With the introduction of SB 1096 to prohibit drilling in the Tranquillion basin along with Measure P and the 3-2 County Supervisor vote to support 1096, it is obvious to even the casual observer that an all-out assault against oil is once again in progress and change with no alternative is advocated. The defeat of Measure M brought the calculation that the time is right to push an environmental agenda. Along with this effort proponents have proffered a fusillade of hype, misinformation, and hypocrisy.
For instance the threat is possibly “the future livability of the planet” according to Katie Davis of the Water Guardians and the Al Gore Climate Reality Leadership Project. In fact, the number of barrels of recoverable oil from the Monterey Shale has been downgraded by the feds from 15 billion barrels to less than a billion, and while hailed as an environmental victory, it bears no significance for Measure P which in part was predicated on it. Strange.
Reading Measure P, you would find a document that posits a future of tech, tourism, renewables, and agriculture. Tech has been fleeing the county for years, and where are the renewables and where are the economic benefits? In fact, renewables are frequently subsidized—a double whammy. If the intent is to destroy the oil industry and its economic benefits, where are the replacement economic benefits? Also, where is the evidence that oil has impacted tourism and agriculture in Santa Barbara County? Where also is the evidence for water contamination by acidation and steam injection in the county? It would be appropriate if they cited what actually is going on in the county rather than Alberta, but that’s indicative of outside influences. While it’s OK for proponents to use outside evidence and organizations, it’s not OK for oil to bring in “ringers from Houston.”
The measure is also crystal clear on what oil companies can do: virtually nothing, as even the injection of air will be prohibited. All modern methods of extraction will be prohibited, basically ignoring advances in technology and safety, and it lays it out in specific highlighted changes to the county code. It is less than clear—perhaps deliberately so—as to what oil companies can do with existing wells, and exemptions are given short shrift and no elaboration. Ambiguity aside, one comes away from reading the document that its intent is to eliminate all oil production in the county.
While the threat is overstated, the impact is severely understated. Publically, proponents only admit to the $16 million property tax impact to the county, mostly dedicated to education and fire. By that admission only, the intent is clear: Get rid of all oil, GOO (Get Oil Out) reconstituted and revisited. Moreover, it should be obvious that if a no-growth, gradual-dissolution policy is the goal, future revenue will be reduced and eliminated—there is no other alternative. There is also a 2013 UCSB Economic Forecast that indicates a $291 million yearly negative impact on the county should oil production be halted. Proponents minimize its impact, even deny it. Truthfully no matter what the number, they can’t replace it.
Finally, in the last election, only 15 percent of the eligible voters participated. However the real impact is spread to the tax base, taxpayers, us. As oil revenue goes down, individual taxpayer liability goes up. When voters defeated Measure S in 2010, they left an unfunded liability for the operational costs of the new county jail and STAR complex. Taxpayers should ask, in an already “rob Peter to pay Paul” economic reality, what sense does it make to approve a measure that has as a logical consequence a negative impact on the tax base and the overall economic condition without viable alternatives? Vote no on P.
