SMBRC Executive Committee Caving to Climate Denialism and Erasing Equity?

Following widespread public concern—and a pointed letter from community members urging the Santa Monica Bay Foundation to hold the line on its core environmental and equity commitments--the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission's Executive Committee met to deliberate over revisions to its annual work plan. What transpired was a striking display of institutional contortion, as board members and staff repeatedly tried to find ways to avoid saying “climate change” or “disadvantaged communities”. 

The conversation centered on multiple action items in the draft plan where references to “climate change” had been struck through, replaced with more vague or sanitized language like “recurring extreme weather events,” “sea level rise,” “changes in ocean chemistry,” or the ever-flexible “coastal adaptation.” The reason for this? Fear that even mentioning climate change might trigger rejection of the work plan by the Trump administration’s EPA, despite no legal mandate requiring such deletions—and federal court injunctions already blocking the administration’s spending freeze related to climate and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion).

The board members debated alternatives to the term “climate change” with almost painful precision. One member suggested rephrasing “ocean acidification” as “changes in ocean chemistry,” while another questioned whether “acidification” might itself be a trigger word. Staff suggested compiling a list of climate-related impacts (like sea level rise and harmful algal blooms) to include in the plan’s introduction so they could avoid repeating “climate change” in each action item—essentially saying the same thing, but buried under euphemism.

The same pattern emerged around references to equity and disadvantaged communities. Entire action items related to investing in underserved areas were struck from the work plan. In one particularly revealing moment, staff confirmed that a reference to “disadvantaged communities” in connection to L.A. County’s Safe Clean Water Program had to be removed entirely—because they were told by the U.S. EPA that such language could result in the work plan being rejected. Instead, board members proposed vague alternatives like “community benefits” or “green spaces and parks,” without specifying where those benefits are most urgently needed.

Some members acknowledged how “ridiculous” this self-censorship was—yet the discussion quickly returned to how best to comply with federal instructions rather than how to stand on principle. Notably, no board member challenged the core premise: that a decision-making body should rewrite its commitments to equity and science in order to protect a funding stream that isn’t even definitively at risk. Multiple federal court rulings have already blocked Trump’s attempts to freeze funding for DEI or climate initiatives. And under the Clean Water Act, EPA does not have unilateral authority to reject local work plans without cause.

Even more troubling, staff openly admitted that in some places, striking “climate change” made the action items less coherent or meaningful. Yet the instinct remained to self-censor, despite the fact that the Clean Water Act grants significant discretion to local entities like the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, and the EPA cannot reject plans unless they violate the law, applicable regulations, or the NEP’s own strategic plan—all of which the original language clearly aligned with.

This meeting made one thing abundantly clear: the Commission is tying itself in rhetorical knots to appease a president who has no constitutional authority to demand such changes. By scrambling to avoid “trigger words” instead of standing behind its mission, the Commission risks not only its credibility, but also the long-term health of Santa Monica Bay. 

What’s especially alarming is that this capitulation is coming from a commission and nonprofit that exist to protect public resources in one of the most progressive corners of the country. If the SMBRC won’t say “climate change” or “disadvantaged communities,” who will? This decision also sends a disheartening message to marginalized communities: that a governing body lacking in diversity itself is willing to dilute or even abandon its equity commitments at the first sign of political risk—even when the risk is speculative and the legal standing of such directives is shaky at best.

As Yale historian Timothy Snyder has warned, “Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.” If the Commission caves to climate denialism now, it teaches those in power that intimidation works—and invites further attacks on science, equity, and environmental protection. The Board still has a chance to correct course and restore integrity to this process. But that will require courage—and a willingness to speak plainly about the climate crisis we are all here to confront.