Environmental groups based in Santa Barbara and throughout the Central Coast are warning residents of a newly unveiled plan by the Trump Administration to reopen oil drilling off the California Coast.
On Thursday the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) released its Draft Proposed Program for offshore oil and gas leasing – a proposal the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) noted would open federal waters, including the Santa Barbara Channel, to new lease sales for the first time since 1984.
According to the draft, the program identifies up to 34 potential lease sales across 21 of the 27 Outer Continental Shelf planning areas that cover about 1.27 billion acres.
Six of the proposed sales would be in the Pacific planning area, and the draft lists three possible sales in the Southern California planning area (tentatively in 2027, 2029, and 2030).
The federal agency stated these actions reflect the Trump administration’s continued commitment to restoring “American Energy Dominance.”
“Offshore oil and gas production does not happen overnight. It takes years of planning, investment, and hard work before barrels reach the market,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. “The Biden administration slammed the brakes on offshore oil and gas leasing and crippled the long-term pipeline of America’s offshore production. By moving forward with the development of a robust, forward-thinking leasing plan, we are ensuring that America’s offshore industry stays strong, our workers stay employed, and our nation remains energy dominant for decades to come.”
The EDC said the proposal puts California’s coastal resources, economies, and wildlife “at significant risk,” citing the region’s biodiversity and reliance on ocean-linked industries.
“New leasing means new drilling and the near-inevitability of new oil spills,” said Maggie Hall, deputy chief counsel at the EDC.
Hall cited the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the 2015 Plains All American Pipeline spill as examples of past disasters that harmed tourism, fisheries, and coastal communities.
The EDC noted that California’s coastal economy depends heavily on tourism, recreation, and fishing; ocean-related tourism and recreation contributed nearly $28 billion to the state’s GDP in 2019, the group said.
The DOI has opened a 60-day public comment period when the draft is published in the Federal Register (the DOI has said the comment window will begin on November 24).
DOI officials and BOEM said they received more than 86,000 responses to an earlier Request for Information that helped inform the draft.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) said it manages roughly 2,000 active offshore oil and gas leases nationwide. Federal data also show that offshore production represents a significant share of U.S. domestic oil output (about 15 percent), according to BOEM statistics.
The Center for Biological Diversity stated if this plan is carried out, offshore drilling could mean extinction for critically endangered animals like North Pacific right whales off Alaska and Rice’s whales and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in the Gulf. On the West Coast, sea otters would be at risk even in protected areas because of the inclusion of Monterey Bay, the Greater Farallones and the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuaries off California. In Alaska, oil spills would threaten polar bears, walrus and bowhead and beluga whales, along with coastal communities dependent on healthy fish and marine mammal populations.
“Trump’s war on marine life continues with this absolutely unhinged attack on our coasts,” said Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Auctioning off nearly the entire U.S. coast to Big Oil will inflict oil spill after devastating oil spill, harm whales and sea turtles and wreck fisheries and coastal economies. I’m confident that Americans across the political spectrum will come together to fight Trump’s plan to smear toxic crude across our beaches and oceans.”
Sen. Alex Padilla and Rep. Salud Carbajal are among more than 100 lawmakers who have signed a bicameral letter urging the administration to halt plans for new offshore leasing, arguing the proposal would harm coastal communities, fisheries, and Tribal nations.
“With this draft plan, Donald Trump and his Administration are trying to destroy one of the most valuable, most protected coastlines in the world and hand it over to the fossil fuel industry,” said Sen. Padilla and House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman. “They didn’t listen to Californians. They didn’t listen to communities up and down the West Coast. Instead, Trump wants to take a wrecking ball to our communities while trampling over anyone who stands between him and what billionaires demand.”
“Selling California’s coastline to Big Oil is a reckless and dangerous move. Trump’s plan puts delicate marine ecosystems at risk and threatens the public health of coastal communities across the West Coast – all so oil executives can line their pockets. I will fight this plan in every way possible,” said Rep. Carbajal.
California State Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón, representing Santa Barbara, issued the following statement on the Federal Administration’s plan to reopen the California coastline to offshore oil drilling.
“New offshore drilling leases lock us into decades of pollution, a dependency on fossil fuels, and move us further away from our climate goals. Given the historical experience of both the Central Coast of California and the Gulf Coast, we can all see the writing on the wall – which is why there has been a bipartisan effort to stop the expansion of drilling along our coastlines. Oil spills in these waters have devastated local economies, including business owners, fisheries, and centers of tourism. A proposal to expand drilling off our coast is misguided and irresponsible,” said Sen. Limón.
DOI says this is the first of three proposals that will be developed before the final 2026-2031 program is approved. Each proposed sale will receive additional environmental review and opportunities for public comment before any lease is finalized.
California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a public statement on what he calls, “Trump’s idiotic offshore oil drilling proposal.”
“Trump’s idiotic plan endangers our coastal economy and communities and hurts the well-being of Californians. This reckless attempt to sell out our coastline to his Big Oil donors is dead in the water. Californians remember the environmental and economic devastation of past oil spills. For decades, California has stood firm in our opposition to new offshore drilling, and nothing will change that. We will use every tool at our disposal to protect our coastline. It’s interesting that Donald’s proposal doesn’t include the waters off Mar-a-Lago,” said Governor Newsom.
Also Read
- CHP Investigates Fatal Solo Crash on Figueroa Mountain Road
- Validation Ale Opens Seasonal Pop-Up at The Shop, Targets Santa Barbara Bowl Crowds
- SpaceX Prepares Falcon 9 Starlink Launch as Vandenberg’s Sonic Boom Discussions Continue
- Rare Tornado Whirls Through Northern California Near Vina, Lasts Just a Minute
- Historic Carlton Hotel Reopens After Major Renovations, Joins Marriott Tribute Portfolio
It takes a special kind of stupid to ban offshore wind leases and at the same time reverse the ban (ie, allow) off shore oil drilling leases.
Say what you want about blade recycling (really the only real argument against wind farms – although they’re almost 99% recyclable now), but there is absolutely no denying the FACT that oil production kills more wildlife and human beings throughout it’s entire lifecycle (project construction, drilling, refining, consumer use and waste disposal), than wind or solar.
Only reason to support oil over renewable is pure ignorance. Well, that or willful stupidity.
GOO
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-climate-rollbacks-heat-deaths
Tons of tar on East beach a few weeks ago. I’ve never seen that much tar there in my life. I wonder if it’s tied to the lack of oil drilling out west at Platform Holly. It got shut down a while back. Holly sits smack dab in the middle of the largest oil seeps along our County coastline.
It’s much more likely to be due to the restart of production (without permission) by Sable, which involves pressurization.
Holly, the rig right off Coal Oil Point, is inactive dude. It got shut down in September. You’re making up a little false narrative to suit yourself.
BASIC – “false narrative to suit yourself” should be your new name. You literally make things up here almost daily.
And you think the oil won’t travel with the currents? Or that the oil deposits aren’t connected all along the seabed?
Sounds like you’re distorting facts to fit your fantasy.
More likely he’s just poorly educated in general.
Well educated, thank you very much. Realize education is one thing, and politics is another.
Realize that your extensive education on narrow subject matter does not confer knowledge in other domains. Nor, apparently, any degree of wisdom.
It’s not.
How do you know that?
You don’t.
You say it is, and you’re always wrong. QED
Because I’m smarter than you and I don’t lie or make things up.
https://www.edhat.com/news/the-history-of-tar-on-goleta-beaches/
Awesome link there, and it helps prove my point. Thanks for drilling that up. Tons of oil out there. One of the biggest natural seeps on the country. Tar on your feet sucks. You want it on the beaches and on your feet. I get it.
Case in point here about your so called “education,” BASIC. You’re point was not that this tar is just natural seepage occurring naturally. You suggested the closing of an oil rig has caused more tar on the beaches. That is not true nor has it really ever been proven.
Yes, we have natural seepage. No, it hasn’t increased because drilling stopped.
You really failed big time here. Pretending that was your point is really sad.
Wrong again. We ALL know there’s been natural seepage of oil out there forever. Duh. It’s called Coal Oil Point. The question is whether drilling right there at Holly in the heart of that giant natural seepage source lessens the amount of natural seepage. I didn’t state that was the case. I wondered whether that could be the case. You claim that’s not the case. Where do you get your evidence from? Are you studying that? No. So your the one who is making stuff up again. Hate is a tough way to live.o
Failing? Yeah, you are.
You’re not well educated with regard to the English language, obviously. Are you studying that? No. It must be hard on you to think you’re so smart, and fail at the basic things.
BASIC – you missed the point that you failed. That article does not “help” prove your point at all. I’m not explaining how basic logic and reasoning work to you anymore. You clearly struggle with critical thinking. You literally prove that here every day.
Lets just buy our oil from our enemies.
You know, there are more options than either drill in the channel in one of the most biodiverse and beautiful bodies of water conceivable or buy oil from our enemies.
What is it with you people and your inability to consider anything but white or black, red or blue.
NIMBY.
You bet. You want to live next to a garbage dump?
BASIC – you say “NIMBY” as if it’s an insult or something. Yeah, on oil drilling I”m 100% a NIMBY. Know why? Because our channel has biodiversity like not many places. I don’t want to risk another devastating spill. As a supposed fisherman and “aquatic biologist,” you’d have to be incredibly ignorant or just not really care to be OK with increased drilling in our pristine channel. It’s like if I were to spend years of my life training to be an oncologist because I had a personal passion for saving lives from cancer but I smoked a pack a day, ate red meat everyday with salami and bacon and told people those things were just fine. Do you see the problem here?
Now, Yes or No, would you be cool with an oil derrick in the backyard of your home? Yes or No?
Talk about hyperbole. No one is talking literal backyard oil rigs. You have a real strange way of trying to discuss things. Obtuse? I don’t know. It’s just awkward. Oh well.
Our ocean isn’t in our back yard?
BASIC – Calling us NIMBY’s for not wanting our coastal waters and beaches decimated by oil drilling is the very definition of hyperbole. That was the point of my question to you which you chickened out of answering.
Bro, get smarter.
Fair enough, you’re NIMBY’s. You want your oil sourced somewhere, anywhere else because, as you say – to paraphrase – Santa Barbara is so very, very special. Wake up. There are plenty of very special places on earth, and many are more beautiful and ecologically rich than here – where the demand for resources lies. Out of sight…out of mind. No, I get it.
Nothing’s getting “decimated”. You sound very “pearl clutchy”. Hyperbole is all you got.
Nobody wants fossil fuel but fossils.
Our fuel is necessarily sourced elsewhere. Oil from here gets shipped elsewhere for refinement and then goes to the global market, you dishonest ignoramus.
BASIC – Nothing’s getting “decimated”. Good lord, I mean…. I know you’re basically illiterate, but that’s some MAGA stupid there. Are you really not familiar with what happens during an oil spill?
It’s almost as if you’ve never set foot on a beach or been on or under the water at any time in your life.
“There are plenty of very special places on earth, and many are more beautiful and ecologically rich than here” – Maybe so, but not so many, if at all, are targeted for more oil drilling like here. Why do you not care at all about your backyard? Trashy.
Have you ever seen a major oil spill? Those of us who grew up here know the history. Apparently you don’t.
Again, why do you think that drilling in the channel and buying oil from distant locations are the only options?
Do you not understand assessing risk and then making decisions?
RUBY – why do you think Trump is cozying up to and defending the butcher of Saudi Arabia?
How about we use all the massive wealth we have in this country to lead the world in massive, viable, grid scale renewable and CLEAN energy projects and R&D?
NIMBYs?
Oil is in everything we use. Cell phones, solar panels, electric cars, the food containers, tires, pavement, roads.
So CA wants the benefits of the modern world without using the oil n our state and offshore?
Ok, every person opposed to oil production. Throw away your cell phone, your computers, your desks, your sneakers, your hair products, your medicines, sell your car, stop driving, do not ride a bike.
Do not enjoy that asphalt shingled roof over your head.
Start walking the walk.
Once you dispose of everything in your life containing oil, let’s talk.
That same old oily ridiculous talking point.
If you dupes think that oil is so precious, why do you want to burn it to produce energy, generating enormous amounts of toxic pollution, and hugely subsidizing an obsolescent industry, when there are much cheaper green alternatives?
Please acquire some critical thinking skills.
SBLETS – What your saying is like saying no one can support treatment for cancer if we still use microwaves, eat processed foods, live near oil wells, etc. It’s a ridiculous and childish argument you people refuse to stop using. Grow up.
Our fuel is necessarily sourced elsewhere. Oil from here gets shipped elsewhere for refinement and then goes to the global market, you dishonest ignoramus.
Yes, NEVER EVER EVER TRY AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS OVER THE CURRENT APPROACH.
That’s a brilliant way to live.
When the pipeline leaked back around 2015, HYSTERICAL people said, “It is ruined forever!!!” Well, within 2 years it was clean and pristine.
I think it is incredibly hypocritical to whine and block oil from an area that fuels more private jets than most airports. Oil is in EVERYTHING, not just cars and planes. It is in your clothes, your makeup, your refrigerator, and MANY more things. It is in almost everything. We have a natural abundance out here in the channel that does limit the amount of tar on the beach. Stop using oil you are going to block its removal from here!
You’ve made this ridiculous claim before, but that is a very superficial conclusion. The marine environment, for one, still hasn’t recovered.
You just don’t see that as you cruise by in your gas hog.
We don’t have any power over who flies into our airport.
As for the rest of your absurd demands, you need to stop with the elementary school reasoning here. When something like petroleum is currently a necessary part of our lives, we are still allowed to want it to be LESS a part of our lives.
The all or nothing “argument” is childish, illogical and just tired. Find a new one.
As California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom traveled to Brazil touting his failed energy agenda in mid-November, the reality back home is unavoidable: because of his policies, Californians are paying some of the highest gas and electricity prices in the nation. We are being crushed by the Newsom energy affordability crisis — and it’s crippling our national security.
Since 2018, more than 360 energy companies have left California due to the state’s debilitating regulations and new oil drilling permits have fallen by 95% since Newsom assumed office in 2019.
As a result, California has produced nearly 128,000 fewer barrels of oil PER DAY over the past five years — despite holding the fifth-largest petroleum reserves in the country. The undeniable consequence of Newsom’s refusal to support domestic production is a greater reliance on foreign oil.
In 1982, less than 6% of California’s crude oil came from outside the United States. Today, according to Newsom’s own California Energy Commission, that number has skyrocketed to over 60%. Brazil now accounts for 20% of our imported supply and 21% comes from Iraq.
Another dupe gorging on oily lies and propaganda. How gullible can you get?
Fossil fuels are an obsolete, toxic industry. We pay vast hidden subsidies to those robber barons to help them destroy our environment while they reap huge profits and laugh at our continued stupidity.
Green energy is more efficient and less expensive, both in direct and indirect costs.
Gullible? The facts come from Newsom’s own Energy commission?
Renewable energy accounted for 9% of total energy consumption in 2024, fossil fuels are clearly not obsolete.
Closing down oil production in CA. only puts the cost burden on on us and forces us to be reliant on foreign oil which has to be shipped, trucked into CA.
We are simply not equipped to switch to solely green energy yet.
Many nations, even after signing international climate pacts like the COP28 agreement to “transition away” from fossil fuels, are expanding oil and gas production due to economic needs and a fear of losing revenue and jobs. For example, a recent UN climate conference (COP30) concluded without an agreement to phase out fossil fuels.
Scratch the gullible. Change to very gullible, and lacking in critical thinking skills.
Why stick with obsolete, hugely expensive resource extraction, when green energy is less harmful, less expensive, and generates more employment?
I am simply pointing out that right now, currently in today’s world we rely on fossil fuels.
Prohibiting domestic oil production is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
One day we will not be reliant on petroleum, I am all for it, but currently green energy cannot support our energy needs.
Well yeah, thank you for pointing out that we use a lot of oil. This article is about future oil leases, so we’re not talking about “now”, we’re talking about at the very least five years into the future, probably more.