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
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Officials approve site for new Tesla factory despite vehement opposition: 'It's not going to be good for anyone'
A South Australian city has approved the use of state-owned land by Tesla to build a factory, despite overwhelming public opposition to the project. According to the Guardian, the city council of Marion, Adelaide, voted to seek state approval to sell land to Tesla on which they plan to build a new factory. The approval came despite overwhelming public opposition to the proposed sale, as 95% of over 1,000 people who submitted statements to the council had objected to the proposal. Marion Mayor Kris Hanna addressed the decision after the vote was taken, saying that denying the project would have no impact on Musk, but would cost the city over 100 potential new jobs. "If we didn't proceed, it would have cost 100 jobs to local residents but it would have had no impact on Elon Musk," Hanna said. "Tesla would almost certainly find somewhere else in Australia to build their factory." The brand perception of Tesla is currently at an all-time low around the globe, and sales numbers have been in a tailspin for several months. In the case of Marion, the vast majority of the backlash centered around Tesla CEO Musk and his involvement in far-right political movements around the globe, but other environmental concerns were levied as well. "Please dear God," one wrote. "It's not going to be good for anyone." "I could not think of a worse developer to sell the land to," said another opponent. "Tesla sales have been plummetting [sic] … this is likely to attract protests and negative attention that the neighbourhood does not need or want." Musk's companies have come under fire before for dodging environmental regulations. In Memphis, his xAI facility has been accused of setting up gas-powered turbines that pump pollution directly out into the city without permits, directly violating the Clean Air Act. Opponents of the proposal note that while the site would be used to recycle batteries, it would only recycle Tesla batteries, and not those made by other companies, limiting its usefulness. "My understanding is Tesla only recycle Tesla batteries and we know most people in SA … have another brand," Sarah Luscombe, a Marion councillor who voted against the approval, said. What do you think of Tesla and Elon Musk? Elon is the man Love the company; hate the CEO I'm not a fan of either I don't have an opinion Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. The deal now advances to the next stage, where it needs approval from the state government of Adelaide. According to the Guardian, the state seems to be in favor of the deal. South Australia Premier Peter Malinauskas said he supported the deal, despite Musk's controversial political positions. "Any time we see any big, major industrial investment in our state, in my view, it is welcome," the premier said. "Mr. Musk's politics, while I violently disagree with them … that's his prerogative." Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dozens of environmental groups sign letter opposing return of Utah public lands sale
People rally in opposition of Utah's lawsuit attempting to take control of federal lands at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Saturday, Jan. 11, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) Organizations from around the country signed a letter on Monday urging U.S. senators not to include a controversial proposal to sell thousands of acres of federal land in Congress' budget bill. The letter comes in the wake of reports that Utah Sen. Mike Lee is considering reviving an amendment to the bill originally proposed by Rep. Celeste Maloy that would dispose of nearly 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah, and about 450,000 acres in Nevada. Lee, when asked by a Politico reporter last week if he intended to reintroduce the disposal, responded, 'I gotta go vote, but yes.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Lee's office did not respond to a request for comment on Monday, and it's unclear whether Utah's senior GOP senator is considering bringing back an exact copy of Maloy's amendment, or something different. But more than 100 organizations and nonprofits around the country are sounding the alarm, telling Senate leaders to 'heed how dramatically unpopular this idea is and reject any misguided attempt to get public lands sales back in this bill.' 'Decisions about the future of public lands should remain in public hands. Leaders in the House and Senate, extractive industry, and private developers are using the reconciliation process to sell off federal lands to pay for billionaire tax cuts. But such moves are deeply unpopular. Polling has repeatedly shown that the public — especially westerners — strongly believes in keeping public lands in public hands and, across partisan lines, rejects any efforts that would lead to the sale of these shared and cherished lands,' reads the letter, signed by Utah groups like the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Conserve Southwest Utah, Save Our Canyons, Great Basin Water Network and Back Country Horsemen of Utah. Public lands sale may return to 'big, beautiful' bill with Mike Lee amendment The letter is addressed to Lee, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, New Mexico Democrat Martin Heinrich, the committee's ranking member, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat. Maloy's amendment was dropped from the budget bill after it received pushback from all sides of the aisle. That includes Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke, who previously said selling public lands is a line he would not cross and rallied support from a bipartisan group of lawmakers to strip the proposal from the bill. 'The public had no opportunity to participate in the process of identifying these parcels, let alone time to understand the long-term effect of selling off these public lands,' the letter reads. Maloy's proposal identified parcels owned by the Bureau of Land Management to sell to Washington and Beaver counties, the Washington County Water Conservancy District and the city of St. George. The land would have been used for water infrastructure (like reservoirs and wells), an airport expansion in St. George, new and widened roads, recreation and housing. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal efforts to revoke buffer zone around Chaco Canyon prompts delegation letter
Peñasco Blanco at Chaco Culture National Historical Park in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. (Photo by Mary Cornatzer/Source NM) In a new letter to U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, New Mexico's congressional delegation chastised federal efforts to revoke a 10-mile buffer zone for oil and gas development around Chaco Culture National Historical Park. 'Pursuing increased development on [Bureau of Land Management] lands within the ten-mile area that surrounds Chaco Canyon—so rich in cultural, spiritual, and historical significance—is misguided and risks permanent damage to one of the most sacred landscapes in North America,' the letter stated. 'Additionally, it is unacceptable to push forward without full and robust Tribal consultation.' U.S. Interior Department finalizes fossil fuel, mining ban near Chaco Canyon The area around Chaco Canyon holds paramount spiritual and cultural significance to several New Mexico Pueblos, the Hopi Indians of Arizona and the Navajo Nation. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization designated the archaeological sites at Chaco among one of only 24 World Heritage Sites in the U.S. The site sits atop the Mancos Shale formation in the San Juan Basin. Approximately 90% of federal lands surrounding the site are leased for oil and gas, according to the All Pueblo Governors Council. Pueblo governments and advocates fought for years for protections from further encroachment of oil and gas. In 2023, under the Biden Administration, the federal government issued Public Land Order No. 7923, banning further oil and gas development on federal lands within 10 miles of the historic site for 20 years, which was celebrated by advocates and tribal governments. In April, members of the delegation re-introduced federal legislation to make the withdrawal permanent. But a competing Republican-backed bill and the Trump Administration's efforts to unwind the order are threatening that progress, the delegation said in their letter. Bureau of Land Management officials failed to offer proper notice of virtual May 28 tribal consultation, the delegation said, adding that federal officials did not send a letter to all of the impacted tribal governments. The delegation pressed the federal government to hold in-person consultations, give a timeline for when decisions will be made and urged Burgum himself to tour in-person. A Source NM request to the Bureau of Land Management for a copy of the letter sent to tribal governments in May went unreturned Monday. Efforts to remove the buffer are unsurprising, said Julia Bernal (Sandia), the executive Director of Pueblo Action Alliance, who noted it was one of the plans outlined in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025. Bernal said her nonprofit is pushing for further safeguarding the ancestral site and reducing pollution from oil and gas, and worries that walking back Chaco protections will erode future restoration or protection efforts. 'If we're undoing or just disregarding those very important mandated tribal consultation processes, then that really just does show how unimportant it is for this administration to uphold their sovereign rights,' Bernal said. A reversal will face 'widespread public opposition and yield minimal benefits,' in oil and gas development, the delegation wrote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX