The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission voted 3-2 on April 8, 2026 to recommend prohibiting new onshore oil and gas wells in unincorporated areas of the county. The proposal would also prohibit operators from reentering wells that have been plugged and abandoned. Existing operations and certain wells authorized under previously approved development plans could continue.
The vote sends the proposed land-use amendments to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for final consideration.
The proposed amendments represent the first phase of a broader county initiative that could eventually end existing onshore oil and gas operations. Existing wells would not be required to close under the first phase.
County adopts two-phase approach
The Board of Supervisors directed county staff in October 2025 to prepare ordinances prohibiting new drilling and to develop a long-term plan for phasing out existing oil and gas facilities and operations.
County officials divided the initiative into two phases because of the legal, economic, and regulatory issues involved.
The first phase would amend the county’s zoning rules to prohibit new wells and the reentry of plugged and abandoned wells. Existing production and wells authorized under qualifying previously approved drilling or production plans could continue.
The second phase would examine options for gradually ending existing oil and gas operations. The study is expected to consider legal, economic, environmental, and workforce effects and take at least three years.
Oil production has declined
Santa Barbara County last approved a new oil-production plan in 2014. County staff described prohibiting new drilling as the most viable and least resource-intensive option for limiting future greenhouse-gas emissions from onshore oil and gas development.
As of September 2025, the county had approximately 1,039 active and 1,221 idle onshore oil and gas wells, according to county staff citing CalGEM records. An additional 3,663 wells had been plugged and abandoned.
Supporters described the proposal as a climate and public-health measure that would reduce the potential for additional pollution and community exposure to oil and gas operations.
Opponents questioned whether restricting local production would reduce petroleum consumption or shift production and its environmental effects to other jurisdictions. They also raised concerns about employment, mineral rights, and potential legal challenges.