California challenges federal offshore drilling plan citing past disasters and ongoing risks

Sacramento, California – California officials are pushing back forcefully against a new federal proposal that could reopen large stretches of the state’s coastline to offshore oil and gas activity, setting the stage for a renewed clash over energy policy and environmental protection.

At the center of the dispute is a draft leasing program released by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, outlining potential offshore oil and gas lease sales between 2026 and 2031. The plan includes six proposed lease opportunities in waters off California, spanning northern, central, and southern coastal regions. In response, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alongside the California Natural Resources Agency, submitted formal comments opposing the proposal and urging federal officials to remove the state entirely from consideration.

Read also: Suspected theft at San Mateo mall leads to quick arrest after coordinated police response

Bonta’s criticism was sharp and direct, warning that expanding offshore drilling would expose California to risks it has experienced before. He pointed to the lasting damage caused by past disasters, emphasizing that oil spills have historically threatened marine ecosystems, coastal economies, and public health.

“The Trump administration continues to pursue opportunities for his Big Oil friends to profit at the cost of our environment and public health,” said Attorney General Bonta.

“California knows the devastating impacts of offshore oil drilling all too well. From oil spills that threaten our clean waters to irreversible damage to our public health, California will not stand for attempts to increase offshore oil and gas production at our expense. My office remains fully opposed to this program and is committed to protecting California’s natural resources.”

State leaders echoed those concerns, arguing that the proposal conflicts with California’s longstanding stance against offshore drilling.

For decades, the state has resisted new leasing efforts, shaped in part by catastrophic events like the 1969 Santa Barbara Channel blowout and the 2015 Refugio spill. Those incidents left a deep imprint, reinforcing policies that prohibit new drilling in state waters and guiding consistent opposition to federal leasing off the coast.

The newly proposed plan marks a notable shift. There has been no offshore leasing activity in California waters since 1984, yet the draft program reintroduces the possibility of development across multiple planning areas. State officials argue that the federal agency has not provided a clear or justified reason for reversing course, particularly given the widespread opposition from local governments, residents, and environmental advocates.

Read also: Longtime public works director Ann Stillman celebrated in San Mateo County ahead of retirement

In their response, Bonta and state officials also raised procedural concerns. They criticized the absence of a comprehensive Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, calling it a departure from decades of established practice. Without such analysis, they argue, the full scope of environmental, economic, and security risks cannot be properly evaluated.

Beyond opposing oil and gas expansion, California leaders urged federal officials to consider alternative uses of offshore resources, particularly renewable energy development. They emphasized the need to align federal decisions with the state’s climate goals and existing legal framework, rather than advancing projects that could undermine both.

Even if the federal process moves forward, state officials insist that a wide range of impacts must be thoroughly studied, including effects on coastal ecosystems, local industries, and national security. For California, the issue is not only environmental, it is economic and deeply tied to communities that depend on a healthy coastline.

Bonta’s office has made clear that its opposition is part of a broader effort to safeguard the state’s natural resources. His stance follows previous legal and political challenges against federal energy actions, including efforts to block expanded offshore drilling and disputes over renewable energy development.