It has survived 30 years of wrath from land developers, Republican governors, and sometimes even liberal groups, who have branded its decisions capricious.

Now the California Coastal Commission faces an order to change its ways, or else.

A state appellate court has declared the 12-member body unconstitutional, casting into doubt the control of one of the world's most scenic and popular coastlines. The ruling is likely to result in a significant reshaping of a body that sets Pacific parameters on such politically volatile issues as offshore oil drilling and development near coastal wildlands.

Ripple effects could also be felt in other states that have modeled similarly powerful commissions on California's.

"This is the biggest crisis to face our existence since we were created," says Peter Douglas, director of the California Coastal Commission. "There is a very real danger that one of the best coastal protection programs in the world could die, and there is very real opportunity that it could be strengthened."

The state appellate court said the commission violates California's constitution by allowing the Legislature to appoint and remove a majority (8 of 12) of the members. Since those members wield executive powers, this setup contradicts the state's separation-of-powers doctrine, the court's three justices ruled.

The state has 30 days to fix the glitch. No fix, no more commission.

The 1999 lawsuit that led to the current court findings stemmed from one of the coastal commission's "cease and desist" orders. Rodolphe Streichenberger, a retired French aquaculture entrepreneur who lives in Newport Beach, was told he couldn't create an artificial reef using worn tires, plastic rope, jugs, and pipe to create a habitat for sea creatures.

When he received the commission's order, Mr. Streichenberger sued, arguing that the commission lacked authority because it is unconstitutional. A trial court agreed and, on Dec. 30, the appeals court upheld the lower decision.

"The flaw is that the unfettered power to remove the majority of the commission's voting members and to replace them with others ... makes [the commission] subservient to the Legislature," the ruling said. The body operates under the auspices of the executive branch.

The court expressed concern that the commission's structure of appointments - four by the governor, four each by the Senate and Assembly - gives the Legislature undue influence over the declaration of the law as well as the execution of it.

To correct the situation, legislators of both houses are looking at ways to change the structure of the commission to eliminate the court's concerns. They have been given until Jan. 29 to do so.

Page: 1 | 2