Coastal Outrages

Tuesday was like Pearl Harbor Day for the California Coastal Commission, except that the commission suffered not just one but two sneak attacks.

One assault, coming from the Senate Rules Committee run by Senate President pro tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), constituted one of the most blatant and arrogant displays of political power to emanate from Sacramento for some time. And heavy-handed abuse of power in Sacramento is not exactly a rarity these days.

During the course of a commission hearing into a controversial proposal by Occidental Petroleum Corp. to drill two exploratory oil wells in the Pacific Palisades, the committee suddenly fired commissioner Gilbert Contreras of San Diego because it was assumed that he would vote in favor of the Occidental plan. Roberti opposes the drilling, and a Rules Committee aide, Christine Minneham, was appointed to replace Contreras. Even with Minneham’s assured opposition, the commission approved the Occidental proposal, 7 to 5.

The 12-member Coastal Commission is made up of four appointees each of the governor, the Senate Rules Committee and the Speaker of the California Assembly. Ostensibly the members are named to two-year terms, but they still serve “at the pleasure” of the appointing official or agency. Thus, for instance, the Rules Committee can remove any of its four appointees at any time for any reason.

Political appointees presumably should reflect the general philosophy of those who appoint them. But the Coastal Commission deals with issues of long-term effect on the California coast, and commissioners should be insulated in some fashion from instant political whim of the sort so grossly displayed Tuesday. Such an initiative is not likely to come from the Legislature, however, because the Speaker and the Senate Rules Committee cannot be expected to yield any of their powers voluntarily.

The second attack came when Gov. George Deukmejian slashed $320,000 from the commission budget and ordered the closure of the agency’s Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara offices. This was totally unexpected. The full amount had been approved by Deukmejian’s Resources Agency, Deukmejian’s Finance Department and Deukmejian himself earlier in the budget process. The commission’s budget was never in dispute this year.

The governor said that the commission’s workload is declining as it continues to approve local coastal plans--the same excuse that he used in closing the Eureka office two years ago. But his statement ignores the critical functions that the commission must continue to perform in administering the state’s vital Coastal Protection Act, even after the plans administered by local governments go into effect. The result now is that there is no commission office between San Francisco and Long Beach, and the approval of new developments is bound to be delayed as a reduced commission staff struggles to keep up with a constant workload.

California needs a strong and effective Coastal Commission if the state’s coastal-protection legislation is to mean anything. The commission is the last line of defense against any number of outrages that can be inflicted on one of California’s--and the nation’s--most precious natural assets. The outrages suffered by the commission and its credibility this week make that protection even more tenuous.