The meaning of the SLO supervisors’ failure to oppose Trump’s offshore drilling plan
By Andrew Christie, Chapter Director
A point of view remarkably out of step with the majority of the population of California has been taking shape recently in the local press.
From a reader comment in the Feb. 22 New Times:
“…offshore drilling is regulated by the state and if any company wants to drop a pin anywhere in SLO county they will have to go through a plethora of bureaucracy that can, and most likely would, be denied at every turn. So, maybe it's OK to do nothing right now. There are plenty of other real issues that need to be addressed immediately, like the safety of our children while attending school for one. Let's focus on the real priorities first.”
From a letter to the editor in the March 2 Tribune, headlined SLO doesn’t need a resolution opposing offshore oil drilling:
“With an election coming up, some ‘politicos’ warn that if the SLO County Board of Supervisors does not agree to a resolution stating that the county is opposed to offshore oil drilling, our coastline will be ruined by oil, polluting the view and endangering the environment…. the SLO County Board of Supervisors sent a letter to the U.S. Department of the Interior in March 2017 noting the county’s opposition to offshore oil drilling. … This is pure fear mongering. Let’s move on to the important issues our county public officials need to work on.”
This was ostensibly a rebuttal to a Feb. 24 Tribune op ed, but that editorial was itself perfectly in sync with the “let’s move on to the important issues” gambit of the letter writer who was supposedly disagreeing with it. To wit:
“If you aren’t going to pass a resolution, at least have the discussion. That might help diffuse [sic] an issue that’s bound to be a source of contention in upcoming elections, judging from reader comments we’re already receiving. If the majority of board members really are on the same page regarding opposition to off-shore, why not put this issue to rest now? That way, it won’t distract voters from the other issues directly under the county’s purview.”
I’ve already addressed the specific reasons why “maybe it’s OK to do nothing right now” is a bad idea. So let's dispense with that and just compare and contrast: On January 4, California State Senate leader Kevin de Leon told The Guardian “There should be no doubt that President Trump has officially declared war on California.” Also of the opinion that it’s important to stand up and speak out against Trump’s offshore oil plan: 227 members of the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, representing 17 coastal states, who signed a letter opposing the draft program delivered to Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke last Monday.
This brings us to the concern of the Tribune’s editorial board that the SLO board majority’s “no comment” position on the Trump offshore oil plan is getting in the way of real election issues -- a frustration similar to the one the Trib has expressed in trying to figure out the carefully parsed public statements of Congressional candidate Justin “balanced approach” Fareed and determine where the candidate stands in his nimble avoidance of the question “do you support or oppose more offshore oil drilling?”
A year ago, all there was to oppose was tough talk by Trump and Zinke threatening to open up California’s coast to new oil leasing. That was then, this is now. The Trump administration has brought forth an actual five-year plan for oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf, set to replace – and reverse – the five-year plan established by the Obama administration. Now it’s real. Comments in opposition or support go into the administrative record that is supposed to form the basis for the implementation, revision, or abandonment of the plan. It’s not quite an election, but “votes” will be counted in either one column or the other. That’s what Secretary Zinke meant when he said "Our plan as we go through the public process again reflects the local communities, because the local voice matters, the president has said that" at the March 6 CERAWeek energy conference in Houston.
The outcome of that process will determine the sincerity of that statement. But what he was referring to was the public process for this specific five-year leasing plan, which was launched two months ago. Comments received as part of this process count. Random year-old letters won’t.
As election day draws near, it’s entirely possible that any local politicos currently trying to play both ends against the middle will suddenly remember that they are seeking votes from residents of the Central Coast of California. They may see the light, take a stand, and make an unequivocal statement of opposition.
If they do, any such profile in expediency will be conveniently late. The deadline for receipt of comments on the Trump administration’s proposed five-year oil and gas leasing plan is March 9. After that, words from any candidate or elected official who missed that deadline will be of the kind that can be publicly uttered with a private wink at funders who understand that words spoken in the arena of electoral politics are often like unto vapor borne away on the wind, with the subtext “I need to get elected.”
That’s why this issue is the opposite of a distraction for voters; it’s a bright red line. Issues that are “bound to be a source of contention in upcoming elections” are generally the issues that should be the focus of those elections. At this moment, the elected officials and candidates who have spoken out and taken an opposing stand on this issue as part of this process – not generic statements made a year ago – have given voters vital information. And so have those who have failed to make it clear where they stand.