Kern OKs oil, gas well plan
Residents, environmentalists oppose industry-backed blueprint
expected, a Central Valley county approved a plan Monday to fast-track drilling of thousands of new oil and gas wells over the next 15 years, over the objections of environmental groups and people who live near oil fields.
The Kern County Board of Supervisors voted 5 to 0 to approve a revised ordinance supported by the influential petroleum industry that creates a blanket environmental impact report to approve as many as 2,700 new wells a year.
The revision was necessary after a state appeals court ruled last year that a 2015 ordinance violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not fully evaluating or disclosing environmental damage that could occur from drilling. New drilling permits were not issued while the county returned to the drawing board.
County Planning Director Lorelei Oviatt said the new plan made 87 revisions, including creating larger buffers between homes and wells, muffling noise during drilling and putting a stricter limit on the number of new wells.
The 2015 ordinance would have allowed up to 72,000 wells, but with a lower cap on annual approvals, that numue ber is now reduced to about 43,000 new wells in the 20year period ending in 2035.
“What we project is the worst-case scenario on many issues,” Oviatt said, adding that actual permit numbers in recent years were below the cap.
Hundreds of people spoke by phone in favor of or against the ordinance or in voicemails played during a daylong public hearing.
Petroleum producers, oil company workers, and industry and business groups spoke in favor of the measure, saying it would support high-paying jobs and produce oil under some of the most stringent environmental laws.
Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of Western States Petroleum Assn., said the group supported the plan because it provided certainty by streamlining the process even though it had “introduced many new restrictive and costly requirements and mitigation measures.”
Environmentalists, residents and one farmer opposed the ordinance, saying it would clear the way to rubber-stamp permits and does not address concerns spelled out by a unanimous 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno.
In a joint statement, several local environmental leaders said they will continAs the fight by calling on state lawmakers and regulators to pass measures that would bar wells near homes, schools and hospitals.
Many opponents spoke about how more oil drilling would exacerbate the notoriously bad air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley.
Mercedes Macias, a local resident and a Sierra Club member, said oil production caused pollution responsible for a variety of health ailments that hit Latinos, Black and Indigenous people disproportionately.
“It is ludicrous to think that a singular environmental impact report can adequately determine the health impacts of oil and gas drilling,” she said. “The people of Kern County should not be sacrificed for profit.”
But supervisors argue that the local oil and gas industry had financial and environmental benefits.
Supervisor Leticia Perez said the oil and gas industry has represented a way out of “the incredible shame and degradation of intergenerational poverty,” especially for Latino families.
Supervisor Zack Scrivner said opponents aren’t counting the environmental costs of bringing in foreign oil.
Kern County, about 100 miles north of Los Angeles, is the state’s leading fossil fuel producer. About 1 in 7 workers in the county of 900,000 has a job tied to the oil industry.
The ordinance came up for discussion as the industry faces challenges from lawmakers as well as everpresent opposition from environmental groups.
The controversy over the ordinance started when the county amended its zoning code in 2015 to allow it to approve new oil and gas extraction permits after a review determined that applications would meet requirements set by a blanket environmental impact report. Environmentalists argued a one-size-fits-all approach didn’t address different factors that vary by location.
The ordinance was designed to avoid costly, timeconsuming environmental reviews of individual wells and was approved despite “significant, adverse environmental impacts,” the appellate court said.
Keith Gardiner, a farmer who successfully sued the county, said the new plan still falls short of providing protection for valuable agricultural land, which was one of the court’s findings. He said the county had wasted valuable time and spent millions of dollars supporting its f lawed environmental impact report.
Melley writes for the Associated Press.