Twin oil measures narrowly defeated at polls

MEASURES A AND B



ENERGY—The measures would have affected only the unincorporated areas of the county, which is where drilling occurs most frequently. Both have identical language, but A applied to coastal areas and B to inland areas.

ENERGY—The measures would have affected only the unincorporated areas of the county, which is where drilling occurs most frequently. Both have identical language, but A applied to coastal areas and B to inland areas.

While it’s still too soon to declare an outcome, semiofficial election results indicate the majority of Ventura County voters have rejected measures A and B.

The two measures—the costliest in county history—would have increased local government oversight of the process of permitting new and renewed oil and gas development.

The “no” votes for both measures lead with 52%, according to the county’s election results website, which was last updated shortly after noon on Thursday.

“It was an uphill battle for us to begin with,” said Tomás Rebecchi, the spokesperson for Ventura County Save Agriculture and Freshwater for Everybody and an advocate of both measures. “To be this close, I think win or lose, our movement has gotten stronger out of this whole race, and we’ve built a network of grassroots voters throughout the county.”

The yes on measures A and B campaign was outspent 12 to 1, with Aera Energy and Chevron contributing over $7 million to defeat the measures.

In November 2020, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors approved two ordinances establishing one consistent permitting process, including environmental review, for all new drill sites, regardless of the age of the permits.

After a successful signature-gathering campaign paid for by Chevron and Aera, a subsidiary of Shell and ExxonMobil, the board was required to either repeal the ordinances or take the matter to voters.

The measures affected only the unincorporated areas of the county, which is where drilling occurs most frequently. Both have identical language, but A applied to coastal areas and B to inland areas.

Those in favor of the two measures argue that local oversight is needed to protect public health and safety as well as the environment.

Oil companies, they say, have been able to avoid modern environmental standards by using permits dating back to the 1940s.

Advocates of A and B also assert that drilling and fracking can contaminate drinking water and cause health problems, including respiratory issues and low birth weights.

“If we lose this, it’s going to set a dangerous precedent that big oil companies or any corporate interests can abuse our democratic process,” Rebecchi said Tuesday.

Assemblymember Steve Bennett, the former county supervisor who advocated to update the antiquated permits, said VC-SAFE should be praised for its accomplishments.

“I am genuinely very proud to be associated with the people who worked so hard on the Yes on Measures A and B campaign,” he said. “They took on one of the most difficult challenges you can in politics, being outspent.”

He said he wants to remind the community of what is at stake if the measures do not pass.

“Potentially thousands of wells and many oil fields in Ventura County will be able to be drilled without getting an updated review by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, whose job it is to look out for public health,” Bennett said.  “Who else is looking out for the welfare of people in disadvantaged communities?”

Those opposed to the two measures contend that stringent state and federal regulations already ensure public health and safety and that giving politicians the final say would shut down the county’s existing oil and gas production.

Opponents claim the success of A and B would harm the economy by reducing local jobs, increase dependence on foreign oil and inflate energy prices.

Aera Energy, Chevron and the California Independent Petroleum Association contributed $6.5 million, $750,000 and $50,000, respectively, to counter the measures, according to an April campaign finance disclosure. All financial efforts to impede the measures were from outside of the county.

In contrast, VC-SAFE had received $550,000 by the same report date. All of the funding came from within the county, with the largest contributor, Ventura-based Patagonia, donating around $450,000.

Nancy Lindholm, president and CEO of the West Ventura County Business Alliance, said the oil companies’ contributions should not be viewed negatively.

“Anyone that’s invested in a business certainly will spend money to protect it,” she said. “This is an example of an industry trying to protect its financial interest.”

VOTE COUNT

No on A

66,930 (51.92%)

Yes on A

61,972 (48.08%)

No on B

66,792 (52.26%)

Yes on B

61,003 (47.74%)

All figures are semiofficial as of press time Thursday.