A Break Offshore

The California offshore oil controversy quietly has been put to rest until the next President of the United States takes office in 1989. The deed was done with the signature last week of President Reagan, whose major energy initiative has been more domestic oil production, particularly from the California coast.

A section of the $576-billion budget resolution inserted into law an uneasy truce that was arranged months ago by California members of Congress and the Department of Interior. Interior went along largely because it had little choice in the face of opposition from California coastal communities. Secretary Donald P. Hodel at least saved face for the Administration by averting the embarrassment of a total moratorium on new leasing for exploration and drilling.

The provision permits preliminary activities for a Northern California offshore oil and gas lease sale to proceed. But the new law stipulates that a formal lease sale notice cannot be issued until Jan. 1, 1989.

Reagan will still be in office then, but there is a built-in 30-day waiting period, so no leases can be issued until after a new President takes office on Jan. 20, 1989. Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) worked to nullify opposition from powerful oil-state senators who had battled the California position. Reps. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio) and Sidney R. Yates (D-Ill.) supported the Californians in preserving the agreement.

Wilson, Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) and California House members such as Reps. Leon Panetta (D-Monterey), Vic Fazio (D-Sacramento) and Mel Levine (D-Los Angeles) have earned the thanks of coastal California in winning this fight. It is a fight that perhaps never might have taken place had the Reagan Administration not been so determined from the outset to battle California, its home base, for every inch of ground.

Californians, however, should not gloat. The state now has two years in which to form a coherent strategy for the development of promising offshore oil and gas resources without damaging the coastal environment. The governor is the logical person to take the lead. Lacking action from his office, the Legislature might consider creation of a task force or negotiating team that is represented by all California interests in the dispute, including the industry, the Coastal Commission, local government, labor unions and the like. Secretary Hodel or his representative should be invited to participate.

Two years is not long and the issue is too important to be allowed to languish. California cannot hope to prevail much longer in Washington unless the state has a clear and reasonable plan that can be supported with the facts. The strongest stance of all would be to greet each presidential campaign plane in the fall of 1988, hand the candidate the California program and ask: “Are you with us or against us?” California has 47 electoral votes. Any question about what the candidate’s answer would be?