Californians Criticize Offshore Drilling Plan

WASHINGTON — A majority of California’s congressional delegation accused Interior Secretary Donald P. Hodel on Wednesday of failing to give adequate attention to broad environmental concerns in a revised five-year plan for oil and gas drilling that would open large new areas off the state’s coast to development.

In a sharply worded letter to Hodel, the predominantly Democratic group said the latest version of the Interior Department’s offshore leasing plan for California fails to meet legislative requirements for good-faith negotiations with Congress on environmental issues and would only serve to “re-polarize” the controversy, which has simmered since 1981.

The letter was signed by 26 of the state’s 45 House members, including three of 18 Republicans. Sens. Alan Cranston, a Democrat, and Pete Wilson, a Republican, also signed the seven-page letter.

In Sacramento, Gov. George Deukmejian applauded concessions that Hodel made in announcing the five-year plan last month. He called Hodel’s plan “a sincere effort to address many of California’s concerns.” Nonetheless, the governor said that more is required.

Specifically, Deukmejian again urged Hodel to go further than he did in excluding part of Santa Monica Bay, between Point Dume and Point Fermin, from oil and gas development. Deukmejian called for also excluding what one state official called the “outer portion” of the bay, another 12 miles seaward.

Other Protection

The governor also said there should be no drilling in areas surrounding Begg Rock, San Nicholas Island, San Clemente Island and Santa Catalina Island. Deukmejian also asked for protection for the sea otter range along the coasts of San Mateo and San Luis Obispo counties and an elephant seal breeding ground off the San Mateo County coast.

On Feb. 2, the Interior Department unveiled its revised proposal for a long-term drilling plan that offered for the first time to exclude Santa Monica Bay and areas off the Orange County and San Diego County coasts from oil and gas drilling. At the same time, the plan calls for opening up 13% of offshore areas--6.45 million acres--previously exempted from development under a congressional moratorium that expired in 1985.

Hodel must submit a final version of the leasing plan to Congress by April.

The letter Wednesday said the new plan would entail an “exponential increase” in the number of tracts to be offered for lease. The Interior Department and an 18-member congressional negotiating group settled in 1985 on 150 tracts; the new proposal would offer 1,120.

Hodel, who has warned that declining domestic oil production and rising imports have made the United States increasingly vulnerable to an Arab oil embargo, said last month that he hoped the new plan would lead to an “armistice” in the six-year controversy.

At the same time, however, he voiced frustration in a letter to Deukmejian at the difficulty of reaching a compromise and warned that “in the absence of broad congressional support . . . there would be no purpose or justification in continuing to seek, as this proposal does, a way to confer special exception for California” from federal offshore leasing policies.

Delegation ‘Shocked’

In their response Wednesday, the California congressmen said that they were “shocked” at what they called a “clearly stated threat to the Congress” by Hodel to retreat from concessions already offered and to “propose an even more aggressive (offshore drilling) program for California unless Congress goes along with your agenda.”

Deukmejian said Wednesday that he considers Hodel’s plan a starting point for negotiations. “The safeguards contained in your proposal form a base from which to negotiate the remaining areas of disagreement,” Deukmejian wrote Hodel.

In addition to criticizing the proposal to open previously excluded areas to drilling, the congressional letter outlined these objections:

--Although it would protect certain offshore areas for five years, the plan “provides no long-term protection” for environmentally sensitive regions and no clear criteria for selecting areas to be set aside for protection.

--The plan lacks adequate controls on air pollution from offshore drilling rigs, fails to ensure protection of commercial fishing and offers no “reasonable” safeguards against oil spills and discharges of drilling wastes.

--The plan understates social and economic costs likely to result from accelerated offshore development and gives insufficient attention to alternatives, such as stricter automobile fuel efficiency standards and other energy conservation measures.

--It also appears to raise the possibility of unscheduled “supplemental” lease sales before 1989, the earliest date Congress has permitted new sales off the California coast.

At a news conference Wednesday, Rep. Leon Panetta (D-Monterey) noted that opponents of the plan still hold what he called “our ace in the hole.” Under legislation adopted last year, no new tracts are to be leased off the California coast until 1989, after the Reagan Administration leaves office.

Times staff writer Larry B. Stammer in Los Angeles contributed to this story.