Californians Criticize Federal Efforts to Control the State’s Coast
By Alma Cordero ·
The federal government does not care about your local history, or the fact that your community built its life on the rhythms of the tide.
The Geography of a Threatening Review
The federal government does not care about your local history, or the fact that your community built its life on the rhythms of the tide. They only care about the ledger: what can be extracted, and how quickly it can be moved out of sight. That is the cold arithmetic at the heart of the current skirmish over California’s coast. What we are witnessing—this sudden, mandatory NOAA review of California's Coastal Management Program (CCMP)—is not a routine check-up; it is an aggressive attempt to dismantle state authority and open up 1,200 miles of coastline for industrial plunder.
The pretext, as reported by latimes.com, is "environmental extremism." The accusation is that California has used the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)—a law signed back in 1972 after a massive oil spill in Santa Barbara—to obstruct any development that benefits the supposed national interest. But let’s be clear: this isn't about obstruction; it’s about protecting what already exists. The CCMP, which has been federally approved since 1978, is designed to balance local community priorities, tribal interests, economic opportunity, and environmental protection—a necessary mechanism for a shared economy.
The federal push, spearheaded by U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, aims to make the coast available for everything from expanded offshore oil drilling to floating nuclear reactors and deep seabed mining. The goal is simple: remove state oversight so that corporate interests, particularly those tied to Houston-based oil companies, can bypass local democratic will. As Wade Crowfoot, California’s Secretary for Natural Resources, stated plainly, “California’s coast belongs to all Californians – full stop.” When the federal government attempts to sideline these voices, they are not serving a national interest; they are serving corporate profit margins and the lobbyists who fund them.
The Illusion of Federal Oversight
The sheer audacity of this review is breathtaking. abc7.com noted that NOAA had previously completed a draft report in 2025 finding California’s program successful, yet now a new review has been launched under dubious pretenses. This isn't the typical five-to-ten-year evaluation cycle; it feels like punitive action dressed up as bureaucracy.
The federal government always assumes that because they possess the most expensive set of regulations and the largest bureaucratic apparatus, their authority must be absolute. They treat state environmental laws—laws built on decades of struggle, much like my own life navigating the border economy—as if they are temporary permits waiting to expire. This impulse is a dangerous echo of history. We have seen this pattern before: when Washington decides that its centralized vision for progress conflicts with established local rights, it marshals federal law as a weapon.
The mechanism at play here echoes the power struggle inherent in the Clean Air Act Amendments. In both cases, the central government asserts broad regulatory authority over state-established environmental practices—the CAA originally intended to reduce and control air pollution nationwide; today, they seek to regulate the ocean floor from Washington’s desk. The shared threat is identical: a powerful federal hand reaching down to invalidate local expertise and regional self-governance in the name of "national necessity."
When Regulation Becomes an Assault on Sovereignty
What this administration is doing is far more than just reviewing regulations; it is attempting to redefine who gets to decide what constitutes 'progress.' They are telling California, and by extension every coastal state that values its own people over quarterly earnings reports, that your local knowledge is insufficient.
The Coastal Zone Management Act was signed into law in 1972 because of a disaster—an oil spill. It was born from the realization that environmental problems do not respect political boundaries. But this review turns that foundational principle on its head. Instead of seeing state and federal governments as partners, Lutnick’s rhetoric treats them as adversaries.
The people gathering in Santa Monica, who were quoted by coastalcare.org, are not activists; they are residents, small business owners, and workers whose livelihoods depend on the health of this water. They understand that environmental stewardship and economic growth are mutually reinforcing—a point made clearly by Dee Dee Myers. The federal government cannot separate them; it only sees a pipeline to be laid or an oil field to be drilled.
The history of labor and migration teaches us one thing: when power is centralized, the first people to suffer are always those who have the least standing to complain—the housekeepers, the fishermen, the small-town shop owners. They are the ones whose daily lives depend on a clean bay or an accessible beach, not the men in suits billing for "critical national infrastructure."
The federal government’s attempt to decertify California's CZMA is nothing more than a thinly veiled corporate mandate—a way to force open the gates of our shared economy and sell off public trust resources. It is a predictable play by those who have never had to live with the consequences of an oil spill, or watch their local industries hollowed out by unchecked capital.
The law was designed for partnership; this administration treats it like a corporate asset ripe for hostile takeover. The coastal waters belong to the people who live here, whose history is etched into every tide line and fishing dock. We will not stand aside while Washington attempts to sideline our voices.