Front Page  »  

House-passed bill includes seizing land for Santa Ynez pipeline

July 29, 2026

Congressman Salud Carbajal

By KAREN VELIE

The House of Representatives passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act last week with an amendment likely to put an end to the battle over pumping oil off the coast of Santa Barbara and transporting it through the Santa Ynez pipeline system.

Texas Congressman Wesley Hunt authored the amendment that would allow the Pentagon to enact easements along Sable Offshore’s pipeline on both private and public lands. The amendment allows Sable to transport oil pumped off the coast of Santa Barbara to refineries supplying military installations.

“Energy security is not merely an economic concern, it is a national security concern,” Hunt said. “California imports nearly 70 percent of all of its oil from other countries. It has become dependent on oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz.”

California Democrats, including Rep. Salud Carbajal from Santa Barbara, argued Hunt’s amendment whittles away state authority and rigs the system for a Houston-based oil company.

While state officials and environmental groups attempted to shut down oil drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara through permitting disputes and legal actions, on June 2, Sable sent a letter to the US Department of Energy asking it to consider eminent domain to condemn multiple properties tied to the disputes.

These properties include approximately three miles of state-owned land off the Santa Barbara coast, roughly four miles where pipeline crosses through Gaviota State Park, and a privately owned parcel of land near Buellton.

The House passed its $1.5 trillion version of the National Defense Authorization Act on July 22 by a 216–212 vote, which included Hunt’s amendment.

In the Senate, passage of the annual federal law has stalled over disputes regarding overall costs and provisions.

Because we believe the public needs the facts, the truth, CalCoastNews has not put up a paywall because it limits readership. However, we are seeking qualification as a paper of record, which will allow us to publish public notices, this requires 5,000 paid subscribers.

Your subscription will help us to continue investigating and reporting the news.

Support CalCoastNews, subscribe today, click here.

 


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


13 Comments

Those bureaucrats objecting to domestic oil production are famous for actually stating they WANTED gas prices to increase to drive (so to speak) the move to electric vehicles, as if they are truly greener when all is said and done. Who cared about all the poor people, literally, who had to commute far distances from places they could afford to work in the rich liberal’s kitchens or yards?


9

Get rid of Salud, He’s dumb as a rock and a menace.


30

As for national security, Salud will have to say, “YES SIR” and we can’t forget the need for oil to build all of those State-owned electric vehicles,

Simultaneously, we are required to pay gas taxes to fund the maintenance of our roadways. Soon there will be a need for taller tires and better suspension on all vehicles. Also, don’t forget that there is less oil on the beach because pumping it relives the pressure that naturally oozes oil from the ocean floor. Ask someone who has owned SB beach front property for many decades.


30

Good, California imports nearly 70 percent of all of its oil from other countries. How environmental is THAT?


58

The case for expanding offshore drilling rests on the promise of cheaper gas, but California’s production is a drop in the bucket compared with the global oil market and would have little, if any, effect on fuel prices. What it would do is increase the risk of spills, habitat destruction, and long-term damage to one of the world’s most valuable coastlines. California would be assuming significant environmental risks in exchange for negligible economic or energy-market benefits. From both a local and macro perspective, the tradeoff simply isn’t justified.


-29

Notably obtuse arguments.


Transport costs – and therefore price per bbl – for local crude is much lower.


What “habitat destruction n long term damage”? The Remarkably few Spills get cleaned up, habitat recovers – point to “permanent” spill damage please, and explain how natural oil seeps all over CA haven’t managed to wipe out ecosystems.


CA governance’s greed and war on petroleum makes fuel prices here the highest in the US, for no noticeable benefit to citizens. Don’t understand the tunnel vision thinking of those like you,but glad more like me are fighting back instead of trying to appease weak minded emotional thinking….


27

Listen…((crickets))


Use American resources!


11

Let’s see. My beliefs are shaped by personal knowledge about the industry and what drives it. Did you know a local company once controlled 50% of the production and distribution of oil filed chemicals needed to produce oil? A California company no less. They associate the high cost of gas on market manipulation by oil companies , not tree huggers.


-11

Oh you’re dead wrong on that one Mr Yan; and as I worked in the industry for almost 50 years, from field level to executive, I’m betting my knowledge of how it works is superior to yours. The fact is that Ca prices exceed all other US prices is due to CA Government market manipulation in the form of regulatory burdens, costly boutique gas blend requirements, and state taxes higher that anywhere else – and orders of magnitude HIGHER than the profits EARNED by the producers and distributors of products. This was not so before CA went blue.


I’d tell you to google this, but you really already know it and yet insist on lying about it just to support your messed up ideology. Shameful.


25

and CA makes matters worse by chasing zero.


zer0 percent improvement relative to the extraordinary cost of believing the global warming hoax.


12

Let’s not forget that the ever decreasing amount of refineries in California at the hands of the Democrats in Sacramento.. No refineries means no gas!


16

try read the article. your premise is invalid, not just flawed.


the article clearly states the amendment is for national security, not cheaper gas.


you and Rob Bonta share the same propaganda.


your argument is contrived to make it look like you are reasonable, but you are not reasonable: only seeking confirmation bias of your political viewpoint/agenda.


16

“Drill Baby Drill”


50