A Santa Barbara County Fracking Ban Initiative ballot question is on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in Santa Barbara County, California.

If approved, this measure would prohibit what are called “high intensity” oil and gas operations such as fracking, acid well stimulation treatments and cyclic steam injection. The measure would not impede conventional drilling or “low intensity” operations.^[1] The group called the Santa Barbara County Water Guardians filed its initiative and a notice of intent to circulate with the Santa Barbara County Registrar on March 23, 2014, and planned to officially kick off the petition drive at an event on April 5, 2014. They needed 13,200 valid signatures before May 7, 2014, to qualify the initiative for the November ballot. On May 1, 2014, the group turned in about 20,000 signatures. Out of the 20,000, the Santa Barbara County Elections Office found 16,000 signatures to be valid. On June 13, 2014, the Santa Barbara County Supervisors voted unanimously to put the initiative on the November ballot, rather than enacting it directly.^[2][3][4]

Similar initiative efforts were announced shortly before this Santa Barbara measure in San Benito County and Butte County.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official initiative ballot title for Measure P:^[5]

“

Initiative to Ban “High-Intensity Petroleum Operations” including but not limited to Well Stimulation Treatments and Secondary and Enhanced Recovery Operations such as Hydraulic Fracturing, Steam Injection and Acid Well Stimulation Treatment on all Lands within Santa Barbara Count’s Unincorporated Area[6]

”

Ballot summary

The official initiative ballot summary for Measure P:^[5]

“

The proposed Initiative amends Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan policies and the Santa Barbara County Code to prohibit the use of any land within the County’s unincorporated area for, or in support of, High-Intensity Petroleum Operations, including but not limited to onshore exploration and onshore production of offshore oil and gas reservoirs. The proposed Initiative states that the prohibition, if adopted, would not apply to onshore facilities that support offshore exploration or production from offshore wells. The prohibition also would not apply to off-site facilities or infrastructure, such as refineries and pipelines that do not directly support High-Intensity Petroleum Operations. The prohibition would apply in any zoning district within the County.High-Intensity Petroleum Operations are defined by the Initiative to include well stimulation treatments and secondary and enhanced recovery operations such as hydraulic fracturing, cyclic steam, waterflood or steamflood injection and acid well stimulation treatments. The proposed initiative authorizes the Board of Supervisors to grant an exception to the application of any provision of the Initiative if the Board of Supervisors finds, based on substantial evidence, that both: 1) the application of any aspect of the Initiative would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property, and 2) the exception will allow additional or continued land uses only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid such a taking. The provisions of the proposed Initiative would not be applicable to any person or entity that has obtained, as of the effective date of this Initiative, a vested right pursuant to State law, to conduct a High-Intensity Petroleum Operation as defined by the Initiative. The proposed Initiative provides that the Board of Supervisors must take all steps reasonable necessary to enforce the Initiative and defend it against any challenge. Comprehensive Plan policies and County Code provisions amended and adopted through the Initiative may only subsequently be amended or repealed by the vote of County voters.[6]

”

Support

Supporters

The group behind the initiative is called the Santa Barbara County Water Guardians.^[7]

The San Francisco-based Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP law firm drafted the initiative language. This firm was also responsible for the text of the initiative currently being circulated in San Benito County.^[1]

Other supporters of the initiative include:^[8]

• United Automobile Workers (UAW 2865 Santa Barbara)

Elected Officials

Arguments in favor

Proponents of the measure argue that fracking and other high intensity oil extraction methods have dangerous and harmful side effects such as:^[7]

• wasting precious water needed by California
• potentially causing earthquakes
• polluting water sources and air
• chemical side effects inimical to the health of county residents and animals

Rebecca Claassen, a member of the Santa Barbara County Water Guardians, said, “Using these technologies, the petroleum industry would gain increased access to oil resources lying below our homes, farms and natural areas. The impacts and risks associated with high-intensity petroleum operations are too great for Santa Barbara County residents to accept. In order to protect local resources and interests, we want to prohibit this land use before it further endangers human health and the environment in Santa Barbara County.”^[1][3]

On April 22, 2014, System Change Not Climate Change, an ecosocialist coalition which promotes Marxism, officially announced their partnership with The Water Guardians to canvass UCSB and Santa Barbara County for petition signatures.^[9][10]

Rebecca August, a petition circulator and supporter of the initiative, had the following comments about the issue:^[11]

“	I feel like if the industry comes in here they can do whatever they want, there’s no protection, we have no protection of our groundwater. No one has studied the risks of what will happen if there is an earthquake, no one has studied the risks of these chemicals in our drinking water, so we don’t know, and since we’re not protected it makes since to make a ban in our county against this kind of fracturing. Fracking uses a tremendous amount of water, and we’re in a drought and the industry that we have that is already thriving in this county is dependent on water. Agriculture and tourism, we all depend on water and we have a limited amount of water. There are thousands of proposed wells in Santa Barbara County. This (ballot initiative) does not affect anyone who has a job right now, this doesn’t affect current employment at all, this is all about future things, the intitiatve actually protects current employment because it protects farming and it protects tourism and it protects our current industry. [6]	”
—Rebecca August, initiative supporter and petition circulator[11]

Dennis Allen, owner of Allen Construction and employer of 120 workers, wrote an opinion piece featured by the Lompoc Record in which he argued in favor of Measure P. Below are some excerpts from his article:^[12]

“	Just as construction is a cyclical industry, petroleum extraction is even more of a boom-and-bust industry. Ninety-eight percent of the industry jobs are in drilling, and most of these jobs are taken by non-locals who have specialized expertise. These are short-term jobs, as we have seen in places where these high-intensity extraction technologies have been employed on a large scale, such as Pennsylvania and North Dakota. This kind of employment does not sustain itself and, therefore, is not healthy for our county.[…] Measure P does not impact any of the existing petroleum wells or production, nor any of the jobs that are a part of this activity. It only impacts the future of high-risk, high-intensity wells that we don’t need as we shift to renewables. New high-intensity wells using fracking, acidization and steam injection would be moving us in the opposite direction from the sensible path along which we are trending. If anything, we need to accelerate our adoption of clean-energy projects and technologies. Fortunately, Santa Barbara County is ideally situated to lead the clean-energy transformation, with abundant sunshine, ocean currents and wind. […] I recently took a trip around the perimeter of Santa Barbara County. The second evening, I deviated 20 miles into Kern County and spent the night in Taft, a major oil-producing center for the past 80 years. I was shocked. It is an unsightly wasteland. I would not wish such blight on any place, certainly not on Santa Barbara County. Supporting Measure P will preserve the natural beauty of our county, keep our economy vibrant, and move us along the path to a sustainable, clean energy future.[6]	”
—Dennis Allen, owner of Allen Construction[12]

Opposition

Opponents

• No on Measure P, the Santa Barbara County Coalition against the Oil and Gas Shutdown was formed by opponents of Measure P.^[13]

The following also oppose the measure:^[14]

Organizations and Associations:

• The Coalition of Santa Barbara County Taxpayers, Consumers, and Energy Producers^[15]

• Santa Barbara Region Chamber of Commerce

• Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce

• Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce

• Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau

• Santa Barbara County Cattlemen’s Association

• Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff’s Association

• Santa Barbara County Firefighters Local 2046

• Peace Officers Research Association (PORAC)

• The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) #413

• U.A. Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 114

Community, Civic & Business Leaders:

• Jim Boles – Retired Professor of Earth Science (UCSB)

• Peter Naylor – Professor of Finance and Economics, Santa Barbara City College

• Ricardo Magne – High School Science Teacher, Santa Maria. 2013 Santa Barbara County Teacher of the Year. Recipient of the Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental Educators.

• Don Oaks – President, Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association

• Brooks Firestone- Former California State Assemblyman

• Marianne Strange – Air Quality Consultant, M.F. Strange & Associates

• Jim Thomas – Former Santa Barbara County Sheriff

• Willy Chamberlain – Rancher & Former County Supervisor

• Dale Francisco – City Council Member, Santa Barbara

• Frank Hotchkiss – City Council Member, Santa Barbara

• Gregory Gandrud – Former Carpinteria City Councilman

• Douglas Imperato – Consulting Geologist

• Frank Banales – Executive Director, Zona Seca

• Rebecca Gowing – Rancher & Member of Santa Barbara County Cattlewomen

• Roy Reed – 6th Generation Rancher and Mineral Rights Owner

• Glenn Battles – Third Generation Rancher, Los Alamos Valley

• Brandy Branquinho – Rancher

• Geoff Banks – Retired, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office

• Maria Aguilar – Community Liaison, Santa Maria Bonita School District

• Cynthia Hadidian – School Teacher

• Andrea Fields – Registered Nurse

• Jason Reynolds – Agent Owner, State Farm Insurance

• David Peu – Software Engineer

• Lawrence Smith – Controller

• Shawn Hanshew – Crane Operator

• Daniel Urquhart – Electrician

• Javier Vargas – Truck Driver

• David Shahrabani – Owner, DMS Electric

• Shawn Lytal – Iron Worker

• James Eudy – Owner, President, Sunshine Metal Clad, Inc.

• Steven J. Vogt – Mechanic

• Danny Lau – Data Technician

• Adrianne Cortez – Office Manager

Arguments against

Opponents of the measure argue that Measure P is masquerading as a ban on hydraulic fracturing, while the initiative would actually result in shutting down the onshore oil and gas industry in Santa Barbara County.^[15]

Andy Caldwell of the Coalition for Labor, Agriculture and Business spoke extensively against the initiative, both responding to arguments from proponents and speaking about its potential harm to the economy. He made the following statements:^[11][16]

“	Point A, we don’t frack here, so fracking isn’t an issue. They are trying to take a campaign of hysteria and apply it to Santa Barbara County when we don’t have fracking here. They (ballot initiative supporters) are trying to employ a classic divide and conquer mentality and whip people into hysteria and claiming that water is threatened when what this is all about is this organization that doesn’t want us using fossil fuels anymore so they are trying to kill the oil and gas industry simply because they believe in global warming, not because oil and gas is a threat. Nobody is using fresh water supplies, for instance Santa Maria Energy is using wastewater from Laguna Sanitation to make steam. They are mixing fracking with steam injection, they are totally different and the steam injection projects that we know of are going to use wastewater or water from the production zone which isn’t drinking water anyway. The bottom line here is its not just the jobs dealing with oil and gas, of getting it out of the ground and getting it refined, it’s the cost to all of society if our local supplies diminish and we’re dependent on bringing that supply here the cost just goes up. Anytime someone is paying at the pump or to run manufacturing and industrial concerns, everything with the price is going to go up, every time the price of gas goes up like ten cents in america it costs the economy billions of dollars so there is a huge multiplier effect from the loss of jobs. We will not be able to shift to alternatives for decades until they can become a significant part or our energy portfolio, for instance solar and wind only produce a certain number of hours per day. Solar and wind is less than five percent of our portfolio. [6]	”
—Andy Caldwell of the Coalition for Labor, Agriculture and Business[16]

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association, said, “Any reduction in domestic oil production here means more dependence on foreign oil. We should be looking for ways to encourage more domestic production of oil and jobs that go with it rather than passing laws that reduce our domestic energy production.”

Ken McCalip, a retired principal/superintendent and a North Santa Barbara County native, wrote the following article on July 29th, 2014. It was posted in the Santa Maria Sun and argues that the initiative is severely flawed, poorly written and costly. Ken McCalip contends that the measure is ambiguous and would inevitably lead to years of expensive litigation. It also expresses the fear that the initiative would shut down the oil industry, killing hundreds of jobs and harming the county’s economy. An excerpt of the article is below:^[15]

“	It will impact more than 300 high paying jobs and will be a hit to our economy as it ripples through the county with the loss of additional service jobs. The breadth and ambiguity of this Measure P proposal will in effect shut down our oil industry, and its impact will be severely damaging to our entire county economy.After a careful reading of Measure P, it is apparent that major ambiguities exist that could plunge our county into years of legal conflict at taxpayer expense. The issues run the gamut from violation of property rights under state and federal laws to infringement of vested property rights amounting to an unconstitutional taking prohibited by the United States Constitution. No clear standard for exemptions is provided in the measure, which could also lead to legal entanglements. One could understand a reasonable regulation of how fracking is implemented based on scientific facts, but this goes far beyond reason and is not in our best interest. The breadth and ambiguities in this proposal deserve a “no” vote and a move back to the drawing board.[6]	”
—Ken McCalip, author of an opinion piece posted by the Santa Maria Sun[15]

Ed Hazard, from the National Association of Royalty Owners (and a mineral right owner), said that mineral rights owners in the county receive an average of $500 per month in royalty fees.^[17]

Bob Poole, a spokesperson for Santa Maria Energy, claimed that the initiative proposed by the Water Guardians is just an attempt to curtail oil production and is not actually about fracking. He pointed towards California Senate Bill 4, statewide legislation on oil extraction practices, as the best way to address the contentious issue.^[18] Poole, referring to the Water Guardians, said, “Good decision making should be based on objective facts and science. They need to follow the science-based approach the governor and the state of California are taking on this issue, there is a scientific study underway … why don’t they get behind that instead of trying to jump ahead of science?”^[19]

The following reasons to vote against Measure P were presented on the website of the Santa Barbara County Coalition against the Oil and Gas Shutdown:^[13]

“	Santa Barbara County families, businesses and taxpayers are uniting to urge NO on Measure P because it would: Force the shutdown of existing oil and gas production in the County. Threaten the loss of over 1,000 existing, well-paying jobs and over $16 million in existing tax revenues for schools, fire protection and other vital government services. Place the County at risk of incurring the largest financial liability in County history, potentially hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Increase our dependence on foreign oil from countries with little or no regulations.[6]	”
—Santa Barbara County Coalition against the Oil and Gas Shutdown[13]

Editorials

• The Lompoc Record released an editorial condemning Measure P as an anti-oil, industry-crippling initiative masquerading as simply an anti-fracking measure. An excerpt of what the Lompoc Record editorial board wrote is below:^[20]

“	Indeed, if voters pass Measure P, it would set up the case for an outright ban on the hydraulic fracturing method of extracting petroleum products from deep under ground.But passage of Measure P would also do quite a lot more, and while its supporters aren’t saying a lot about those other impacts of passing Measure P, we feel morally and ethically compelled to shed some light on such a blanket prohibition. Briefly stated, passing Measure P would have devastating effects on the local economy. Because it’s not just a ban on fracking, but on all other forms of enhanced oil extraction, now widely and safely used in oil development. […] Measure P clearly is an attempt to misrepresent the reality of a situation, and typical of so many recent ballot initiatives, claims to do one thing while actually doing something else entirely. Don’t fall for it. The oil industry has been active in this county for generations, and there have been mistakes. But the technology is vastly improved, the risks to the environment diminished — and Santa Barbara County needs this important segment of the economy to remain viable.[6]	”
—Lompoc Record editorial board[20]

Funding

Californians For Energy Independence has contributed over $300,000, from May 18, 2014, to June 30, 2014, to oppose Measure P. Californians For Energy Independence is funded by several oil and gas companies, including Chevron and Houston-based Freeport-McMoran.^[21]

Reports and analyses

The University of California Santa Barbara Economic Forecast Project undertook a study of the economic impact of onshore oil and natural gas extraction in Santa Barbara County for the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce in 2013. Using a type of economic forecasting known as IMPLAN modeling, the study measured the impacts of fossil fuel extraction in Santa Barbara County. Studies that use IMPLAN modeling usually measure both direct impacts, i.e. the jobs and income being added within the oil and gas industry; indirect impacts, i.e. jobs created throughout the supply chain; and induced impacts, i.e. jobs created through increased spending due to growth in the industry.^[22][23] The study found that:

• While the industry is a small contributor to overall county employment, the average employee’s salary ranges from $75,000 to $100,000.
• The industry contributes $1.13 million to 240 nonprofits across the county annually.
• In 2011, the industry had an economic impact of $103 to $142 per barrel of oil produced.
• The total economic impact, including direct, indirect and induced impacts was $291.4 million in 2011.
• The industry pays $49.2 million in federal, state and local taxes annually.^[23]

According to the study, the oil and natural gas industry, “has a significant impact on Santa Barbara County’s economy through its purchases of intermediate inputs, investment in new structures and equipment, and employment within the county.”^[23]

Bonnie Queen, one of the analysts who worked on the report, stated that, according to data provided directly by the companies, the number of direct employees for oil and gas businesses amounted to 336. This represents 0.1 percent of the approximately 250,000 jobs in the county.^[24]

The reported impacts of $291.4 million represent 1.64 percent of the county’s total GDP of approximately $17.75 billion in 2011.^[24]
The Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation: The Western States Petroleum Association commissioned the Los Angeles Development Corporation to conduct a study on the gas and oil industry in California, including several subregions. The LAEDC study concluded that the petroleum industry on the Central Coast is a substantial source of jobs and an economy-boosting element. However, the study used very broad metrics for calculating the economic impact. the report states, “The total estimated economic contribution includes direct, indirect and induced effects.” Oil and gas industry “workers, as well as the employees of all the industry’s suppliers, spend a portion of their incomes on groceries, rent, vehicle expenses, healthcare, entertainment, and so on. The recirculation of the original expenditures multiplies the initial spending through these indirect and induced effects.” The report featured the following conclusions:^[11]

“	In 2012, the petroleum industry contributed to 24,210 total jobs on the Central Coast and generated more than $1.6 billion in labor income. On the Central Coast, the state and local taxes paid by companies and individuals involved in the petroleum industry total $1.1 billion. In Santa Barbara County, the petroleum industry contributed to 3,414 total jobs and generated more than $349 million in labor income. Jobs created or supported by the petroleum industry statewide generate $40 billion in labor income, which is 3.1% of California’s total labor income. Statewide, the petroleum industry’s total economic value is $113 billion, which is 5.4% of California’s total gross domestic product and is larger than the economies of 17 U.S. states. [6]	”
—Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation[11]

The study considered not only oil and gas extraction and transportation, but also retail sales of gasoline at gas stations when calculating jobs, tax revenues and economic impacts. As it is unlikely that the initiative would have any substantial impact on sales on gasoline in the county, these jobs, tax revenues and economic impacts should be unaffected by the ban.

 READ MORE