OCS Study 

•

MMS 2003-014 

Mitigating the Impact of Offshore Oil 

Development 

Final Technical Summary 

Final Study Report 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service

Pacific OCS Region 
Mitigating the Impact of Offshore Oil 

Development 

Final Technical Summary 

Final Study Report 

Author 

John T. Woolley 

Principal Investigator 

And 

James T. Lima 

Prepared under MMS Cooperative 

Agreement No. 14-35-0001-30471 

by 

Southern California Educational Initiative 

Marine Science Institute 

University of California 

Santa Barbara, CA 93106 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service Camarillo

Pacific OCS Region March 2003
Disclaimer 

This report has been reviewed by the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region, Minerals Management 

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior and approved for publication. The opinions, findings, 

conclusions, or recommendations in this report are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect 

the views and policies of the Minerals Management Service. Mention of trade names or commercial 

products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use. This report has not been 

edited for conformity with Minerals Management Service editorial standards. 

Availability of Report

Extra copies of the report may be obtained from: 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Pacific OCS Region 

770 Paseo Camarillo 

Camarillo, CA 93010 

Phone: 805-389-7621 

A PDF file of this report is available at: 

http://coastalresearchcenter.ucsb.edu/SCEI/ 

Suggested Citation 

The suggested citation for this report is: 

Woolley, J.T. and J.T. Lima. Mitigating the Impact of Offshore Oil Development. MMS OCS Study 

2003-014. Coastal Research Center, Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa 

Barbara, California. MMS Cooperative Agreement Numbers 14-35-0001-30471. 133 pages. 
1

Table of Contents 

FINAL TECHNICAL SUMMARY 1

FINAL STUDY REPORT 5

 

1.0 Introduction 5

2.0 Materials and Methods 6

2.1 Case Study 6 

2.1.1 Chronology of Events 7 

2.1.2 Evidence of Reaction to Events 7 

2.1.3 Classifying Reaction 8 

2.1.4 Comparison of Reactions Across Time 8 

2.2 Survey Research 8 

3.0 Results 9

Period 1. 1896-1920 10 

Period 2. 1921-1929 10 

Period 3. 1929-1938 10 

Period 4. 1939-1955 10 

Period 5. 1955-1965 10 

Period 6. 1965-1968 11 

Period 7. 1969-1975 11 

Period 8. 1976-1990 12 

4.0 Discussion 12

5.0 Conclusions 14

 

The Politics of Offshore Energy Development 

PhD Dissertation by James T. Lima 15 

 Abstract 16 

Part I. The Context of Oil Policy-Making in Santa Barbara 17 

 Chapter 1. Santa Barbara County in the California 

Environmental Review Process 17 

Chapter 2. Trends and Cycles in Santa Barbara 

Regulation of Oil Development 30 

 Part II. The Santa Barbara County Response 47 

Chapter 3. Santa Barbara County Response to Offshore 

Oil Development 47 

 Chapter 4. Design and Implementation of the 

 Environmental Quality Assurance Program 68 

 Chapter 5. Oil Development and the Santa Barbara 

 County Legislative Process: Loss of Agenda Control 76 

 Chapter 6. Elite Reactions to Oil Development and 

 Evaluations Of County Programs Over Time (Includes 

 Sample Survey) 90 
2

Part III. Lessons From Santa Barbara for Other Local Jurisdictions 110 

 Chapter 7. Santa Barbara County and Offshore Oil 

 Development--Applicablility of the Lessons to Other 

 Communities 110 

Appendix A 119 

Appendix B 119 

Acknowledgements 120 

Publications 120 

Bibliography 121 

List of Tables

3.1 Santa Barbara County Permit Conditions for Various 

Offshore Oil Development Projects 57 

3.2 Point Pedernales Permit Conditions Which Allow Imposition 

of Additional Mitigation Measures 58 

3.3 Plans and Reports Required by Point Pedernales Permit 

Conditions 59 

5.1 Categories and Rules for Categorizing Santa Barbara County 

Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Items 80 

5.2 Incidence of Offshore Energy Related Items at Santa Barbara 

County Board of Supervisors’ Weekly Meetings 81 

6.1 Summary of Survey Sample and Returns 92 

7.1 Size and Growth of Santa Barbara County Departments 

Regulating Energy Development 115 
3

List of Figures 

1.1 Characteristics of Regional Decision Making Forms 26 

1.2 Comparison of Ad-Hoc and Regional Mechanisms 27 

2.1 Jurisdiction and Multiple Use of the California Coastal Area 31 

2.2 Level and Government Institutions Involved in Offshore 

Energy Development 33 

2.3 Santa Barbara County Energy Division Budget, Fiscal 

Years 1985-94 41 

2.4 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, Agenda Items 

Addressing Offshore Energy Issues, 1980-87 42 

2.4 (Continued) Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, 

Agenda Items Addressing Offshore Energy Issues 43 

2.5 Santa Barbara County Energy Division Employment, 

Fiscal Years 1985-94 44 

3.1 Offshore Oil and Gas Projects and Related Facilities in 

the Santa Barbara County Region, 1989 49 

5.1 Number of Weekly Meeting Agendas Considering Offshore Oil 

Issues, Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, 1955-87 83 

5.2 Cumulative Proportion of Oil-Related Agenda Items 84 

5.3 Number of Weekly Meetings with Oil Items on the Agenda vs. 

Number of Agenda Items for the Year 88 

6.1 Mean Level of Concern, 1989, 1994 Surveys 93 

6.2 Familiarity with Projects and Programs, 1989, 1994 95 

6.3 Judged Success of Programs and Projects, 1989, 1994 97 

6.4 Projects Judged Most and Least Successful; Respondents 

Ordered by Support for Oil Development; 1989, 1994. 98 
Mitigating the Impact of Offshore Oil Development 

1

FINAL TECHNICAL SUMMARY 

STUDY TITLE: Mitigating the Impact of Offshore Oil Development: Implementation 

Issues 

REPORT TITLE: Mitigating the Impact of Offshore Oil Development 

CONTRACT NUMBER:14-35-0001-30471 

SPONSORING OCS REGION: Pacific 

APPLICABLE PLANNING AREAS: Southern California 

FISCAL YEAR(S) OF PROJECT FUNDING: FY 89, FY 90, FY 93 

COMPLETION DATE OF REPORT: September 1996 

COST(S): FY 89 - $30,000, FY 90 - $33,000, FY 91 – no cost, FY 92 – no cost, FY 93 - 

$31,341 

CUMULATIVE PROJECT COST: $94,341 

PROJECT MANAGER: Russell J. Schmitt 

AFFILIATION: University of California, Santa Barbara 

ADDRESS: Coastal Research Center, Marine Science Institute, University of California, 

Santa Barbara, CA 93106-6150 

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: 

1

John T. Woolley 

AFFILIATED STAFF: 2

James T. Lima 

ADDRESSES: 

1

Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106; 

2

Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, 949 East 36th Avenue, Suite 300, 

Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4363 

KEYWORDS: California; Santa Barbara Channel; Santa Barbara County, California; 

intergovernmental relations; regulation; facility siting; coastal zone management; 

implementation; case studies; survey research 
Final Technical Summary – Woolley and Lima 

2

BACKGROUND: California's Santa Barbara Channel has been the site of periodic, locallyintensive private, state and federal offshore energy development since 1896. In each period of 

development, the socioeconomic impacts from the development have become more 

pronounced. Starting in the mid-1970s, numerous environmental impact assessments for 

federal and state offshore leasing and subsequent development and production plans 

characterized the various socioeconomic impacts that could have resulted for each scenario 

and identified measures to mitigate those impacts. However, the analyses failed to 

characterize the administrative, legislative, budgetary and ajudicatory structures and processes 

which had to be created by local government, primarily Santa Barbara County, to respond 

offshore energy activities within its jurisdiction. This research project characterized the 

changes to the essential governmental institutions, structures and processes that resulted from 

offshore energy development. 

OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the changes to local government structure and decision 

making processes in response to offshore energy activities over time. (2) To characterize the 

assessment of elites involved in offshore development regarding the effectiveness of local 

government efforts to regulate the impacts of offshore energy development. 

DESCRIPTION: A study of offshore energy development in the Santa Barbara Channel was 

undertaken to identify how the development affected the structure and processes of Santa 

Barbara County, California government. The research consisted of two different but related 

efforts using different techniques. The first effort developed a case study of energy 

development in the Santa Barbara Channel. The second effort consisted of a survey 

administered to individuals involved in offshore energy development in the Santa Barbara 

Channel. 

The case study (1) created a chronology of events that characterized offshore energy 

development from 1896 to the late 1980s; (2) gathered information on local government 

reaction and response to these events; (3) classify the overall attitude and response of local 

government to the events; and (4) compare and contrast the reactions of local government 

across time. The case study information was developed from a variety of primary and 

secondary sources such as newspapers, official minutes of government deliberations, 

environmental impact analyses, fiscal information, land use regulations, and government 

organizational data. 

The second effort involved administration of a survey to approximately 89 individuals in 

different categories regarding their perception of the seriousness of the impacts from offshore 

energy development. The respondents were also asked about their familiarity with the various 

offshore energy projects in the vicinity of Santa Barbara County. Furthermore, the 

respondents were asked for their evaluation of various programs that had been established to 

deal with the impacts of these problems. Potential respondents were selected on the basis of a 

demonstrated familiarity with offshore energy development issues in the Santa Barbara 

Channel region. The survey instrument was administered on two separate occasions, in 1989 

and in 1994. 
Mitigating the Impact of Offshore Oil Development 

3

SIGNIFICANT CONCLUSIONS: The researchers concluded that the structure and 

operation of local government has been substantially impacted by offshore energy activities. 

Local government's greatest influence comes from its police powers and land use authority 

over onshore activities within its jurisdiction. Generally, as the level of offshore activity 

increases, local government develops more highly-specialized fiscal, administrative, and 

policy strategies. The increased capacity to address offshore energy activities creates a more 

complex and time consuming approval and regulatory process. Researchers also noted 

significantly different perceptions within the policy community as to the seriousness of 

impacts from offshore development and the effectiveness of current local government policies 

and programs to address the impacts. 

STUDY RESULTS: Government and the outcomes of political processes determine the 

conditions under which the offshore resource will be developed. At any given time in the 

history of offshore development, economic conditions, the requisite technology, and 

geographic considerations have made some form of offshore activity viable. However, the 

activities could not go forward without government's approval. In large part, this approval 

was determined by the level of community acceptance of offshore activity. When the activity 

was less controversial or could be made so approval was more readily granted and in many 

cases, prior to the 1969 oil spill, was routinely given. 

The case study revealed a number of changes that occurred to local government over time as 

the level and complexity of offshore activity increased. Offshore activity issues came before 

the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors more frequently over time, achieving 

permanent status on the weekly agenda during the 1980s. More detailed, specialized, and 

comprehensive land use policies, regulations and procedures were created to limit the siting of 

onshore components of offshore energy projects to designated areas. Local government 

administrative organizations which addressed offshore activity became more technically 

specialized until separate and exclusive agencies were created to handle offshore activities. 

Fiscal policies, such as service charges, were instituted to ensure that local government could 

recover the entire cost of project approval and regulation from the offshore industry either 

individually or collectively. 

STUDY PRODUCTS: 

Publications: 

Lima, J. 1994. The Politics of Offshore Energy Development. PhD Dissertation. Special 

collections, Davidson Library, University of California, Santa Barbara 

Presentations: 

Woolley J. and J. Lima. 1990. Local Government's Responses to Offshore Oil Development: 

Implementation of Mitigation Measures. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science 

Association 
Final Technical Summary – Woolley and Lima 

4

Woolley, J. and J. Lima. 1992. Santa Barbara County and Offshore Oil Development--

Applicability of the Lessons to Other Communities. The California Coastal Zone Experience 

Lima, J. and M. McGinnis. 1993. California Ocean Use Management: An Assessment of 

Two Integrating Approaches. In International Perspectives on Coastal and Ocean Space 

Utilization 

Lima, J. 1993. History of Early Offshore Oil Development in the Channel. Proceedings of 

Information Transfer Meeting 

Lima, J. 1995. The Life Cycle of a Land Use Planning Agency in California: Santa Barbara 

County and Offshore Energy Development. Southern Political Science Association Annual 

Meeting 

Lima, J. 1996. The Design of Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures. 73rd Annual 

Meeting of the Alabama Academy of Science Annual Meeting 
Mitigating the Impact of Offshore Oil Development 

 5

FINAL STUDY REPORT 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

For more than a century, California's Santa Barbara Channel has been the site of locallyintensive offshore energy activities (i.e., exploration, leasing, development, production, and 

abandonment). Offshore energy development started with the drilling of wells by private 

landowners into the tideland and nearshore in the 1890s near Summerland, moving further 

offshore and expanding along the coast as further development became technologically and 

economically feasible (Lima, 1994). 

Little consideration was given to the ecological impacts of this development prior to the 1969 

Santa Barbara oil spill. In the two and one half decades since the event, the impacts of 

offshore development to the ecosystem have been intensively studied. However, the impacts 

to the area's social and economic network from the development, if considered at all, were 

often treated as a secondary consideration. In fact, sizeable voids in knowledge needed by 

decision makers to guide future offshore energy development in the region have been noted. 

 

Numerous environmental impact analyses from federal leasing plans, individual lease sales, 

and individual development projects from the 1970s to the present have characterized the 

various socioeconomic impacts that could have resulted had the development scenarios been 

realized. These environmental impact reports/statements characterized the impacts of 

development alternatives on the human environment (i.e., noise, cultural resources, aesthetics) 

and to the services provided by government (i.e., schools, solid waste disposal, public safety). 

However, the analyses failed to recognize that fundamental processes of government and the 

relationship of government to its citizens affected by the development. Increased offshore 

activity caused local government to expand existing functions and create new ones. 

Ironically, the very preparation and certification of these environmental analyses was a novel 

activity for many local governments. The affected governments had to create new 

administrative, legislative, and ajudicatory structures and processes to cope with the demands 

placed upon them by offshore energy development. In many cases, local, general purpose 

governments were profoundly affected by offshore activity. 

This research project was undertaken to characterize the impacts to the government 

institutions, structures and processes that resulted from offshore energy development. The 

institutions of government and the outcomes of political processes determine the conditions 

under which the offshore activity will be allowed. Economic, technological, and geographic 

factors are important influences shaping offshore energy policy. But, government is 

paramount among these factors in ultimately sanctioning offshore development. This point 

cannot be overemphasized. At any given time in the history of offshore development, 

economic conditions, the requisite technology, and geographic considerations have made 

some form of offshore activity viable. However, the activities could not go forward without 
Final Study Report – Woolley and Lima 

 6

the government's approval. In fact, government's reluctance to authorize an otherwise viable 

activity has caused much of the conflict associated with offshore energy (Lima, 1994). 

Creating public policy, administering and enforcing that policy, and adjudicating claims made 

within the public policy framework are the three essential functions of government. In the 

United States, the authority and power to carry out these functions are divided among several 

institutions and levels of government. As such, any analysis of offshore energy activities must 

recognize the multi-level and multi-institutional influences. 

However, concentrating on institutions ignores the multiplicity of political processes and 

stakeholders inherint in American government in general and offshore energy development in 

particular. Majority-building is acknowledged as the primary method of legitimating 

government policy. Through this process, policies which are not be contrary to the values of 

the overall policy community are considered viable and often adopted and implemented. The 

implemented policy then becomes the foundation for subsequent modification of the policies. 

Therefore, at any given time, offshore policy is a mixture of passt circumstances modified for 

foreseeable developments. An in-depth and complete political history of offshore 

development must include government actions and the outcomes of political processes. In 

addition, the research must examine the acceptance of the policy community to the 

governments strategies for mitigating the impacts. 

Changes in the general political environment over time affect government response to energy 

development, including offshore development. The political reaction to offshore development 

over time reflects the general political climate of the community. In other words, offshore 

energy decisions of local governments reflect the larger political climate. Analyzing reactions 

throughout the entire period of development reveals continuity and changes in the specific 

issue area as well as in the general political climate. 

 

2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 

 

A study of offshore energy development in the Santa Barbara Channel was undertaken to 

identify how the development affected the structure and processes of Santa Barbara County, 

California government. The research consisted of two separate but related efforts using 

different techniques. The first effort developed a case study of energy development in the 

Santa Barbara Channel. The preparation of the case study involved intensive analysis of 

public documents and extensive informant interviews. The second effort consisted of a survey 

administered to individuals involved in offshore energy development in the Santa Barbara 

Channel. 

 

2.1 Case Study 

The case study (1) created a chronology of events that characterized offshore energy 

development from 1896 to the late 1980s; (2) gathered information on local government 
Mitigating the Impact of Offshore Oil Development 

 7

reaction and response to these events; (3) classified the overall attitude and response of local 

government to the events; and (4) compared and contrasted the reactions of local government 

across time. Part of the extensive case study material were presented in a doctoral dissertation 

by J. T. Lima. A copy of the front matter and abstract for this dissertation is presented below 

in Appendix A. 

 

2.1.1 Chronology of Events 

Events are important as a mechanism for defining and bringing problems to the attention of 

government. Identifying events was the first step in developing the local political history of 

offshore development. The chronology, which described the events and reaction of Santa 

Barbara County government to offshore development was initially assembled from many 

primary and secondary sources including newspapers, official minutes of government 

deliberations, environmental impact analyses, fiscal information, land use regulations, and 

government organizational data. 

 2.1.2 Evidence of Reaction to Events 

Local newspapers of record were examined to ascertain the reaction of local government to 

the events. These newspapers include the Ventura Star Free Press, the Santa Barbara News 

Press, and the San Luis Obispo Telegram Tribune. Regional newspapers include the Los 

Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. These newspapers are available for the 

entire period of offshore development. In addition to newspapers, trade periodicals such as the 

Oil and Gas Journal and Offshore are available for post-1955 development. 

Government publications provide another source of information on local reactions to events. 

These publications include official minutes of government deliberations, environmental 

impact analyses, fiscal information, land use regulations, and government organizational data. 

The Minutes of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors are part of the public record, 

are available for the entire study period, and have proven invaluable in the research. Public 

records of County Planning Commission meetings yield similar information, although these 

were not used as extensively as Board minutes in the research. 

Offshore energy activities after 1969 are subject to federal and state environmental reviews. 

The Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), 

respectively, resulting from these reviews contain the comments of local governments. 

Federal lease sales in the late 1970s and 1980s (each step in the sale being a discrete event) 

involve extensive areas off the California coast. Comments of local governments to the 

proposed sale, contained in the environmental documents, allow comparison of the reaction of 

local governments. 

Budgetary data was collected to show the costs incurred by local government in responding to 

offshore energy development. Similarly, since state offshore oil leases are subject to local 

property tax in California, the contribution of offshore energy development to local revenues 

can be estimated. Land use policies and regulations used to govern the siting of facilities by 
Final Study Report – Woolley and Lima 

 8

local government were examined to ascertain the level and character of local government 

response over time. 

 2.1.3 Classifying the Reaction 

Classifying government reaction to offshore activity is a fairly straightforward process. 

Government attitudes may vary from project to project or between phases of any single 

project, but this will not preclude determination of a overall attitude of local government 

toward offshore activities. As decision making within each period becomes more routinized, 

a fairly consistent attitude pattern emerged which characterized government perception. 

 2.1.4 Comparison of Reactions Across Time 

To simplify analysis, development in the Channel was divided into eight periods. These 

periods, which are described in the Results section, are defined by numerous factors, such as 

the political actors and legislation that controlled development, the technology available to 

discover and recover offshore energy resources, the geographic scope of the activity, and 

public acceptance of the activity. For example, the Southern California offshore development 

in the period of 1955 to 1965 involved mainly local and state government, was conducted 

from nearshore, shallow-water platforms, was geographically widespread, and was generally 

accepted by the public. 

 2.2 Survey Research 

A survey instrument was administered via mail to a number of individuals in different 

categories to ascertain their perception of the seriousness of the impacts from offshore energy 

development. In addition, the respondents were asked about their familiarity with the various 

offshore energy projects in the vicinity of Santa Barbara County. Furthermore, the 

respondents were asked for their evaluation of various programs that had been established to 

deal with the impacts of these problems. 

The selection of the respondents for the survey was purposeful. The people asked to fill out 

the questionnaire were directly involved in some aspect of offshore development, either as 

individuals or as representatives of groups or companies. As such, they were expected to have 

a degree of familiarity with, and relative expertise concerning, offshore energy development 

beyond that of the average citizen. 

The pool of possible respondents was developed from a variety of sources, such as 

environmental impact reports, records of public hearings and meetings on offshore energy 

issues, and civic directories. For example, environmental impact reports (EIR), especially the 

public comment and response section, provided a rich source of names, addresses, and 

affiliations. In addition, the comments submitted by the individuals in the EIRs allowed us to 

determine the level of familiarity that each possible respondent had with offshore energy 

development. Examination of multiple EIRs allowed us to develop a list of names and 

organizations that were continuously involved with offshore energy development. Over time, 
Mitigating the Impact of Offshore Oil Development 

 9

a number of individuals and organizations emerged as being attentive to offshore 

development. 

The environmental impact reviews were not the only source used to identify prospective 

respondents. The attendance records of public meetings regarding offshore energy 

development, such as the Minerals Management Service's annual Information Transfer 

Meeting, were canvassed and potential respondents identified. 

The first survey was administered in the Spring of 1989. While the surveys were addressed to 

specific individuals, the completed surveys were returned anonymously. That is, the identity 

of the individual returning the survey could not be ascertained with certainty. Three weeks 

after the survey was mailed, a follow-up letter was sent to all respondents requesting that they 

complete and return the survey if they had not already done so. 

The second survey was administered in the Spring of 1994.1

 The instrument used in the 1994 

survey was identical to the instrument used in the 1989 survey. In order maximize continuity 

and comparability between the two surveys, the survey was sent to the same persons and/or 

organizations as the 1989 survey. Prior to sending the survey, the mailing list was updated to 

reflect changes since the 1989 survey. In most cases, there was no change in persons and their 

function within the organization they represented. However, some substitutions were 

necessary. In a few cases, the people were no longer with the organization and the survey was 

sent to the person who now served in that function. For example, electoral changes in local 

governments resulted in the survey being sent to the elected official who was in office, not the 

individual who occupied the office in 1989. In very few cases, the whereabouts of the person 

could not be established and the organization no longer existed. In these cases, equivalent 

organizations were identified and contacted. For example, some of the ad-hoc community 

groups polled in 1989 survey no longer existed in 1994 and replacement for these respondents 

were identified and contacted. 

3.0 RESULTS 

What follows is a highly compressed summary of the research results. A much more detailed 

account of the historical information up through 1975 can be found by consulting the doctoral 

dissertation presented by J.T. Lima and abstracted below in Appendix A. A second body of 

findings and analysis is found the form of a seven-chapter report attached as Appendix B. As 

noted above, the history of offshore energy development can be divided into eight periods. 

 

1

 In light of the poor results from the first survey and because the PI was on leave without pay from the 

University of California in 1993-94, the PI suggested to the project manager that it would be appropriate to 

abandon the second wave of the survey. The project manager chose to fund the second round of the survey, and 

the work was carried out by J.T. Lima in Santa Barbara. 
Final Study Report – Woolley and Lima 

 10

Period 1. 1896-1920 

Initial offshore oil development at Summerland. Local government had little influence in this 

development, however when the development encroached on the City of Santa Barbara 

waterfront, private citizens objected on aesthetic grounds. 

Period 2. 1921 to 1929 

California Mineral Leasing Act of 1921 authorized the state to issue offshore prospecting 

permits which were convertible to production leases. Provisions in law prohibited 

prospecting and production in the offshore area contiguous to incorporated city limits. In 

1927, California's Surveyor General refused to issue any more prospecting permits. This 

action was overturned by the California Supreme Court in December 1928. Legislative 

action, supported by the local delegation, changed state law prohibited the further issuing of 

prospecting permits, thus limiting the applicability of the Supreme Court decision to permits 

previously granted. 

Period 3. 1929 to 1938 

In this period, four separate ballot initiatives attempted to overturn legislature's action. In 

each case, the ban on new development was upheld, but development from permits issued 

prior to 1929 continued. Many of these permits covered the Ventura and Santa Barbara 

County offshore area, including the area that developed into the Ellwood field. In 1938, the 

California legislature in special session passed the State Lands Act which prohibited any new 

offshore development unless offshore pools were being drained from private onshore wells. 

Even then, development had to take place by slant drilling from onshore sites. Offshore 

structures were prohibited by the act. 

Period 4. 1939 to 1955 

The issue of Santa Barbara Channel offshore energy development became nationalized as 

Congress and the Executive Branch debated whether the state or federal government had 

control over offshore energy resources. In 1947 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal 

government had paramount rights over these resources, effectively negating state claims and 

regulation of development. The court's decision began six years of attempts by the Congress 

to overturn this decision through legislation. In 1953, the Submerged Lands Act returned 

control of marginal sea to the state (3 miles for California) while the Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act allowed federal control for area beyond the marginal sea. Locally, while little 

"new" development took place, citizens and local government opposed offshore exploration 

activities which were believed to be a precursor to actual development. 

Period 5. 1955 to 1965 

The Shell-Cunningham Tidelands Act passed in the California legislature after a hard-fought 

battle. The act, which removed many of the restrictions in the 1938 law, allowed development 
Mitigating the Impact of Offshore Oil Development 

 11

only in areas which already had development (i.e., Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles and 

Orange counties) while precluding development elsewhere (north of the Santa Barbara-San 

Luis Obispo county line). The Act established a sixteen mile drilling sanctuary running from 

Goleta to Summerland--approximately the then-urban environs of the greater metropolitan 

Santa Barbara area. Both the City and County lobbied vigorously for the sanctuary, which 

could only be leased if there were "drainage" from non-state wells. Thereafter, the political 

strategy became one of "protect the sanctuary" from encroaching development. Otherwise, the 

County was either ambivalent or quite supportive of state offshore leasing. However, new 

exploration techniques, offshore oil platforms, and sizeable onshore processing facilities were 

new challenges to Santa Barbara County government. After the initial land use ordinances 

were developed and adopted, onshore facilities supporting offshore development were 

routinely approved on a project-by-project basis. The dispute over jurisdiction within the 

Channel stalls federal leasing in the area. Tracts along the California coast north of Point 

Conception leased by the Federal government in 1963 were explored but did not reach 

production. 

Period 6. 1965 to 1968 

An U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1965 divided the Santa Barbara Channel into state and 

federal areas, allowing federal leasing beyond three miles to proceed. This action once again 

"nationalized" the issue of offshore development. The first federal lease sale in 1967 

consisted of a single tract sale in response to drainage from an adjacent state lease. By this 

time, most of the offshore area adjacent to County's coastline had been leased by the State. 

Onshore facilities in rapidly urbanizing portions of the County resulted in conflicts between 

residential and industrial land uses, as illustrated by the siting of onshore facilities needed to 

develop the South Ellwood field. During 1967, the County implemented a comprehensive 

onshore facility siting policy while attempting to delay the onset of federal leasing in the 

Channel in order to accommodate onshore facilities. A November 1968 County-wide 

referendum overturned County approval of a onshore processing plant in Carpinteria. 

Period 7. 1969 to 1975 

In the aftermath of the January 1969 oil spill from Platform A in the Dos Cuadras offshore 

field, Santa Barbara County attempted to halt any further development in the Channel. By the 

early 1970s, it was apparent that this strategy would not be successful, so the County adopted 

a strategy of heavily regulating onshore facilities. Environmental legislation enacted in the 

aftermath of the oil spill, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, California 

Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act 

(Proposition 20) in 1972, as well as powerful land use authority traditionally granted to local 

governments in California provided the County powerful tools with which to regulate onshore 

development. The environmental legislation also allowed much wider public participation in 

offshore development. The Santa Ynez Unit is the first major offshore project to be approved 

in the aftermath of the legislation. A May 1975 County-wide referendum failed to overturn 

Board of Supervisor approval of onshore facilities for the Snata Ynez Unit. 
Final Study Report – Woolley and Lima 

 12

Period 8. 1976 to 1990 

Renewed federal leasing in the Channel and area north of Point Conception resulted in major 

discoveries and demand for new onshore facilities. The County's coastal plan, which 

addressed onshore facility siting was approved by the California Coastal Commission. Faced 

with the demands of evaluating and approving several complex development projects, the 

County created a special agency to develop policy and process permit for onshore facilities. 

Most, but not all onshore facilities were subjected to long delays in construction and start-up. 

A County-wide referendum in 1986 affirmed County policies on offshore energy at a time 

when other local governments in California area enacting ordnances to preclude onshore 

facilities. 

The influence of Santa Barbara County in the regulation of offshore energy development 

results principally from its authority over land use within its jurisdiction. For the most part, 

offshore energy development and production 

4.0 DISCUSSION 

The circumstances of offshore energy development in southern California, which requires 

extensive onshore processing and support facilities, places local government in a position to 

potentially exercise considerable influence over the pattern and character of offshore 

development. This influence derives in part from a function inherint in many local 

governments, that of land use planning and regulation (Woolley and Lima, 1990). 

The research identified three reactions of local governments to offshore energy activities. The 

first reaction involves immediate mobilization to oppose leasing and development. The 

second reaction involves a gradual change from initial accommodation to active resistance to 

offshore development. The third reaction regards development as inevitable and attempts to 

exploit the "unique position of local government to influence outcomes of development" 

(Woolley and Lima, 1991). Yet, the ability of Santa Barbara County government to 

aggressively regulate offshore energy development is predicated on (1) legislation which gives 

the county the authority to act, (2) the scale and intensity of development which motivates the 

County to act, (3) institutional skill and expertise which allows the County to act, and (4) 

public support for aggressive regulation. 

The history of Channel offshore development (Lima, 1994) suggests that the first reaction is 

most appropriate and effective for areas where oil development has not yet taken place, i.e., in 

an area where development is currently prohibited, such as a drilling sanctuary. The second 

reaction characterizes County behavior from the beginning of leasing in 1955 until the mid1960s when concerns over coastal industrialization and aesthetic, residential, and tourist 

values emerge. Absolute resistance to any potential and existing offshore activity in the 

aftermath of the oil spill was short lived, giving way to the third reaction, which proved 

pragmatic given the political realities of offshore development in a federal system. 
Mitigating the Impact of Offshore Oil Development 

 13

Yet, throughout the history of offshore development, local government has had a reservoir of 

capacity that allowed it to act. Santa Barbara County has always asserted a great deal of 

influence over the pattern and character of offshore energy development, especially when the 

development occurred in the state-controlled zone. However, the County often had to rapidly 

develop additional capacity to supplement the rudimentary capacity it possessed at the 

beginning of each period. 

Offshore energy development influences the executive, legislative, fiscal, and administrative 

functions of local government. The development of the capacity to act is most prominent 

during the last period when several factors combine to challenge County government to 

simultaneously manage the impacts from several large offshore energy projects. 

 

While land use authority allows local government a great deal of influence over offshore 

energy development, it also imposes a responsibility to act upon local government. California 

legislation required that local government develop and adopt land use policies and regulations 

for energy facilities in the coastal zone. These general policies, which were debated before 

the Board of Supervisors prior to adoption, mandated that the Supervisors consider all but the 

most minor actions regarding the siting of individual onshore facilities. In addition, the Board 

exercised oversight of County administrative agencies responsible for implementing the 

policies and decisions of the Board. As a result, offshore energy issues achieved near 

permanent status on the weekly agenda of the Board of Supervisors (Lima, 1995a, 1995b). 

The County developed many innovative strategies for dealing with offshore energy 

development. These innovations included a "living permit" strategy for offshore energy 

projects. This policy allowed a previously issued permit to be modified if analysis revealed 

that the conditions originally imposed by the permit did not sufficiently mitigate the impact 

(Woolley and Lima, 1990). 

 Administratively, the County is forced to develop new routines to cope with the demands 

placed upon it by offshore energy development. Intergovernmental decision making, 

especially in the area of environmental impact assessments afforded the County a great deal of 

influence in the deliberations but required the County to participate in several ad-hoc, 

temporary task forces (Lima and McGinnes, 1991). After the assessments were completed, 

the County had to create new programs to ensure that the measures to mitigate project impacts 

were adopted (Lima, 1996). 

 

The highly complex and technical nature of offshore energy activities required that specialized 

expertise be developed by County administrative agencies. Initially, individuals within 

existing land use agencies specialized in offshore energy development. The increasing level 

of offshore energy activity necessitated the creation of a specialized land use planning agency 

that was exclusively dedicated to working on offshore energy projects. To sustain this level of 

administrative effort, special mechanisms were created to ensure that the cost of providing the 

service would be fully recovered from the offshore industry, either individually when costs 

could be isolated to an individual project or collectively when costs could not be attributed to 

a single project (Lima, 1995b). 
Final Study Report – Woolley and Lima 

 14

5.0 CONCLUSIONS 

The process of offshore energy development is technologically driven. Technology 

determines the location of the activity as well as the feasibility and cost of the activity. 

Location of the activity determines the jurisdictions that will be involved in the decision to 

allow the activity to proceed. Ultimately, all levels of government must approve in order for 

the activity to go forward. Often, the activity ceases or continues at a less than desired level 

until a concensus for allowing the activity emerges. Inevitably, local government will be 

involved in the decision making process because of the authority it has over onshore 

processing and support facilities needed to complete the production and distribution of energy 

products. The complex technical nature of the activity forces local government to develop 

new and specialized executive, legislative, fiscal, and administrative mechanisms for dealing 

with the activity. The ability of local government to create capacity does not necessarily 

ensure that its efforts will be welcomed by stakeholders in offshore energy activities. 
The Department of the Interior Mission 

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most 

of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our 

land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the 

enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral 

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by 

encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories 

under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) primary 

responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian lands, and distribute 

those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally sound 

exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral resources. The 

MMS Royalty Management Program meets its responsibilities by ensuring the efficient, timely and 

accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and production due to Indian 

tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially affected 

parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the quality of life for 

all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic development and environmental 

protection.