federal evaluation of California’s coastal management program concludes that the state’s coastal regulators have overstepped their authority and directs them to take more than a dozen “corrective actions,” including meetings with SpaceX and with Sable Offshore Corp., the Texas oil company operating a disputed pipeline on the Santa Barbara County coast.
The 92-page draft, prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office for Coastal Management and obtained by the Los Angeles Times through a public records request, says future federal funding for California’s coastal program has been suspended “unless and until the identified deficiencies are satisfactorily addressed.” Three state agencies, the California Coastal Commission, the State Coastal Conservancy and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, have until Nov. 16 to respond, KCLU reported.
The Inquirer reviewed the governing statute, the Commerce Department’s public statements launching the review, court rulings and agency statements in the SpaceX and Sable disputes, and published accounts of the draft. The draft itself has not been posted publicly; this account of its contents relies on the Times and KCLU, which quoted it directly.
The administration’s case
The Commerce Department, which oversees NOAA, has made its rationale explicit. In May, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that “California has repeatedly and unfoundedly obstructed spaceport development in bad faith” and ordered a new evaluation of the state’s compliance, the Times reported. “Obstructionist policies that delay critical national infrastructure in the name of environmental extremism are unacceptable,” Mr. Lutnick said.
He directed NOAA to take a “new approach,” examining “how, if at all, California has interfered with not just spaceport development, but also other economic development and federal view considerations concerning offshore oil production, maintenance of pipelines and desalination.” The administration has tied those priorities to national security and energy supply: launch capacity at Vandenberg Space Force Base for national-security and commercial missions, and domestic crude for California refineries and military installations.
The draft applies that framework. It finds “a pattern of jurisdictional and regulatory overreach” and says California’s coastal authorities have demonstrated “unjustified hostility and political bias against offshore drilling opportunities, oil and gas projects broadly, and SpaceX’s launch activities,” according to the Times. It summarizes comments from members of the public who argued that the state agencies are “flatly opposed to offshore oil and gas development and thus do not faithfully consider and weigh the relevant interests as required by the CZMA,” and that their handling of oil and spaceport projects “is a threat to national security.”
The legal authority
The review rests on the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, signed by President Richard Nixon after the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. The law offers coastal states federal grants and a significant power: once NOAA approves a state’s coastal management program, federal agencies and federally permitted projects affecting that state’s coast must be consistent with its policies, and the state may object to those that are not.
Section 312 of the act, codified at 16 U.S.C. 1458, requires the commerce secretary to “conduct a continuing review of the performance of coastal states,” including written findings on how well each state “has implemented and enforced the program approved by the Secretary.” The evaluation must be conducted “in an open and public manner,” with at least 45 days’ notice of public meetings, and the final report must be completed within 120 days after the last public meeting in the state.
The statute gives the secretary two levers. He “may suspend payment of any portion of financial assistance” if a state is “failing to adhere” to its approved program, but only after giving the governor “written specifications and a schedule for the actions that should be taken” to lift the suspension. A suspension may last no less than six months and no more than 36. If the state does not take the specified actions, the law says the secretary “shall withdraw approval of the management program,” after notice and an opportunity for a public hearing. Withdrawal would end the state’s power to review federal projects for consistency with its program.
Routine Section 312 evaluations take place every five to 10 years. What makes this one unusual, according to state officials and legal scholars, is its timing and scope. A Biden-era review of California completed in draft in 2024 gave the three agencies top marks and was never finalized after the change in administrations, the Times reported.
What the draft asks for
The corrective actions, as described by the Times and KCLU, begin with a demand that the Coastal Commission meet with SpaceX and “discuss any outstanding concerns about political bias and … productive next steps moving forward.” Coastal authorities are also directed to discuss “any outstanding concerns about regulatory burden and overreach” with Sable.
The commission must issue a statement by January pledging 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,” the Times reported. The draft also addresses the commission’s handling of off-highway vehicle use at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area in San Luis Obispo County, a long-running dispute between two state agencies over a state beach.
SpaceX and Vandenberg
The SpaceX dispute traces to a 2024 hearing at which the Coastal Commission objected to the Air Force’s plan to increase SpaceX launches from Vandenberg from a few dozen to about 100 a year, citing coastal access closures, effects on sensitive species and habitat, and sonic booms. During the hearing, some commissioners made comments critical of Elon Musk, SpaceX’s founder. SpaceX sued, arguing that the vote was politically motivated.
The two sides settled this year. As part of the settlement, the commission apologized for what it called “irrelevant” comments, KCLU reported in April. The Air Force maintains that the commission does not regulate the federal base, and launches have increased despite the commission’s objections. The commission said it hoped to work with the federal government to resolve its environmental concerns.
The draft’s demand for a meeting with SpaceX comes after that settlement. The draft cites the commission’s treatment of SpaceX launches as an example of the bias it describes; in settling, the commission said it would keep politics out of its decision-making.
Sable and the Santa Ynez pipeline
Sable’s onshore pipeline is the line that ruptured near Refugio State Beach in May 2015, spilling oil along the Gaviota Coast. After Sable bought the idle Santa Ynez Unit and its pipelines, it sought to restart them. When it failed to obtain state approval, the company turned to the federal government, KCLU reported.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright issued an order under the Defense Production Act directing operation of the pipeline. On Aug. 19, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Los Angeles denied California’s request to suspend that order, held that it preempts conflicting state actions and shifted safety oversight of two pipeline segments to the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The Justice Department said the ruling “upholds decisive federal action to protect national security by restarting the flow of 50,000 barrels of oil per day,” and that the pipeline is essential to fuel supplies for “more than 32 U.S. military installations across the West Coast.” “Energy security is national security,” Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. said. California has appealed; The Inquirer examined the Ninth Circuit briefs on Nov. 1.
The public record the draft relied on
NOAA held one in-person hearing, in Santa Monica in August, and two virtual hearings, and accepted written comments through Aug. 22. The Times reported that 23,071 written comments were submitted and that about 95 percent supported California’s record. Federal officials classified 22 of them as “complex,” and “approximately 12” of those “expressed concern and/or disapproval” of the state’s program, according to the draft, which cited those comments in its recommendations. A memo attached to the draft acknowledged “certain areas where the performance of the [California Coastal Management Program] is excellent and where California is a national leader.”
In a footnote, the draft listed the “known interested parties” federal officials notified directly about the review, among them the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, Meta, Amazon, the Dredging Contractors of America, the Air Force, NASA and the Interior Department, the Times reported. The statute requires “communications with persons and organizations known to be interested in the evaluation.”
California’s response and the critics
The Coastal Commission has not said whether it will accept the corrective actions. “The commission was disappointed to receive this draft evaluation given our long history of stellar reviews from the federal government and a 50-year track record of a successful federal partnership, where 96% of the time the commission either approves projects as submitted or negotiates improvements so they can move forward,” said Joshua Smith, a commission spokesman. He said the commission had requested a 15-day extension, as allowed under the act’s regulations.
Kate Huckelbridge, the commission’s executive director, told the August hearing that the commission had sided with the federal government in 96 percent of the more than 3,700 federal actions it has reviewed since the 1970s. “We welcome a fair and transparent evaluation,” she said. “Our record speaks for itself.”
Wade Crowfoot, the state’s natural resources secretary, called the review “a preordained political attack.” Senator Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, has called the administration’s use of the law “blatantly illegal.” Meg Caldwell, who directed Stanford’s environmental law and policy program for more than two decades, called the draft “a dangerous ultimatum.” Maggie Hall, deputy chief counsel of the Environmental Defense Center in Santa Barbara, told KCLU that the federal government was “inappropriately using its authority to undermine this really important program that protects our coast.” Derek Brockbank of the Coastal States Organization, which represents the 34 states and territories with approved programs, warned that reopening a largely finished review “without clear reasons or established process” would concern every coastal state.
The record also contains facts the administration cites in its favor. Vandenberg is the nation’s principal West Coast launch site for national-security and commercial missions, and the commission’s 2024 SpaceX vote produced a lawsuit that ended with the commission’s apology. A federal judge has upheld the Energy Department’s use of emergency authority to keep Sable’s oil moving, finding that California had failed to show it was likely to succeed on the merits.
What happens next
After the state responds, NOAA will issue its final findings. Legal scholars say no state has faced suspension or withdrawal of its program in this way; Alaska, the only state to leave the program, did so in 2011 when its own authorizing law expired, rather than through a federal review. Whether a finding of “political bias” is a lawful basis for suspension under a statute that measures whether a state has “implemented and enforced” its approved program is likely to be tested in court if the draft becomes final. “If the federal government proceeds, it could certainly end up in litigation,” Ms. Hall said.
Two related federal actions are moving at the same time. The Interior Department’s offshore leasing plan includes six lease sales off California, and the Ninth Circuit is weighing the Sable order. A finding that California’s coastal program is deficient would bear on how much leverage the state has in both.
The Inquirer did not find a public response from NOAA or the Commerce Department to the state’s criticism of the draft beyond the department’s statements launching the review.
Adaeze Monroe covers Congress, the White House and federal agencies, with a focus on what Washington’s decisions mean for California, for the Washington Bureau. More from Adaeze Monroe
