SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
environmental defense center
'Catastrophe' Averted as Judge Upholds California County's Rejection of Exxon Oil Trucking Plan
"It's time for Exxon to accept that the community won't support drilling and transporting oil in their backyard," said one advocate.
Sep 27, 2023
Public health and environmental advocates in Santa Barbara County, California on Wednesday hailed a district court ruling one advocate said placed "the safety of our communities, climate, and coastlines first," as oil giant ExxonMobil's proposal to drive oil tankers down coastal highways was struck down.
Judge Dolly M. Gee in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California upheld the county's 2022 rejection of the company's proposal. Last year the county cited the harm that a potential oil spill would do to biodiversity, water safety, and cultural resources when it refused to allow Exxon to truck oil.
The company sued the county, and late last year a federal judge granted a motion by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), which aimed to intervene in the case on behalf of Indigenous tribes and environmental groups.
The outcome of the case on Wednesday, prohibiting the company from transporting millions of gallons of oil per week, will keep Exxon from moving towards resuming operations on offshore platforms and at a former processing facility, said EDC.
"ExxonMobil's plan to restart its offshore platforms and truck millions of gallons per week through Santa Barbara County is reckless, dangerous, and totally unwelcome by this community," said Linda Krop, chief counsel of group. "Recent oil tanker truck accidents and offshore oil spills show just how dangerous this plan is."
The company aimed to truck the oil on coastal Highway 101 and Route 166, sparking fears of a disaster like the Refugio State Beach oil spill of 2015, which sent more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil into a ravine and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. The spill created a 10-square-mile oil slick that injured and killed wildlife including otters, humpback whales, and brown pelicans, and led to the closure of Exxon's offshore drilling operations.
Gee's ruling was handed down two years after another oil spill near Huntington Beach, which caused oil to seep into a marsh area that is home to more than 80 bird species.
"I'm relieved the judge agreed it was reasonable to deny Exxon's dangerous trucking project. Trucking oil through Santa Barbara County is so obviously risky for the people, wildlife, and coastline," said Liz Jones, an attorney at CBD. "It's time for Exxon to accept that the community won't support drilling and transporting oil in their backyard."
Oil truck accidents are already a problem in California, with 258 trucking incidents reported from 2015-21 along Exxon's proposed route. Eight accidents that have taken place since 2007 have been deadly, killing six people and causing numerous injuries, fires, road closures, and oil spills.
"The next accident is a matter of 'when,' not 'if,' based on oil companies' terrible track record in Santa Barbara County," said Jones. "The costs of oil spills are too high to risk, and this decision is a well-deserved win for the community, ocean life, and ecosystems."
In 2021, CBD posted a map on social media showing the critical habitats—supporting steelhead trout, sea otters, salamanders, and other wildlife—that lie close to the company's proposed trucking route.
"It's incredible that this project would even be considered," said Michael Lyons, board president of Get Out Oil! "Each tanker truck and its full load of oil is essentially a ticking time bomb that threatens the lives of those on the highways and our environment."
With the district court ruling, said Lyons, "an oil spill catastrophe has been prevented."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Supreme Court Rejects Big Oil Challenge to Offshore Fracking Ban in California
"As the climate crisis escalates," said one advocate, "ending these destructive extraction practices is a matter of survival—not just for the whales, otters, and other animals in the channel, but for all life on earth."
Jun 05, 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a call from several fossil fuel companies to hear their challenge to a lower court ruling handed down a year ago, which prohibited fracking in federal waters off the coast of California.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last June upheld a decision to bar the issuing of permits for offshore fracking, finding that the U.S. Department of the Interior had violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act when it allowed fracking in offshore gas and oil wells in the Pacific.
In the original case, the ruling was the result of three separate lawsuits filed by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Wishtoyo Foundation, the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, and the state of California, challenging the federal government.
Earlier this year, fossil fuel companies ExxonMobil and DCOR, LLC were joined by the American Petroleum Institute in intervening in the case, filing a petition for certiorari in an effort to overturn the 9th Circuit ruling.
Despite the history of the case, the Biden administration opposed the fossil fuel companies' move, with Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar writing in a Supreme Court brief last week that "the court of appeals' decision does not warrant this court's review."
"California's amazing coast and vulnerable marine life deserve this victory, which will protect the ecosystem from the many dangers of offshore fracking," said Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at CBD. "The fracking ban will help prevent more toxic chemicals from poisoning fish, sea otters, and other marine life."
EDC filed its lawsuit after finding in 2014 through several Freedom of Information Act requests that the federal government had issued more than 50 permits without conducting environmental reviews or a public comment process.
\u201cBig news in our Supreme Court case upholding a ban on offshore fracking. EDC discovered the federal government had approved 50 permits off the coast without proper review, and we filed our original lawsuit in 2014.\u201d— Environmental Defense Center (@Environmental Defense Center) 1685986264
CBD published a report that same year showing that offshore fracking near Los Angeles and Santa Barbara posed a serious risk to marine species that could be exposed to toxic chemicals as well as increasing air pollution and the chance of an earthquake.
At least 10 chemicals that were routinely used in fracking operations off the California coast before the 9th Circuit ruling was handed down were found to be harmful and even deadly to marine animals including sea otters and fish.
"The Supreme Court was right to reject the oil industry's latest attempt to allow fracking and acidizing in our waters with zero meaningful environmental review," said Maggie Hall, senior attorney at EDC, on Monday. "The Santa Barbara Channel is one of the most ecologically rich and important regions in the world. As the climate crisis escalates, ending these destructive extraction practices is a matter of survival—not just for the whales, otters, and other animals in the channel, but for all life on earth."
The decision upheld by the Supreme Court forbids the Interior Department from issuing fracking permits without completing an assessment of the practice's adherence to the ESA and files an environmental impact statement that analyzes "the environmental impacts of extensive offshore fracking" and evaluates alternatives.
"Protecting the health of the ocean is essential to conserving the ecosystem upon which Chumash people have thrived for more than 10,000 years," said Mati Waiya, executive director of the Wishtoyo Foundation, which works to protect Chumash heritage and the environment. "We celebrate the appellate court's decision, which by upholding environmental laws, honors the rights of our people and protects our precious, coastal resources."
Monsell expressed hope that the Supreme Court's decision marks "the beginning of the end of drilling off California's coast" but noted that the Biden administration has welcomed fossil fuel extraction in federal waters, including in the Gulf of Mexico.
"Our ocean won't be truly protected," she said, "until offshore drilling stops once and for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular