California’s coastline is one of the nation’s greatest conservation success stories. From recovering sea otters and nesting snowy plovers to migrating gray whales and the vibrant national marine sanctuaries that many species call home, generations of Californians have fought to protect the wildlife and places that make this coastline extraordinary.Few may realize these conservation successes are made possible, in part, by a little-known but critically important federal law: the Coastal Zone Management Act.For more than 50 years, the act has given California and other coastal states a meaningful voice in federal decisions affecting their shorelines. Through the law’s federal consistency program, California works with federal agencies and project proponents to ensure that offshore drilling proposals, pipelines, ports and other federally authorized activities are consistent with the state’s coastal policies.Contrary to the perception that California simply says “no” to any coastal development, the overwhelming majority of projects reviewed under the program ultimately move forward. Critical work happens behind the scenes when California state agencies negotiate changes that reduce harm to wildlife, protect coastal communities and improve projects before they are approved.The partnership has restored more than 100,000 acres of habitat, from kelp forests and estuaries to coastal dunes. It has removed over 26 million pounds of trash from beaches and waterways and given Californians a voice in decisions affecting their shoreline.Now, that partnership faces its greatest threat.The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is conducting a premature, out-of-cycle review years before its typical 10-year schedule and before the previous review has even concluded. On paper, it may look routine. It is anything but. If a review results in decertification of California’s coastal management program, it could mean the state loses its strongest tool to resist federal actions over harmful decisions affecting the coastline’s prosperity.So why is the federal agency pursuing a review now?The timing is difficult to ignore. It follows the California Coastal Commission’s rejection of Elon Musk and SpaceX’s 2025 proposal to expand rocket launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base and comes as the Trump administration plans to advance a draft leasing program that could reopen California’s federal waters to oil and gas drilling for the first time in more than four decades. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said the review is meant to ensure California gives “proper weight” to federal priorities and to prevent what he called “obstructionist policies that delay critical national infrastructure.”What does this mean for Californians and residents of other coastal states? It means that our voices could be silenced.Now is the time to speak up for our wildlife, communities and coastal economies that depend on it as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is accepting public comments through Aug. 22.Keep Reading
Workshopping the new Humboldt Bay Area Plan, the county’s Planning Commission is highlighting the importance of offshore wind energy but leaving industrial port activity open for other uses.The extent of restricting heavy lift marine terminals – which will be necessary for wind energy but could also be used for other industrial purposes – was weighed as the commission held two workshops on the plan.Consensus on how to address heavy lift marine terminal use was reached at the second workshop, on Aug. 6, after lengthy discussion.Enthusiasm for wind energy has been tempered by a disappointing turn of events.One of the holders of an offshore ocean wind energy development lease – RWE U.S. Offshore – is vacating its Humboldt area lease and others in New York and Louisiana. The global company agreed to a payoff settlement with the Trump administration and will instead pursue U.S. natural gas development.The turnabout was in mind as commissioners discussed language on heavy lift marine terminal use in a port overlay zone, which is a separate, higher-level layer of policy.Facilities supporting oil and gas drilling and offshore mining are prohibited in the overlay plan, as the county is preparing an ordinance banning them.But commissioners said marine terminal use should be open to other businesses besides wind energy.Though Commissioner Jerome Qiriazi agreed, he noted public comment from the previous workshop, where speakers warned against allowing heavy and potentially impactful industrial uses.During the commission’s ensuing discussion, there was reluctance to narrowly focus the heavy lift terminal policy to wind energy.The discussion resumed at last week’s workshop, with the uncertainty of future wind energy development figuring in.Keep Reading
On Aug. 14, the Humboldt County Fair hosts Shell-ebration, celebrating all things related to oysters in Humboldt Bay. And there is much to salute. Our region produces most of the oysters consumed in California and a very high percentage of the shellfish seed — some 470 million baby shellfish in 2024 — grown out on the West Coast and beyond. These oysters, and the companies and families who rely on them for their livelihoods, deserve this recognition.There should be a serious parallel debate about whether California should reindustrialize Humboldt Bay or instead direct massive heavy industrial development to already-industrialized Los Angeles Harbor. What we are talking about here is the proposed Samoa Heavy Lift Terminal Project and all of its long-term ramifications.Before colonization, there was a string of major coastal marine estuaries in California that served as home and nursery to seabirds, fish, crabs, clams, oysters — everything that made California’s coastal waters rich with life. These estuaries had many names, more recently known as San Diego Bay, San Pedro Bay, San Francisco Bay, Tomales Bay and Humboldt (Wigi) Bay.I grew up near San Pedro Bay, also known as Los Angeles Harbor. My grandfather and great-uncle were high-seas tuna fishermen. My father ran a marine electronics business in the harbor. During the summers, from elementary school through the end of middle school, I got to go to work with my dad — in shipyards, in Fish Harbor, in yacht marinas and at massive industrial sites throughout L.A. Harbor. In high school, I was employed as a deckhand on working harbor watercraft. I spent most of my young life in and around the water and lived with L.A. Harbor pollution every day, including bay water coated with floating oil and industrial grime, bay water with strange colors and bad odors, pier pilings without even barnacles growing on them and air pollution that made our lungs hurt by late afternoon.Keep Reading
The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board on Thursday authorized a referral to the California Attorney General’s Office for judicial civil enforcement against the Vern C. McGaughey Trust, citing more than a decade of unaddressed waste dumping, wetland degradation and missed cleanup deadlines along Little River.The decision followed a two‑hour hearing in which board staff detailed years of failed cleanup deadlines, repeated violation notices, and worsening conditions along Little River, a waterway already listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for elevated fecal bacteria levels.Assistant Executive Officer John Curtis told the board that the referral is intended to prioritize cleanup and restoration. He said administrative civil liability, the board’s usual enforcement tool, had not produced compliance and could further delay remediation“A site restored is a win for water quality and a win for the people of California,” Curtis said. “When our attempts to compel compliance fail, we are left with few options. This referral keeps the focus on cleanup and restoration rather than penalties.”Photos shown to the board included a tributary cutting through a waste pile and a horse carcass in mapped wetlands. Staff said the property remains out of compliance and continues to threaten water quality at Moonstone Beach, one of Humboldt County’s most heavily used recreation sites.Attorney Ken Bareilles, representing landowner Vern McGaughey, acknowledged unpermitted placement of filter fabric and concrete along the streambank without attaining permits, but argued the underlying cause of the river’s degradation was a decades‑old fish‑habitat project.Neighbor Ray Christie described historic channel maintenance by local families and said the river now flows directly through McGaughey’s property rather than its original channel.“The river is going directly through Vern’s property,” Christie said. “We hunted and fished that river our whole lives and never had problems until the restoration project. I can show you exactly where the channel shifted.”Little River has been listed as impaired for fecal bacteria since 2015, and advocates have long urged stronger enforcement to protect public health and salmon habitat downstream at Moonstone Beach.Michael van Hattem, a senior environmental scientist supervisor with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife who works in the Habitat Conservation Program, spoke of his concerns and asked the regional water board to forward the case to the Attorney General’s Office.“The Little River estuary matters. Given the ongoing harm to Little River and its floodplain, wetlands, sensitive species, habitats, and tributaries, and the responsible party’s refusal to comply with the cleanup order, judicial enforcement of the Water Code is the most appropriate and efficient option,” van Hattem said. “CDFW and our state agencies fully support fixing the issues in Little River once and for all, and that starts with the McGaughey property.”The area where Little River runs into Moonstone Beach remains one of Humboldt County’s most heavily used recreation sites, and the impaired water listing driven by fecal bacteria has persisted since 2015. Jennifer Kalt, executive director of Humboldt Waterkeeper, spoke to the water board about the importance of Little River for recreation and the environmental effects of pollution along the waterway.“Hundreds and hundreds of kids have learned to surf there at Moonstone Beach. I live in McKinleyville, and I have paddled up the Little River myself many times. I have seen the plastic fabric lining the graded banks that have been completely denuded of riparian vegetation. My organization has gotten numerous complaints from members of the community about horse and cattle carcasses in the river and about chunks of that plastic material floating down the river and stuck in the sediment. People will get out of their boats and try to pull it out, but it’s all embedded in rock and the bottom of the river. And we’ve also received numerous complaints from people who have children who experience explosive diarrhea and vomiting after playing in the river or rinsing off their wetsuits in the river,” said Kalt. “Little River also supports spawning coho and other protected species. It’s a really important watershed.”The board voted to approve the resolution to forward the case to the Attorney General’s Office. The board’s decision marks the first time in six years that a North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board case has been elevated to the Attorney General’s Office.Read Original Article
On Thursday, renewable energy company RWE announced that it entered into a $1.22 billion agreement with the Trump administration to relinquish its offshore wind leases. RWE is one of two companies, alongside Vineyard Offshore, that hold wind leases off California’s North Coast through its RWE U.S. Offshore subsidiary.According to a press release published by RWE Thursday morning, the company’s settlement with the U.S. Department of Interior will “resolve claims against the U.S. government and relinquish its offshore wind leases off the coasts of New York, California and Louisiana.”“RWE U.S. Offshore secured these leases from the U.S. government with a long-term commitment to develop offshore wind capacity in American waters and invested more than $1 billion toward the leases and the development of these projects,” RWE’s release reads. “These leases provided legal rights to develop offshore projects and represented years of planning, investment, and partnership with federal agencies.“After careful consideration, it was determined there is no path forward to permit these projects in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. The settlement resolves RWE U.S. Offshore’s legal claims and provides $1.22 billion in settlement funds. The company determined that this resolution best serves the interests of its stakeholders and allows it to direct resources toward energy projects that can be advanced with certainty.”RWE’s press release says that the agreement will allow the company to “redeploy its capital to accelerate value-accretive opportunities that deliver reliable and affordable energy.” That “redeployment” is described as including “$900 million to acquire an indirect 16% stake in the Louisiana LNG Project” — a large-scale natural gas development that has been criticized as a major source of greenhouse gas pollution — and other natural gas projects throughout the U.S.Keep Reading
