The Trump administration has opened the door for offshore drilling along California’s coastline, and experts say it is unclear whether rigs will go up west of Coronado’s shores — and whether city beaches could face possible oil pollution as of 2027.
The program, which repeals Biden administration restrictions on offshore drilling across 625 million acres of federal waters in the East and West Coast as well as portions of Alaska and the eastern Gulf of Mexico (renamed the Gulf of America by Trump), has prompted some environmentalists, academics and politicians to warn that wildlife and local communities are at risk.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the plans to open America’s coastal waters to more oil drilling in a proposal significantly increasing the potential drilling from what was allowed during the Biden administration which identified three oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico scheduled in 2025, 2027 and 2029, according to the Interior.
“By moving forward with the development of a robust, forward-thinking leasing plan, we are ensuring that America’s offshore industry stays strong, our workers stay employed, and our nation remains energy dominant for decades to come,” said Burgum on Nov. 20.
But Gov. Gavin Newsom has decried the proposal, joined by dozens of state, regional and local leaders also advocating opposition.
“Trump’s idiotic plan endangers our coastal economy and communities and hurts the well-being of Californians,” said Newsom in a statement. “This reckless attempt to sell out our coastline to his Big Oil donors is dead in the water.”
Effects on Coronado?
It is unclear what specific locations in Southern California are being considered for offshore oil leases.
Richard Charter, an ocean protection advocate who directs the local government outer continental shelf coordination program, said federal waters begin three miles from shore and the whole Southern California bight is being offered now.
According to Charter, historically the industry’s interests began from La Jolla northward to Huntington Beach.
Records show that there were attempts to drill oil wells in the San Diego area in the early to mid 1900s but there was no oil to be found here. Since then, this part of Southern California was no longer considered a realistic oil target.
In Coronado, Mayor John Duncan said that to his knowledge, “nothing is proposed off of or near the Coronado coastline,” but he is monitoring the situation.
In December, the City Council adopted its legislative policy guidelines, one of which opposes legislation regarding coastal areas of San Diego until environmental protection is assured, and the “need for this resource has been demonstrated.”
It also states that the council supports legislation that ensures oil spill prevention and response.
“We have … the advocacy to oppose legislation allowing drilling off the coast of San Diego, including Coronado,” Duncan told The Coronado News.
Plans for the Pacific
In June, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and industry trade groups sent a letter to the Trump administration saying Southern California is of particular interest for oil and gas drilling but development has been stymied by political resistance.
“(Pacific) reserves as well as undiscovered resources could be readily produced given the array of existing infrastructure in the area, particularly in Southern California,” says the letter. “Should the political climate reverse, the opportunity for further development exists.”
This is the first time, since 1984, that a federal program identifies multiple sales off the Pacific Coast.
“For decades, California has stood firm in our opposition to new offshore drilling, and nothing will change that,” said Newsom. “We will use every tool at our disposal to protect our coastline. It’s interesting that Donald’s proposal doesn’t include the waters off Mar-a-Lago.”
The Interior says the new program for 2026–2031 includes up to 34 offshore lease sales, covering approximately 1.27 billion acres – an area greater than California and Texas combined.
The proposal includes 21 areas off the coast of Alaska, seven in the Gulf of America, and six along the Pacific coast.
According to the program, sales in the Pacific are scheduled to begin in 2027.
Charter, the ocean protection advocate, said the Atlantic coast was originally part of the plan, but was dropped after backlash from Republican members of the Senate.
From Nov. 24 until Jan. 23, the Interior Department has an open comment period for public input.
Over two dozen congressional leaders, including Rep. Scott Peters, D-50, expressed strong opposition to drilling off California’s coasts in a letter that says doing so “would undermine military readiness and pose risks to national security.”
“What’s happening right now is the state’s preparing comments,” said Charter. “San Diego submitted their comments, some of the cities are … taking up resolutions and letters, and all of that will then be submitted to Interior on the 23rd of January, and result in either a narrowing of the focus of the drilling plan, or it will stay the same or it could be canceled.”
“This administration tends to push ahead. Sometimes they’ll back off,” he added. “But, often, they just keep pushing ahead and then if they can’t get their way, they’ll go ahead and go to court.”
Proposal opposition
In December, the County of San Diego moved to oppose the federal plan in a resolution approved on a 4-1 vote.
Supervisor Paloma Aguirre, who presented the resolution with Chair Terra Lawson-Remer, said District 1 is already experiencing the Tijuana River sewage pollution.
“This plan presents a possible future of constant beach closures across not just Imperial Beach, but the entire San Diego region,” said Aguirre.
Lawson-Remer, representative of the majority of San Diego coastline including Coronado, said she was appalled by the proposal.
Supervisor Jim Desmond, a Republican, said he supports the board’s resolution.
“I stand firmly with the side of protecting San Diego coastline … and to oppose offshore drilling,” he added. “We already have a Tijuana sewage crisis. We don’t need to add anything else bad to the water.”
Supervisor Joel Anderson, a Republican representing District 2, voted no.
“We sent a man to the moon over 60 years ago with a slide ruler,” said Anderson in a statement following the vote. “Technology and safety standards have improved, and increasing supply will lower inflation and make my district more affordable for my constituents.”
In the June letter, API calls for a National Program with new areas like the Pacific, Atlantic and Eastern Gulf of America “so that companies can maintain their technological edge, existing reserves can be replaced, and the U.S. can continue to reap the benefits of offshore exploration and development.”
Some California Assembly members opposed the federal plan during a bipartisan press conference on Jan. 6.
Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, who represents the 77th district encompassing the San Diego coastline from Coronado to Carlsbad, said the Trump administration’s plan endangers communities, the local economy and the health of children.
“The health and safety of our communities are worth far more than false promises of cheaper gas,” said Boerner. “We don’t want tarballs knocking down our sand castles in the sand.”
Charter, who helped the County of San Diego with its resolution to oppose the program, said oil spills on the California coast happen frequently and almost always as a result of industry negligence.
“The bigger the spill, the longer lasting the damage, both biological and economic,” he said.
Environmental concerns
Newsom said Californians remember the environmental and economic devastation of past oil spills.
More than 50 years ago, a Santa Barbara spill lasting multiple days dumped crude oil measuring approximately 3 million gallons into the ocean in 1969, according to the Sierra magazine.
The Associated Press reports a ruptured pipeline north of Santa Barbara sent 143,000 gallons of crude oil onto Refugio State Beach in 2015.
The Associated Press also says an estimated 126,000-gallon oil spill in Orange County waters polluted the Huntington Beach coastline in 2021.
An analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity says Trump’s offshore drilling plan threatens almost every U.S. coast and could generate 4,232 oil spills, dumping 12.1 million gallons of oil into ocean waters.
The analysis estimates the Pacific is prone to 886 spills resulting in 2.5 million gallons of oil spilled into the ocean.
The center says such disasters could threaten endangered species with extinction, including the sea otter, the Southern resident killer whale, the blue whale and the Pacific leatherback sea turtle.
“Every new drilling project signs us up for decades of problems, and our wildlife and coastal economies will suffer the most,” said Kristen Monsell, the center’s oceans legal director.
To learn more about the new plan, visit: https://www.boem.gov/National-Program.
