SCR 136 is a Senate concurrent resolution that marks the 50th anniversary of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the State Coastal Conservancy Act. The text catalogs historical findings and program accomplishments—public accessways, habitat restoration, acres conserved, and investment totals—and celebrates the Coastal Commission and Conservancy as core institutions in state coastal governance.
Substantively, the resolution is declarative: it reaffirms the Legislature’s commitment to protecting coastal waters, highlights climate resilience and equitable access as evolving priorities, and directs attention to evaluating activities—explicitly including offshore oil and gas drilling and coastal development—for consistency with state coastal laws, climate goals, and the public trust. The measure creates political and rhetorical force but does not change law, impose new regulatory duties, or appropriate funds.
At a Glance
What It Does
SCR 136 is a nonbinding legislative resolution that commemorates the Coastal Act’s 50th year, restates statutory findings, and explicitly calls for careful evaluation of federal and private activities—including offshore drilling and coastal development—against state coastal protection objectives. It describes the Coastal Commission and Conservancy’s roles and cites the state’s federally approved Coastal Management Program under the federal CZMA.
Who It Affects
The resolution primarily signals to the California Coastal Commission, the State Coastal Conservancy, state climate and coastal agencies, coastal local governments, developers, offshore energy interests, tribes, and conservation NGOs. Federal agencies that undertake activities affecting the coast also figure because the text underscores the state's federal consistency authority.
Why It Matters
Though nonbinding, the resolution signals legislative priorities and can shape agency agendas, grant-making priorities, and advocacy narratives. It reinforces the state’s reliance on federal consistency under the Coastal Zone Management Act and may be cited in administrative reviews or litigation as evidence of legislative intent and public policy direction.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution is a formal legislative acknowledgement rather than a change to California’s statutory framework. It summarizes the history and purpose of the California Coastal Act and the State Coastal Conservancy Act, lists program accomplishments, and highlights how those institutions have adapted to new challenges such as sea level rise, equitable access, and waterfront revitalization.
The document’s tone is celebratory and declaratory: it affirms long-standing findings that the protection of coastal resources is a paramount concern.
Importantly, SCR 136 singles out the state’s role under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act by naming the Coastal Commission, the State Coastal Conservancy, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission as components of the federally approved Coastal Management Program. That reference underscores California’s authority to review federal activities that affect coastal resources, and the resolution explicitly urges careful evaluation of federal offshore oil and gas proposals and coastal development for consistency with state coastal laws, climate goals, and the public trust.Because concurrent resolutions carry no regulatory force, SCR 136 does not create new permitting standards, additional agency duties, or new funding streams.
Its practical effects will be political and administrative: agencies may point to the resolution when prioritizing projects, setting grant criteria, or defending project denials; advocates may use it to bolster arguments in public comment or litigation; and it may increase scrutiny on activities perceived to threaten coastal values. The resolution instructs only that copies be transmitted, not that agencies implement new programs.The resolution also frames evolving priorities—climate resilience, equitable access, and transition away from offshore oil—as central to the next phase of coastal work.
That framing can influence how state agencies interpret existing statutory authorities and allocate staff and grant resources, even though the resolution itself does not allocate them. Finally, by cataloging specific achievements and investments, the text creates a public record legislators and stakeholders can point to when arguing for continued or expanded coastal investment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SCR 136 is a nonbinding Senate concurrent resolution that commemorates 50 years of the California Coastal Act and State Coastal Conservancy Act.
The resolution cites specific program metrics: conservation of over 500,000 acres of natural lands, creation of more than 2,500 public accessways and easements, restoration of over 50,000 acres of coastal habitats, 875 miles of the California Coastal Trail, and over $2 billion invested in coastal projects supporting a $51 billion coast and ocean economy.
The text explicitly calls for careful evaluation of activities—naming offshore oil and gas drilling and coastal development—for consistency with state coastal protection laws, climate goals, and the public trust.
The resolution points to California’s federally approved Coastal Management Program under the Coastal Zone Management Act and underscores the state’s legal authority to review federal activities that affect coastal resources.
SCR 136 contains no statutory changes, no funding, and no new regulatory requirements; it concludes by requesting that the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of the resolution for distribution.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Recites the origin and purpose of the Coastal Act and Conservancy Act
This opening cluster of clauses records the 1972 voter approval of Proposition 20 and the Legislature’s 1976 enactment of the Coastal Act and Conservancy Act. Practically, these paragraphs establish the resolution’s historical grounding and reaffirm the original legislative findings that the coastal zone is a unique public resource of lasting interest, which the Legislature uses as the policy baseline for the rest of the document.
Catalogs accomplishments and investments
These clauses list concrete achievements—acres conserved, accessways created, habitat restored, miles of trail designated, and investment totals. Including these numbers performs two functions: it creates a celebratory record and it supplies a factual yardstick stakeholders will use when arguing for continued or increased coastal spending or policy emphasis.
Identifies contemporary priorities (climate, equitable access, offshore drilling)
The resolution shifts from history to modern challenges by naming climate resilience, urban waterfront revitalization, equitable access, and opposition to federal offshore drilling as current priorities. That language signals which issues the Legislature views as the logical evolution of the Coastal Act’s purposes.
Affirms the state’s commitment and directs evaluation of activities
The first Resolved clause restates that the Legislature remains committed to protecting coastal waters and calls for careful evaluation of activities—including offshore oil and gas drilling and coastal development—for consistency with state coastal laws, climate goals, and the public trust. While framed as a legislative statement of intent, it does not bind agencies to new procedures; instead, it operates as a policy directive that agencies and advocates can reference.
Transmission of the resolution
The final Resolved clause instructs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the resolution. This is standard procedure for concurrent resolutions and underscores the document’s role as a public record and a communication tool rather than an implementing statute.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California Coastal Commission — The resolution reinforces the Commission’s central role and bolsters its political and rhetorical authority when reviewing projects or asserting federal consistency.
- State Coastal Conservancy — The Conservancy gains public affirmation that supports its grant-making and partnership role in restoration, acquisition, and access projects.
- Coastal conservation NGOs and tribes — The text provides an additional legislative statement they can cite in advocacy, public comment, and litigation to emphasize state priorities like public access and habitat restoration.
- Coastal communities and recreation/tourism sectors — By foregrounding public access and the economic value of the coast, the resolution strengthens arguments for continued investment in beaches, trails, and resilience projects that support local economies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Offshore oil and gas interests — The explicit call to evaluate offshore drilling against state climate and coastal protection goals increases political and administrative pressure on fossil fuel projects and federal approvals affecting California waters.
- Developers and some local governments — Greater legislative emphasis on consistency and climate resilience can translate into closer scrutiny during coastal development reviews and higher expectations for adaptation measures, potentially raising project costs or timelines.
- Federal agencies undertaking coastal activities — The state’s invocation of its federally approved Coastal Management Program signals more assertive state reviews under the Coastal Zone Management Act, which can lead to disputes, negotiations, or formal consistency objections.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is symbolic strength versus legal force: SCR 136 seeks to strengthen California’s policy posture on coastal protection and climate resilience without creating new legal authorities or funding. That makes it a useful political signal and possible tool in agency and courtroom persuasion, but also risks raising stakeholder expectations and intensifying state–federal and state–industry conflicts that the resolution alone cannot resolve.
Two features limit SCR 136’s immediate regulatory impact. First, the measure is a concurrent resolution: it declares legislative intent and priorities but does not amend the California Coastal Act, create new legal duties, or provide funding.
Agencies retain the same statutory authorities and constraints they had before the resolution. Second, the resolution’s directive to “evaluate” activities is vague about process, timelines, and responsible parties—leaving open whether the statement changes programmatic priorities or simply restates existing policy positions.
That vagueness creates both opportunity and risk. On one hand, agencies and advocates can deploy the resolution as political capital to justify heightened review, grant priorities, or litigation positions.
On the other hand, stakeholders may read it as a promise of concrete action (more resources, stricter standards) that the state does not legally commit to, which could produce frustration. The resolution also explicitly calls out federal offshore drilling; asserting state goals against federal energy decisions raises potential conflict with federal authority and will likely lead to administrative negotiation or litigation rather than unilateral state action.
Finally, by publicizing program metrics and accomplishments, the resolution sets benchmarks that could be used to argue for expanded programs — yet it contains no appropriation to meet those implied expectations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.