Decision Near on Tough Oil Initiative : Santa Barbara County to Vote on Onshore Development Controls

Ever since the disastrous 1969 oil spill, Santa Barbara has lived in the midst of an accelerating oil boom that promises both prosperity and, some say, unparalleled environmental danger.

By the early 1990s, crude oil production off the Santa Barbara County coast is expected to reach 600,000 barrels a day--more than the total output of Brazil and nearly half of the peak production of Alaska’s North Slope.

Indeed, Exxon Corp. has said it believes that the Santa Barbara channel--which now produces 80,000 barrels daily--represents the largest undeveloped oil reserve in the lower 48 states.

There is little doubt that Santa Barbara is on the brink of one of the nation’s biggest oil booms.

Heritage at Stake

Increasingly, however, concern is growing that old Santa Barbara, a city of red-tiled roofs and whitewashed buildings that recall its early Spanish heritage, may be lost in the new industrialization.

On Tuesday, Santa Barbara County voters will consider an initiative that would impose strict new controls on onshore oil development.

Despite seemingly stringent regulations already voted by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, there are concerns among some environmentalists, who gathered 25,000 signatures to place Tuesday’s initiative on the ballot, that the county government will not be able to stand up to unrelenting pressure from Big Oil.

Bob Sollen, a backer of Measure A, as the initiative is known, describes it as “a method to prevent backsliding, to prevent retreating, to prevent waffling, to prevent the exceptions, the waivers, (and) the special concessions that are constantly being granted after county policy presumedly is in place.”

Enormous Challenges

Even some of those who oppose the initiative say that the county faces enormous challenges in coping with the coming oil bonanza.

“It’s awesome,” said local businessman and environmentalist Robert Klausner. “This community is going to be industrialized in no time at all. We’re talking billions and billions of dollars. How do you accommodate that and still maintain the amenities?”

Measure A would not stop oil production in the channel. But because of air pollution concerns, it would tightly control satellite oil facilities on shore, such as processing plants that are essential to offshore exploration and production.

Oil companies argue that limiting onshore processing plants, which remove water and other impurities from crude oil before it is sent to refineries, would place an artificial cap on offshore production.

The stakes are high. Riding on the election outcome, from the oil companies’ perspective, are many millions of dollars already invested in gearing up for the black-gold rush.

Ace in the Hole

To the federal government, the Santa Barbara waters represent an ace in the hole as the nation seeks to reduce its again-growing dependence on foreign oil.

County officials worry that the measure’s passage would unreasonably tie their hands and force the state and federal governments to preempt local controls. They also note that when all of the proposed onshore facilities are in place, the county would collect between $15 million and $18 million a year in property taxes.

And, to environmentalists and many residents, Santa Barbara County’s quality of life is at stake.

The oil boom has exacerbated tensions between Big Oil and Santa Barbara that have existed ever since the Jan. 31, 1969, blowout of a Union Oil platform, which killed birds and marine life and coated 30 miles of beaches with crude oil. Before the leak was plugged a week later, 235,000 gallons of crude had bubbled up from the ocean floor, creating an 800-square-mile oil slick.

Basically, Measure A would limit the number of onshore crude oil and gas treatment plants to one site already approved at Las Flores Canyon in the southern portion of the county, and one other plant north of Point Arguello in northern Santa Barbara County.

Four Plants Approved

By contrast, county supervisors have approved two plants in the south, at Las Flores Canyon and Gaviota, and two in the north, one near Lompoc and another at a site still to be chosen.

Measure A, reflecting existing county policy, would also require that the plants be shared by the oil companies to avoid their proliferation along the coast.

Also similar to county policy, the ballot measure would require that pipelines, not oceangoing tankers, be used after Nov. 1, 1988, to move the oil out of the county. A marine terminal (dock) for tankers could be used only in emergencies after that date. The rule could be waived only if the board voted unanimously that a national emergency existed.

It is generally agreed that transporting oil and gas by pipeline causes less air pollution and is safer than doing so by ship.

It would take a two-thirds vote by the county Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors to grant a one-year extension for meeting the pipeline deadline.

Reflection of Importance

The importance of the election is reflected by the amount of money being spent by opponents of the initiative.

As of Oct. 19, the opposition campaign had raised $968,400, virtually all of it from Big Oil.

Contributions to the campaign committee, which bears the name of “County Citizens for Local Controls” include $50,000 from Shell Oil Co., $112,000 from Texaco USA, $222,000 from Exxon Co. USA, $49,700 from Unocal Corp., $20,000 from Champlin Petroleum, $232,700 from Chevron Corp., $131,000 from Atlantic Richfield Co., $100,000 from Phillips Petroleum Co., and $35,000 from Sun Exploration Production Co.

In contrast, $73,300, which includes $14,000 in loans, has been raised by the Measure A supporters’ “Citizens for a Responsible Oil Policy.”

Under state law, campaign contributions must be reported, and so opponents of Measure A have chosen during debates to raise the issue themselves.

Recently during a debate before the Buellton Businessmens’ Assn., Measure A opponent Kenneth Saxton said matter-of-factly: “Our group has received massive funding as part of our campaign from the oil industry.”

Independent Group

He added that the large contributions have forced other opponents such as Klausner to organize an independent “No on A” campaign.

“This allowed them a mechanism to comment . . . without feeling that they had bastardized their souls by joining a group that had taken oil company money,” Saxton told the Buellton group.

The oil money has fueled an advertising blitz on radio and television and in newspapers, and also has enabled opponents to conduct extensive private opinion polling to track public sentiment.

But Sollen, who backs the initiative, charged that the opposition advertising is less than forthright.

“In some of the advertising against our campaign, the word ‘oil’ is never used--for good reason. People here are just not enamored with oil. The oil companies have left it up to a campaign committee here that’s called ‘Citizens for Local Control’ because ‘local’ sounds better than oil company control.”

‘A Stroke of Genius’

Indeed, Joyce Howerton, a longtime anti-nuclear power activist who is managing the “Yes on A” campaign, said the naming of the opposition committee was “a stroke of genius.”

To some opponents, including County Supervisor Toro Miyoshi, the big spending is an embarrassment.

“If I were doing it I wouldn’t spend as much. We’re a small county . . . and in my mind overspending sometimes creates a suspicion and is counterproductive,” he said.

Still, Measure A opponents appear to be enjoying growing support, based on their own polls, as well as endorsements.

Four of the five county supervisors oppose Measure A, as do the county’s two leading newspapers, the chambers of commerce, planning officials and others. John Davies, a local public relations consultant who is being paid to help defeat the initiative, observed: “I think it takes a profile in courage to stand shoulder to shoulder with oil companies in this community, and a lot of local citizens have.”

Howerton said the initiative is backed by the Sierra Club, the Gray Panthers, Get Oil Out, the Santa Barbara County Democratic Central Committee, and commercial fishermen and others.

Celebrities Back Measure

She also said entertainers such as Jackson Browne, Jane Fonda, John Travolta, Bonnie Raitt, Steve Martin, James Arness and David Lindley are supporting the measure. Some of them own property at Hollister Ranch, through which an oil pipeline would pass.

Aside from the controversy over campaign spending by the oil companies, the underlying issue appears to be one of whether to trust local government to do the right thing.

Although environmentalists concede that the county supervisors have recently enforced tough environmental controls, there is a growing uneasiness that these hard-won gains will unravel in the face of inexorable pressure from powerful oil interests.

Howerton said that were it not for the initiative, the supervisors would not have insisted on many of the current environmental safeguards.

“My fear is that if the initiative fails . . . how do we know they’re not going to weaken them?”

Measure Pushed Board

Supervisor Miyoshi said he thinks Measure A is unnecessary because the tough new controls are adequate. But he conceded: “I have to agree that Measure A was instrumental in a clear articulation of the board’s policy.”

Despite the intentions of the initiative’s backers, there are those who fear that Measure A will backfire and actually cause more environmental damage.

Opponents explain that by limiting the number of onshore processing plants, Measure A will force oil companies to process their oil at sea--in federal waters where air quality standards are not as strict as California’s.

At a debate before the Santa Barbara Lions Club, initiative opponent Mike Stoker warned: “The alternative is that the oil companies can go three miles offshore. Keep that in mind. This initiative doesn’t put a gun to somebody’s head and say ‘this is the way things are,’ because the (oil companies) can always go do something else.”

Indeed, Exxon already processes its oil at sea on a converted ship permanently anchored near the company’s Hondo oil platform in Santa Barbara Channel.

Not Enough Capacity

Environmentalists insist, however, that such ships, known as offshore storage and treatment vessels, are not practical in the long term because they do not have the capacity needed to keep up with the 600,000 barrels of oil that are expected to be pumped from under coastal waters by the 1990s.

Today, about 80,000 barrels of crude are produced each day, half of it from Exxon’s Hondo platform. They also note that the state is now negotiating with the U.S. Interior Department for offshore air-quality standards comparable to those on shore.

There are some who fear that if the initiative passes, the state and federal government may be forced to preempt local land-use controls over oil facilities.

County Supervisors Miyoshi and DeWitte Holmdahl are among them. Said Holmdahl: “They can’t have local government putting too tough conditions on oil. They’re (state and federal governments) very concerned.”

Charles M. Imbrecht, chairman of the California Energy Commission, said: “This should not be portrayed as a threat . . . but if energy resources are viewed from exclusively a local perspective, I think you always raise the specter at some future point of preemption arguments.”

Impeding Energy Drive

Imbrecht pointed out that the state energy commission was created 10 years ago to oversee power plant siting because local government decisions were impeding the state’s ability to meet its electrical energy needs.

Whatever the outcome Tuesday, the Santa Barbara campaign is being closely watched far beyond the county line.

Said Klausner: “What’s happening in Santa Barbara is what’s going to happen (elsewhere). We’re in the trenches. The modeling that’s done here, the way we cope with the process here, no doubt will be a reflection of what’s going to happen as other communities are faced with oil development.”

WHAT MEASURE A WOULD DO

Santa Barbara County voters on Tuesday will consider a ballot initiative that would impose strict new controls on onshore oil facilities. Among its major provisions are the following:

It would limit the number of onshore crude oil and gas treatment plants to one site already approved at Las Flores Canyon in the southern portion of the county, and one other plant north of Point Arguello in northern Santa Barbara County. County supervisors have approved two plants in the south, at Las Flores Canyon and Gaviota, and two in the north, one near Lompoc and another at a site still to be chosen.

It would require that the plants be shared by the oil companies to avoid their proliferation along the coast.

It would require that pipelines, not ocean-going tankers, be used after Nov. 1, 1988, to move the oil out of the county. Tankers could be used only in emergencies after that date, and the rule could be waived only if the board voted unanimously that a national emergency existed.

THE OIL BOOM Since the 1969 oil spill, Santa Barbara has lived in the midst of an accelerating oil boom. By the early 1990s, crude oil production off the Santa Barbara County coast is expected to reach 600,000 barrels a day. Here are samplings of the average daily ouput in selected years:

Daily Output (Number of Barrels)

1969* 27,235 1975* 41,930 1979 40,736 1980 37,169 1981 61,128 1982 79,564 1983 80,183 1984 72,794 1985 80,000

Projected Daily Output in Future Years

1986 108,000 1988 180,000 1989 260,000 1990 365,000 1991 435,000 1992 500-600,000

*1969 and 1975 figures are approximate.

Sources: State Lands Commission and Central California Operators Group.