CA Attorney General Bonta Sues Sable Offshore over Alleged Coastal Violations

The California Attorney General’s Office has joined the fray in the escalating standoff between Sable Offshore Corp. and Santa Barbara County regulators — filing a sweeping lawsuit accusing the Texas-based oil company of repeated violations of state water laws while repairing its aging pipeline along the Gaviota Coast.

Filed October 3, Attorney General Rob Bonta’s complaint alleges that Sable “placed profits over environmental protection in its rush to get oil on the market,” carrying out 144 excavations between October 2024 and May 2025. The sites — including Arroyo Hondo, Arroyo Quemado, and Nojoqui Creek — cut through creeks, wetlands, and riparian corridors without authorization.

The lawsuit claims Sable “intentionally ignored its obligations under California Water Code sections 13260 et seq.” and discharged waste into “waters of the state.” At several sites, investigators said, the company “cleared vegetation and excavated and graded sediment … resulting in discharges of waste that could affect the quality of waters of the state.” Bonta’s filing also accuses Sable of misleading regulators, calling the company’s management “at best misinformed, incompetent, and incorrect. At worst, Sable was simply bamboozling the Regional Water Board to meet a critical deadline.”

Violations could carry penalties of $5,000 per day per site.

‘Blatantly and Deliberately Violating the Law’

Environmental advocates see the state’s lawsuit as a long time coming. 

“Once again, Sable is being accused of blatantly and deliberately violating the law in its rush to make money off of this old, dangerous equipment,” said Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center (EDC). “According to the complaint, Sable’s conduct was at best incompetent, and at worst deceitful. How much more evidence do we need that this company is either unable or unwilling to follow the law and operate responsibly in our state?”

The EDC has opposed Sable since it bought ExxonMobil’s idled offshore platforms and pipeline network — the same system tied to the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill.

Earlier this year, the California Coastal Commission fined Sable $18 million and issued three cease-and-desist orders for similar unpermitted “anomaly repair work.” Repairs continued until a Superior Court injunction stopped them — “after much of the damage had already been done,” according to regulators.

In September, the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office filed 21 criminal charges — including five felonies — accusing Sable of knowingly discharging pollutants into waterways and obstructing streambeds.

Bonta’s civil complaint adds detail — and another layer of pressure — to a company already fighting on multiple fronts. Its $347 million countersuit against the Coastal Commission, claiming “unlawful delay” in restarting its pipeline, goes before Judge Thomas Anderle on October 15. Bonta, notably, represents both the Coastal Commission and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Sable’s Side

Sable executives insist they’ve acted within the law and that California’s red tape has stalled a critical energy project.

In an October 9 statement, the company said it had updated its federal Development and Production Plan with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, including language that would allow Sable to bypass its onshore pipeline and use an Offshore Storage and Treating Vessel — essentially a floating barge operation in federal waters, beyond state oversight.

“Sable continues to work diligently with the State of California to safely and responsibly resume petroleum transportation through the onshore Las Flores Pipeline System,” the company said, “but continued delays in approving the restart plans … will cause Sable to fully pivot to its accelerated OS&T strategy.”

CEO Jim Flores was more blunt. “Sable is very concerned about the crumbling energy complex in California,” Flores said. “With the exit of two refineries last year and more shuttering soon, California’s economy cannot survive without the strong energy infrastructure it enjoyed for the last 150 years.”

He added that California “has to make a decision soon on the pipeline before Sable signs an agreement for the OS&T and goes all in on the offshore federal-only option.”

Flores also claimed the project “is absolutely on Trump’s agenda,” projecting $2 billion in royalties over the next decade and drawing interest from the National Energy Dominance Council, chaired by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

Trump Angle / Newsom Dilemma

Governor Gavin Newsom is also caught in the middle. In September, he signed Senate Bill 237, a sprawling energy compromise that opens the door for up to 2,000 new oil wells a year in Kern County through 2036 — fast-tracking approvals by declaring the county’s environmental review sufficient under state law. The move is meant to steady California’s fuel supply as several refineries prepare to close.

At the same time, SB 237 tightens rules for offshore pipelines, adding new safety and permitting requirements — exactly the kind of oversight Sable has been fighting.

Newsom’s office pitched the bill as a pragmatic fix: keep refineries running while the state transitions away from fossil fuels. Refiners argue they need to operate at least 65 percent capacity just to stay viable — closer to 80 percent to make economic sense.

Between this bill, Bonta’s lawsuit, the DA’s criminal charges, and the Coastal Commission’s fines, Sable is now fighting battles on every front — state, county, and federal — while threatening to move offshore.

To local watchdogs, this is a typical Sable strategy. It is not even “Don’t ask permission; ask forgiveness later.” It’s more like “Forgo permission and say, ‘See you in court.’” Or in the words of Linda Krop, “this company has shown again and again that it cannot be trusted to operate responsibly.”