Oil Pipeline Opposition Grows in Southland Cities Affected by Plan

Protest over the proposed Angeles Pipeline from Kern County through Los Angeles appears to be gaining strength. An influential group of municipal officials has voted to oppose the project and to encourage the 20 municipalities along its route to reject it.

On May 7, the executive committee of the Southern California Assn. of Governments is expected to ratify the recommendation of its energy and environmental committee, which on Thursday voted unanimously to oppose the $225-million project, according to Catherine Tyrell, the government association’s energy program manager.

Two influential members of the association’s executive board, Los Angeles City Council President Pat Russell and Councilman Robert Farrell, have already announced their opposition to the project.

Al Swanson, a spokesman for the consortium of oil companies seeking to build the pipeline, called the the association committee vote “unfortunate.”

In addition to opposition on the association, the number of cities and local officials opposed to the project is growing and, at three hearings on the project’s environmental impact this week, opponents overwhelmingly outnumbered supporters.

Oil company officials acknowledge that local opposition to the project might kill it. The state, however, has the power to invoke its right of eminent domain to secure the route if it is determined that the project is both necessary and environmentally sound. Whether the state would do so is, in the words of Atlantic Richfield Co. spokesman Al Greenstein, “an open question.”

All municipalities on the pipeline route must approve building permits and franchise agreements.

Burbank, which went on record opposing the project last summer, has been joined within the last five weeks by Gardena, Bell Gardens and Carson. The cities cited traffic disruption, earthquake dangers, air pollution and the potential for contamination of drinking water as reasons for opposition.

Lobbying Effort

Members of the Coalition Against the Pipeline, who have been lobbying local governments, say a majority of the Los Angeles City Council now opposes the project. Councilmen John Ferraro and Marvin Braude said in interviews Friday that although they had not made an official count, they believe this assessment to be correct.

Most recent to announce opposition is Russell, who is defending herself in a tough runoff reelection campaign against accusations that she favors development at the expense of neighborhood preservation. She announced Wednesday a switch from a noncommittal position to one of opposition.

In March, Braude shifted from a wait-and-see position on the pipeline to opposition. He and Farrell introduced a measure--now under study--against the pipeline. Ferraro introduced a similar motion a day later.

135 Miles of Pipe

At issue in the debate is a proposal to build a 135-mile pipeline, 30 inches in diameter, to provide a key underground connection between refineries in the South Bay and oil fields off the coast of Santa Barbara and in Kern County.

With the pipeline running at capacity, a river of crude oil would course at almost 10,000 gallons a minute through a 30-inch steel tube. The consortium backing the pipeline includes units of Shell Oil Co., Chevron Corp. and Texaco, in addition to Arco.

Oil company officials say the project is needed to transport crude from oil fields now being developed to refineries closest to the millions of consumers in the Los Angeles area, and that a pipeline is a safer method of transporting oil than rail or barge.

The environmental review process is being conducted by the state Department of Transportation, acting for the state of California, and the U.S. Forest Service, which represents the federal government. Officials expect a final environmental impact report to be issued during the summer.