Santa Barbara County is moving forward with its goal of reducing oil and gas emissions from onshore facilities.   

The Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to develop a framework to prohibit new oil and gas operations and phase out existing ones across the county to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

The board made its decision during its meeting in Santa Maria and approved it in a 3-1 vote. Supervisor Steve Lavagnino of the Fifth District was not present for the vote.

The topic of phasing out oil and gas came after the board passed its Climate Action Plan in August 2024. The board did not include oil and gas emissions targets in its Climate Action Plan, but asked county staff to return with recommendations on how to reduce those emissions.

Staff reported Tuesday that prohibiting new drilling would be the most effective and viable solution for the county.

“We consider it to be the least resource intensive (and) would require limited staff resources for a limited period of time to develop and adopt the ordinance,” said Garrett Wong, a sustainability manager for the county.

He added that similar ordinances have been developed in Culver City, Los Angeles and Los Angeles County, after which Santa Barbara County can model its policy.

The county reported 1,030 active wells, 1,318 idle wells, and 5,491 plugged and abandoned wells. The number of active wells, and onshore oil production, has been decreasing in recent decades, according to the county report to the board.

“Most emissions resulting from oil and gas production in Santa Barbara County come from the extraction process, which includes generating steam or other methods for loosening and removing oil from the basin. The other large source is flaring, which includes combusting gases like methane which are released by the extraction process,” the report said.

The county measures greenhouse gas emissions in carbon dioxide equivalent.

During public comment, multiple speakers spoke out in favor of the ordinance and encouraged the board to approve it.

“The evidence is clear. The time for action is now. I would also like to reference that we are seeing extreme damage to delicate marine life ecosystems … vulnerable communities and so much more,” Melissa Munoz said.

While most speakers supported restricting oil and gas operations, others objected to the idea.

Charles Katherman said he moved to Santa Barbara 50 years ago to become a petroleum geologist and an engineer. He added that he started his own oil company 40 years ago.

Katherman criticized the county for a lack of communication leading up to the ordinance and said he did not see any effort to cooperate with oil companies.

“What you’re proposing or looking at to vote on is a euthanasia of my industry,” Katherman said.

Fourth District Supervisor Bob Nelson, who represents North County communities, asked county staff if they had made any attempt to reach out to representatives from local oil companies to gain their perspective and insight.

After staff said they had not reached out to oil companies, Nelson expressed frustration and said it was highly inappropriate not to talk to industry members. Nelson also described the proposed ordinance as the nuclear option.

Nelson expressed concern about the loss of jobs if oil and gas production were to be banned from the county. He added that those jobs provide work to people who may not have had access to a college education.

“I live in the North County where high-paying, head-of-household jobs are few and far between,” Nelson said.

During deliberations, Third District Supervisor Joan Hartmann said the oil companies have not come forward with a solution to limit emissions.

She added that the Trump administration has rolled back environmental protections, limited research on climate change and left the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is a collaboration among multiple countries around the world to limit greenhouse gases.  

“This isn’t just business as usual. This is really intensifying oil and gas, blind to its consequences, and (saying) ‘hear no evil, see no evil’ as far as what the consequences are,” Hartmann said.

After deliberations, the board voted to ask staff to return in October with a framework for phasing out oil and gas, along with a timeline and cost for the project.

The vote was 3-1 with Nelson voting against the proposal.