The State Coastal Commission is saying "no" to an oil company’s efforts to repair and reactivate an oil pipeline that ruptured in 2015, causing a major Santa Barbara County oil spill.
Hundreds of people were on hand for the commission’s marathon hearing in Santa Barbara Thursday, with strong reactions on both sides to the controversy.
"This pipeline is significantly corroded, and so all of these efforts that we've heard about remind me of the expression you can't put lipstick on a pig," said former Democratic State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara, who opposes the project.
"The work Sable is conducting is authorized by previously approved permits issued by both Santa Barbara County and the Coastal Commission itself," said project supporter Eric Rochelle.
In 2015, what was then the Plans All American Pipeline ruptured on the Gaviota Coast, spilling more than 140,000 gallons of oil on the coast. It forced the shutdown of three offshore oil platforms, which used the pipeline to move oil to refineries.
There were plans to replace the pipeline, which was built in the 1980s.
But it was sold, and the current owner, Sable Offshore Corporation, wants to repair and restart the pipeline, which would set the stage for the reopening of the three idle oil platforms off the coast.
Opponents contend reactivating the pipelines and platforms would open the door to another major spill.
The Coastal Commission’s staff said the company has been working on the repair project without getting proper permits and undergoing reviews. Sable contends the work is allowed under existing permits with Santa Barbara County. Sable officials said the repairs have been taking place in existing right-of-way areas, with minimal new impacts.
That controversy is what brought the Coastal Commission to Santa Barbara to consider a cease-and-desist order to stop work, a remediation order to fix environmental damage which had occurred, and fines.
Linda Krop is Chief Counsel with the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center.
"We lived through 2015 at Refugio. In fact, some of us were at the beach that very first day, and witnessed firsthand the horror to wildlife, habitats, cultural resources, public beach access, and fishing," said Krop. "We know that another disaster is not a hypothetical concern, but a real threat.
"This project needs a new comprehensive environmental review, under the California Environmental Quality Act. The environmental studies used to identify potential impacts of the original pipeline were conducted almost 40 years ago," said Craig Woodman, who has worked as an environmental consultant for decades.
Sable’s supporters argued that the work is allowed under existing permits. Trent Flentnow said the proposed commission action would usurp county jurisdiction. "The actions taken recently by the Coastal Commission staff suggest that they no longer intend to honor those agreements for local governance in the coastal zone. All of the activities undertaken by Sable was clearly covered by existing permits that the county itself issued," said Flentnow.
Redd Maxton, a Sable consultant, called the project well researched and planned. "The strategy is far more rigorous than any new construction project would ever consider," said Maxton. "The testing, the documentation, is completed with a higher standard than any regulator requires anywhere in the world, including California. I would like to believe if more people understood the care and effort that's gone into making this restart successful and safe, they might get behind us and support this project."
After about five hours of testimony, the Commission decided that work must stop, and Sable needs to go through the review process for permits. The commission called out the county, saying it should have intervened.
"We saw no evidence today that these 40-year-old permits would include the extensive work, and it was extensive, whatever percentage they want to put on it. The people of Santa Barbara have been through so much in terms of oil spills, in terms of people not really caring about their community, and caring mostly about more oil, more money. I'm just shocked in a way that the county wasn't here to tell its own citizens why it wanted to let this go unreviewed, and unresponded to," said Coastal Commission member Dayna Bochco.
The commission passed three motions. The first is a cease-and desist order targeting the company’s work, and a second calls for remediation for work like grading, and trenching which has already occurred.
The third imposes an $18 million fine, which would be reduced to $14 million if Sable works with the Commission and the County to go through a permit process.
The question now is whether Sable will go to court to challenge the Commission’s assertion that new permits and additional environmental review are needed.
