Watchdog of the coast
As members of the California Coastal Commission we want to express our views regarding the recent Superior Court decision declaring the Commission unconstitutional because its appointment structure violates the separation of powers provision of the state constitution. For many years, Commission opponents have made this very same argument in other cases and every court has rejected it and upheld the Commission appointment process — until now. We are confident this decision will be overturned on appeal.
For nearly 30 years, the Coastal Commission has been operating under an appointment process that was carefully and specifically designed with a number of checks and balances built into it. This structure was modeled after the highly successful San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) created in 1965 (the Governor only appoints 9 of BCDC’s 27 voting members). The fact there are 3 appointing authorities with equal power to appoint an equal number of voting commissioners has been essential to the protection of California’s coast and safeguarding the integrity of the Coastal Act. To assert there is a violation of separation of powers because the Senate Rules Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly appoint 8 of 12 voting members (the Governor also appoints 3 of 4 non-voting members), implies the legislative appointing authorities do not have independent perspectives. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, each has appointed commissioners of significantly different philosophies and experience. In addition to the balance between 3 appointing authorities, 6 of the voting members must be locally elected officials selected from a list submitted by local governments from specific geographic regions along the coast. Each voting commissioner selects their own alternate to serve in their stead when the full commissioner cannot attend.
When voters established the Coastal Commission in 1972, they wanted an independent body reflecting the social diversity of the state and not dominated by a particular philosophy about the conservation and development of the coast. It is precisely the appointment structure that has preserved the Commission’s independence and diversity. To concentrate appointing authority in one elected official is to remove the vital checks and balances built into the existing appointment process that has served the public so well for nearly 3 decades.
The protection of California’s coast is too important to be under the control of one official who may not have the best interest of the coast at heart. It is vital that California preserve a strong, independent and balanced Coastal Commission by retaining a proven, fair and effective appointment process.
In the current climate of federal hostility to environmental protection, California needs a strong Coastal Commission — now more than ever. For example, offshore oil drilling is again a real possibility. The Commission is the only state agency in California empowered to regulate oil drilling in federal waters. The Coastal Commission must be strengthened not weakened. We ask all Californians to join us in defending the Commission’s composition to preserve the integrity of the Coastal Act. The protection of California’s precious coast for the benefit of current and future generations is at stake.
Signed by the following members of the California Coastal Commission:
Sara Wan, Chair; Dave Potter, Vice-Chair; David Allgood, Chris Desser, Shirley Detloff, Cecilia Estolano, Gregg Hart, Pat Kruer, George Luna, Patricia McCoy, Pedro Nava, Trent Orr, Mike Reilly, Deborah Ruddock, Amanda Susskind, Dan Weinstein, John Woolley