Santa Barbara County supervisors voted Tuesday to ban drilling new oil and gas wells, which is the first phase of the county’s plan to end onshore oil and gas operations.

The board approved the ordinance changes in a 3-2 vote during the meeting in Santa Maria. Supervisors Laura Capps, Joan Hartmann and Roy Lee supported the motion, and supervisors Steve Lavagnino and Bob Nelson voted against the phaseout.

The plan is part of the county’s goal of lowering greenhouse gas emissions in the region.

The board directed county staff to begin writing an ordinance in May 2025.

Staff returned with a two-part plan that would first address adding new oil and gas wells before moving on to existing operations. The Planning Commission approved the plan in April.

The first phase, approved Tuesday, bans the drilling of new onshore wells or re-entering previously abandoned oil and gas wells. The amendments will apply to wells on land, but not to offshore operations that are typically in state or federal waters.

Additionally, amendments will prohibit oil and gas exploration activities. They will also modify the county’s application and development standards for drilling.

The second stage of the plan, if approved, will phase out existing and idle oil and gas facilities and operations.

The county decided to do this part later because it needs to conduct an amortization study, which would allow operators to recoup the full cost of their wells before they are fully shut down, according to staff.

During their comments, the supervisors split into two camps largely influenced by the location of their districts.

Fifth District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino called oil and gas the dividing issue between the north and south regions of the county. Lavagnino said he has spent his 16 years on the board trying to connect the two regions but said this issue has prevented that.

Lavagnino, whose district historically relies on agricultural and oil jobs, said the economy of the North County is different from the South County’s economy.

He also described his past support of green initiatives like solar power and switching the county vehicle fleet to electric.

“We don’t have a lot of options in North County,” Lavagnino said. “Our oil patch offers head-of-household jobs to many that live in the most disadvantaged community. That’s why our local trades always support the industry.”

Lavagnino said the community is built on the oil and gas industry and compared the phaseout to ripping away a stool from people.

Fourth District Supervisor Bob Nelson also voted against the phaseout, saying the decision will disproportionately affect the North County.

Nelson read from a report analyzing the oil industry that showed that most jobs in the industry only require a high school education and limited experience.

Furthermore, these jobs pay better due to the high-risk nature of the jobs.

Nelson continued by saying the local oilfield workforce leans heavily male and Hispanic.

“We often talk about ‘One County, One Future,’ but this policy does not fall evenly across one county,” he said.

Nelson said the county owed property owners a complete environmental analysis, an honest review of the county’s legal exposure, an inventory of property rights, and a serious examination of alternatives to a complete ban.

Second District Supervisor Laura Capps supported the phaseout. She pointed to the cost of natural disasters throughout the county and the rise of extreme weather events due to climate change.

Capps said oil companies have extracted over $500 million in profits from the region, but the county has paid to address climate-related events.  

“Two point two billion dollars in damages on the Montecito debris flow. That was the total cost. The 2015 Refugio Oil Spill was $330 million dollars; $150 million on public infrastructure damages,” Capps said. “These are not isolated things. This is just now a way of life.”

She said that supervisors had a responsibility to change course.

Close to 50 people spoke during public comment at Tuesday’s meeting, with people taking sides for and against the phaseout.

Opponents argued that a ban would only increase oil prices, harm local workers, and make the state more reliant on other countries for oil.

Andy Caldwell, the executive director of the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture, and Business, accused the board of ignoring the voters and argued that the state would end up importing more oil.

“So, you’re not reducing greenhouse gas emissions; you’re just shifting them and actually increasing them,” Caldwell said.

He also argued that trying to shut down oil and gas wells opens the county up to costly lawsuits.

Paasha Mahdavi, a professor at UC Santa Barbara, argued that support for a phaseout is higher than some have argued. Mahdavi said his department conducted a 10-month study that found that 65% of people throughout the county support the phaseout.

He added that the support is not just in the South County. The study found that four out of the county’s five districts support the phaseout.

Mahdavi also disagreed that the cost of gasoline would increase due to the phaseout since the costs were determined by the global market.

“By banning new oil drilling, Santa Barbara has the opportunity to be the light of the world to show the rest of the country how to transition into the future,” he said.