Coastal Commission fines Sable $18 million for violating the Coastal Act

Your weekly dose of local news, arts, and culture. Our News Wire newsletter lands every Thursday with the stories shaping Northern Santa Barbara County

SEND ME THE HEADLINES!

The regional water board will discuss Sable Offshore Corporation’s alleged state water code violations one week after the California Coastal Commission opted to fine the oil company $18 million for “egregious and flagrant” refusal to abide by the Coastal Act. 

“What we really have before us is a compliance issue,” commission Chair Justin Cummings said during the April 10 meeting. “I think we really need to send a message to folks that they need to come work with us and the state. … If you want to go out and try to supersede the people of California, we’re going to stand up for ourselves.”

That day, the commission discussed work that the oil company is completing on its recently acquired pipeline along the Gaviota Coast, work that commission staff said needs to be permitted and isn’t. In addition, staff said it had tried on several occasions to get Sable to comply, including issuing cease and desist orders. Sable disagreed with the commission’s interpretation of state law and sued the commission earlier this year.

Company attorney DJ Moore argued that development permits issued in the 1980s authorized the work that Sable is doing and accused the commission of overstepping its authority.

“We have a fundamental disagreement with commission staff,” Moore told the commission. “Reasonable people are allowed to have a difference of opinion under the law. That’s how democracy works. … We maintain that Sable’s activity is consistent with prior permits.” 

Staff at the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board also believe that Sable’s work on the pipelines, which have been offline since causing the 2015 Refugio oil spill, needs new permits. The pipelines start on the Gaviota Coast and run through Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Kern counties. While the Coastal Commission takes issue with the vegetation and habitat destruction caused by Sable’s pipeline remediation work, the water board points to waste that Sable has allegedly discharged into state and federal waters.

Those discharges require permits under California Water Code, according to the regional water board. At its April 17 meeting, the board will consider referring the issue to the state’s attorney general to pursue a temporary restraining order, injunction, and/or compensation for damages. 

Moore told the Coastal Commission that the Sable’s repair and maintenance of the pipeline is similar to work that’s occurred for the past 30 years “without the need for new Coastal Act authorization.” The Santa Barbara County permit approved in 1986 allows for work that disturbs the areas in which the pipeline exists, he argued. 

“Operators can perform necessary repairs under existing approvals,” he said, adding that the fines were “grossly disproportionate to the nature and impact” of the work done. 

The county agrees with Sable’s interpretation of the 40-year-old permit and said so in letters to the commission. However, commission Deputy Director Cassidy Teufel said the county hasn’t provided any proof to support its conclusion, adding that the work Sable’s undertaken “far exceeds” what the permit authorized. In the past, under former operators, individual spot repairs were completed, Teufel said.

“Nothing close to the scale of the current campaign was attempted or carried out,” he said. “The current project represents the single largest pipeline rebuild and replacement effort ever pursued on California’s coast.” 

That work includes 3.7 acres across more than 130 worksites in the coastal zone (under the commission’s jurisdiction). Sable has disturbed wetland and riparian habitats, conducted extensive vegetation clearing, and lacks erosion control or other protective measures, Teufel said. 

Chief of Enforcement Lisa Haage said that because the county didn’t provide the commission with evidence that the existing permit authorizes Sable’s work, commission staff had to spend time trying to find it.

“We’ve looked very closely at those permits,” Haage said. “We spent a lot of time crawling through the permits … to find some support for that position and were unable to do so.” 

The commission, though, wants Sable to obtain a coastal development permit for the pipeline remediation and said it has a solution to the issue, which includes a consolidated permit process. If Sable does that, the commission board opted to reduce the penalty amount levied to more than $14 million. As part of the Sable discussion, the board also voted to issue both a cease and desist order and an order to remediate environmental damage caused by already completed work.

Commissioner Linda Escalante said the commission regularly reviews and approves oil and gas pipeline repair projects to ensure that damage caused to the environment is mitigated. Commissioner Meagan Harmon, who represents the south Central Coast, said she was “utterly confused” about Santa Barbara County’s actions when it comes to Sable’s work and the county’s failure to collaborate with the commission. 

“It is to me profoundly disappointing that we had to get to this point today,” Harmon said. “Santa Barbara County failed to act.” 

This article appears in Apr 17-27, 2025.