Hodel Accuses Coastal Panel of ‘Usurping’ U.S. Authority

Interior Secretary Donald P. Hodel has initiated action that could eliminate the California Coastal Commission’s authority to regulate the environmental impact of offshore oil rigs in federal waters.

Hodel suggested in a May 29 memo to Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige that the state commission has been “usurping” federal authority and that a Commerce Department review of such actions is “critical to the Administration’s commitment to promote a free society.”

The memo suggested that the commission’s efforts to protect the California coast have a negative impact not only on the “development of energy resources” but also “on individual freedom and property rights.” The latter was a reference to the state commission’s efforts to force coastal property owners to provide public access to the beaches, a Hodel aide said.

The Reagan Administration and the state commission--called by some the supreme court of the coastal environment--have long been at odds over the environmental impact of offshore oil drilling in federally regulated waters. The memo indicates that Hodel is escalating the confrontation.

Routine Review

The Department of Interior leases offshore oil lands on the Outer Continental Shelf and regulates exploratory drilling and production. The Coastal Zone Management Act, passed in 1972, gives states certain rights of approval over offshore oil projects, if state agencies comply with federal and state laws.

Accompanying Hodel’s memo was a letter from the Interior Department to the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), alleging that the California Coastal Commission is “failing to adhere to and deviating from the (federally) approved California Coastal Management Plan.” NOAA, the agency that oversees state compliance with federal coastal protection standards, is doing a routine review of the state commission’s performance.

The letter and enclosures detailing the Interior Department’s objections to specific state commission actions are “the kickoff of the decertification process,” according to Maureen Lawton, an Interior Department Land and Minerals Management staff assistant. The Interior Department is asking NOAA to rule that the state commission has not complied with the laws and to order it to “immediately cease and desist” practices that officials believe may be grounds for decertification.

The argument is over how much protection results in too much regulation in a “free society,” Interior Department officials said. The state stepped over that line when it began imposing tougher environmental standards on oil rigs, said Assistant Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles. Such state efforts “diminish and usurp federal agency authority,” he contended.

‘Tremendous Impact’

If NOAA finds that the Coastal Commission is not in compliance with federal regulations, Baldrige could declare the state unqualified to participate in the federal act. If that decertification occurs, the state commission would lose about $2 million in federal funding. In addition, it no longer would have veto power over offshore oil projects or such other federally approved developments as military bases in the coastal zone, said Peter Douglas, the commission’s executive director.

“If that (decertification) happens, it would have a tremendous impact on local government,” Douglas said. The threat of a state commission veto gives commissioners and local government regulators enough leverage to require offshore oil drillers to build in tougher safeguards against environmental impacts than those that are required by the federal act, he said. Air pollution carried on shore by sea breezes is of particular concern, he added.

No project on federally regulated lands within the coastal zone--a 1,000-foot-wide strip along the 1,100 mile coastline--can proceed unless the state commission rules that the plans are “consistent” with California coastal protection laws. If the commission rules that a project is “inconsistent,” the applicant can appeal the decision to Baldrige.

The states were given this veto power and the promise of federal funds for coastal protection to gain their support for the Coastal Zone Management Act, which sets minimum national standards and requires that each participating state come up with a coastal management plan, Douglas said.

The California Coastal Management Plan, approved and certified by the Commerce Department a decade ago, sets standards higher than the federal minimums and requires developers to mitigate environmental impact to the “feasible maximum,” Douglas said. The act allows the commission to establish oil spill recovery standards and to prevent or mitigate the visual impact of offshore oil rigs, he said.

‘That Was Too Risky’

“For instance, we objected when the (U.S.) Coast Guard approved locating (Chevron’s) Platform Gail in between the (north-south) shipping lanes in the Santa Barbara Channel, that was too risky,” Douglas said. The commission also objected to putting the platform close to Anacapa Island in the Channel Islands National Park.

In response to the veto threat, the Coast Guard moved the shipping lanes so that the platform was seaward from oil tanker and freighter traffic, making a collision less likely. Chevron also agreed to install more expensive anti-collision radar devices and state-of-the-art oil spill recovery equipment and to give the National Park Service a $150,000 visual impact mitigation fee to partly compensate for the platform’s intrusion on the natural seascape viewed from Anacapa Island.

Such state actions “diminish and usurp federal agency authority and violate sections . . . of the CZMA (Coastal Zone Management Act),” Griles wrote. He recommended that NOAA “find the state is failing to adhere to and deviating” from the law.