The U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) released a report yesterday, July 28, 2014, that presents a need for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) to update the Underground Injection Control class II program (“UIC Program”).  Under the UIC Program, the USEPA oversees and regulates groundwater affected by wells associated with oil and gas production.

The City of Compton is being sued for its ordinance banning hydraulic fracturing, effective on April 22, 2014.  (Western States Petroleum Association v. City of Compton, et al., Case No.BC552272.)   Although Compton is not the first city in the state to enact such a ban, Compton is the first city to be sued over it.  The Western States Petroleum Association (“WSPA”) filed a law suit on Monday, July 21 in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  The complaint states that such fracking bans are preempted by state regulation of well stimulation, Senate Bill 4 (“SB 4”) and the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources’ (“DOGGR”) regulations.

WSPA alleges several other legal grounds for the ordinance’s invalidity.  The industry group claims that the city failed to give adequate notice of the ordinance, violating state and federal Constitutional due process guarantees.  Additionally, the lack of public debate when passing the ordinance violated the City’s policy powers.  Mineral rights holders were not given a forum for public input.Continue Reading Industry Group Sues Compton for Moratorium on Hydraulic Fracturing

On Friday, July 18, 2014, the Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) announced that it will review California’s Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) Program to ensure compliance with the requirements of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“the Act”).  DOGGR has primary authority under the Act to regulate underground injection wells, granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”).  DOGGR will conduct the review in conjunction with the USEPA, and expects the review to be completed in 12-18 months.

Originally enacted in 1974 and amended in 1996, the Act aims “to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply.”  (EPA, Safe Drinking Water Act).  The Act is applicable to well stimulation regulations because it has authority over ground water wells, excluding private wells that serve fewer than 25 people.  Protections are designed to prevent oil and gas production wastewater from being injected into drinking water aquifers.Continue Reading DOGGR to Review Well Stimulation Regulations to Ensure Compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act

On Friday, June 20, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed a public resources “trailer bill:”  Senate Bill 681 (“SB 681”).  Section 5 of the Bill extends the implementation deadline for the Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”).  The initial implementation date was set at January 1, 2015.  Under the new law…

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court denied petition for review in Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey. In Rocky Mountain Farmers, the Ninth Circuit addressed the constitutionality of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), focusing specifically on whether the LCFS discriminates against out-of-state businesses and thus violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Read our September…

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a surprising decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The Supreme Court has held that EPA cannot regulate stationary sources under the CAA Prevention of Significant…

In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Cal. Ct. App. 5th Dist. May 27, 2014), the Fifth Appellate District found fault with the County of Fresno’s (County)  review of the Friant Ranch Project (Project) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The appellate court concluded that the County’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not sufficiently correlate the Project’s air quality impacts with impacts on human health, and did not sufficiently define mitigation measures designed to address air quality impacts. With respect to correlating air emissions to human health impacts, it is worth noting that the court did not address the extent to which this is possible. Initial reactions from air consultants who have reviewed this decision is that it is not technically possible to calculate this correlation with such specificity, leaving open the question of how lead agencies will respond to this decision in future CEQA documents.
Continue Reading What’s a ROG and Can It Hurt Me? EIR Overturned For Failure to Explain Air Quality Impacts to Human Health

On June 13, 2014, the Department of Conservation (“Department”)  issued a public notice and posted the latest version of the proposed regulations for the use of well stimulation in oil and gas production (“Revised Proposed Regulations”).  These are revisions to the permanent regulations that will go into effect on January 1, 2015.  The Revised Proposed Regulations include the following, significant changes:Continue Reading Department of Conservation Issues Revised, Proposed Well Stimulation Treatment Regulations

The Sacramento Bee has reported that the Legislature’s budget proposal for the high-speed rail project has been finalized.  Gov. Jerry Brown and Democratic lawmakers have agreed to use 25 percent of future cap-and-trade funds, totaling $250 million, to continue construction of the $68 billion California High-Speed Rail Project (the “Project”).  The floor votes for the…

In SPRAWLDEF et al. v. San Franscisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, et al. (“SPRAWLDEF”)(certified for publication 5/28/2014), the First Appellate District reversed the trial court’s decision and held the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s (“Commission”) determination that a project alternative was not economically feasible was supported by substantial evidence.…

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.