On January 4, the US Department of the Interior (DoI) released a new offshore drilling proposal. The proposal, formally called the Draft Proposed Program for the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2019-2024, follows Mr. Trump’s April 2017 Executive Order to open much of the United States’ oceans to offshore drilling exploration. The DoI held a sixty-day comment period from January 9th to March 9th, 2018, with one meeting in each coastal state.
On February 22, I participated in the DC hearing to submit comments on offshore drilling. Outside the meeting, I talked with representatives from Sierra Club, Oceana, and Friends of the Earth, who were not allowed to share information inside the hearing.
The meeting itself was disappointing, hot, and stuffy. Before entering the room, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) made participants watch its video on the benefits of offshore drilling. Before reaching the comment table, an environmental representative for BOEM stopped me and prevented me from making a comment until I spoke with him and several other representatives.
The format of the event seemed to discourage opposing viewpoints. The “science fair” style layout meant experts stood by trifold presentation materials, and public participation was difficult until they were first “educated” by the people presenting. From being forced to watch a pro-drilling video and talk to pro-drilling representatives, to not allowing outside groups to share their information inside, the “public hearing” felt much more like propaganda than a genuine attempt to engage the public.
Additionally, there was only one meeting per state, which is quite limiting for people who are bound by work or other engagements or who are unable to travel to the event for any reason. Accessibility is key to public participation; thus by limiting accessibility, BOEM effectively excluded people from the comment process, for example people who work evenings, take care of their children during meeting times, or cannot afford to travel to the meetings.
I was not alone in my critique of the public meeting process during the sixty-day public input period. Civil society expressed concerns about the format of the meeting, speculating that the meeting style was meant to protect BOEM from public opposition to the proposal. In addition, the US Democratic party sent a letter to Secretary of the Interior requesting a longer and more representative comment period, saying that the current forum lacked proper public participation opportunities. The scope of the Offshore Drilling 2019-2024 proposal is country-wide, affecting the whole country. Sixty days, the Democratic party argued, is an insufficient timeline to gather enough public input on such a large proposal. Many states oppose the proposal, and coastal states are looking at the possibility of creating laws to thwart any offshore drilling plans that would allow drilling in their waters.
Given concerns over offshore drilling and the impacts it would have on not just people in the United States, but all of us living on a warming planet, the lack of proper public participation in the decision-making process is particularly problematic. Offshore drilling is dangerous to ocean life, workers, the tourism economy, and contributes to global climate change.
Looking ahead, the next proposed plan and draft of the Environmental Impact Assessment will be available in late 2018, at which point there will be another 60-day comment period before the final proposal and impact assessment is published. Congress would have to ratify this draft of the proposal before it goes into full effect. Democracy demands full public participation be a part of this process before such an important decision is made.
By Samantha Clements, communications intern
Originally posted on May 3, 2018