The House of Representatives narrowly approved a $1.15 trillion defense bill on Monday that includes a contentious amendment permitting the federal government to seize state-owned land in California for an oil pipeline project. The measure, introduced by Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas), passed by a slim margin of 216 to 212 votes.
The amendment, incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act, grants the Army secretary authority to acquire permanent easements along the Santa Ynez Pipeline System through various means, including purchase, donation, exchange, or condemnation. This includes property held by the state of California and its governmental agencies. It also empowers the federal government to invoke eminent domain when deemed necessary by the Defense secretary to maintain uninterrupted crude oil transportation from the Santa Ynez Unit to refineries supplying Department of Defense facilities in California.
California Democrats strongly opposed the provision. Rep. Salud Carbajal criticized the amendment, arguing that it disproportionately favors the oil industry at the expense of the state’s interests. This opposition reflects broader tensions between California’s state government and the federal administration regarding land use and energy infrastructure.
The amendment follows a reported request from Sable Offshore, a Texas-based company linked to the Santa Ynez Pipeline, which urged the Department of Energy to secure properties surrounding the pipeline. The request was reportedly part of a proposal to establish a West Coast Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as revealed in a leaked letter published earlier this month.
The inclusion of the Hunt Amendment in the defense bill came amid ongoing debates over energy security and state versus federal authority. Supporters contend the measure is crucial for ensuring reliable fuel supplies to military installations in California, while opponents raise concerns about federal overreach and environmental and property rights implications.
The defense bill now moves forward for further consideration, with potential impacts on land ownership and energy infrastructure management in California remaining key points of discussion.