Monday, 27 July 2026, 22:53
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a $1.15 trillion defense spending bill on a narrow 216-to-212 vote, including Amendment 119-13. The provision, introduced by Texas Republican Congressman Wesley Hunt, empowers the Secretary of Defense to acquire permanent easements over state-owned lands along the Santa Ynez Pipeline System. The pipeline traverses Gaviota State Park and state waters off the Santa Barbara County coast.
The amendment text explicitly authorizes the Secretary of the Army to acquire the easements “by purchase, donation, exchange, or condemnation” over “all lands owned or otherwise held by the State of California or any agency, department, or instrumentality thereof.” The amendment further authorizes eminent domain whenever the Defense Secretary determines it is needed to “ensure continuous pipeline transportation of crude oil from the Santa Ynez Unit to domestic refineries supplying Department of Defense installations in the State of California.” Additionally, a leaked letter from Sable Offshore, reported by Politico Pro on June 2, 2026, reveals that the company had urged the U.S. Department of Energy to seize properties around its pipeline as part of a proposed West Coast Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The letter specifically requested that the DOE “consider exercising eminent domain rights over a ~3 mile section of the [Santa Ynez Pipeline System] through state waters and a ~4 mile section of the SYPS that traverses Gaviota State Park.”
Local Congressman Salud Carbajal, who voted against the bill, called the amendment an unprecedented federal overreach. “It would basically do eminent domain for the state parks easements, and all the state land where this pipeline traverses,” Carbajal told KCLU News. He noted that the move benefits a Texas-based company and undermines states’ rights. Further criticizing the amendment, Carbajal argued that it “is about giving Big Oil special treatment at the expense of California.”
During floor debate, Carbajal elaborated on the amendment's far-reaching provisions. He noted that the measure would eliminate state permitting requirements and block state injunctions, granting the pipeline operator an irrevocable license that cannot be revoked by California courts, state agencies, or future administrations. Carbajal highlighted that the amendment instructs courts to presume that any delay harms national security on the Secretary's word alone, preventing challengers from disputing that determination. Furthermore, the amendment gives developers the ability to choose which federal court hears challenges, potentially allowing Sable to evade the California lawsuit. “It is interesting to me that this amendment is sponsored by Congressman Hunt, from Houston, where Sable Offshore Oil’s headquarters is located,” Carbajal said. Carbajal also stated during the debate: “I oppose this amendment. We know that the military does not need this provision to ensure a stable supply. We already are the largest oil producer in the world, producing nearly 14 million barrels of oil a day. So let's be clear: this is not about energy independence or national security. It is about giving Big Oil special treatment at the expense of California. Under this amendment, a single certification from the Secretary of Defense unlocks sweeping legal protections for fossil fuel projects. States and local governments cannot interfere. Courts are told to presume that delaying this project harms national security on the Secretary's word alone. And we know what that means. Challengers cannot dispute the Secretary's determination.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a new lawsuit on July 20, 2026, asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down a special permit issued by the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The permit waives compliance with federal pipeline regulations and asserts federal oversight. “California’s coastline is not for sale to enrich the president’s fossil fuel friends,” Bonta said in a statement.
The state also challenges the reclassification of the pipelines as interstate, arguing that the lines running through Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Kern counties remain under state jurisdiction. The California State Fire Marshal has declared the pipeline unsafe and denied restart permits.
In a further legal escalation, Attorney General Bonta and the Office of the State Fire Marshal filed a second petition challenging PHMSA's issuance of a new “non-emergency special permit” for Sable to transport oil through Lines CA-324 and CA-325. This permit is the latest maneuver in PHMSA’s continuing effort to illegally assert federal jurisdiction by reclassifying the pipelines as “interstate.” The lawsuit argues that PHMSA's actions violate state and federal law, including a federal court-approved Consent Decree that acknowledges the State Fire Marshal’s role in reviewing any restart. “No matter how many times the Trump Administration attempts to help Sable evade state regulation, my office will see them in court at every illegal turn,” Bonta said. State Fire Marshal Daniel Berlant added, “Our focus remains on one priority: protecting public safety. Our pipeline safety requirements are rigorous, grounded in engineering and risk reduction, and designed to safeguard communities and the environment.”
On December 17, 2025, PHMSA illegally reclassified Lines CA-324 and CA-325 that run onshore from Santa Barbara County to Kern County as “interstate.” The reclassification purports to shift regulatory oversight of the pipelines from the Office of the State Fire Marshal to PHMSA. Before December 17, 2025, PHMSA had for years classified these onshore pipelines as intrastate pipelines subject to state safety regulation and oversight. On December 22, 2025, PHMSA approved Sable’s plan to restart oil production based on President Trump’s bogus “National Energy Emergency” Executive Order that Attorney General Bonta previously challenged. On December 24, 2025, PHMSA granted an Emergency Special Permit to restart pipelines. In January, Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging PHMSA’s orders that illegally purported to assert exclusive federal jurisdiction over the onshore Lines CA-324 and CA-325 by reclassifying them as “interstate,” issuing a restart approval for Sable, and providing Sable an emergency permit waiving regulatory compliance in order for Sable to restart oil transport through the pipelines. In March, the Attorney General challenged Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright’s improper order under the Defense Production Act seeking to halt its use as the basis for Sable’s unlawful restart of the pipelines. The order unlawfully purports to supersede state law, state court orders, and a federal court-approved Consent Decree to allow Sable to restart oil transport through the pipelines. In May, the Attorney General filed a motion for a preliminary injunction urging the court to enjoin the Wright Order and immediately block Sable’s transportation of oil through the pipelines. In a separate lawsuit, Bonta argued that the Wright Order “is an affront to, and usurpation of, the traditional police powers delegated to the states” and that it “fails to provide any rational basis that connects how ordering Sable to require acceptance and prioritize performance of contracts or allocations would promote the national defense with respect to energy.” The onshore pipelines had been shut down for a decade since the 2015 Refugio Beach oil spill, when a corroded segment of one pipeline ruptured and released more than 120,000 gallons of crude oil near Santa Barbara, at least 21,000 gallons of which entered the Pacific Ocean. The oil spill caused serious harm to public health and safety including releasing hazardous oil and fumes that sickened communities, contaminated coastal waters, harmed hundreds of marine mammals and seabirds, and shut down beaches and fisheries for months — damaging local economies. It resulted in a Consent Decree — to which PHMSA is a party — that expressly acknowledges and approves the State Fire Marshal’s role in reviewing and approving any planned restart of the onshore pipelines. PHMSA has significantly departed from this agreement, which was approved by a federal court, and the way in which PHMSA historically viewed the pipelines. In the lawsuit, filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Attorney General and the State Fire Marshal challenge PHMSA’s issuance of a non-emergency permit for Sable and the new reasoning underlying PHMSA’s attempt to assert federal jurisdiction over Lines CA-324 and CA-325 as unlawful.
Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center, said, “There's just a lot of litigation. We've had some good preliminary rulings. We're involved in litigation with the federal government, with Sable. The California Attorney General is on our side. They're probably about a dozen cases right now involving Sable.”
The Gaviota Coast, a pristine stretch of coastline in Santa Barbara County, is at the center of the dispute. The pipeline runs through Gaviota State Park, a popular recreational area. Environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Center and Center for Biological Diversity, warn that the corroded infrastructure poses a spill risk. The 2015 rupture near Refugio State Beach caused one of California’s worst coastal oil spills, devastating marine life and local tourism. The spill released more than 120,000 gallons of crude oil, at least 21,000 gallons of which entered the Pacific Ocean, harming hundreds of marine mammals and seabirds, and shutting down beaches and fisheries for months.
Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center, said, “The State Fire Marshal told Sable they could not restart it because it’s not safe. They don’t have a permit from the Coastal Commission. They aren’t authorized to operate in Gaviota State Park. The pipeline is corroded. None of this is speculative.”
Rachel Rilee, an Oceans Policy Specialist with the Center for Biological Diversity, added, “I think it's part and parcel of what this administration has been doing. We've seen the same sort of playbook in the Gulf of Mexico. Their worry is they can't pass environmental assessment muster. They're just going to call it a threat to national security, and bypass all of the state, environmental, and legal requirements.”
The Santa Ynez Pipeline system has been a flashpoint since the 2015 rupture. Sable Offshore acquired the assets from ExxonMobil in 2023 and sought permits to restart operations. After local and state regulators denied permits, the company turned to the federal government. In March 2026, the Trump administration invoked the Defense Production Act, a 1950s law typically used for wartime emergencies, to force the restart. The state sued, arguing the order was unconstitutional. Notably, the 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, raising questions about the national security justification.
Now, the Hunt Amendment takes the conflict further by authorizing land seizure. The amendment explicitly states that the acquisition is “required to satisfy a requirement vital to the national security” and that “delay in such acquisition would be detrimental to the national security.” Critics, including Carbajal, argue the U.S. already produces 14 million barrels of oil per day, making the national security claim dubious.
The defense bill now moves to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain. The bill passed with seven House Republican defections and now faces steep opposition in the Senate, where Democrats previously blocked a defense measure in protest of the Iran War. With a Republican-controlled Senate, it could potentially be difficult to get the amendment removed from the spending package. If passed, it could set a precedent for federal seizure of state land for private energy projects. California officials vow to continue fighting in court. “We’re going to do everything we can to protect the coast, and shut down the pipeline,” Krop said. The battle over the Gaviota Coast is far from over.
