California Coast Receives Reprieve From Threat Of Offshore Oil Drilling
Appellate Court Affirms Decision Giving California Authority To Review Federal Leases Off California Coast; Bush Administration And Oil Industry Efforts Thwarted

San Francisco, Calif. -- Today, environmentalists heralded a huge victory for California coastal protection. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed a district court decision from 2001 that found that the federal Minerals Management Service (MMS, a part of the Department of the Interior) violated two federal environmental laws when it extended the terms of 36 oil and gas leases off the Santa Barbara and Ventura coasts. The decision halts current exploration plans underway in the Santa Barbara Channel, pending review by the California Coastal Commission for consistency with California’s coastal protection plans. The court also ruled that the federal government must conduct an environmental review of the lease extensions, which it had failed to do prior to extending the lease terms in 1999.

"We were cautiously confident that the court would side with coastal protection and the citizens of California," said Linda Krop, Chief Counsel for the Environmental Defense Center. "The law is clear: the state has the right to weigh in on actions that affect California’s coast."

A coalition of ten environmental groups had joined the state’s lawsuit challenging the federal government’s decision to extend the 36 undeveloped oil leases off California’s coast, without conducting state or environmental review. The EDC, which had originally pushed the state to file the lawsuit, represents the Sierra Club, Friends of the Sea Otter, CALPIRG, California CoastKeeper, Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper, Santa Monica BayKeeper, Get Oil Out and Citizens Planning Association. Natural Resources Defense Council, on behalf of themselves and League for Coastal Protection, also joined in the suit, as did the Counties of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.

"The writing is on the wall for the oil industry and the Bush administration," said Teresa Olle, program development director for CALPIRG, one of the intervening plaintiffs. "This decision closes one more door against oil interests seeking to drill off our coast against the public’s will."

"We are thrilled that the appeals court has upheld the decision to allow California the ability to defend its coastline from environmental degradation, especially now when we know that the Bush administration is aggressively attacking laws put in place to protect our health and environment," said Susan Jordan of the League for Coastal Protection.

At issue in the case was whether the California Coastal Commission had jurisdiction to review MMS’ 1999 decision to extend the terms of 36 undeveloped oil and gas leases off the coast of California. The leases were originally sold between 1968 and 1984, and were not subject to Commission review at that time. In November 1999, the federal government granted extensions for the 36 leases for periods ranging from 19-45 months, without consulting with the Coastal Commission. In response, the State of California filed suit against the federal government, raising claims of inadequate review under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as the MMS also failed to conduct an environmental review of the lease extensions. In January 2000, oil companies filed a motion to intervene in the state’s lawsuit, which was granted by the court. A coalition of environmental groups then intervened as well, requesting that the State, via the California Coastal Commission, review the requested lease suspensions. In June 2001, a U.S. District Court decided in favor of the State of California and environmental groups, and found that the MMS failed to comply with both environmental laws. In August 2001, the federal government announced that it would appeal the lower court decision.

The appellate affirmation requires the MMS to submit the lease extension decisions to the California Coastal Commission to review the possible impacts any new oil development may have on California’s precious coastline. The multitude of issues to review includes impacts from oil spills, potential harm to the resources of the Channel Islands and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries, impacts to state and federally listed threatened and endangered species, including the southern sea otter, increased air and water pollution, conflicts with local policies and regulations restricting oil and gas development and inconsistencies with the California Coastal Act and Local Coastal Programs.