Background
On May 20, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to conduct a formal review of California’s Coastal Management Program (CMP) under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick initiated the evaluation, claiming state regulators block federal infrastructure priorities. California officials refute these claims, urging public participation via the Federal Register before the comment period ends on August 22, 2026.
California and federal regulators, environmental groups, and Sable Offshore Corp. are entangled in over ten lawsuits regarding the reactivation of the Santa Ynez Unit. The conflict centers on a federal override via the Defense Production Act permitting Sable to restart pipelines dormant since the 2015 Refugio oil spill, which California officials and local groups are fighting as an illegal circumvention of state environmental laws.
Timeline: The Back Story
April 2025: The California Coastal Commission (CCC) issued an $18 million fine and cease and desist order against Sable for unpermitted work that harmed habitats and waters on California’s coastline in violation of California’s Coastal Act. At the hearing, CCC staff presented evidence of Sable ignoring state orders; Sable had previously received two cease and desist orders from CCC for violating the Coastal Act and Sable responded by suing the CCC and vowing to continue work in defiance of the order. In October 2025, Sable filed a complaint seeking over $347 million in damages from the CCC, claiming “unlawful delay” of the pipeline restart. The CCC won a preliminary injunction against Sable in May 2025.
July 2025: Multiple class action lawsuits were filed by Rosen Law Firm and Schall Law Firm on behalf of purchasers of Sable securities, alleging the company made misleading statements by claiming they had restarted oil production when they had not. Sable is also currently under investigation by the SEC for allegations of advance information being shared selectively among company insiders in October 2025, right before Sable raised $250 million by selling shares of its common stocks to private investors to help keep the company afloat. This same month, a Santa Barbara court placed a separate injunction against Sable preventing the restart of operations unless and until Sable obtains all necessary state approvals.
September 2025: The Santa Barbara County District Attorney John Savrnoch filed 21 criminal charges, including five felony counts, against Sable for unlawful discharge of pollutants into waterways and improper excavation during pipeline repair. The District Attorney alleged that these actions are in violation of the California Fish and Game Code and the Water Code. Sable responded by calling theses criminal charges “inflammatory and extremely misleading” and a “politically motivated attack”.
October 2025: The California Office of the State Fire Marshal determined that Sable had failed to comply with safety standards on its pipeline corrosion repair work and therefore its restart could not proceed. That same month, on behalf of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Attorney General, Rob Bonta, filed a lawsuit against Sable asserting three causes of action: 1) Sable repeatedly discharged or threatened to discharge waste to waters of the state without authorization, despite being notified by the Central Coast Water Board that permits were required for the activities; 2) Sable activities resulted in the discharge of sediment and vegetative debris to various bodies of water inland and near the Gaviota Coast, harming water quality and aquatic habitat; and 3) Sable failed to submit information to the board that was required by law. Sable responded by working with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to update its federal Development and Production Plan to allow the company to bypass its onshore pipeline and use a floating barge operating in federal waters (an Offshore Storage and Treating Vessel).
December 2025: At the request of Sable, PHMSA issued Sable an emergency permit waiving compliance with its own safety regulation requiring evaluation and remediation of pipeline corrosion. That emergency permit, alongside PHMSA’s reclassification of the pipelines as interstate, and its approval of Sable’s restart plan, are currently being challenged in court by the Attorney General and the Office of the State Fire Marshal.
The onshore pipelines had been shut down for a decade since the 2015 Refugio Beach oil spill, when a corroded segment of one pipeline ruptured and released more than 120,000 gallons of crude oil near Santa Barbara, at least 21,000 gallons of which entered the Pacific Ocean. The oil spill caused serious harm to public health and safety including releasing hazardous oil and fumes that sickened communities, contaminated coastal waters, harmed hundreds of marine mammals and seabirds, and shut down beaches and fisheries for months — damaging local economies. It resulted in a Consent Decree — to which PHMSA is a party — that expressly acknowledges and approves the State Fire Marshal’s role in reviewing and approving any planned restart of the onshore pipelines. PHMSA has significantly departed from this agreement, which was approved by a federal court, and the way in which PHMSA historically viewed the pipelines.
For more on developments in January 2026 and February 2026, please visit: Judge tentatively blocks Sable bid to restart pipeline.
March 2026: Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright issued an order claiming that SYU oil production was a national security concern invoking the Defense Production Act (DPA), which unlawfully superseded state laws and restarted SYU oil production. On behalf of the State of California, Attorney General Bonta responded by filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration to halt the use of the DPA Order as a basis for executive overreach. The lawsuit alleges that the DPA Order, which DOE issued at Sable’s request, violates the Administrative Procedure Act and infringes on California’s sovereign power under the Tenth Amendment. The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion supporting DOE’s move to invoke the DPA explicitly references a letter from Sable through Holland and Knight to the DOE General Counsel requesting the invocation of the DPA.
May 2026: The Department of Commerce calls for a review of the California Coastal Management Plan threatening its decertification and defunding claiming that California has not implemented the plan effectively because it blocks federal infrastructure projects. California’s Coastal Management Plan had been reviewed and approved between 2024 and 2025.
July 2026: The California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a second petition against the Trump Administration, challenging the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) recent issuance of a new “non-emergency special permit” for Sable Offshore Corp. (Sable) to transport oil through two California onshore oil pipelines, known as Lines CA-324 and CA-325, in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Kern counties. This permit is the most recent attempt by the PHMSA to illegally assert federal jurisdiction over Lines CA-324 and 325 by reclassifying them as “interstate” and authorize their restart and operation in violation of state and federal law.
August 22, 2026: Public comment on the proposed review of California’s CMP and thus its risk of decertification and defunding are due.
Why Your Public Comment Submission Matters
Public comments backed by data demonstrating that a proposed action lacks rational basis and/or is arbitrary or capricious can serve to support later challenges. Why should you take a few minutes to submit a public comment? Read here to learn about how commenting is integral to our democratic system: https://urbanarktech.org/how-does-my-public-comment-make-a-difference/
Our two preceding posts on this issue are here and here.
Indigenous Ark Urban Technologies’ Draft Public Comment
After not finding many published points for public comment backed by data, we have reverted to referencing the California Natural Resources Agency submission. It is available here: Final-Federal-Coastal-Review-Comments_CNRA_WC-8.5.26-1.pdf.
Using the data and major points from there, below is a draft template for readers to use in their public comment submission. We have yet to thoroughly review it for typos, so please bear with us while we continue to streamline it. Again, the webpage for submission is: Federal Register :: Evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program; Notice of Public Meetings; Request for Comments
Public Comment on Federal review of California coastal management program [Docket No. 260623-0150; RTID: 0648-XA006].
The current state-federal partnership through CZMA has demonstrated a balance of economic development and coastal protection. Under California’s Coastal Management Plan, the state’s ocean economy has more than doubled since 2001, resulting in over $60 billion in economic output in 2024. California’s commercial ports collectively handle nearly one third of all export activity in the U.S., supporting over 3 million jobs nationwide (See California Association of Ports Authorities Study at https://californiaports.org/portsday23/). Over 50% of all goods shipped
from Asia to the U.S. transit through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach alone.
California has a strong record of permitting and regulating the sectors identified in this call for public comment. (I) Spaceport infrastructure: Over the past four to five decades, the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) has reviewed over 135 projects related to space-launch activity under its federal consistency authority granted by the CZMA. Only two of these projects received a finding of non-concurrence by state agencies. (II) Desalination: The Coastal Commission has denied only one desalination project. This decision to deny this project in 2022, based on coastal safety concerns, is unrelated to the CZMA and would not have been impacted by the existence of California’s CMP. The only desalination project in California that has gone through the CZMA review process, a pilot project in federal waters, received streamlined concurrence from state agencies. (III) Undersea Cables: The Coastal Commission has reviewed 19 undersea fiber optic cable projects under the CMP over the past 30 years. It has concurred with each and every one of these projects. Safeguards against accidental entanglement of endangered marine life, such as whales and sea turtles is of paramount importance as this protects our connection to nature for future generations well beyond any technological dependency on petroleum or physical cables. (IV) Pipeline Maintenance. California has never objected to a pipeline repair and maintenance project under its CMP federal consistency authority. (V) Offshore oil production. The Coastal Commission has concurred with nearly 90% of the 243 offshore oil and gas projects it has reviewed over the past 48 years. California guidance is based on the local absorption of the oil spills in 1971, 1990, 1997, 2007 and 2015. California’s guidance must be central to any government action in this sector since any government action must be premised on the public’s welfare and local government best understands the nature of the severe localized public health negative externalities it must ultimately address.
California has met and continues to clearly meet the legal requirements under the CZMA for its Coastal Management Program. Congress passed CZMA to “encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic values as well as the needs for compatible economic development.” See 416 U.S.C. §1452.
Once NOAA determines that a program satisfies the requirements of the CZMA and grants final approval, it may no longer examine the content of the approved program, only the adequacy of its execution. See State of Cal. By & Through California Coastal Comm’n v. Mack, 693 F. Supp. 821, 825 (N.D. Cal. 1988). As both a court and NOAA have found, “NOAA may not use its power over funding to accomplish indirectly what it may not accomplish directly: enforce alteration of the approved program itself.” Ibid.; see 84 Fed. Reg. 38118, 38121 (Aug. 6, 2019). For more than three decades, California has earned excellent reviews for its coastal management program from NOAA. In fact, NOAA concluded in its 2025 draft report that
“the State of California is successfully implementing and enforcing its federally approved coastal management program, adhering to the terms of the federal financial assistance awards, and addressing coastal management needs identified in… the Coastal Zone Management Act.” This report’s findings detail a rigorous review process and demonstrate California’s strong performance in managing its coast. Thus, NOAA has no legal basis to attempt to decertify California’s program based on unsupported assertions that it has failed to promote certain preferred industries of this current federal administration.
This federal review is taking place just one year after NOAA performed an exhaustive review of California’s coastal management program. This is without precedent. This review has been initiated as the federal Administration pursues unprecedented actions targeted at California including the expansion of new offshore oil drilling for the first time in four decades. Coastal states have concurred with approximately 95 percent of federal activities through consistency determinations over the last 50 years. In California, this concurrence rate is even higher, 96 percent of the more than 3,700 federal and federally regulated projects have received concurrences. The fact that the federal administration’s proposed expansion of offshore oil production in other states, including Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, were stopped when those states’ leaders expressed concerns underscores the inconsistent treatment of California and the lack of a rational basis for this review of the coastal management plan.
The timing of this review is also inconsistent with established patterns and practices of CZMA management and raises concerns that this review is driven by specific federal priorities for California coast utilizing the threat of the federal government’s decertification or defunding of the coastal state’s management program. Because this review targets sectors for which the current plan has not failed to perform pursuant to the CZMA’s legislative intent, the timing of this review raises the alarming risk that the motive for this review is not the adequacy of the current plan but instead the federal administration’s favoritism for specific private actors. Because such favoritism clearly violates the congressional intent of the CZMA, decertification of California’s Coastal Management Plan would constitute an abuse of authority.
In summary, California has a clear and verifiable track record of effectively exercising its authority under the CZMA to enable balanced coastal development. There is no legal basis to decertify California’s CMP. It is improper for NOAA to perform a federal review of a state’s coastal management program based on preferred projects of this federal Administration.
In light of the foregoing, this attempt to decertify California’s coastal management program proves anti-democratic, as it would mute the voices of local communities impacted by federal coastal activities and ignore the input of local experts that know the coast best. Because the federal government has not produced sufficient data to rationally justify this review, decertification would be contrary to the rule of law.
I urge the Administration to refocus on needed state and federal cooperation to manage California’s coast that has been the hallmark of this law for nearly five decades. Demonstrate that this review is more than just a pretext for outright authoritarianism. Safeguard California’s coast and the democracy on which each and every one of us relies on for protection.
“The point is that we all love our beautiful saltwaters. 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.” – Tina Calderon, Gabrielino Tongva and Chumash culture bearer, at the news conference preceding the public comment NOAA hearing last Monday in Santa Monica.
Trump’s review of California coastal authority brings out major opposition | LAist