Public commenter alleges State Water Board staff steered Santa Monica Bay commission to drop ‘ocean acidification’ from work plan; counsel to investigate

A public commenter at the State Water Resources Control Board’s July 15 meeting alleged that State Water Board staff who serve as staff to the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission directed the commission to remove terms such as “ocean acidification” and “environmental justice” from its work plan based on informal, senior-level guidance.

The charge came from Walter Lamb during the meeting's public forum. Lamb said the commission’s decision to delete scientific and policy terms was “wholly dependent on information that was provided to the commission by the state water board employees that serve as staff of that commission.” Lamb added he believed the staff acted under direction from “state water board senior management.”

Why it matters: the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission prepares a comprehensive conservation and management plan under the Clean Water Act. Lamb said the commission later told him it had not been shown written guidance—and that written guidance existed—raising questions about whether written policy or informal direction guided the commission’s actions.

Board response and next steps Board Chair Joaquin Esquivel thanked Lamb for raising the issue and said he was not aware of written guidance “but appreciate[s] your concerns.” Chair Esquivel said he would “circle back with our executive, and just try to, unpack maybe, what, occurred.”

Chief Counsel Michael Laufer told the board that he and Executive Director Eric Oppenheimer had received Lamb’s email and “will be looking into that and responding.”

What was said on the record Lamb: “The decision by the commission was wholly dependent on information that was provided to the commission by the state water board employees that serve as staff of that commission…They report to senior staff within the water board.”

Chair Joaquin Esquivel: “I’m not aware of any written guidance. But, again, appreciate your concerns — certainly we’ll circle back with our executive and unpack what occurred.”

Chief Counsel Michael Laufer: “Both Mr. Oppenheimer and I received email from Mr. Lam about a week and a half ago, and we will be looking into that and responding.”

Distinguishing discussion from direction Lamb’s presentation was a public comment asking the board to investigate. The board said it would review the written correspondence and follow up; counsel committed to look into the matter and respond. There was no formal vote or policy change recorded during the meeting.

What the transcript does not show The transcript records the allegation and the board’s pledge to investigate. It does not document any confirmation that senior leadership gave informal instructions, nor does it include any written materials or internal guidance. The board’s public reply was that staff and counsel would look into the claim and respond.

Next steps Board counsel has told the speaker that the board will investigate and respond; the meeting record shows counsel and the executive director received Mr. Lamb’s email and committed to follow up.