BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 4|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 4
Author: Pavley (D), et al.
Amended: 9/6/13
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMMITTEE : 6-2, 4/9/13
AYES: Pavley, Evans, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Wolk
NOES: Cannella, Fuller
NO VOTE RECORDED: Lara
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 6-2, 5/1/13
AYES: Hill, Corbett, Hancock, Jackson, Leno, Pavley
NOES: Gaines, Fuller
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/23/13
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Gaines
SENATE FLOOR : 28-11, 5/29/13
AYES: Beall, Block, Calderon, Corbett, Correa, De León,
DeSaulnier, Evans, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso,
Jackson, Lara, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Monning, Padilla, Pavley,
Price, Roth, Steinberg, Torres, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Cannella, Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines,
Huff, Knight, Nielsen, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Oil and gas: well stimulation
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
2
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill establishes a comprehensive regulatory
program for oil and gas well stimulation treatments (e.g.,
hydraulic fracturing, acid well stimulation), which includes,
among other things, a study, the development of regulations, a
permitting process, and public notification and disclosure.
Assembly Amendments make numerous substantive and clarifying
changes including (1) removal the fracking permit moratorium
tied to when the independent scientific study is completed; (2)
revise the scope of this bill to include both hydraulic
fracturing and acid well stimulation treatments ("acidizing");
(3) require the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources
(DOGGR) to establish "threshold values" through its rulemaking
process to identify acid matrix stimulation treatments subject
to the bill's permitting requirements; (4) revise the "savings"
clause; (5) offer a variety of other regulatory tools to all
applicable regulatory entities beyond this bill; (6) add
regional groundwater monitoring in the vicinity of oil and gas
fields; (7) require the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) to develop model criteria with input from experts and
stakeholders; (8) require the SWRCB to perform the monitoring in
high priority areas (9) add groundwater monitoring to the well
stimulation treatment permit requirement; (10) require the state
to complete a statewide environmental impact report (EIR); (11)
require that the ingredient list of trade secret chemical
additives be disclosed; and (12) shift the advance neighbor
notification requirement to a third party from the well owner,
and require that tenants be notified.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1. Requires the DOGGR to supervise the drilling, operation,
maintenance, and abandonment of wells and the operation,
maintenance, and removal or abandonment of tanks and
facilities attendant to oil and gas production, including
certain pipelines that are within an oil and gas field, so as
to prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health,
property, and natural resources; damage to underground oil
and gas deposits from infiltrating water and other causes;
loss of oil, gas, or reservoir energy, and damage to
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
3
underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or
domestic purposes by the infiltration of, or the addition of,
detrimental substances.
2. Requires the operator of any well, before commencing the work
of drilling the well, to file with DOGGR a written notice of
intention to commence drilling. Prohibits the commencement
of drilling until approval is given by DOGGR. If DOGGR fails
to give the operator written response to the notice within 10
working days from the date of receipt, requires that failure
to be considered an approval of the notice.
This bill:
1. Defines "well stimulation treatment" as any treatment of a
well designed to enhance oil and gas production or recovery
by increasing the permeability of the formation. Specifies
that hydraulic fracturing and acid well stimulation are well
stimulation treatments. Specifies that steam flooding, water
flooding, cyclic steaming, routine removal of formation
damage due to drilling, routine well cleanout work, routine
well maintenance, bottom hole pressure surveys, and routine
activities that do not affect the integrity of the well or
the formation are not well stimulation treatments.
2. Requires, on or before January 1, 2015, the Secretary of the
Natural Resources Agency to complete a comprehensive
independent scientific study on well stimulation treatments.
Requires the scientific study to evaluate the hazards and
risks that well stimulation treatments pose to natural
resources and public, occupational, and environmental health
and safety.
3. Requires, on or before January 1, 2015, DOGGR, in
consultation with the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC), the State Air Resources Board (ARB), the SWRCB, the
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle),
and any local air districts and regional water quality
control boards in areas where well stimulation treatments may
occur, to adopt rules and regulations specific to well
stimulation treatments. Requires these regulations to
include the following: (a) revisions to the rules and
regulations governing construction of wells and well casings
to ensure the integrity of wells, well casings, and the
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
4
geologic and hydrologic isolation of the oil and gas
formation during and following well stimulation treatments,
(b) full disclosure of the composition and disposition of
well stimulation fluids, (c) a provision for the well
operator to provide for baseline and followup water testing
upon request by a nearby property owner; and (d) threshold
values for acid matrix stimulation treatments, as specified.
4. Requires, while regulations are being developed, DOGGR to
allow all well stimulation treatment activities, provided
that various conditions are met, including the following:
A. The owner or operator of the well certifies compliance
with the disclosure and notification requirements in the
bill;
B. The owner or operator provides to DOGGR on or before
March 1, 2015 a complete well history incorporating the
disclosure information required in the bill; and
C. DOGGR conducts an EIR (to be completed by July 1,
2015) to provide the public with detailed information
regarding any potential environmental impacts of well
stimulation in the state.
1. Requires, on or before January 1, 2015, DOGGR to enter into
formal agreements with DTSC, ARB, SWRCB, CalRecycle, and any
local air districts and regional water quality control boards
in areas where well stimulation treatments may occur, that
clearly delineate respective authority, responsibility, and
notification and reporting requirements associated with well
stimulation treatments and well stimulation treatment-related
activities, including air and water quality monitoring, in
order to promote regulatory transparency and accountability.
2. Requires the operator of an oil and gas well who wishes to
perform well stimulation treatments to first apply for a
permit with DOGGR to conduct such treatments. Requires the
permit to include the well identification number and
location; the time period during which the treatment is
planned to occur; a water management plan regarding water
quantity, source, and disposal; specific information related
to the chemicals used in the treatment; the planned location
of the treatment on the well bore; the estimated length,
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
5
height, and direction of the induced fractures; the location
of existing wells, including plugged and abandoned wells,
that may be impacted; a ground water monitoring plan; and the
estimated amount of treatment-generated waste material and an
identified disposal method for the waste materials. Requires
the permit to expire one year from the date of issuance.
3. Provides for the pre-Well Stimulation Treatment
Notification:
A. Within five business days of issuing a permit to
perform a well stimulation treatment, requires DOGGR to
provide a copy of the permit to the appropriate regional
water quality control board(s) and to the local planning
entity where the well, including the subsurface portion,
is located.
B. Within five business days of issuing a permit to
perform a well stimulation treatment, requires DOGGR to
post the permit on a publicly accessible portion of its
Internet Web site.
C. Requires that a copy of the approved well stimulation
permit and information on the available water sampling and
testing, as described, be provided to every tenant of the
surface property and every surface property owner whose
property line location is within a 1,500 foot radius of
the wellhead or within 500 feet from the horizontal
projection of all subsurface portions of the designated
well to the surface. Allows well stimulation treatment to
commence 30 days after the permit copies are provided to
the appropriate surface property tenants and owners.
D. Requires the operator of the oil and gas well to
provide DOGGR at least 72 hours' notice prior to the
actual start of the well stimulation treatment in order
for DOGGR to witness the treatment.
1. Allows a property owner who receives a well stimulation
treatment notice to request water quality sampling and
testing from a qualified contractor designated by the
regional water quality control board. Requires the well
owner or operator to pay for this sampling and testing.
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
6
2. Requires, within 60 days after the cessation of well
stimulation treatment, the operator of the oil and gas well
to post to an Internet Web site designated or maintained by
DOGGR and accessible to the public, all of the well
stimulation fluid composition and disposition information
required to be collected, including well identification
number, well location, and collected water quality data.
Requires DOGGR to have its Internet Web site operational on
or before January 1, 2016. Requires DOGGR's Internet Web
site to organize the reported information in a format, such
as a spreadsheet, that allows the public to easily search and
aggregate each type of information required. Authorizes
DOGGR to direct reporting to fracfocus.org in the interim.
Requires DOGGR to allow the public to search and sort the
well stimulation and related information by at least the
following criteria: (a) geographic area; (b) additive; (c)
chemical constituent; (d) Chemical Abstract Service number;
(e) time period; and (f) operator.
3. Allows a supplier of well stimulation chemicals to claim
trade secret protections for the chemical composition of
additives; however, the supplier must still provide the trade
secret information to DOGGR. Requires a supplier to
substantiate a trade secret claim, which is reviewed by
DOGGR. If the supplier legitimately claims a trade secret,
requires the supplier to publicly disclose where trade secret
information has been withheld and provide substitute
information as specified.
4. Requires, if DOGGR receives a request for release of the
trade secret information to the public, DOGGR to notify the
supplier of the request and give the supplier at least 60
days to commence a court action to prohibit the release of
information.
5. Allows disclosure of trade secret information to a
government officer or employee in connection with his/her
official duties or to a contractor with a government entity
if, in the opinion of DOGGR, disclosure is necessary and
required for satisfactory performance of a contract or to
protect health and safety.
6. Authorizes disclosure of trade secret information to a
health professional in the event of an emergency or to
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
7
diagnose or treat a patient.
7. Requires, to protect public health, a supplier to provide
trade secret information to a health professional,
toxicologist, or epidemiologist who is employed in the field
of public health and who provides a written statement of
need. Requires the written statement of need to include the
public health purpose and reason the disclosure of the
specific chemical and its concentration is required.
8. Prohibits the following information from be protected as
trade secret: the identities of the chemical constituents of
additives; the concentration of the additives in the well
stimulation treatment fluids; any air or other pollution
monitoring data; health and safety data associated with well
stimulation treatment fluids; and the chemical composition of
the flowback fluid.
9. Requires annual public reports from DOGGR containing data
and information on well stimulation as specified.
10.Authorizes a civil penalty between $10,000 to $25,000 per
day against a person who violates the well stimulation
requirements in this bill.
11.Authorizes, subject to appropriation by the Legislature,
DOGGR's fee authority to be used to fund a public entity's
costs associated with well stimulation treatments including
rulemaking and scientific studies required to evaluate the
treatment, inspections, and any air and water quality
sampling, monitoring, and testing performed by public
entities and the costs of SWRCB and the regional water
quality control boards for its groundwater monitoring
program.
12.Requires, on or before July 1, 2015, SWRCB to develop model
groundwater monitoring criteria to be implemented either on a
well-by-well basis for a well subject to well stimulation
treatment, or on a regional scale. Requires, on or before
January 1, 2016, SWRCB or appropriate regional water quality
control board to begin implementation of the regional
groundwater monitoring programs. Where there is no regional
groundwater monitoring plan approved by SWRCB or regional
water quality control board, requires the use of the
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
8
well-by-well groundwater monitoring plan.
Background
Background on well stimulation . According to the Western States
Petroleum Association (WSPA), hydraulic fracturing (also known
as fracking) is a form of well stimulation used to obtain oil
and natural gas in areas where those energy supplies are trapped
in rock (i.e., shale) or sand formations. Once an oil or
natural gas well is drilled and properly lined with steel
casing, fluids are pumped down to an isolated portion of the
well at pressures high enough to cause cracks in shale
formations below the earth's surface. These cracks or fractures
allow oil and natural gas to flow more freely. Often, a
propping agent such as sand is pumped into the well to keep
fractures open.
In many instances, the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing are
water-based. There are some formations, however, that are not
fractured effectively by water-based fluids because clay or
other substances in the rock absorb water. For these
formations, complex mixtures with a multitude of chemical
additives may be used to thicken or thin the fluids, improve the
flow of the fluid, or even kill bacteria that can reduce
fracturing performance.
Another form of well stimulation is called acid matrix
stimulation, which involves the injection of acid-such as
hydrochloric or hydrofluoric-into an oil and gas well to create
or enhance channels for the oil and gas. Unlike hydraulic
fracturing, acid matrix stimulation injection pressures are not
high enough to fracture the formation.
In 2005, Congress enacted what is colloquially referred to as
the "Halliburton Loophole," which exempts hydraulic fracturing
(except when involving the injection of diesel fuels) from the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). As a result of this
action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) lacks
the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing activities that
do not use diesel fuel as an additive.
Around the same time that Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing
from SDWA, the country experienced a boom in the production of
shale oil and gas. From 2007 to 2011, shale oil production
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
9
increased more than fivefold, from approximately 39 million
barrels to about 217 million barrels, and shale gas production
increased approximately fourfold, from 1.6 trillion cubic feet
to 7.2 trillion cubic feet. This increase in production was
driven primarily by technological advances in horizontal
drilling and hydraulic fracturing that made more shale oil and
gas development economically viable.
But with this boom comes various issues with regard to
environmental health and safety, which has caused enormous
public anxiety. Cases of environmental contamination attributed
to hydraulic fracturing have been reported in Wyoming, Texas,
Colorado, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Consequently,
governments at all levels across the country are looking to
regulate the practice and address these concerns.
The risks associated with shale oil and gas development .
According to a recent report from the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO), which is an independent,
nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, "[d]eveloping oil
and gas resources?poses inherent environmental and public health
risks, but the extent of risks associated with shale oil and gas
development is unknown, in part, because the studies we reviewed
do not generally take into account potential long-term,
cumulative effects." The GAO's report categorizes the
environmental risks into the four major categories: air quality,
water quantity, water quality, and land and wildlife.
With regard to air quality, the risks are "generally the result
of engine exhaust from increased truck traffic, emissions from
diesel-powered pumps used to power equipment, intentional
flaring or venting of gas for operational reasons, and
unintentional emissions of pollutants from faulty equipment."
The GAO report also explains how silica sand, a proppant
commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, and storing fracturing
fluids and produced waters in impoundments can cause air quality
issues. Silica sand, if not properly handled, can become
airborne, lodge into a person's lungs, and cause silicosis,
which is an incurable lung disease. Impoundments (i.e., ponds)
containing fracturing fluids and produced waters (i.e., the
water produced when oil and gas are extracted from the ground)
pose a risk because the evaporation of the fluids has the
potential to release contaminants into the atmosphere.
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
10
With regard to water quantity, water is used for well drilling
operations to make drilling mud as well as to cool and lubricate
the drill bits. Water is also the primary component of
hydraulic fracturing fluids. According to the GAO, "the amount
of water used for shale gas development is small in comparison
to other water uses, such as agriculture and other industrial
purposes. However, the cumulative effects of using surface
water or ground water at multiple oil and gas development sites
can be significant at the local level, particularly in areas
experiencing drought conditions." It should be noted that the
oil and gas industry and DOGGR both assert that the amount of
water used for hydraulic fracturing in California is a fraction
of what is used in other states. This assertion is based on
information voluntarily provided by oil and gas operators. It
is not clear whether this information is representative of all
hydraulic fracturing in the state. Additionally, with the
potential for an oil boom in the Monterey Shale (which is
explained in more detail below), it is too speculative to
determine the type and amount of well stimulation that will take
place in the future and how much water will be needed.
With regard to water quality, the GAO explains that shale oil
and gas development pose risks from contamination of surface
water and ground water as a result of spills and releases of
hydraulic fracturing chemicals, produced water, and drill
cuttings. Spills and releases of these materials can occur as a
result of tank ruptures, blowouts, equipment or impoundment
failures, overfills, vandalism, accidents, ground fires, or
operational errors.
The potential for the spill and release of chemicals involved in
hydraulic fracturing has received a great amount of public
attention. According to a recent congressional report, between
2005 and 2009, oil and gas companies throughout the U.S. used
hydraulic fracturing products containing 29 chemicals that are
known or possible human carcinogens; regulated under the SDWA
for their risk to human health; or listed as hazardous air
pollutants under the Clean Air Act. As for produced water, it
can carry a range of contaminants, including hydraulic
fracturing chemicals, salts, metals, oil, grease, dissolved
organics, and naturally occurring radioactive materials. Drill
cuttings (i.e., the broken bits of solid material removed from
drilling) may contain naturally occurring radioactive materials,
as well.
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
11
The potential for underground migration is also a potential risk
to water quality. The GAO explains that "[u]nderground
migration can occur as a result of improper casing and cementing
of the wellbore as well as the intersection of induced fractures
with natural fractures, faults, or improperly plugged dry or
abandoned wells. There are also concerns that induced fractures
can grow over time and intersect with drinking water aquifers."
It should be noted that the oil and gas industry has provided
information claiming that hydraulic fracturing typically occurs
thousands of feet below the earth's surface and that the well
casing for these wells extends below an impervious layer of rock
"that would prevent any migration of fluids up into the drinking
water supply." Assuming that the industry is correct, there is
still the problem with well casing failures. A 2000 Society of
Petroleum Engineers article regarding an oil field in Kern
County explained that "the well failure rate, although lower
than that experienced in the 1980s, is still economically
significant at 2 to 6% of active wells per year." In
Pennsylvania, poor cementing around a well casing allowed
methane to contaminate the water wells of 19 families.
Moreover, little data exists on fracture growth in shale
formations following multistage hydraulic fracturing over an
extended time period; the frequency with which refracturing of
horizontal wells may occur; the effect of refracturing on
fracture growth over time; and the likelihood of adverse effects
on drinking water aquifers from a large number of hydraulically
fractured wells in close proximity to each other.
With regard to land and wildlife, the GAO explains that
"clearing land of vegetation and leveling the site to allow
access to the resource, as well as construction of roads,
pipelines, storage tanks, and other infrastructure needed to
extract and transport the resource can fragment habitats?[which]
increases disturbances?, provides pathways for predators, and
helps spread nonnative plant species." Noise, the presence of
new infrastructure, and spills of oil, gas, or other toxic
chemicals are other risks that can negatively affect wildlife
and habitat. There is also the issue of earthquakes and
hydraulic fracturing. According to the GAO report, well
injections, especially the injection of produced water, have
been connected to seismicity.
Ideally, the environmental risks referenced above would be
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
12
analyzed by the lead agency under CEQA. However, according to a
complaint in a recent lawsuit filed against DOGGR by a number of
environmental groups, the agency has been "approving permits for
oil and gas wells after exempting such projects from
environmental review or? issuing boilerplate negative
declarations finding no significant impacts from these
activities."
Well stimulation in California . According to the oil and gas
industry, hydraulic fracturing has been used in California for
decades. The industry claims that over 90% of hydraulic
fracturing occurs in Kern County, in areas with no potable
water, no surrounding population, and no other significant
business interests. However, reports from various sources
suggest that hydraulic fracturing in California will likely
increase significantly in the upcoming years, spreading to areas
throughout the state.
A recent report from the University of Southern California
explains that "California boasts perhaps the largest deep-shale
reserves in the world. Those reserves exist within the Monterey
Shale Formation, a 1,750 square mile swath of mostly underground
shale rock that runs lengthwise through the center of the state,
with the major portion in the San Joaquin Basin." The U.S.
Energy Department estimates that the Monterey Shale contains
more than 15 billion barrels of oil, accounting for
approximately two-thirds of the shale-oil reserve in the U.S.
Additionally, according to a 2008 paper published by the Society
of Petroleum Engineers, "it is believed that hydraulic
fracturing has a significant potential in many Northern
California gas reservoirs."
DOGGR, although having statutory authority to regulate well
stimulation, has not yet developed regulations to address the
activity. As explained below, the agency is currently focused on
developing regulations that require oil and gas operators to
take certain protective measures and provide information about
hydraulic fracturing operations.
DOGGR's Draft Regulations . On December 28, 2012, DOGGR released
a pre-rulemaking discussion draft of regulations on hydraulic
fracturing-this draft does not address other forms of well
stimulation, such as acid matrix stimulation. The proposed
hydraulic fracturing regulations attempt to impose requirements
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
13
on operators aimed to improve transparency and safety.
Specifically, the proposed regulations would require an operator
to: (1) submit information to DOGGR at least 10 days prior to
beginning hydraulic fracturing operations and notify DOGGR at
least 24 hours prior to commencing hydraulic fracturing
operations (advance disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals
is not required); (2) prior to operations, test the structural
integrity of wells and casings to prevent fluid migration; (3)
store and handle hydraulic fracturing fluids in a specified
manner; (4) monitor a specified set of parameters during
hydraulic fracturing operations and, in case a breach occurs,
terminate operations and immediately notify DOGGR about the
breach; (5) after the conclusion of operations, monitor wells
for up to 30 days and maintain data for a period of five years;
and (6) disclose data to a Chemical Disclosure Registry (such as
fracfocus.org) that is not a trade secret, unless a health
professional submits a written statement of need stating that
the trade secret information will be used for diagnosis or
treatment of an individual exposed to hazardous hydraulic
fracturing chemicals and the health professional also executes a
confidentiality agreement.
CEQA review of oil and gas wells . DOGGR regularly approves oil
and gas development proposals under the CEQA categorical
exemptions for minor alterations to land or existing facilities,
or by way of negative or mitigated negative declarations. As a
result, oil and gas permits are rarely reviewed in EIRs that
would evaluate the potential risks associated with hydraulic
fracturing.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1. One-time costs of $2 million for DOGGR's initial activities
including rulemaking. Ongoing costs of approximately $2
million for DOGGR to provide regulatory oversight.
2. Unknown Increased initial and ongoing costs to the SWRCB and
regional boards to provide groundwater monitoring depending
on well activity.
3. Unknown significant costs to the Natural Resources Agency,
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
14
potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to
conduct an independent scientific study.
4. Ongoing costs of approximately $2 million for the ARB to
update their regulations and provide associated monitoring.
5. Unknown one-time and ongoing costs for CalRecycle and the
DTSC likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to
consult with DOGGR in regulation development and form
multi-agency agreements.
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/11/13)
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Alameda County Water District
American Lung Association in California
Association of California Water Agencies
California Association of Environmental Health Administrators
California Association of Professional Scientists
California Coastal Protection Network
California Interfaith Power and Light
Citizens for Responsible Oil and Gas
City of Los Angeles Councilmember, Gil Cedillo
City of Malibu Mayor, Lou LaMonte
City of Moorpark
City of Moorpark Councilmember, David Pollock
City of Oxnard Councilmember, Carmen Ramirez
City of Ventura Councilmember, Brian Brennan
Clean Coalition
Community Alliance with Family Farmers
County of Ventura Supervisor, Linda Parks
County of Ventura Supervisor, Steve Bennett
Earthworks
Environmental Defense Center
Los Angeles Community College District
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County Democratic Party Central Committee
Paw PAC
San Fernando Valley Young Democrats
San Francisco Baykeeper
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The League of Women Voters
The Nature Conservancy
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
15
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/11/13)
American Chemistry Council
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Environmental Justice Alliance
California Independent Petroleum Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Center for Biological Diversity
Citizen's Coalition for a Safe Community
Department of Finance
Food and Water Watch
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
Kern County Board of Supervisors
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Sierra Club California
Southwest California Legislative Council
Western States Petroleum Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Environmental Defense Center
states, "while the state of California is widely regarded as the
nation's leader on environmental issues, our state lags far
behind other major oil and gas producing states in the
development of a legal and regulatory framework to address
fracking and the significant risks it poses to the public
health, safety, and the natural environment? No one but the oil
industry truly knows the location, extent, or frequency of
fracking, the source and volume of water used, or what chemicals
are being utilized? SB 4 would remedy this unacceptable status
quo."
Ventura County states the county is "highly dependent on local
groundwater resources for potable water, and groundwater is the
lifeblood of the County's $1 billion-plus agricultural industry?
Ventura County has historically balanced oil and gas production
and the jobs it brings with the protection of our natural and
agricultural resources. It is important that this balancing
continue to occur."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : In a joint letter, the Western
States Petroleum Association states that "SB 4 imposes a
moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas
CONTINUED
SB 4
Page
16
production starting on January 1, 2015, until [the state's]
regulations are complete. This would unnecessarily and
substantially threaten our supplies of oil and natural gas,
raising business costs and harming California's economy." They
continue, "This significant, untimely burden on California's
businesses and economy is unnecessary. Oil and gas production
as a whole is heavily regulated and monitored, and hydraulic
fracturing has been used for decades with no reported incidents
of harm to the environment or public health. Opponents argue
that SB 4 will not provide added public health or environmental
protections, but it will increase business costs, hamper
California's economic recovery and deprive our state of
much-needed fuel, jobs and tax revenues indefinitely."
RM:k 9/11/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED