Hinson, Gravelle & Adair

Seven Fracking Bills Set for Hearing Today in Assembly Appropriations Committee

Eric Adair — Wed, 15 May 2013 15:56:56 +0000

Today, the California Assembly Appropriations Committee will conduct a hearing on 195 pending bills, including seven that relate to the oil well stimulation technique of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The fracking-related bills are:

AB 7 (Wieckowski) (pdf)
AB 288 (Levine) (pdf)
AB 649 (Nazarian) (pdf)
AB 669 (Stone) (pdf)
AB 982 (Williams) (pdf)
AB 1301 (Bloom) (pdf)
AB 1323 (Mitchell) (pdf)

The Appropriations Committee hearing begins at 9:00 a.m. Audio of the hearing will be available here. We expect that the hearing will also be broadcast on the California Channel.

We previously summarized these (and other) bills (here), and have provided updates on their current status (here). We will report on the outcome of today’s hearing when details are available.

For more information regarding California fracking issues, please contact Eric Adair. Follow Eric on Twitter: Follow @kericadair

Related stories:

UPDATED: Vintage Production Responds to Allegations of Disposal of Fracking Waste

Eric Adair — Wed, 15 May 2013 02:54:56 +0000

On April 9, 2013, we reported (here) on allegations that Vintage Production California had improperly disposed of wastes from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, into a sump at a well near Shafter, California. Those allegations, which stemmed from a YouTube video, led to an order (pdf) from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board). That order required, among other things (see our prior report for additional details), that Vintage deliver to the Board a technical report describing the fracking stimulation process employed at the well, including information about the sump where wastes were discharged, the materials discharged to the sump (including its volume and composition), the volume and chemical characteristics of fresh water sources used for the fracking, volume and trade names of fracking chemicals, type and amount of proppant used, information about flowback fluids, and other details.

On May 6, 2013, Vintage delivered its technical report to the Board. We have obtained a copy of that report, as follows:

Report prepared by BSK Associates for Vintage (pdf)
Appendix A – Operations Summary Report (pdf)
Appendix B – Report of Stabilization and Pit Closure Operations (pdf)
Appendix C – Materials Concentrations and MSD Sheets (pdf)
Appendix D – City of Shafter Consumer Confidence Report (pdf)
Appendix E – Hydraulic Fracking Fluids and Proppants MSD Sheets (pdf)
Figures and Maps (pdf)

UPDATED (May 15, 2013): We have obtained a copy of the figures and maps that accompany the report. Those figures and maps had been withheld by the Board due to the need to redact precise locations of municipal water wells. They have now been revised and are available immediately above.

While we have not had an opportunity to review the report and appendices in their entirety, certain salient facts are contained in the main report. Most significantly, the report states that fracking operations on the well did not begin until October 7, 2012, one day after the YouTube was ostensibly shot, according to its own timestamp. Thus, the report concludes:

None of the fluid that is observed going into the sump in the internet video was associated with the hydraulic fracturing stimulation of the Sill 2-14H well. Instead, the fluids were associated with small amounts of trapped drilling fluids and purged hydrostatic pressure test water.

The report later adds that, during the subsequent fracking operations, all fluids that flowed back from the well “were directed into portable tanks and then were transported to the production fluids processing facility within the North Shafter field.” The ultimate conclusion of the report, contained in its introduction, is that “[t]he fluids being discharged into the sump in the internet video were not from, and predate all, hydraulic fracturing stimulation of the well.”

Curiously, however, the cover letter from Vintage to the Board adds the following:

After the information in the enclosed technical report was compiled following the April 29 meeting with Board staff, Vintage was informed by a vendor of the possibility that, between hydraulic fracturing stages, small quantities of fluids may have been discharged as a result of pressure relief procedures for surface equipment lines. Vintage is working diligently with the vendor to confirm the accuracy of this information. If it is determined that there were surface discharges not addressed in the report, Vintage will immediately notify the Board and supplement the report as appropriate.

Certainly, this is not the last we will hear of this incident. The Board is currently reviewing the report and may request additional information or seek clarification from Vintage. And Vintage may voluntarily provide information regarding the disclosure in its cover letter about the possible discharge of small amounts of fluids, whether they be fracking fluids or just more drilling fluids. We will continue to monitor this situation and provide further updates as warranted.

For more information regarding California fracking issues, please contact Eric Adair. Follow Eric on Twitter: Follow @kericadair

Related stories:

Update on California Fracking Legislation – May 13, 2013

Eric Adair — Mon, 13 May 2013 21:45:46 +0000

Eleven bills related to the oil well stimulation technique of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, are currently wending their way through the California legislature. We have previously described each of the pending bills (here, here, here, here, and here). This and future posts will provide tabular summary updates on the current status of each of the bills, tracking their progress through the various committees and their ultimate adoption or rejection. Click on the tab for a given bill to see its current status.

SB4

Past activity:
December 3, 2012 – Introduced (pdf)
March 11, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 5, 2013 – Bill Analysis, Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water
April 9, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water; passed 6-2
April 24, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 29, 2013 – Bill Analysis, Senate Committee on Environmental Quality
May 1, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Environmental Quality; passed 6-2
May 7, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
May 20, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Appropriations

SB241

Past activity:
February 12, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
April 24, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 25, 2013 – Bill Analysis, Senate Committee on Governance and Finance
May 1, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Governance and Finance; passed 5-2
May 7, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
May 20, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Appropriations

SB395

Past activity:
February 20, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
April 4, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 29, 2013 – Bill Analysis, Senate Committee on Environmental Quality
May 1, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Environmental Quality; passed 6-3
May 7, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
May 20, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Appropriations

SB665

Past activity:
February 22, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
April 16, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 19, 2013 – Bill Analysis, Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water
April 23, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water; passed 7-2
April 30, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
May 13, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Appropriations

AB7

Past activity:
December 3, 2012 – Introduced (pdf)
April 8, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 12, 2013 – Bill Analysis, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
April 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources; passed 7-0
April 30, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
May 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Appropriations

AB288

Past activity:
February 11, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
April 8, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 12, 2013 – Bill Analysis, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
April 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources; passed 6-3

Future activity:
May 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Appropriations

AB649

Past activity:
February 21, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
March 19, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 26, 2013 – Bill Analysis, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
April 29, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources; passed 5-3
May 8, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
May 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Appropriations

AB669

Past activity:
February 21, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
April 1, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 12, 2013 – Bill Analysis, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
April 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources; passed 6-3
April 17, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
May 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Appropriations

AB982

Past activity:
February 22, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
April 12, 2013 – Bill Analysis, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
April 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources; passed 6-3
May 7, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
May 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Appropriations

AB1301

Past activity:
February 22, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
March 21, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 26, 2013 – Bill Analysis, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
April 29, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources; passed 5-3

Future activity:
May 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Appropriations

AB1323

Future activity:
May 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Appropriations

For more information regarding California fracking issues, please contact Eric Adair. Follow Eric on Twitter: Follow @kericadair

Related stories:

HGA Attorney Eric Adair to Speak at LSI’s Hydraulic Fracturing Conference

Eric Adair — Mon, 13 May 2013 20:08:44 +0000

Hinson Gravelle & Adair LLP attorney Eric Adair will speak at Law Seminar Institute’s conference on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in California. The conference is scheduled for July 29-30 at the DoubleTree Guest Suites Hotel in Santa Monica (map). Mr. Adair’s presentation — “Update on Regulatory Initiatives and Activities at the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR)” — will begin at 9:30 a.m. on July 29 and will provide the latest information on DOGGR’s efforts to develop fracking regulations applicable statewide.

The two-day conference, entitled “Environmental Regulation and Hydraulic Fracturing in California: Developing Win-Win Strategies For Owners Of Surface Rights And Drilling Rights,” will address a broad range of environmental and legal issues affecting fracking in California. From the conference brochure:

This advanced two-day conference will cover all aspects of hydraulic fracturing policy and legal issues in California. Our esteemed and expert faculty will provide in-depth information about oil and gas exploration and production in California and the use of fracking as a method for enhanced recovery in the Golden State.

This conference will discuss administrative and legislative efforts to regulate fracking in the State, the salient provisions in the proposed rules, the pros and cons of these regulations, and practical tips for complying with what may be the ultimate regulatory and/or legislative mandate. Speakers will also discuss air and water quality issues, and land use modifications associated with fracking and how these issues and challenges can be managed to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. The faculty will include the most prominent counsel for oil and gas exploration and production companies, landowners, environmental groups, and local governments practicing in this field in California.

Please click here to download the brochure with the full conference program. The conference website and registration instructions are available here.

Mr. Adair has become a frequent speaker on the legal and environmental issues associated with fracking in California. He recently served as a featured speaker on fracking at two conferences. On April 15, Mr. Adair addressed the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) at its Environmental Crimes Prosecutions 101 conference. On April 23, he spoke at the California Water Law and Policy conference. He also served as a guest lecturer to a graduate level environmental planning course at California State Polytechnic Institute, Pomona, on February 26.

For more information regarding California fracking issues, please contact Eric Adair. Follow Eric on Twitter: Follow @kericadair

Related stories:

UPDATED: California Fracking Workshop Videos

Eric Adair — Tue, 07 May 2013 04:31:22 +0000

California’s Department of Conservation and its Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) recently conducted a series of stakeholder workshops around the state to seek input on the “discussion draft” regulations that will govern the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The Department recently posted videos from workshops conducted in Los Angeles on February 19, 2013, and in Santa Barbara on April 19, 2013. The videos are available on the Department’s YouTube page and have been embedded below. The video from the Santa Barbara workshop is not complete. We will provide the complete video as and when it is provided by the Department.

UPDATE (May 11, 2013): Additional videos of the Department’s fracking workshops were posted on its YouTube page earlier this week. We now have the rest of the Santa Barbara workshop, as well as the Bakersfield workshop conducted on March 13, 2013, and a portion of the Sacramento workshop conducted on March 21, 2013. The videos have been embedded below.

Los Angeles Workshop

Bakersfield Workshop (two parts)

Part 1

Part 2

Sacramento Workshop (partial – parts 1 and 3 of four parts)

Part 1

Part 3

Santa Barbara Workshop (six parts; part 1 may not be functional and will be updated when a functional version is posted on the Department’s YouTube page)

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

For more information regarding California fracking issues, please contact Eric Adair. Follow Eric on Twitter: Follow @kericadair

Related stories:

Fracking Legislation Approved by Senate Environmental Quality Committee

Eric Adair — Fri, 03 May 2013 06:27:16 +0000

Legislation that would govern the well stimulation technique of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, continues to meet with success in the California legislature, as the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality approved two fracking-related bills, SB 4 (pdf) and SB 395 (pdf), at a hearing on May 1, 2013.

We have previously summarized SB 4 (here and here). With Wednesday’s 6-2 passing vote, it has now passed through two committees, having been approved by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water on April 9, 2013. Authored by Senator Fran Pavley, SB 4 is the most comprehensive fracking bill now pending in either the Senate or the Assembly. As set forth in the SB 4 fact sheet, the highlights of the bill include the completion of a scientific study on various risks perceived to be associated with fracking by January 1, 2015, the completion of regulations by the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) by the same date, the implementation of a permitting process for fracking, a 30-day public notification process, baseline and follow-up groundwater quality testing, and the cessation of fracking if the scientific study is not completed by the 2015 deadline.

Senator Pavley, speaking at Wednesday’s hearing, said:

There’s no transparency and accountability in the process right now. If we’re going to move forward we’ve got to have the correct regulatory framework in place.

SB 395, which would vest in the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) authority to regulate waste water produced from oil and gas extraction, also passed on a 6-3 vote. Speaking about her bill, Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson said:

Fracking has become one of the central environmental issues of our time, and many people are rightfully concerned about the potential impact it may have on our drinking water, our agricultural water supplies, and our environment. We need to make sure there is proper oversight of the potentially toxic chemical brew that’s produced from fracking, and this bill will help do that.

Both bills now pass on to the Senate Appropriations Committee, which should be the last hurdle before a hearing on the Senate floor.

For more information regarding California fracking issues, please contact Eric Adair. Follow Eric on Twitter: Follow @kericadair

Related stories:

Assembly Natural Resources Committee Approves Three Fracking Bills

Eric Adair — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:23:04 +0000

On April 29, 2013, the California Assembly Committee on Natural Resources conducted a hearing on three proposed bills that would regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in the state. The bills — AB 649 (pdf), AB 1301 (pdf), and AB 1323 (pdf) — each of which would have the effect of imposing a moratorium on fracking, were approved by the Committee and passed to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. (Our summary of proposed fracking legislation in California, including the three bills that were the subject of today’s hearing, may be found here.)

Not surprisingly, the votes on the three bills were split on party lines. Each bill passed on identical 5-3 votes, with Democrats Wesley Chesbro, Al Muratsuchi, Nancy Skinner, Mark Stone, and Das Williams casting supporting votes. Republicans Shannon Grove, Franklin Bigelow, and Jim Patterson opposed the bills.

Interest in the hearing was high, with a large group in support of the bills in attendance. Chairman Chesbro indicated that as many as 60 people had signed in to speak in support of the legislation. While many of the speakers were private citizens, the usual interest groups attended and spoke in support of or in opposition to the bills. Among the supporters were representatives of Clean Water Action, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, Environment California, the Butte Environmental Council, and the Association of Californians Who Drink Water, the last of which drew good-natured laughter and applause when it was identified. Opposing the bills were the Western States Petroleum Association, the California Independent Petroleum Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and the California League of Food Processors.

The most interesting exchange of the lengthy hearing occurred between Assembly Member Grove, whose 34th District includes large portions of oil-rich Kern County, and Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, an outspoken opponent of fracking. Testifying in support of AB 1301, Ms. Siegel described extensive groundwater contamination ostensibly caused by fracking. Assembly Member Grove requested support for that claim, and complained strenuously when Ms. Siegel stated that she did not have a copy of the supporting study prepared by Pro Publica. Later, in discussions on AB 649, Assembly Member Grove stated that she had located on CBD’s website the Pro Publica study to which Ms. Siegel had referred. She noted, however, that the study did not describe fracking-related groundwater contamination, as Ms. Siegel had indicated. Instead, the study described “1,000 accidental releases of oil, drilling wastewater or other fluids in 2011.” Ms. Siegel responded that she was referring to an earlier Pro Publica study from 2008. In the end, no clear resolution was reached and the tension was defused as the Chair moved the matter to a vote.

Today’s vote means that each of the pending fracking bills to reach a committee vote thus far has survived. We previously reported that Senator Fran Pavley’s fracking bill, SB 4 (pdf), received a favorable 6-2 vote in an April 9 hearing before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water. Four Assembly bills — AB 7 (pdf), AB 288 (pdf), AB 669 (pdf), and AB 982 (pdf) — survived votes in an April 15 hearing before the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.

For more information regarding California fracking issues, please contact Eric Adair. Follow Eric on Twitter: Follow @kericadair

Related stories:

Update on California Fracking Legislation – April 26, 2013

Eric Adair — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:05:24 +0000

SB4

Past activity:
December 3, 2012 – Introduced (pdf)
March 11, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 9, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water; passed 6-2
April 24, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
May 1, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Environmental Quality

SB241

Past activity:
February 12, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
April 24, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
May 1, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Governance and Finance

SB395

Past activity:
February 20, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
April 4, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
May 1, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Environmental Quality

SB665

Past activity:
February 22, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
April 16, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 23, 2013 – Hearing, Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water; passed 7-2

Future activity:
None scheduled

AB7

Past activity:
December 3, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
April 8, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources; passed 7-0

Future activity:
None scheduled

AB288

Past activity:
February 11, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
April 8, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources; passed 6-3

Future activity:
None scheduled

AB649

Past activity:
February 21, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
March 19, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
April 29, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources

AB669

Past activity:
February 21, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
April 1, 2013 – Amended (pdf)
April 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources; passed 6-3
April 17, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
None scheduled

AB982

Past activity:
February 22, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
April 15, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources; passed 6-3

Future activity:
None scheduled

AB1301

Past activity:
February 22, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
March 21, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
April 29, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources

AB1323

Past activity:
February 22, 2013 – Introduced (pdf)
March 21, 2013 – Amended (pdf)

Future activity:
April 29, 2013 – Hearing, Assembly Committee on Natural Resources

For more information regarding California fracking issues, please contact Eric Adair. Follow Eric on Twitter: Follow @kericadair

Related stories:

NEPA Compliance Required for Certain Oil & Gas Leases in California Due to Concerns Over Fracking

Eric Adair — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:56:32 +0000

The reaction to and analysis of the recent decision (pdf) issued by Judge Paul Grewal in Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management has been extensive and fascinating. While the decision will impede the ability of oil and gas operators to conduct hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, operations on certain federal lands in California, at least in the near term, it may not be the watershed decision that some of the headlines have suggested.

We previously reported on the CBD case (here), including a description of the summary judgment motion that led to the recent decision (here). The suit arose out of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) September 14, 2011, lease of four oil and gas parcels totaling approximately 2,700 acres to various lessees. In the suit, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Sierra Club alleged that BLM’s decision to lease the land violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (pdf). Specifically, the suit contended that “BLM relied upon an environmental assessment (EA) prepared pursuant to NEPA that failed to analyze many of the significant environmental effects of the oil and gas development that could occur upon development of the leases,” citing concerns for endangered and sensitive species in the area. The suit also warned of potential impacts to water quality and other resources that allegedly result from fracking, which may be employed by oil and gas operators in the leased areas. It also complained that oil and gas activity on the property may result in spills and habitat contamination and emissions of methane gas. Ultimately, CBD and the Sierra Club sought to overturn the leases.

Judge Grewal’s decision first evaluates the applicability of NEPA at the stage at which the oil and gas leases were originally sold, long before any specific oil and gas development was planned or implemented. Second, assuming NEPA applies at that stage, the decision considers whether BLM’s issuance of an environmental assessment was legally sufficient.

At the outset, the Court clarified that the scope of its review, under the Administrative Procedures Act, would be limited to determining whether BLM’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law. It added that it would not address “the policy question of whether fracking in the Monterey Shale or anywhere else is a good thing or a bad thing.”

The Court initially agreed with BLM that the obligation to conduct full NEPA review had not yet ripened for two of the four leases. Those two leases — which contained a “No Surface Occupancy” (“NSO”) stipulation — prohibited surface disturbing activities by the lessees and reserved to BLM the right to control future activity on the leases. Thus, as to the NSO leases, BLM had not yet made any “irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources” that would trigger its NEPA obligation under Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). As to the other two leases — the so-called “non-NSO” leases — the Court found that “because BLM will no longer hold the full range of options for dealing with surface activities after selling the non-NSO leases, BLM was required to conduct a thorough NEPA analysis to determine whether the sale would have a substantial environmental impact.”

Central to the Court’s finding that BLM had not complied with NEPA on the non-NSO leases was BLM’s failure to take into account all reasonably foreseeable possibilities. The Court was particularly critical of BLM’s failure to evaluate the potential for greatly increased drilling activity on the leases with the advent of fracking and horizontal drilling. Instead, BLM had based its NEPA analysis on the premise that only one exploratory well would be drilled on the four leases, a premise that the Court found logically implausible. Having unreasonably limited its NEPA analysis, the Court concluded that BLM had failed to take the hard look required by NEPA.

Contrary to various media and blog reports, the Court has not yet taken any specific action to invalidate the leases or to block fracking on federal lands in California. While the summary judgment decision will almost certainly delay oil and gas development on the subject leases, the Court has yet to enter a formal judgment enforcing its decision. Instead, the Court explained that it has various remedial options at its disposal, including enjoining surface-disturbing activities pending NEPA compliance or invalidating the leases. “Rather than guess at the appropriate remedy,” the Court directed the parties to meet and confer about the scope of an appropriate judgment and imposed an April 15, 2013, deadline for them to submit such a judgment. The parties later filed a joint request for a one-month extension of that deadline, to May 15, 2013, which the Court granted. Thus, we will expect to see a proposed judgment by the middle of May.

In the wake of their successful motion, CBD and the Sierra Club announced last week the filing of a virtually identical lawsuit challenging BLM’s auction of an additional 17,000 acres in Monterey, San Benito and Fresno counties in December 2012.

For more information regarding California fracking issues, please contact Eric Adair. Follow Eric on Twitter: Follow @kericadair

Related stories:

Four Fracking Bills Advance in California Legislature

Eric Adair — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 04:55:17 +0000

On April 15, 2013, four bills that would regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in California received passing votes in the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.

We previously summarized each of the four bills under consideration – AB 7 (Wieckowski), AB 288 (Levine), AB 669 (Stone), and AB 982 (Williams). Since that summary, Assembly Member Wieckowski substantially amended AB 7, narrowing it from a comprehensive bill addressing a wide array of fracking-related issues to a bill principally focused on disclosure requirements regarding fracking operations, including an elaborate treatment of trade secret information. The narrowing of AB 7 leaves Senator Pavley’s bill, SB 4, as the lead comprehensive fracking bill now pending in the legislature. As we reported last week, SB 4 recently survived a vote in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water and is scheduled for a May 1, 2013, hearing before the Committee on Environmental Quality.

At Monday’s hearing, AB 7 passed with unanimous support, with Committee members Grove, Bigelow, Garcia, Muratsuchi, Patterson, Stone, and Williams voting in favor of Assembly Member Wieckowski’s bill. The vote on the three remaining bills split 6-3 on party lines, with Democrats Chesbro, Garcia, Muratsuchi, Skinner, Stone, and Williams in favor and Republicans Grove, Bigelow, and Patterson opposed. All four bills were re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

The next major hearing on fracking-related legislation is set for April 29, 2013, when the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources will consider AB 649 (Nazarian), AB 1301 (Bloom), and AB 1323 (Mitchell).

We will continue to monitor the progress of these bills and provide updates as warranted.

For more information regarding California fracking issues, please contact Eric Adair. Follow Eric on Twitter: Follow @kericadair

Related stories: