Has Santa Barbara’s Dark Regulatory Side Returned?

by Mike Stoker

I am a big fan of the good vs. evil stories.  Whether ‘The Lord of the Rings’ or ‘Star Wars,’ the story is always about good vs. evil, the force vs the dark side, whether righteousness prevails over sinister intentions. And there are always sequels. Just when you thought that good had prevailed and evil was destroyed, years later lying dormant, the evil comes back stronger than ever.

I’m afraid that may be what just happened in Santa Barbara County.

In the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, the county’s regulatory agencies were considered the most overzealous, overreaching, and anti-business of any local, state, or federal regulatory agencies. As a county supervisor, I joined the efforts to reform the Air Pollution Control District and the Planning & Development and Environmental Health Departments. I argued that you didn’t have to be against business if you were for the environment or be against the environment if you were for business.

Under pressure, changes were made with department heads. If you weren’t willing to work with the regulated community to come up with solutions, you lost your job. By the mid- ‘90s these agencies had changed their attitudes towards business; department heads made a commitment that the regulated community and regulators would work collaboratively in helping fulfill state and federal mandates.

Two years after these reforms, Santa Barbara County for the first time in Santa Barbara’s history was in attainment with the federal Clean Air Act.  Indeed, both the regulated community and the environment were winners and the ‘dark side’ of regulating, like the Evil Empire in Star Wars, had lost out.

The “Climate Action” Plan

For almost 30 years that reform led to a good working relationship with the regulators and the regulated community. There have been clashes along the way, but we never returned to the regulatory dark side of the late ‘80s. That looks to have changed this last Tuesday when the Board of Supervisors on a 3-2 vote, with Lavagnino and Nelson voting no, adopted the SB County Climate Action Plan (CAP).

The CAP has the goal of reducing the county’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHC) by 50% from where emissions were in 2018.  This is not a state mandate. And the state has chosen to have the goal of only 40%. The plan requires 338 million dollars over the next six years to implement strategies. From that, the county will have to come up with 138 million dollars. Essentially the plan has the goal of moving Santa Barbara County to all electric. For complete details, click here.

In my capacity as President & CEO of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayer Advocacy Center, I urged the Board not to adopt any plan without funding identified. (There is absolutely no funding identified for this plan.) I argued that if the funding is not there to implement the plan, then the voluntary measures that could take place with that funding to help the regulated community meet the CAP’s emission goals will be replaced with ‘confiscatory’ measures. Without the funding, the county essentially will have created a de facto policy that No new projects generating any emissions get approved.

None.

If they have no money and are serious about realizing a 50% emission reduction in emissions, there simply is no roadmap to accomplishing that without a “No New Projects” approach.

Back to the Bad Old Days

The Plan has been adopted and the question now is whether its implementation will take us back to the days of the late ‘80s, when it was very contentious among county supervisors, and contentious between the regulated community and county regulators. To go back to those days would be a huge mistake. We will get our first hint in six months when the staff comes back, as part of adopting the CAP, to present the Board with options to get further emission cuts from the oil & gas industry.

I argued at the hearing that the only thing remaining in the oil & gas industry is to go after ‘vested’ operations. To do that would be the “confiscatory” approach I discussed above. That approach would also subject the county to significant financial exposure under the U.S. Constitution’s 5^th Amendment “Taking Clause.”

I assure you that if this “confiscatory” approach is taken today against the oil & gas industry the exact same approaches will be taken against the agricultural industry tomorrow.

We will know soon whether the CAP is nothing more than a feel-good document by the three supervisors to tell their climate change supporters that they’ve done something significant when they’ve done nothing at all. Or whether it is a return to contentious times for the business and regulated community.

The Santa Barbara County Taxpayer Advocacy Center will be monitoring this every step along the way. I urge you to join us in this effort. You can stay current with our work at www.sbctac.org.

Mike Stoker currently serves as President & CEO of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayer Advocacy Center.  Stoker is a land use, environmental, and business law attorney.  He has previously served on the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, was Chairman of the CA Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Majority Counsel to Congress, CA Deputy Secretary of State and served as the Southwest Administrator of the US EPA overseeing a population of 75 million people.

SB Current is a reader-supported publication. If you enjoy receiving our mix of daily features please consider upgrading to a paid subscription.