BOS & Sable: Supervisors Decide the Fate of Oil and Gas in County

It was three against one at the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, May 13, as the board weighed the future of oil and gas in the county. 

In a 3-1 vote, the supervisors passed a motion to prohibit new oil and gas drilling and phase out existing operations in the county. Only four of the five supervisors were in attendance, as Fifth District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino was absent from the meeting. The supervisors gave county staff until October 2025 to develop a framework outlining a strategy to prohibit new oil and gas drilling and phase out existing operations. 

County staff advised keeping oil and gas emissions out of the 2030 Climate Action Plan, which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade. In a presentation, staff noted that 79% of industry-related emissions in the county come from oil and gas extraction. 

Instead of including these emissions in the plan, they suggested drafting an ordinance to ban new drilling – a move they described as “the most viable and the least resource-intensive option.” They pointed to the authority granted by state law AB 3233, signed in September 2024, which empowers local governments to take such action. 

Vice Chair Bob Nelson cast the lone “no” vote, emphasizing the oil industry’s economic significance, particularly its contribution to jobs and the county’s economy. He expressed concern about the county staff’s process for discussing policies affecting the industry. He said it was “really troubling” that staff had engaged with nonprofits but not directly with the oil industry. “This is a snow job,” he said. “And it’s highly inappropriate.” He believes there is an opportunity to work with the industry on solutions, such as addressing abandoned wells. 

Public input largely favored phasing out oil and gas production, with most of the 23 speakers and dozens of letters supporting the motion. However, Edward Hazard, president of the California chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners, opposed the phase-out, criticizing the county for rejecting substantial industry investments. Hazard also labeled California state law AB 3233 as “unconstitutional.”

The hearing comes as Texas Oil Company Sable is attempting to restart the Santa Ynez Unit, which includes the pipeline responsible for the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill. 

Before the meeting, supervisors reviewed a report by researchers Olivia Quinn, Eleanor Thomas, Carrie Fernandes, Leah Stokes, and Paasha Mahdavi, detailing the economic, health, and environmental benefits of ending onshore oil development. The report concluded that such action could avoid between $54 million and $81 million in mortality-related costs by 2045, primarily by reducing exposure to harmful pollutants from oil operations.

The report also argued that the local oil industry plays a limited economic role, contributing approximately 0.2% ($3.3 million) annually to county revenues, with about $1 million directly benefiting the county. The sector supports fewer than 100 direct extraction jobs, with additional support activities employing between 465 and 1,031 individuals out of a total county workforce of 209,500.

Supervisor Nelson challenged these economic assertions, citing communication with UCSB economics professor Peter Rupert. Attributing to Rupert, Nelson stated that ceasing oil production could reduce the county’s GDP by $76 million, decrease income by $18.9 million, and result in the loss of 180 jobs. “And these are head-of-household jobs,” Nelson emphasized. He urged the board to consider the decision carefully. “I don’t want us to ever think that this is minor, this is massive – it’s significant.”

In response, Third District Supervisor Joan Hartmann underscored the broader environmental and moral implications, arguing that the true economic and human costs result from climate-driven disasters such as extreme weather events and wildfires. She believes the most significant loss is not to the oil and gas industry, but the damages caused by climate-related events.

“Myself, morally as a human being on this planet, cannot stand by and not do the very best that I can for children and grandchildren and life on this planet,” she said.