Environmentalists sue after feds allows new drilling permits in one of the country's most polluted areas
A slew of health and environmental groups are suing the Bureau of Land Management over its approval of permits for new oil and gas drilling on Central California's public lands - which is home to some of the country's most polluted cities.
A complaint filed in the U.S. Eastern District Court of California claims that the federal agency's decision is at the expense of public health, the environment and the law. It adds that the bureau had never analyzed the harms of its good approvals on nearby communities.
'The law requires the BLM to look at big-picture pollution impacts when it approves a bunch of new drilling permits in the same oil fields on the same day,' Michelle Ghafar, an attorney at Earthjustice, said in a statement announcing the move. 'These wells don't exist in a vacuum, and neither do the people who are forced to endure years of polluted air that makes them and their families sick.'
The bureau told The Independent on Wednesday that it does not comment on pending litigation.
The groups lambasted the bureau's actions, saying that they had unlawfully divided the collective harm that nearly 30 more wells would do to the San Joaquin Valley, obscuring the larger harms of the approvals in 'one of the most pulled areas of the country.'
The San Joaquin Valley is home to large productions of oil, warehouse distribution and agriculture.
The area is home to the cities of Stockton, Fresno and Bakersfield.
'Most of the new wells will be drilled near homes and residential areas, in direct violation of California's new oil and gas setbacks law that prohibits drilling within 3,200 feet of sensitive locations to protect public health,' they alleged. 'The Bureau of Land Management also rubberstamped its approvals without allowing public comment, in violation of federal law.'
The suit accuses the bureau of violating the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Mineral Leasing Act.
It notes that the San Joaquin Valley air basin's Kern County exceeds safe thresholds for ozone and particulate matter on nearly a third of all days in the year, and that the American Lung Association found cities there to be among the most polluted in the nation. One in six children in the San Joaquin Valley has asthma — the highest level in California, according to Fresno's Community Care Health.
The negative health impacts there disproportionately impact low-income residents and minorities, officials say. Of the more than 914,000 Kern County residents, nearly 80 percent of those living near wells are people of color and low-income residents.
In the past, wells there leaked the greenhouse gas methane at explosive levels, according to the Palm Springs Desert Sun. Residents in Bakersfield reported negative health impacts from the elevated levels.
When gas leaks or is burned from wells, cancer-causing compounds and other gases are released that can be harmful to the lungs, and form smog that causes respiratory and cardiovascular distress, the American Lung Association explains.
Drilling oil and gas can leak methane and other toxins that impact the valley's air, water and soil, said Jasmine Vazin, deputy director of Sierra Club's Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign.
'The San Joaquin Valley deserves better — the BLM needs to follow the law and put residents first,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Chaco region ban on oil and gas drilling being reconsidered under Trump
Jun. 6—The Trump administration's focus on domestic energy production has pushed the Bureau of Land Management to reconsider a rule against oil drilling in a 10-mile area surrounding the Chaco Culture National Historical Park. As Department of Interior secretary, New Mexico gubernatorial candidate Deb Haaland issued an order in 2023 to prevent oil and natural gas drilling in the 10-mile radius surrounding Chaco Canyon for 20 years. The All Pueblo Council of Governors wants those protections to stay in place for the sake of protecting sacred sites in the Chaco region. But the Navajo Nation is suing to revoke the protections, arguing the withdrawal causes significant economic harm to its members. Increasing domestic energy production and mining is a Trump administration priority. On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order telling agency heads to identify actions that impose an "undue burden" on the development of domestic energy resources, particularly oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical minerals and nuclear energy resources and to make plans to revise or rescind those actions. "This will restore American prosperity — including for those men and women who have been forgotten by our economy in recent years. It will also rebuild our nation's economic and military security, which will deliver peace through strength," the order reads. Subsequently, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued an order in February essentially telling his agency to take steps to follow Trump's order, including "actions to review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands." When it comes to Chaco, the Bureau of Land Management is following that order to review withdrawn public lands. According to an agency spokesperson, no formal decision has been made yet related to the Chaco order, which prohibits oil and gas development and exploratory mining on federal lands within a 10-mile radius of the Chaco Culture National Historic Park. "It's deeply disappointing that Trump and his administration are working to undermine our communities rather than to address the struggles and concerns that New Mexicans face every day," Haaland said in a statement. The Bureau of Land Management held a tribal consultation in late May about considering revoking the Chaco order. Ahead of the meeting, Acoma Gov. Charles Riley called for a united tribal response to keep the protections in place. Recently, the All Pueblo Council of Governors also passed a resolution reaffirming its opposition to weakening Chaco protections. "Chaco is a place that's very sacred to us," Riley said. "It contains many of our beliefs and origins. ... Many times, people don't understand our connection with these sites, whether it be Chaco, Mesa Verde, Bears Ears, things like that, many of our religious tribal leaders still go back to these places and call upon our ancestors to guide and protect our people, and that's what people don't understand." Acoma also received notice of the consultation late, only 19 days ahead of time instead of the typical 30, Riley said, giving the pueblo leaders less time to prepare, and the consultation didn't seem like a "true consultation," he said. "It just doesn't seem like this administration is listening. They hear you, but they're not listening," Riley said. 'A domino effect' As the Biden administration came to a close in January, the Navajo Nation filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the United States, the Interior Department, the Bureau of Land Management and Haaland, arguing that she failed in her statutory obligations and fiduciary duties to the Navajo Nation when issuing the order. Navajo Nation members hold mineral rights for land in the area, and the lawsuit argues that profiting off of those mineral rights will be effectively impossible with the checkerboard of surrounding federal lands ineligible for lease. "This will result in sizable financial losses, especially relative to modest incomes that are prevalent in this isolated region, and will significantly reduce economic activity and employment in the region, further detrimentally affecting the Nation and its citizens," the lawsuit reads. The Navajo Nation repeatedly proposed a 5-mile withdrawal radius as a compromise approach to protecting Chaco. The lawsuit argues that the U.S. government never officially considered that suggestion, so it didn't encourage public consideration of it. The office of Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren did not respond to a request for comment by the Journal's print deadline. In April, the Acoma and Laguna pueblos asked to join the lawsuit as intervenors on the side of the defendants. New Mexico's all-Democratic congressional delegation have been vocal about trying to protect certain wild or culturally significant areas in the state, like the Gila and Pecos watersheds, from mining and oil and gas development. In April, Sen. Ben Ray Luján and Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández led the reintroduction of a bill to make the 10-mile protected area around Chaco permanent. All five members of the delegation are cosponsors. It seems unlikely to pass in a Republican dominated Congress. "With the atmosphere of today and the push for shorter environmental reviews, the fast track of mining of uranium and oil and gas production, it really does threaten a lot of our sacred places around the country," Riley said. "And if we — God forbid — fail on Chaco, then, in my opinion, it's just a domino effect. Then, who's next? What's next?" Journal Capitol Bureau Chief Dan Boyd contributed to this report.
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Washington Post
Judge says administration can dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday denied a request by the American Library Association to halt the Trump administration's further dismantling of an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the country, saying that recent court decisions suggested his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had previously agreed to temporarily block the Republican administration, saying that plaintiffs were likely to show that Trump doesn't have the legal authority to unilaterally shutter the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which was created by Congress.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
The chaos muppet California needed — but too late
Has Elon Musk become the climate champion California wanted him to be all along? The Tesla CEO's apparent pivot to self-interested electric vehicle policy advocate might be happening just in time to influence the Senate's direction on $7,500 electric vehicle rebates, which the House megabill gutted last week. It's likely too late, though, to save the Clean Air Act waivers that let California enforce its stricter-than-federal clean-vehicle rules. Those are sitting on President Donald Trump's desk after Congress voted last month to roll back the state's authority despite warnings that the move could be illegal. And despite elected Democrats' seizing on Musk's sharp break with Trump as ammunition against the House bill, California climate advocates aren't following suit. "He is certainly a chaos muppet, but whether he is the one California needs continues to be very much in question," said Craig Segall, a former deputy executive officer at the California Air Resources Board and a policy consultant. "He may sort of be blundering through a semi-appropriate door, but he doesn't really seem like someone people would want to keep company with." Musk had reportedly been trying recently to save the tax credit behind the scenes, despite having declared himself indifferent to its fate early in the campaign cycle. He denied having flipped on Thursday, even after Tesla Energy, the company's solar and battery arm, began publicly opposing the bill's cuts to solar and battery tax credits last week. "Keep the EV/solar incentives cuts in the bill, also cut all the crazy spending increases in the Big Ugly Bill so that America doesn't go bankrupt!" he said on X. But it's California's clean-vehicle targets that famously made his company billions through the sale of credits to other automakers who needed to meet the state's zero-emission sales targets. He hasn't mentioned those publicly, despite claims by Trump that they were at the heart of their sudden split. "I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" Trump said on social media Thursday. Regardless of his positions on electric vehicles, Musk's break from Trump world is a seemingly rational move as the company's sales have plummeted in recent months amid backlash over his role in slashing the federal workforce and supporting far-right candidates around the world. In California, where high electric vehicle penetration has long made it a barometer of Musk sentiment, drivers have turned on Tesla. The company now represents less than 44 percent of the state's EV market, down from nearly 80 percent in 2020. Mike Murphy, a veteran Republican consultant and EV advocate, said Musk's abrupt shift is likely to only harden Trump's resolve against EVs, which he bashed on the campaign trail. 'My guess is this spat has hardened the Trump administration's desire to punish the entire EV category,' Murphy said. Another irony: He's alienating Trump to the point where Tesla's stock is dropping further on fears of regulatory retaliation. It fell nearly 15 percent today, with a big dip coming just after Trump's noon screed. "The quickly deteriorating friendship and now "major beef" between Musk and Trump is jaw dropping and a shock to the market and putting major fear for Tesla investors on what is ahead," Dan Ives, an analyst with Wedbush Securities, said in a client note Thursday. Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's California Climate newsletter. Sign in to access your portfolio
