When a Santa Barbara judge handed environmental groups a win against oil production along the Gaviota Coast on Friday, she drew upon case law with roots in the Vietnam War era — and for the first time in a written decision signaled state regulations might supersede a Trump Administration order to keep the crude flowing.
“The court makes its position clear,” county Superior Court Judge Donna D. Geck wrote, rejecting a request by Sable Offshore Corp. to lift a preliminary injunction intended to prevent the Houston-based firm from transporting oil from the Santa Barbara Channel to Central California.
That clarity, according to Geck, stems largely from a decades-old precedent in which chemical manufacturers were compelled by federal Defense Production Act (DPA) orders to deliver Agent Orange, a defoliant weaponized by the U.S. Military for a decade in the 1960s and early 1970s, yet were found liable in the mid 1990s for improper disposal of the compound as well as cancer deaths resulting from its use.
Under a similar DPA order, Sable began pumping oil from Platform Harmony on March 14.
It’s the first time the Las Flores Pipeline System has been used since 2015, when a rupture caused a 142,000-gallon oil spill at Refugio State Beach, sending 21,000 gallons into the Pacific Ocean.
The decision
With the war in Iran a backdrop, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright on March 13 directed Sable to restart delivery, stating the oil is needed to strengthen national security and ensure West Coast military installations can maintain readiness.
After the pipeline came back online, lawyers for Sable had argued that the federal DPA order clearing the way for renewed operations preempts the injunction, which Geck issued last year in a case focused on pipeline corrosion, and how strict state safety reviews should be before oil could flow again.
Citing the Agent Orange precedent, Geck said a DPA doesn’t provide the immunity sought by Sable.
In one case, Hercules Inc. sued the United States after settling numerous claims filed by Vietnam veterans and their families alleging exposure to Agent Orange caused cancer and other health problems.
In another case, Vertac Chemical Corp. buried hazardous waste from Agent Orange production, sparking a massive federal clean up cost recovery action totaling more than $100 million.
In both cases, courts found that the DPA didn’t provide the related Arkansas-based companies with immunity to liability.
The same logic applies to Sable, Geck ruled.
“Nothing permits a party subject to a DPA order to violate other laws, especially including applicable federal law,” Geck wrote. “Moreover, the DPA order, by itself, does not permit the violation of applicable state regulatory law — for example, no one suggests that Sable could steal materials or money to fulfill a DPA order without state law consequence.”
Mixed reactions
In the hours after Friday’s ruling, it wasn’t clear whether or when Sable might comply with the intact injunction. Nothing indicated the company intended to cease operations.
Contacted for a response, Sable spokesman Jordan Burns, a senior account executive at the Los Angeles-based media relation firm Fiona Hutton & Associates, said the company had no immediate comment.
At the Santa-Barbara based Environmental Defense Center (EDC), lead counsel Linda Krop celebrated the decision and said Sable opponents want to see Geck hold Sable leadership in contempt of court — and possibly fined or jailed — if the pipeline isn’t turned off. Geck will consider this at a new hearing scheduled for May 22.
“The good news is the injunction is still in effect,” Krop said. “The frustrating news is they are violating it, and everybody knows that now.”
The EDC represents Get Oil Out!, the Santa Barbara County Action Network, the Sierra Club, and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper in the case, alleging the pipeline is corroded and defective.
“The federal government handed Sable a get-out-of-jail-free card, and they used it to fire up a corroded pipeline in open defiance of California law and a court order,” Maureen Ellenberger, chair of the Sierra Club Santa Barbara-Ventura Chapter, said in a statement. “Judge Geck made clear that won’t stand. Our coastline is not a sacrifice zone for a false promise of lower gas prices.”
At the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, another party to the case, attorney Talia Nimmer said the court made the right call.
“Every second this pipeline is in operation puts California’s iconic coast, its residents and its wildlife at risk of another devastating spill,” she said. “Trump and his cronies won’t stop trying to prop up oil industry profits, but we’ll keep fighting to protect California’s coastal communities and hold Sable accountable.”
More legal action
When the pipeline burst at Refugio, thousands of birds and marine mammals died, and 138 square miles of fisheries shut down for weeks. The spill resulted in more than $360 million in settlements paid by Plains All American Pipeline, the former owner.
Ever since, environmentalists and local residents have questioned whether the pipeline is fit for service. Sable maintains problem areas were fixed as of May.
When the firm began moving crude again, it did so under the watchful eye of federal safety regulators, company officials said at the time.
Fresh crude introduced to the system has originated from Platform Harmony first with other nearby platforms to follow, according to Sable.
Responses to the renewed operations have been swift.
At the California Department of Parks and Recreation, officials in March demanded immediate removal of the four-mile section of Sable pipeline that runs below the 2,700-acre Gaviota State Park.
In addition, State Parks officials threatened legal action if Sable didn’t confirm that it would postpone operations on Gaviota park property until strained and protracted negotiations over the future of a pipeline easement through the park are resolved.
State Parks will seek an injunction against Sable operations at an April 27 hearing in federal court, Krop said.
In an emergency meeting last month, the California Lands Commission authorized potential legal action and “any steps necessary” to stop Sable — up to and including termination of the company’s offshore oil drilling leases.
In a unanimous vote, commissioners said the state must protect its sovereignty and constitutional right to make decisions on infrastructure and land use.
Teeing up another likely showdown, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an emergency motion last month requesting a federal court quickly enforce a 2020 federal consent decree that requires Sable to get approval from the California Fire Marshal before the pipeline can restart — a condition that seemingly contradicts the Trump Administration go-ahead Sable has embraced.
On June 1, a federal judge will consider whether that consent decree should remain in effect, Krop said.
All told, Sable is subject to a dozen pending lawsuits, Krop said, adding the EDC has struggled to determine exactly how much oil the company is moving across the county.
“We don’t know the volume,” she said. “It’s been very hard for us to get those numbers.”
In March, Sable reported it planned to commence first sales by April 1 at an expected gross oil rate of 50,000 Bbls/d (barrels per day).
