Looking to spitshine the South Coast’s recently tarnished environmental legacy, the Santa Barbara City Council took on the issue of offshore oil drilling this week, declaring unequivocally in an official resolution to all who might listen that they are against any new oil and gas leases in the waters off our shores. Spurred to action by a now infamous and symbolic 3-2 vote at the County Board of Supervisors late last month in favor of lifting the moratoria on oil drilling in both state and federal waters, the City Council, in an equally symbolic gesture, voted 5-1 on Tuesday evening to set the record straight with the national media which has spotlighted the supervisors’ decision. (Roger Horton was not in attendance. Dale Francesco opposed). “There is a misperception out there in the whole country, because of this weird vote by the Board of Supervisors, that Santa Barbara wants there to be more oil drilling,” explained Councilmember Das Williams. “This community has been burned by the oil industry so many times … Santa Barbarians do not want more oil drilling.”
In a three-hour hearing, which included many of the same players and all of the same arguments and emotional rhetoric as the aforementioned supervisors’ discussion, a pro-oil lobby led by Santa Barbara’s own Stop Oil Seeps—a group that believes oil harvesting would decrease destructive, naturally occurring oil seeps—and the Western States Petroleum Association argued that an end to the moratorium would create cheaper prices at the pumps, millions in potential royalty revenues, and a markedly cleaner South Coast environment thanks to the less than fully understood correlation between drilling and seepage. On the other side of the fence were public speakers from groups like Get Oil Out, the Community Environmental Council, and the Environmental Defense Center who countered that not only would new drilling have a debatable impact on local oil supply and expose Santa Barbara to an increased chance of an ecosystem-destroying disaster but it also prevents us from moving toward more renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydrogen.
For his part, there have no public indications that Schwarzenegger intends to waiver from his longstanding stance against new oil and gas leases in either state or federal waters.
The City Council’s proclamation this week joins a growing chorus of opposition to expanded oil hunting off the coast of California. In the fallout from the county supervisors’ controversial letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, not only did the dissenting members of the board, supervisors Carbajal and Wolf, send their own missive to Schwarzenegger asking that he keep the longstanding bans, but three former Santa Barbara County supervisors—Susan Rose, Naomi Schwartz, and Gail Marshall—also penned a letter to Schwarzenegger dubbing the current supes’ vote a “misguided, ill-advised, and factually erroneous decision.” Additionally, according to the California Coastal Protection Network’s Susan Jordan, more than 50 environmental organizations from around the country were similarly spurred to action by the supervisors’ now infamous vote, sending likeminded letters of discontent to Schwarzenegger in the past two weeks. For his part, there have no public indications that Schwarzenegger intends to waiver from his longstanding stance against new oil and gas leases in either state or federal waters.
Looking to send the anti-oil exploration message all the way from Sacramento to Washington, D.C., the California State Legislature resoundingly passed a joint assembly resolution (AJR 51) last week, requesting that the United States Congress renew the now 27-year-old moratorium on offshore oil drilling despite President Bush’s urgings to the contrary. (In July, the President lifted the executive ban on offshore exploration in federal waters.) Introduced by Santa Barbara’s Assemblymember Pedro Nava, the resolution, which was passed along to Congress this week, cites the environmental risks associated with drilling, along with the importance of a healthy coastline to California’s economy, as reasons to maintain the ban. With the current federal moratorium set to expire on October 1, Congress is debate renewing the ban this week, on September 12 as the Senate begins a bipartisan energy summit.
Related Links
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
This Silly Council is strong on useless and powerless proclamations and resolutions about things beyond their purview, to maintain their "image" amongst the liberals, but weak on action on things they were elected to do such as public safety. Speak for yourself Das, when you talk about what Santa Barbarans want or don't want. Are we actually worried about the environment or economy here, or about our "tarnished environmental legacy" so Marty can hold her head high at the Mayor's Conventions?
AShaw (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Only Dale Francisco has any sense.
AShaw (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
THIS COUNCIL REPRESENTS A FEW SELFISH RICH PEOPLE, WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT THE POOR, HERE OR ABROAD.
‘Buy America Energy’ should be our focus for the future.
The world oil shortage is political, not geological.
In the U.S., the government prohibits drilling offshore, effectively blockading American companies from supplying oil to Americans so that foreigners can make obscene profits from our energy stupidity.
Low cost power is vital to an industrial economy, and we have ignored this vital infrastructure issue for 20 years or more. The entire economy and our communities are facing collapse because of the irrational ongoing attack on American Energy.
Our Modern Economy Still Needs Oil and Gas Today.
You all have to wake up and smell the energy roses that oil and gas represent today.
If the much maligned oil companies went on strike, within a month half the population would be dead;
LIFE WITHOUT HYDROCARBONS
Our entire modern society is build on fossil fuels. Without hydrocarbons fuel the United States would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country. Except that we would have 10 times as many people and no way to distribute food to most of them.
Your elected officials and the environmental movement have let you down, destroyed your life and sold out your Country….. and they don’t even know it! They certainly won’t admit it either.
Advocates for the continued American Energy Embargo are in the direct or unwitting employ of OPEC and Russia. These people should be had up on charges of economic treason, if not fired for anti-American activities, or gross incompetence.
To oppose developing America’s energy supplies immediately is Anti-American and akin to treason.
American oil is all under an OPEC sponsored embargo compliments of County, State and Congress Embargos, which are also ruining the Santa Barbara air quality and beach environment.
Santa Barbara’s beaches are heavily polluted with natural oil and tar seeps, which make the air unfit to breathe and the water unfit to swim in.
Its not pristine beaches “environmentalists” and County officials are protecting, its only OPEC’s and big oil’s profits. These people are traitors to their enviro-supporters and traitors to America.
petersterling (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good going city council. I live in Goleta where any spill would be disastrous. The county board does not represent the entire county - ie the 20,000 IV students, so their decision should be put into perspective.
If the few supporting drilling would agree to drink up all the oil should any spill happen, then I will gladly support expanded oil drilling.
*crickets*
sbpuppet (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ok puppet, I will drink up all the oil that spills (eye roll). Can we drill now? I'm not too worried about the will of 20,000 students that will be gone in 2 to 4 years. They shouldn't even have a vote on local issues, seeing as they won't be living here. I will support an oil ban when everyone stops driving, buying manufactured products, eating and flying places.
AShaw (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's take a look at what happens with expanded oil drilling, take the Gulf of Mexico for example, it's an ecological disaster. Every year there is a leak, a month ago the smell was so bad in New Orleans due to the oil leaks that tourists avoided the French Quarter. You can either be tourist-friendly or oil-friendly, you can't be both at the same time. Unless you want to give a counter-example.
If you think drilling off the coast of SB will actually bring down oil prices, you are flat out wrong, it's a drop in the bucket, but I do agree it will increase profits for oil companies. The oil would be sold on the open market, exported outside of SB and the USA, and it wouldn't make a dent in oil prices.
Your stance on disenfranchising 20,000 voters is revealing.
sbpuppet (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AShaw, that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard.. NOT allowing students to vote on local issues?! Do they not live here?? They will clearly vote as if they were going to live here in a few years, and guess what? There will be another 20,000 like-minded students taking their place in 4 years that they get to represent. Not allowing their voices to be heard on local issues is an extremely ignorant position to hold.
Horray for the city council. I believe they do represent the will of the people here in Santa Barbara and our close by neighbors, who I am glad they are concerned for and rightly so.
I believe that local communities should be able to decide on offshore drilling. The places with the highest environmental impact will ultimately decide against drilling due to the population's analysis of the higher risk associated with their area. It's almost like a free-market solution.
Lift the Federal Ban and give local communities the highest authority, and then states.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 12, 2008 at 1:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm trying to figure out how it hurts you people for oil companies to make a profit delivering a product to you that you use - wittingly or unwittingly. Businesses are in business to make profits, it isn't an evil thing. If they weren't, who would want to do this dirty work of battling environmentalists, speculative drilling, refining etc to feed the machine that we all benefit from? If you don't drive a car, eat food, buy any products, travel by rail or air, then your complaints about profit making are valid. Otherwise you are hypocritical.
Don't forget that oil production also provides local revenue and much needed tax income not only locally, but for the state of California. You are probably the same people that complain when state workers get laid off and the schools don't have enough money to meet budgets and provide for all of the liberal programs you cherish, right?
AShaw (anonymous profile)
September 12, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Loon they live here but have no future or past here, no investment here, nothing at stake.
AShaw (anonymous profile)
September 13, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment