The Coastline Comes First

When it drafted the California Coastal Act 10 years ago, the Legislature declared that the coastal zone “is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people.” Further, the law said, “the permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation.”

There are fears now, however, that protection of the coastline may not be of such paramount concern to the California political leaders whose decisions have a critical bearing on how the law is administered and enforced. Recent appointments to the 12-member state Coastal Commission have alarmed environmentalists who see a gradual erosion in commitment to the goals of California coastal protection, originally adopted by popular initiative in 1972.

Gov. George Deukmejian, a Republican, has cut the commission’s budget and would like to see the commission abolished. The governor controls four appointments to the commission, as do both the Speaker of the state Assembly and the President Pro Tem of the Senate. Since 1983, coastal protection advocates have looked to Speaker Willie L. Brown Jr. (D-San Francisco) and Senate President David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) to pick commissioners who would resist pressures from Deukmejian’s appointees for more coastal development.

Most of the legislators’ selections have been disappointing. An example was Roberti’s decision this week to remove Marshall Grossman, a Los Angeles lawyer, after 4 1/2 years on the commission, and replace him with Gilbert Contreras, a San Diego County builder and businessman. This is not to prejudge Contreras’ actions as a commission member, but it is clear his selection was made primarily as a favor to a San Diego senator whose support Roberti needs to retain his leadership position. In the process, the commission lost one of the strongest defenders of coastal protection.

Balance is important on the commission. That balance requires members drawn from many fields, including business and land development, “environmentalists” all, however, in their acceptance of the commitment of the law so explicitly made by the voters of the state. That balance helps avoid excesses. That balance is upset, however, by appointments that rob the commission of valuable experience and institutional memory, that erode staff morale by seeming to place narrow political issues ahead of the broad public interest.

The commission, of course, cannot be free of the political system it serves. Commissioners, however their appointments may have been motivated, are obliged to be guided in all their actions by the basic mandate of the law: That the permanent protection of the coastline is a paramount concern to present and future residents of California and the nation.