Elected officials on Tuesday took aim at a federal proposal to acquire or seize land and wrangle more control over oil pipelines in Santa Barbara County.
In a 3-1 vote, the county Board of Supervisors opposed language in the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act passed July 22 by the U.S. House of Representatives.
An amendment to that $1.15 trillion spending plan by Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) would explicitly allow the U.S. secretary of defense to acquire easements—via land purchase, donation, trade or condemnation—over the route of the Santa Ynez Pipeline System.
“The Hunt amendment would set a terrible precedent, by allowing the federal government to seize California public lands through eminent domain,” Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Santa Barbara), told the board. “Sable is asking its allies in Congress to rig the system in its favor.”
Across town, Santa Barbara environmental groups announced a fresh lawsuit in their fight against Sable Offshore Corp., the Houston-based firm pumping crude from the Santa Barbara Channel since March.
New lawsuit, new digging
The Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center (EDC) filed the new suit on behalf of Get Oil Out!, Santa Barbara County Action Network, Sierra Club and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The lawsuit challenges a permit the U.S. Department of Transportation issued Sable on June 25. The permit allows the Houston-based firm to dig and check pipeline for potential corrosion through 2036.
Sable on Sept. 8 told county officials that the company had identified seven potential pipeline anomalies, or problem areas, that required digging for inspection and possible repair.
With as many as 50,000 barrels of crude flowing through daily, Sable opponents say the revelation that the pipeline might be fragile—yet operating—is alarming.
EDC: permit violates environmental regulations
With the war in Iran a backdrop, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright on March 13 directed Sable to restart delivery. He said the oil would strengthen national security and ensure West Coast military installations can maintain readiness.
The conflict comes a decade after a 2015 rupture caused a destructive 142,000-gallon oil spill at Refugio State Beach, sending 21,000 gallons into the Pacific Ocean.
The new lawsuit is one of about a dozen related to the pipeline currently in motion. The EDC alleges the new permit violates several environmental laws by failing to conduct adequate environmental review, according to a statement from Linda Krop, EDC chief counsel.
“This permit is part of an unprecedented federal effort to bring back defective pipelines over the objections of the state and our community,” Krop said. “The permit issued by the Trump administration allows these lines to operate without meeting the usual safety requirements, and puts the coast and our entire community at risk of another major disaster.”
Sable representatives could not be reached for comment.
The company started inland digs on Sept. 7 and completed them on Sept. 15, county spokesperson Kelsey Gerckens Buttitta said Monday, adding Sable officials indicated they planned to start digs along the Gaviota Coast this week.
Supervisors: local control over local land use
To lodge supervisors’ opposition to the Hunt amendment, county officials will send a letter to Senate leadership.
A Senate version of the defense spending bill does not currently include the amendment, and Carbajal said he’s hopeful it won’t make the final version passed by the full Congress.
Supervisor Laura Capps, who represents the Second District, said protecting local oversight of county lands is critical.
“It’s not about whether or not you’re for or against oil,” she said. “It’s really about what we do up here, about whether local communities retain the authority to ensure that pipelines operating in their backyards meet the safety, and environmental standards required by law.”
Fifth District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino noted he typically abstains from weighing in on national issues.
“I feel like this is what Salud was elected to do,” he said. “But in this case, this totally affects Santa Barbara County.”
“I’m not voting today on the surface issue regarding whether or not the pipeline should come under federal control or not,” Lavagnino said. “I’m voting to oppose the amendment for the underlying issue, and that is I believe in local control over local land use.”
Administrations change and legislative majorities switch, Lavagninio said. “And when you come in with a heavy hand at the federal level on the local, who’s to say what’s going to happen in November? Who’s to say what’s going to happen two years from now?”
Board Chair Nelson: amendment a lawful tool
Third District Supervisor Joan Hartmann recused herself. Her Santa Ynez Valley property is adjacent to the Sable pipeline.
Board Chair Bob Nelson voted against sending the letter.
“I usually would object to this type of amendment…for the same reasons Supervisor Lavagnino stated,” Nelson said. “But I believe we’re not under normal circumstances here today.”
Sable opponents—including the state, the California Coastal Commission, environmental nonprofits and the county—haven’t operated in good faith when dealing with the company, Nelson said.
“Many people out there do want to see them go away and are using litigation warfare to try to stop their operations,” he said. “That’s one of the tools in the toolbox.
“But when you start to go and pull those tools out, the other side pulls out other tools that they might have at their disposal, and in this case that is a lawful congressional amendment,” Nelson said. “After the initial pipeline spill, if everyone would have worked together to install a newer pipeline, a safer pipeline, we wouldn’t be here where we are today.”
