Experts fear Trump’s weakening of environmental policy could expose North Coast to drilling
A move by the Trump administration to roll back landmark environmental policy intended to ensure vigorous scrutiny of federal infrastructure projects has struck alarm in the hearts of California conservationists, particularly those striving to safeguard North Coast waters from offshore energy exploration and production.
Proposed changes to the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act would have sweeping effects nationwide, wherever there is federally built, funded or permitted construction or activity. Examples include mining on federal lands, construction of federally funded highways, or work on interstate gas pipelines or federal dams. But on the North Coast, where residents enjoy some of the most scenic and productive ocean waters on Earth, a coastline already subject to renewed drilling pressures and proposed wind generation facilities may be at greater risk if the NEPA revisions go through, experts say.
“Obviously, it’s going to have dramatic impacts on the whole offshore drilling equation,” said Richard Charter, senior fellow with the Ocean Foundation and a Sonoma Coast resident.
That’s especially true given increased instability in the Middle East due to tension between the United States and Iran, which could move the White House to try to fast-track plans to reopen the North Coast to oil drilling, he said.
“It’s quite frightening,” said Cea Higgins, executive director of Coastwalk California, headquartered in Sonoma County.
President Donald Trump and the White House Council for Environmental Quality, an office established by the 1969 Congressional act, announced the long-anticipated NEPA revisions on Thursday, calling them a needed fix for “job-killing regulations” and an overhaul for a “dysfunctional bureaucratic system that has created ... massive obstructions.”
“From Day One, my administration has made fixing this regulatory nightmare a top priority,” Trump said. “and we want to build new roads, bridges, tunnels, highways bigger, better, faster, and we want to build them at less cost.”
Critics say the changes may indeed streamline the permitting process for qualifying projects but at the peril of the planet, its people and wildlife.
Amid other provisions, the proposed revisions include reductions in the kinds of projects that would require full environmental evaluation; limits on the time allowed for such review and on the number of alternative approaches that can be considered; and elimination of cumulative impacts completely — including greenhouse gas emissions and other contributions to climate change — from the factors to be considered during review.
At the same time, it gives industry sources more input in the assessment of their own projects — a clear conflict of interest, conservationists said.
The result, critics say, is policy that gives energy and oil interests exactly what they want while reducing the role of science and the public in the analysis of federal projects.
“You’re basically concentrating the chances of the project proponents getting what they want,” said North Coast Congressman and former environmental lawyer Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael. “It’s taking the NEPA process and, instead of having a trusted government body evaluate the impacts, it turns into an honor system for polluters. They do their own NEPA.
“It’s a terrible idea, and the only good news I can share is it’s very legally flawed and will not survive court challenges,” he said.
NEPA is similar to the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires environmental impact reports be completed to analyze a project’s impacts on a surrounding area in terms of everything from noise and traffic to groundwater and air pollution.