- đź“Ś Sable Offshore has formally requested the Trump administration to seize state and private lands in Santa Barbara County for oil production.
- đź“ś The request targets properties currently owned by the state of California and private individuals to expand drilling infrastructure.
- ⚠️ The move has sparked legal and environmental concerns, with critics arguing it bypasses local authority and environmental regulations.
Introduction
Sable Offshore, an energy company operating in Santa Barbara County, has escalated its push for oil extraction by asking the federal government to seize state and private lands. The request, directed at the Trump administration, seeks to override local property rights and state control to support expanded drilling operations along the California coast.
Federal Seizure Request Details
According to reports from KEYT News, Sable Offshore filed a formal petition with the Trump administration on July 7, 2026, requesting the condemnation of specific parcels of land. The company argues that these properties are essential for building infrastructure needed to transport and process oil from offshore platforms. The request includes both state-owned lands, such as coastal parks and reserves, and privately held properties in Santa Barbara County.
In a June 2 letter to the U.S. Department of Energy made public this week by Politico, Sable reportedly says that two areas of “potential condemnation are required or advisable” and a third should be considered for “potential condemnation” because of a landowner dispute. In all, the letter reportedly asks the federal government to seize the three-mile stretch of state-owned submerged land off the coast of Santa Barbara; a large portion of Gaviota State Park, where approximately four miles of the pipelines traverse the coast; and a privately owned piece of undeveloped land that the pipelines cross north of Buellton. According to Politico, Sable is pursuing this as part of a push to create a new West Coast strategic petroleum reserve.
Environmental groups, who have been fighting Sable since the beginning (i.e., since Sable bought its Santa Barbara County oil facilities from ExxonMobil in 2024), characterize the potential seizures, if approved, as a dangerous handout to Sable, which continues to operate the pipeline system in violation of several California environmental laws and existing court orders. “Seizing a big chunk of one of California’s most beautiful parks to boost a private oil company would be an unlawful and utterly outrageous abuse of federal power,” said Talia Nimmer, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Trump officials should think twice before granting this shameless request. California’s coast took a massive hit from this pipeline system’s last leak, and we’ll fight to protect our ocean from another massive oil spill.”
Sable restarted oil production in Santa Barbara County from its offshore platforms, onshore processing plant, and two pipelines — one of which ruptured in 2015 under different ownership and spilled more than 100,000 gallons of oil into the environment — in March. But they did so without approvals from the state, instead relying on an emergency order from the Trump administration to greenlight their operations. However, the state kept pushing back, including lawsuits to challenge the administration’s emergency order and a preliminary injunction request to halt the flow of oil. Additionally, the State Lands Commission is threatening to terminate Sable’s lease within the three miles of state waters that contain the infrastructure necessary to transport the offshore oil onshore, and the State Parks Department demanded the company remove the portion of its pipeline system that runs through Gaviota State Park. State Parks did so on the grounds that Sable does not have the necessary legal documentation to keep it there, let alone operate it, after it failed to sufficiently repair anomalies along the pipeline without proper environmental mitigation and never secured the long-term easement required to operate in the park. The pipeline’s continued presence in the park and the environmental impacts of the repair work are subject to ongoing litigation with the state.
Additionally, the state is continuing to fight the federal government’s determination that the pipelines are interstate — meaning that they cross state boundaries — despite never leaving the state of California. By qualifying them as such, the pipelines are subject to federal authority and oversight, escaping the scrutiny of the state and its safety requirements. Sable sought this federal bailout after the State Fire Marshal — the state agency once put in charge of approving any pipeline restart plans — found Sable’s pipeline repairs not up to par for operation. On July 7, the Environmental Defense Center’s Chief Counsel Linda Krop attended a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing on the federal government’s attempts to wrench control of the pipelines from the state. Arguments from both sides were heard, but questions remained among the panel of three judges, and no judgement was reached.
Sable is also facing money problems, as its stocks last week plummeted to an all-time-low close of $3.08, following the company’s claims it would raise $400 million through stocks and convertible note offerings to repay what it owes to Exxon Mobil for its facilities. Their debt of nearly $700 million to Exxon comes due in only two weeks, after multiple extensions. In June, the company first agreed to pay Exxon $30 million to extend the deadline to July 24, which has now been extended to July 31. However, Sable stock did inch up by 28 cents on Tuesday, to $4.23.
The pipeline system had been shut down since 2015, after it ruptured and spilled 450,000 gallons of crude oil at Refugio State Beach. The oil spill devastated 150 miles of the California coast, killing hundreds of birds and marine mammals and shutting down beaches and fisheries. Investigators found that the spill was the result of external corrosion, and the pipeline still does not meet federal corrosion prevention standards.
And last year, the Center for Biological Diversity and Wishtoyo Foundation, along with their partners at the Environmental Defense Center, won an injunction prohibiting restart of the pipelines absent all necessary approvals. Since restarting the pipelines, Sable has been continuously violating the injunction, which the environmental groups continue fighting to enforce.
Legal Basis and Controversy
The petition relies on federal condemnation authority, which allows the government to take private property for public use with compensation. However, critics point out that the proposed use—private oil production—does not constitute a traditional public use. Environmental groups and local officials have condemned the move as an overreach that threatens California's environmental protections and property rights. The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors is expected to hold emergency hearings to oppose the seizure.
Under federal law, the government can exercise eminent domain to acquire private property for a public use, provided property owners receive just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. However, using that authority to condemn state-owned land or property primarily benefiting a private company can raise significant legal questions and would almost certainly face court challenges. Although Congress has granted eminent domain authority for certain federally authorized energy infrastructure projects — including some pipelines, electric transmission lines and other public works — legal experts generally say such powers are typically tied to specific statutory authority and must satisfy constitutional public-use requirements. Any effort by the federal government to seize California parkland or other state property on behalf of Sable would likely trigger a lengthy legal battle over both federal authority and states’ rights.
Legal experts told Politico that if the federal government were to condemn the land, it could reduce California's ability to regulate portions of the pipeline system by placing them under federal control.
Local California Context
Santa Barbara County has a long history of oil drilling, dating back to the 19th century, but also a strong legacy of environmental activism. The 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, one of the worst in U.S. history, galvanized the modern environmental movement and led to stricter regulations. Today, the county balances energy production with tourism, agriculture, and conservation. The proposed seizure directly impacts local communities, including the city of Santa Barbara and unincorporated areas near the coast, where residents fear contamination and loss of public access.
Background
Sable Offshore has been seeking to expand operations in the Santa Barbara Channel for years, facing repeated legal challenges from state regulators and environmental groups. The company's platforms, originally built in the 1980s, have been idle due to permitting disputes. This federal seizure request represents a significant escalation, potentially bypassing California's stringent coastal management laws. Similar federal attempts to seize state lands for energy projects have occurred in other states, but this is one of the first in California under the current administration.
On March 13, President Donald Trump directed Sable to resume oil production off the coast of Santa Barbara under the Defense Production Act. Sable Offshore had been unable to produce oil because of ongoing disagreements over permitting its Santa Ynez pipeline. Shortly afterwards, Sable began selling oil pumped off the coast of Santa Barbara and transported through the Santa Ynez pipeline system. Sable’s production of 50,000 barrels of oil per day is a “a 15% increase to California’s in-state oil production, that can replace nearly 1.5 million barrels of foreign crude each month,” according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s statement in March.
Notably, the Trump Administration's order to restart did not explicitly direct crude oil from the Santa Ynez Unit for exclusive military use nor limit its destination to the nation's strategic petroleum reserve at the time and even if it had, repeated national security claims by Sable and federal officials do not hold up to scrutiny. The shut down in 2015 included both offshore and onshore oil-producing infrastructure collectively known as the Santa Ynez Unit. The potential restart of the shuttered pipelines and the entire Santa Ynez Unit was subject to a federal court order agreed to by its former operator Plains All-American that required any operator to work with California state regulators to restart production. Initially, the private energy company was complying with the federal court order. In September of last year, Sable Offshore submitted a Request for Approval of Restart Plans, which involved the onshore pipelines, to the California Office of State Fire Marshal as detailed in the consent decree. The state safety regulator found that there were still outstanding steps required before approving a restart the following month. Instead of conducting the requested safety actions, Sable Offshore instead informed investors in December of last year that it had determined that pipelines connecting offshore platforms to the onshore oil processing plant on the Gaviota Coast and then on to Pentland Station in Kern County are technically interstate pipelines under the Pipeline Safety Act and requested that federal regulators take over its restart plans. The Department of Transportation agreed with Sable Offshore's assessment and promptly asserted its authority over restart plans in mid-December.
The same state agency noted that an announcement from Sable Offshore about restarting oil production in May and a lack of advanced notice about the public statements violated the terms of the agency's leases held by Sable Offshore regarding the Santa Ynez Unit. "The [May 19] press release appears to mischaracterize the nature of recent activities, causing significant public confusion and raising questions regarding Sable's intentions," read the State Lands Commission's letter issued days after the announcement of a restart. "[State Lands] Commission staff has informed me [Lt. Governor of California and Chair of the California State Lands Commission Eleni Kounalakis] that the limited volume oil flows are the result of well-testing procedures required by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement prior to restart. These activities do not constitute a resumption of commercial production or a full restart of the SYU [Santa Ynez Unit]. Characterizing testing activities as a restart is misleading."
As previously reported by The California Post, Sable has been locked in a widening legal fight with California regulators over whether it could repair and restart pipeline infrastructure using permits dating back to the 1980s following the catastrophic 2015 Refugio oil spill. Last month, the California Second District Court of Appeal dealt the company a setback by upholding a lower court ruling favoring the California Coastal Commission. Despite the loss, Sable vowed to continue fighting and said it was considering taking the dispute to the California Supreme Court while continuing to transport oil through the pipeline. The company has also argued that federal authority preempts California’s attempts to regulate portions of its offshore oil operations, a legal position that has become central to its broader strategy. The latest proposal would push that federal involvement even further.
The leaked June 2 letter, first reported by Politico Pro, reveals that Sable Offshore Corp. has urged the U.S. Department of Energy to consider using the federal government’s eminent domain powers to seize multiple properties along its pipeline route as part of a proposed West Coast Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This marks the latest escalation in Sable’s increasingly bitter legal war with California as state officials continue trying to block the company’s pipeline operations over environmental and permitting disputes. According to the letter, Sable argues federal intervention is needed because California agencies and private landowners have created obstacles that threaten the project. The extraordinary request comes despite Sable already restarting oil production earlier this year after relying on emergency federal approvals from the Trump administration — a move California has challenged in court while continuing multiple enforcement actions against the company.
Under federal law, the DOE has authority to use eminent domain for pipelines needed to develop, operate or maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Legal experts told Politico that if the federal government were to condemn the land, it could reduce California's ability to regulate portions of the pipeline system by placing them under federal control.
The letter is drawing criticism from environmental groups, which argue using federal eminent domain authority to acquire California public lands for a privately owned oil pipeline would exceed the government's authority. "We think that would be an extreme overreach of federal authority and really an assault on state sovereignty, for the government to seize such lands and override safety and environmental laws, which California maintains to protect our precious lands," said Talia Nimmer, a staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. Nimmer said her organization would challenge any attempt to condemn the land if the DOE approves the request.
The request comes as Sable continues to face multiple legal disputes over its Santa Ynez Unit operations. The company purchased the offshore oil platforms and Las Flores Pipeline System from ExxonMobil in 2024. The pipeline had been shut down since the 2015 Refugio oil spill, when a rupture released about 123,000 gallons of crude oil near Refugio State Beach, fouling roughly 150 miles of California coastline. In March, the Trump administration invoked the Defense Production Act and directed Sable to restart pipeline operations, citing national energy needs. The company resumed transporting oil shortly afterward. California has since sued the federal government over that order, arguing it improperly bypassed state authority. Environmental organizations, including the Center for Biological Diversity, the Wishtoyo Foundation and the Environmental Defense Center, also continue to challenge the pipeline's restart in court, arguing Sable resumed operations without obtaining all required state approvals. Separately, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has sued Sable over the section of pipeline that crosses Gaviota State Park, alleging the company lacks authorization to operate there.
In a related development, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management announced in June its decision to make available more than 1 million acres of public and private land, with government mineral rights attached, to be leased for oil or gas extraction in California, including portions of the San Joaquin Valley. This move is a key part of the Trump administration’s policy to boost energy exploration and production on federal lands in a more affordable and reliable manner, under the executive order “Unleashing American Energy.” Areas within the BLM’s Bakersfield region available for possible leasing include portions of Kern, Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera and San Joaquin counties. In the Central Coast region, the counties include Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San Benito, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz. In Fresno County, a majority of the leasing area is on the western edge of the county and in the foothills to the east. Nathan Magsig, a member of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors who represents the east side, supports the move, noting that California’s role as one of the nation’s leading oil producers peaked in the mid-1980s, while many of its refineries have shut down over the years. “In my opinion, California needs to become energy independent,” he said. “Right now, we are spending billions of dollars to bring in imported refined fuel to the state.” However, environmental groups have criticized the plan. “First and foremost, oil and gas production is inherently dangerous because it releases pollution that affects the environment and the surrounding communities,” said Cooper Kass, staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “The more oil and gas production there is, the worse climate change becomes.” Gabriel Garcia, district manager for the Central California District of the BLM, said the last time the agency held a lease sale was in 2020, and a backlog of requests has been accumulating. Once a leasing request is received, it can take between six and nine months for the lease to go through the environmental review process and public comment period.
In a related court development, a federal judge denied a request for an injunction by the California Department of Parks and Recreation in May because of a lack of evidence of imminent danger from the pipeline. “The pipeline operated for nearly 30 years below plaintiff’s property without incident,” Judge Stephen V. Wilson said in his decision. “Although the pipeline was initially discontinued due to a catastrophic spill, it is not alleged that any part of the relevant pipeline was responsible for the offending leak, particularly not the segment running beneath the park,” the decision said.
In another legal development, a federal judge tentatively dismissed claims by Sable Offshore and ExxonMobil that Santa Barbara County violated the U.S. and California constitutions by refusing to transfer permits to operate onshore oil and gas facilities that Exxon sold to Sable in 2024. Chief U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee granted the county’s motion to dismiss the companies’ Takings Clause and preemption claims, though she did not issue a final ruling. The judge took the matter under submission. Sable had argued the permit transfer should have been a “ministerial” process, but the county contended that Sable had engaged in unauthorized activities and was not a capable operator. The case is one of several lawsuits over Sable’s efforts to restart offshore platforms after the 2015 Refugio oil spill. Sable has said it invested over $1.4 billion to restart operations, including over $215 million in pipeline repairs.
Conclusion
The outcome of Sable Offshore's petition could set a precedent for federal-state conflicts over land use and energy policy. As the Trump administration reviews the request, local officials and environmental advocates are mobilizing to defend California's property rights and coastal protections. The controversy underscores the ongoing tension between energy development and environmental stewardship in the Golden State.