On Wednesday, December 17, I gave a presentation to the Groundwater Resources Association (“GRA”).  I reviewed the past year’s developments in California’s regulation of hydraulic fracturing and previewed my future predictions for the industry.  Below is a summary of my talk and the power point presentation is attached here.
Continue Reading Here Today & Fracked Tomorrow: A Review of SB 4 in 2014

A new oil and gas reporting bill, Senate Bill 1281, sponsored by State Senator Fran Pavley, was signed by Governor Brown on September 25, 2014.  The California Department of Conservation – Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) issued a Notice to Operators containing important information on the new law’s reporting mandates on December 8, 2014.

Under Senate Bill 1281, Section 3226.3 was added to the Public Resources Code and requires the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to provide an annual inventory report of all unlined oil and gas field sumps to the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards.

Section 3227 of the Public Resources Code was also amended to require operators of wells to provide a monthly and quarterly statement disclosing the following information:

  • The source and volume of water produced from each oil field
  • The water used to generate or make up the composition of any injected fluid or gas
  • The volume of untreated water suitable for domestic or irrigation purposes
  • The treatment of water and use of treated or recycled water in activities, such as exploration, development, and production
  • The disposition method of all water used in or generated by oil and gas field activities – including water produced from each well reported
    • Also the identity of any temporary onsite storage of water and the ultimate specific use, disposal method or method of recycling, or reuse of the water

For each reporting requirement, if water is commingled, it must be assigned proportionately to each well.

DOGGR has provided an interim water reporting form on its website for use until February 2015, at which time a final version of the form will be made available.
Continue Reading New Water Reporting Requirements for Oil and Gas Operators

The Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) issued a declaratory order in a 2-1 vote last Friday, finding that the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is categorically preempted by federal law, as it relates to the Fresno to Bakersfield segment of the California High-Speed Rail Project (“HSR Project”).

Section 10501(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code provides that remedies with respect to rail transportation are exclusive and preempt remedies provided under State or Federal law. The STB has previously ruled that states or localities are precluded from intruding into matters directly regulated by the STB, in particular when the state or local action would have the effect of foreclosing or unduly restricting the rail carrier’s ability to conduct its operations or otherwise unreasonably burden interstate commerce.

Under this section, the STB could not overlook the fact that CEQA, as a state pre-clearance requirement, could ultimately deny or significantly delay the High-Speed Rail Authority’s (the “Authority”) right to construct a railroad line. This would directly defy the STB’s exclusive jurisdiction over a project that it regulates. Even if it could be argued that the Authority created an implied agreement by voluntarily beginning the CEQA process, the STB concluded that any such agreement would unreasonably interfere with interstate commerce because it would prevent the Authority from exercising its authority to construct the rail line, which it had been previously authorized to do by the STB.
Continue Reading High Speed Rail Moves Forward Without CEQA Review

On Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 4, three counties in California presented voters with measures to ban hydraulic fracturing and other forms of intensive oil and gas operations.  Voters in Santa Barbara County rejected the measure there, while voters in San Benito and Mendocino Counties approved their respective ballot measures.

Santa Barbara’s Measure P would have banned the use of “high-intensity” oil extraction methods, including fracking, by future oil and gas projects on unincorporated county land.  Measure J, the San Benito County Fracking Ban Initiative, also bans “high-intensity petroleum operations,” which includes fracking, acid well stimulation, and cyclic steam injection.  Additionally, it bans any new gas or oil drilling activity in residential and rural areas in the County.  Measure J passed 57% to 43%.  The Mendocino County Community Bill of Rights Fracking and Water Use Initiative, Measure S, bans “unconventional extraction of hydrocarbons,” including fracking.  The ordinance creates a strict liability scheme for damages to any person or property inside Mendocino County caused by unconventional extraction.  Measure S passed 67% to 33%.Continue Reading Two County Fracking Prohibitions Succeed While One Fails: What the Voting Results in Santa Barbara, San Benito, and Mendocino Counties Mean for the Oil & Gas Industry in California

As previously reported by my colleagues Ryan Waterman and Parissa Ebrahimzadeh, on April 1, 2014, the State Water Resources Control Board unanimously adopted a new Industrial Storm Water permit (2014 Permit). You can find the new Industrial Storm Water permit and supporting documents here, along with a change sheet also adopted by the State…

The California State Bar, Environmental Law Section hosts an annual conference which welcomes attorneys and students from across the state to learn and discuss cutting edge environmental law issues.  This year’s Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite featured an insightful panel on hydraulic fracturing regulation.  The panel, held on Sunday, October 19, was titled “Recent Developments in the Regulation of Fracking at the Federal, State, and Local Level.”  The four panelists each shared their experience and differing viewpoints in relation to their law practice.

Kassie Siegel, Senior Counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, focused on hydraulic fracturing regulation at the federal level.  She noted the lack of meaningful federal regulations and pointed out that fracking is exempt from several federal laws including the Clean Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  Thus, fracking is not highly regulated by federal agencies and currently depends more on state and local oversight.Continue Reading State Bar, Environmental Law Section Presents Update on Fracking Regulations

James Andrew, Assistant Chief Counsel for the California High-Speed Rail Authority (“CHSRA”), spoke Tuesday, October 14, at the Sacramento County Bar Association, Environmental Law Section Luncheon.  He stated that High-Speed Rail (“HSR”) is a “transformative project” in that it will be the largest infrastructure project ever built as one single project.  However, the “regulatory scheme has not caught up with the project.”  Andrew compares HSR to the federal highway system construction in the 1950s, with countless opponents and regulatory hurdles.  Similarly, HSR is being constructed in California in the same manner as the federal highway system:  in the center and branching outward.

To show that HSR can be a success, Andrew explained that HSR is comparable to the Northeast Corridor, a high speed rail system that runs from Washington, D.C. to Boston.  The two regions are similar in terms of distance of rail, population, and complexity of issues.  According to reports, over 11 million people rode the Northeast Corridor during 2012.Continue Reading Update on the California High Speed Rail System

Dear California Environmental Law Blog readers. We launched this blog in 2011 to help us keep you informed about developing environmental stories that impact the California business community. While our commitment to keep you informed hasn’t changed, technology has. More than three years ago, we were still operating in a desktop- and RSS-dominated world. Today,…

Governor Brown has signed two new bills amending the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  AB 52 establishes new consultation procedures with California Native American tribes, and provides that an adverse change to a tribal cultural resource is a significant impact under CEQA.  AB 1104 extends an existing CEQA exemption for certain pipeline projects to biogas…

Citizens for the Restoration of L Street v. City of Fresno, et al., No. F066498,(Cal. Ct. App. 5th Dist., August 28, 2014)

In a two-part opinion, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment and writ of mandate, finding that the City of Fresno’s Municipal Code did not delegate authority to its Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to approve CEQA documents, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) at issue. The Fifth District also upheld the trial court’s holding that the substantial evidence standard, not the fair argument standard, governs review of decisions regarding designation of historic resources.

The Project, a small 1.29 acre residential infill development in downtown Fresno, required demolition of two homes—one of which was previously designated a “Heritage Property” under the Municipal Code—necessitating a demolition permit from the HPC. In concert with its approval of the demolition permits, the HPC also reviewed and approved the Project MND, concluding that demolition of the two homes would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. Citizens for the Restoration of L Street (“Citizens”), a local association, appealed the HPC’s adoption of the MND. The City Council heard Citizens’ appeal, and passed a motion: (1) upholding the HPC’s finding that neither of the two homes was an historical resource under CEQA; (2) electing not to exercise its discretion to designate the homes historical, or the Project area an historical district; and (3) upholding the HPC’s approval of the CEQA findings and MND. Shortly thereafter, both homes were demolished.Continue Reading Is It Historical Under CEQA? Court Confirms Substantial Evidence Remains the Standard

About Stoel Rives Environmental Law

Learn More

Few firms view their Environment, Land Use, and Natural Resources practices as core legal services. Stoel Rives is one of them. The firm ranks #8 in the United States according to Law360’s list of the largest practices of its kind. Our sophisticated compliance counseling, permitting, regulatory development, and litigation practices continue a long tradition of specialization and deep experience. Our environment, land use, and natural resource attorneys incorporate prior agency experience, technical acumen, and industry knowledge into their legal advice. They also build strong relationships with agency officials and industry associations. Our litigation successes include landmark decisions. More than 60 attorneys, paralegals, and compliance analysts comprise Stoel Rives’ nationwide Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources practice.