California’s coastline stretches across more than 840 miles, and for the past decade-plus, more than 120 underwater refuges have kept fishing boats and other activities out of roughly 16% of it. Now the state is deciding whether that number grows, shrinks, or stays put.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife is working through dozens of proposals submitted by tribes, environmental groups, the fishing industry, and other stakeholders, all of them pushing for changes to the existing network of marine protected areas. Most proposals want to expand protections or add new zones. A few want to roll them back.
So far, the department has recommended denying all 10 of the non-tribal proposals it has reviewed. The five remaining petitions from tribes haven’t received recommendations yet. One of those tribal proposals, from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, would establish a new protected area covering about 9 square miles off the coast of Santa Barbara.
The stakes here are real.
One proposal would convert all of Laguna Beach’s coastal waters into a marine protected area, a move that would draw both fierce support and fierce opposition from local communities that rely on those waters. Final authority rests with the five governor-appointed members of the state Fish and Game Commission, and a decision is expected this summer.
A 2023 state review found that the network was largely doing what it was designed to do, supporting larger, healthier, and more abundant populations of many species. The review also documented a “spillover effect,” where fish populations rebuild inside protected zones and eventually spill out into surrounding fishable waters, boosting catches for commercial and recreational anglers in adjacent areas. That’s a detail the fishing industry tends to forget when it pushes against new protections, and it matters a lot when you’re talking about the long-term health of California’s lucrative fishing economy.
California started down this road in 1999, when the Marine Life Protection Act was signed into law. It wasn’t a fast process. Competing commercial interests, recreational fishing groups, and political disputes slowed everything down for years. The state didn’t finish building out its full coastal network until 2012. Those 120-plus refuges now range from areas with a total ban on commercial fishing and most recreational activities to zones with highly limited allowances.
The current push to revisit the network comes as LAIST has reported while California’s ocean faces some of its worst documented stress in modern history. Plastic pollution, offshore energy development, and rapidly warming water temperatures have contributed to mass die-offs of marine life at a scale researchers say is unprecedented. In that context, arguments for shrinking protections become harder to defend scientifically, even if they make economic sense to specific communities in the short term.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order in 2020 setting a target of protecting 30% of the state’s lands and waters by 2030. The state is currently protecting just over 16% of its coast through the marine protected area network. Closing that gap in four years would require significant expansion, not modest adjustments to existing boundaries.
The Fish and Game Commission hasn’t tipped its hand yet. Advocates for stronger protections argue the department’s recommendation to deny all 10 non-tribal proposals shows a lack of urgency. Fishing industry representatives counter that the existing network is already strong and that new restrictions would damage coastal economies without proportional conservation benefit.
Both sides agree on one thing: the protected areas that exist today have worked. The 2023 state review documented healthier ecosystems across the network, with measurable improvements in species abundance and size inside protected zones compared to unprotected ones. That scientific record is the strongest argument expansion advocates have, and it’s backed by more than a decade of consistent data from California’s own monitoring programs.
Whatever the commission decides this summer, the outcome will shape California’s relationship with its ocean for years ahead. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians’ proposal alone would add 9 square miles of protected habitat near Santa Barbara, a region that has seen significant ecological disruption from warming waters and shifting species ranges. Tribal stewardship of coastal areas has a long track record predating the Marine Life Protection Act by centuries, and the commission will have to weigh that history alongside the economic and environmental data when it makes its call.