Offshore Drilling and the Limitations of Offshore Thinking

The Trump administration’s proposed five-year offshore oil and gas leasing plan would reopen federal waters off the California coast to new drilling for the first time in more than four decades. The draft plan proposes six offshore lease sales off California between 2027 and 2030, as part of a national program that could include up to 34 lease sales across 1.27 billion acres of federal waters. If finalized, the plan would reverse a long period with no new offshore leasing in California since 1984 and override the 2025 federal moratorium that had protected the entire California coast from new offshore oil development. California legislators have already introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing the plan, citing its scale and conflict with long-standing coastal protections.

At the center of the proposal is a narrow framing of risk. Offshore leasing is treated as an activity that can be evaluated and contained within mapped federal waters. This is not the case. Oil development interacts with ocean currents, sediments, estuaries, watersheds, and onshore infrastructure in ways that make offshore and inland impacts inseparable in practice. An offshore focus blinds us to inland chokepoints, pipelines like the aging Sable line, refineries from Benicia to Ventura, and spill pathways into protected estuaries, wetlands, and agricultural watersheds.

A Coast Built on Layered Protection

California’s coastline reflects decades of policy decisions that prioritize ecological integrity and long-term resilience. Within state waters, California maintains a network of 124 Marine Protected Areas, covering roughly 16 percent of nearshore waters. These areas were designed to support recovery by limiting extractive activities and protecting habitat and biodiversity. Beyond state waters, national marine sanctuaries protect large portions of federal waters, including Monterey Bay and the Channel Islands, where oil and gas drilling is prohibited. Local governments have added another layer through coastal land use authority, restricting oil terminals, pipelines, and processing facilities. Tribal governments and coastal communities have repeatedly opposed offshore drilling based on our experience with spills and infrastructure impacts.

Together, these protections function as an interconnected system. Their effectiveness depends on reducing risk across land and sea, not shifting it from one jurisdiction to another. The proposed leasing plan seeks to reopen federal waters that sit between and around protected areas, relying on the assumption that offshore activity can be separated from the systems it affects.

What Past Spills Have Shown Us

California’s history with offshore oil development offers clear evidence of how contamination travels. The 1969 Santa Barbara spill released an estimated three to four million gallons of oil, coating beaches and killing seabirds and marine mammals. In 2015, a ruptured onshore pipeline connected to offshore production released approximately 140,000 gallons of crude oil near Refugio State Beach, contaminating more than 150 miles of coastline. In 2021, another spill off Orange County disrupted fisheries, tourism, and coastal livelihoods.

In each case, seabirds were among the most visibly affected. Oil compromises feather structure, eliminating insulation and buoyancy, and birds ingest oil while preening, leading to organ damage and reduced reproductive success. Marine mammals experienced exposure through contact, surface inhalation, and ingestion of contaminated prey. Fish and invertebrates were affected in less visible but equally consequential ways. Eggs and larvae are highly sensitive to petroleum hydrocarbons, with documented impacts on development, growth, and survival at concentrations that may not produce obvious surface slicks.

Estuaries and Watersheds at Risk: How Contamination Moves

Oil contamination movement is shaped by ocean currents, nearshore circulation, wind, and sediment dynamics. Along the California coast, prevailing currents and upwelling can transport dissolved and particulate-bound contaminants far from the original spill site. Once oil or oil-derived compounds move shoreward, they often enter estuaries, wetlands, and coastal watersheds.

Crude oil contains a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which readily bind to fine sediments and organic matter. In environments such as estuaries and wetlands, these compounds degrade slowly and can remain biologically available long after surface oil is no longer visible.

The Refugio Creek watershed drains directly into the Santa Barbara Channel. During the 2015 Refugio spill, oil from an onshore pipeline connected to offshore production entered the creek and moved through the watershed before discharging into nearshore waters. Contamination affected beaches, rocky intertidal habitat, kelp beds, and wetlands, illustrating how pipeline failures linked to offshore production can impact coastal watersheds. New offshore leases would revive infrastructure such as the Sable pipeline system, whose environmental review documents acknowledge ongoing spill risk.

In Southern California, recent spill events demonstrate how restored coastal wetlands can be exposed despite containment efforts. During the 2021 Huntington Beach spill, oil reached waters adjacent to Bolsa Chica and Talbert Marsh along the Orange County coast. These wetlands illustrate how estuarine systems can function as sinks for contamination once exposure occurs, making recovery slow and uncertain even when visible oil is absent.

Estuaries like Morro Bay are vulnerable if contamination enters the system. Morro Bay is a shallow estuary with limited flushing, fine sediments, and extensive eelgrass habitat. In estuaries with these characteristics, oil-derived hydrocarbons that reach the system can bind to sediments and organic matter, increasing persistence and potentially affecting nursery habitat and food webs that support nearby marine ecosystems, including protected waters offshore.

San Francisco Bay demonstrates how scale and circulation influence contaminant behavior once pollutants are introduced. Studies conducted within the bay show that tidal pumping, estuarine circulation, and sediments in suspension redistribute contaminants throughout the estuary and into nearshore coastal waters. Even after surface oil is removed, contaminants can remain biologically available in sediments and benthic communities.

The Northern California coastline is defined by strong currents, high wave energy, and close connections between offshore waters and river-dominated coastal systems. Humboldt Bay, the state’s second-largest estuary, receives freshwater and sediment from multiple watersheds and supports extensive eelgrass habitat, shellfish resources, and commercial fisheries. If oil contamination were introduced offshore, prevailing coastal circulation and river discharge could transport contaminants toward nearshore waters and into estuarine and coastal systems that are central to the region’s ecological and economic health.

These examples show that oil contamination is transported by currents, tidal circulation, and watershed flow into estuaries and wetlands, where toxic compounds bind to sediments, persist for decades, and undermine marine and coastal protection efforts.

Impacted Fisheries

California’s commercial and recreational fisheries have repeatedly borne the consequences of offshore oil spills and associated infrastructure failures. Following spill events, fisheries closures and contamination concerns have affected species that support coastal livelihoods, including Dungeness crab, rockfish, lingcod, halibut, market squid, sea urchin, abalone, sardine, anchovy, and salmon. Many of these species rely on estuaries and nearshore habitats during critical early life stages. Contamination of sediments and food webs can disrupt recruitment and reduce stock resilience. Even when adult fish are not visibly affected, impacts to nursery habitat can lead to delayed population declines and prolonged economic losses for fishing communities.

Coastal Sites at Risk

Some of the most vulnerable places along the California coast are not widely known. Ellwood Dunes and the Refugio Coast in Santa Barbara County are protected through state parks and conservancy efforts and buffer inland habitats from the ocean. Pipeline corridors associated with offshore production cut through these dune systems and adjacent ranchlands, fragmenting habitat and increasing exposure to spills and maintenance activity.

Talbert Marsh and Bolsa Chica function as restored wetlands that support migratory birds and fish nurseries. Their fine sediments and limited flushing make them particularly susceptible to persistent contamination. Morro Bay, as a nationally designated estuary, faces similar constraints, where even small amounts of oil-derived contamination can linger and disrupt ecological function. Many of these sites are conserved through land trusts and public partnerships. They play a critical role in supporting Marine Protected Areas by filtering runoff, stabilizing sediments, and sustaining early life stages of marine species. They cannot, however, withstand repeated exposure from linked offshore and inland risks.

Resistance

Opposition to offshore drilling along the California coast has been led by communities with direct experience of spill impacts and infrastructure burdens. Indigenous leaders have framed offshore drilling as incompatible with responsibility to water and place. Tina Calderon of the Sacred Places Institute views the ocean as sacred, emphasizing that offshore oil extraction has repeatedly caused harm while offering little lasting benefit to coastal communities. Tribal governments across California have passed resolutions opposing offshore drilling and calling for permanent protections for Pacific waters.

Fishing communities have focused their resistance on infrastructure chokepoints. Haley Ehler of the Coastal Fund for Research and Outreach Group has emphasized that Central Coast communities have already borne the cost of pipeline failures and will not accept renewed risk tied to offshore leasing. Fishery closures following spills have hit crab, sea urchin, and nearshore fisheries particularly hard. Environmental justice organizations have drawn attention to the inland end of the offshore chain. Groups such as Food and Water Watch and community coalitions in refinery corridors link tanker traffic, pipelines, and refineries to disproportionate health burdens in frontline communities.

The Limits of Marine Protection

Marine Protected Areas are designed to reduce direct pressures such as fishing. They are not designed to prevent chemical contamination. When oil-derived toxins enter protected waters or connected estuaries, organisms cannot avoid exposure without abandoning critical habitat. Long-lived species accumulate contaminants over time. Early life stages are affected before population declines are apparent. Recovery slows because impacts occur simultaneously across multiple levels of the food web.

This does not diminish the value of Marine Protected Areas. It clarifies that their effectiveness depends on decisions made beyond their boundaries, including whether new sources of contamination are introduced into connected systems.

Offshore Decisions as Land and Water Policy

Offshore oil development depends on extensive onshore infrastructure. Federal lease sales lead to exploration, production platforms, pipelines or tanker transport, terminals, refineries, and distribution networks. Each link introduces additional risk to coastal lands, watersheds, and communities. The Refugio spill demonstrated how onshore infrastructure failures can produce widespread marine and coastal impacts regardless of where drilling occurs. Similar pathways exist throughout California’s coastal zone, placing protected dunes, wetlands, ranchlands, estuaries, and agricultural watersheds at continued risk.

For this reason, offshore leasing is inseparable from land use policy, watershed protection, and environmental justice. Communities near pipelines and refineries experience disproportionate health burdens. Tribal governments face threats to cultural resources and sacred waters. Fishing communities bear economic losses when contamination disrupts marine ecosystems.

Public Comment and Participation

The proposed offshore leasing plan is subject to public review. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management opened a 60 day public comment period on the draft five-year offshore oil and gas leasing program. This comment period runs through January 23, 2026. Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov under Docket ID BOEM-2025-0483. Draft documents and maps are available on the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management website.

Link for public comment: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/BOEM-2025-0483-0001

Public comments become part of the official record and influence how the program moves forward. Participation can include submitting formal comments, attending public meetings, and supporting policies that protect marine and coastal systems. These include Marine Protected Areas, national marine sanctuaries, coastal land use controls, wetland and estuary conservation, and watershed protection measures that address contamination pathways.

Protecting California’s coast has depended on layered protections and consistent public involvement with an understanding of how water, contaminants, and ecosystems are interconnected.

My Submitted Public Comment:

I am submitting this comment to oppose the inclusion of new offshore oil and gas lease sales off the California coast in the Draft 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program.

California’s coastline reflects decades of policy decisions that recognize the ecological, economic, and cultural value of intact marine and coastal systems. These decisions include the establishment of a statewide network of Marine Protected Areas, the designation of national marine sanctuaries in federal waters, state prohibitions on new offshore leasing, and local land use controls that restrict oil terminals, pipelines, and processing facilities. Together, these layered protections reflect broad public consensus that offshore oil development poses unacceptable risks to coastal ecosystems and communities.

Offshore oil development cannot be evaluated in isolation from the physical systems through which contamination moves. Oil released at sea does not remain confined to lease boundaries. Ocean currents, coastal circulation, wind-driven transport, and sediment dynamics can carry oil and oil-derived contaminants far from their point of release, transporting them into nearshore waters, estuaries, wetlands, and coastal watersheds.

Estuaries and wetlands are low-energy systems with limited flushing. Fine-grained sediments and organic matter bind toxic compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, slowing degradation and increasing persistence. Tidal exchange and seasonal flooding can remobilize buried contamination, prolonging exposure for aquatic organisms over time.

Watersheds further connect offshore oil development to inland landscapes. Oil infrastructure associated with offshore production, including pipelines, terminals, and refineries, introduces spill risks to coastal streams, wetlands, floodplains, and groundwater systems. Contaminants can move through surface runoff, shallow groundwater, and flood events, ultimately returning to nearshore marine environments.

Approving offshore lease sales initiates proposals for onshore pipelines, terminals, and refinery infrastructure, shifting risk and permitting conflict into coastal lands, estuaries, and watersheds that California agencies and local governments have historically protected or denied under state law.

The 2015 Refugio oil spill, caused by a ruptured onshore pipeline connected to offshore production, contaminated more than 150 miles of coastline and affected beaches, wetlands, fisheries, and coastal economies. This event demonstrates how onshore infrastructure failures linked to offshore development can produce widespread marine and coastal impacts regardless of where drilling occurs.

California’s commercial and recreational fisheries have repeatedly borne the consequences of offshore oil spills and associated infrastructure failures. Following spill events, fishery closures and contamination concerns have affected species that support coastal livelihoods, including Dungeness crab, rockfish, lingcod, halibut, market squid, sea urchin, abalone, sardine, anchovy, and salmon. Many of these species rely on estuaries and nearshore habitats during critical early life stages. Contamination of sediments and food webs can disrupt recruitment and reduce stock resilience, leading to delayed population impacts and prolonged economic losses for fishing communities.

Persistent oil contamination also undermines the effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas and national marine sanctuaries. While these protections reduce direct human pressures such as fishing, they do not prevent chemical exposure. When oil-derived toxins enter protected waters or connected estuaries, organisms cannot avoid exposure without abandoning critical habitat. Early life stages are affected before population declines are apparent, and recovery slows when impacts occur across multiple levels of the food web.

Opening new federal waters off California to offshore oil leasing conflicts with existing investments in marine protection, coastal conservation, climate policy, and watershed protection. It also disregards the cumulative and long-term risks associated with contamination transport, persistence, and infrastructure dependence.

For these reasons, I urge the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to exclude all California waters from the final leasing program and to recognize that offshore oil development is incompatible with the state’s established coastal, marine, and watershed protections and the long-term public interest.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Candice Bell

References:

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Draft 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program
https://www.regulations.gov/document/BOEM-2025-0483-0001

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Santa Ynez Unit and Sable Offshore Energy Project environmental reviews
https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/santa-ynez-unit

California Coastal Commission
Refugio Oil Spill reports and pipeline related coastal impacts
https://www.coastal.ca.gov/refugio

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Response and Restoration. Oil fate and transport in estuaries and coastal wetlands
https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/oil-spills/oil-fate-and-effects

National Estuary Program
Morro Bay National Estuary Program. Sediment and water quality resources
https://www.mbnep.org

National Marine Fisheries Service
Oil spills and fisheries impacts, closures, and recovery
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ocean-pollution/oil-spills-and-fisheries

Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples
Statements on offshore drilling and protection of ocean and sacred waters
https://sacredplaces.org