County's latest attempt at local oil permitting includes new concessions
The document includes substantial concessions designed to correct shortcomings identified by California's 5th District Court of Appeal, which two years ago shut down the county's permitting system over concerns about ag easements, setback distances and impacts on water supplies in disadvantaged communities.
If the review passes legal muster when it goes back before the court sometime in mid-2026, it could offer a lifeline for an important local industry starved for permits and beset by opposition by environmental groups and Sacramento lawmakers.
Director Lorelei Oviatt of Kern's Planning and Natural Resources Department, who has led the county's efforts for more than a decade, said the document addresses the three outstanding issues in ways that raise costs for oil and gas producers but should finally offer them permitting certainty.
"This is enhanced environmental protections for an industry that we all need and we all use," Oviatt said.
"This time, I am very interested to see what people have concerns about regarding the CEQA document," she said, referring to the California Environmental Quality Act governing the process officials must go through to ensure full disclosure of projects' impacts and steps taken to cushion them.
Since 2015, groups including a local farming company and environmental justice organizations have targeted the county's industry-funded work, which would basically take the lead in local oil permitting from state officials whose own reviews have been bogged down in delays.
While opponents of the effort have spent much time challenging the review in court, their overarching concern is that the county should consider oil projects individually instead of trying to create a blanket review for virtually all local oil activities.
One group that has opposed the county's efforts, the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, was skeptical of the latest version of the environmental review.
'Once again, Kern County is making decisions with profound consequences for our communities — without meaningful engagement or coordination with those most impacted," CRPE Community Organizer Maricruz Ramirez wrote. "The oil and gas EIR revision must prioritize the health, safety and voices of frontline communities. Yet, the process continues to favor industry over people. Without genuine community input, this plan cannot serve the public interest.'
A lawyer with one of the firms challenging the county review on behalf of a local ag company, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP in San Francisco, said by email the county "has a clear road map toward doing the right thing, and we hope they'll follow it this time."
'The courts have repeatedly told Kern County it needs to find real, enforceable ways to protect farmland, including by removing old oil and gas equipment that's blocking agricultural production and by preserving additional productive farmland where possible," wrote Kevin P. Bundy, a partner at the firm.
Five new mitigation measures are proposed as part of the latest review to address such concerns. One of them would require that new wells on farmland be preceded by the removal of old oil-field equipment. Also, the oil producer involved would have to secure an ag easement within the county measuring the same size as the lost farmland, and it would have to be held by a qualified holder of such easements.
Another major new mitigation measure proposed in the document would address the appellate court's concern about setback distances by ruling out local permits for oil-field work within 3,200 feet of sensitive sites such as homes and schools. Any such projects would have to be considered by the state's primary oil regulator, the California Geologic Energy Management Division.
The other big change, and possibly the most financially impactful among them, relates to impacts on local water supplies. The county is now proposing that oil companies looking for permits pay into a fund that would match state investments in water systems serving local disadvantaged communities.
Fees for each new oil well would amount to $9,732. The county projects that total contributions would average $17.3 million, based on 1,800 new wells per year. The maximum amount, if the industry drills the cap of 2,697 new wells per year, would be $25.9 million annually.
Oviatt said the two oil trade groups funding the review, the Western States Petroleum Association and the California Independent Petroleum Association, have been briefed on the new review.
Asked for comment, CIPA CEO Rock Zierman responded by email: "Kern County's oil and gas ordinance is the most comprehensive in the nation, ensuring environmentally responsible local production that replaces foreign imports and reduces gasoline prices for California families.'
A spokeswoman for WSPA wrote, "WSPA will be reviewing the Draft Supplemental released by the County and due to active litigation we do not have further comment at this time."
Members of the county Planning Commission are expected to consider the document starting at 7 p.m. June 12. From there it will go to Kern's Board of Supervisors in July. If they certify the review, and approve a related zoning ordinance, it is expected to go back to court for consideration about a year later.
The environmental review, formally known as a second supplemental recirculated environmental impact report, is available online at https://kernplanning.com/final-environmental-impact-report-revisions-kern-county-zoning-ordinance-2015-c-focused-oil-gas-local-permitting. A 45-day public comment period starting today is set to end April 28. A virtual workshop on the document has been scheduled for 10 to 11:30 a.m. April 15.
Written comments on the document are to be sent to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department, attention Keith Alvidrez, 2700 M St., Suite 100, Bakersfield, CA 93301. They can also be emailed to OG-SSREIRComments@kerncounty.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Low-wage workers reeling over Trump's looming Snap cuts as food prices rise
Poverty and hunger will rise as a result of the Trump administration's unprecedented cuts to the US federal 'food stamps' program, according to experts. Low-income workers who rely on the aid are braced for dire consequences. Katie Giede, a single mother and waitress in Conyers, Georgia, is one of the 42 million Americans who use the supplemental nutrition assistance program (Snap). Even with the maximum benefit permitted, she struggles to afford food for her and her child. She makes $3 an hour plus tips at the fast-food chain Waffle House, where she has worked for 11 years. The company deducts meals from workers' pay check per shift, regardless of whether they eat one or not. 'Our pay is already so little that we're struggling with everything,' Giede told the Guardian. 'Single mothers like myself are reliant upon the benefits like Snap and Medicaid. So when you go and you cut that as well, now you have mothers out here that are not only worried at night because they already can't afford housing or a vehicle, but we're also worried what is our kid is going to eat? Because we no longer have help.' Giede said she received $450 a month for her and her child. She said working too many hours or receiving too much income was a constant concern, due to eligibility cut-offs. According to an analysis by the Urban Institute, at the end of 2024, even the maximum Snap benefit would not cover the cost of a modestly priced meal in 99% of all counties in the US. 'I dread that trip to the grocery store every week, because you have to sit down and you really have to budget,' said Giede. 'Every time you go, you're having to make the choice between something that's healthy or something that's cheaper, just so you can get enough to last all week. 'There are so many people in this country that rely on these benefits, and with these cuts, half of the people that are surviving right now off of this are going to lose their benefits. That's not even just people not eating a little bit. They're already not eating enough, so we're going to lose lives over this. It's those of us at the bottom that are really feeling it.' Waffle House did not respond to multiple requests for comment. *** Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' set the stage for significant cuts to Snap by shifting higher administrative costs to each state, expanding work reporting requirements and imposing restrictions on non-citizen eligibility. Many lower-wage workers have grown more reliant on Snap in recent years. US food prices rose by 23.6% between 2020 and 2024, according to official data. While inflation has since moderated, grocery costs remain high. Related: 'It's been a lifesaver': millions risk going hungry as Republicans propose slashing food stamps As a result of the latest Snap changes, states will be responsible for 75% of administrative costs of handling the program from 2027, up from 50% cost-sharing with the federal government, which is likely to strain state budgets. From 2028, for the first time states will be forced to pick up some of the multibillion-dollar bill for Snap benefits. The state of New York, for example, faces a budget impact of about $1.2bn, according to the Food Research and Action Center (Frac), a non-profit advocacy group. While such shifting costs have raised fears that states will cut back Snap support, expanded work requirements have sparked concern that few people will be eligible. Analysis by the Urban Institute found about 22.3 million US families are set to lose some or all of their Snap benefits. 'This is a very targeted, well-thought-out plan of dismantling the Snap program that federal policy makers won't take responsibility for, because it is the states, it is the governors who will have to cut resources for Snap, who will have to cut the program in order to say we can't operate this because of what's happening at the federal level,' said Gina Plata-Nino, Snap deputy director at the Frac. 'Snap is a very important ecosystem at the local level, at the state level and the federal level, because billions of dollars go into states, and this federal money supports local economies,' she added. 'All of these proposals threaten this very delicate balance.' The White House deferred comment to the office of management and budget, which did not respond to multiple requests for comment. States across the US are braced for stark consequences. 'We're going to have worse hunger and ultimately, worse poverty,' said Seth DiStefano, policy outreach director at the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy. 'There are entire regions of West Virginia where there aren't 20 hours a week [expanded Snap work requirement] of anything to apply for. What do you tell those families? 'We're talking families with kids now that are going to be subjected to these harsh work reporting requirements. We're talking folks in their 60s, literally in communities where there are no jobs, none, and ripping away the one outlet to their basic needs that's available to them.' Among the employers with the most workers reliant on Snap is Walmart, the largest private employer in the US, as much of its workforce receives only part-time hours. Christina Gahagan, 66, has worked at Walmart for a decade in western New York at several stores. She is currently based at a store in Geneseo, New York. 'I would say at least 50% of the people in my store rely on food stamps to make ends meet for their families,' said Gahagan. 'They're always trying to figure out where the best deals are, coupon clipping at lunch and reading circulars to see who's got the best deal on whatever, just to make their money stretch.' She has cut down on costly grocery items, eating cheaper junk food to get by. 'I was paying $9 a pound for roast beef. Today it's almost $13 a pound. So I'm not buying full pounds any more. I'm just buying a half a pound and making it work and just eating crap in between, like buying myself some chips out of the vending machine or something,' Gahagan said. 'Walmart is the largest employer in the US. We rival Amazon almost dollar for dollar in what we do. You would think a company like that could shell out a little bit more money per hour for associates in the store across the board, so that there aren't people who are having to depend so heavily on public assistance.' Walmart did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Solve the daily Crossword
Forbes
2 days ago
- Forbes
When Aid Is Cut, Women Pay The Price
By Lauren Hendricks, President and CEO, Trickle Up In mid-July, the U.S. Congress passed a devastating rescission package that claws back billions in foreign aid—funds that were already designated to fight global poverty, support climate adaptation, and promote economic opportunity. For those of us working on the frontlines of international development, particularly in programs focused on economic inclusion for women, this is more than a policy setback. It's a blow to the millions of women working every day to lift themselves and their families out of extreme poverty. The Unequal Burden on Women We already know that women are disproportionately affected by poverty, displacement, and climate change. According to UN Women, women are more likely than men to live in poverty and less likely to have access to financial services. In rural Guatemala, Indigenous women face systemic barriers to land ownership and credit. In eastern India, women are often excluded from asset ownership and formal labor markets. In refugee settlements in Uganda and Colombia, displaced women navigate survival and caregiving with minimal support from humanitarian systems. Economic Inclusion Works—When It's Funded Economic inclusion programs that pair cash transfers with coaching, financial tools, and training are among the most effective ways to support women's long-term resilience. These are not handouts, they are investments. And they work. Throughout my work in international development around the world, I have seen how a small infusion of resources—delivered alongside personalized, contextual coaching—can help a woman launch a small business, access a savings group, and build a pathway toward financial independence. Evidence from programs like the Graduating to Resilience program in Uganda shows that these approaches can lead to sustained improvements in income, food security, and well-being. We've seen women who were once excluded from household decision-making become community leaders, peer coaches, and entrepreneurs. This is what foreign aid makes possible. Short-Term Thinking, Long-Term Harm Cutting this lifeline now, when economic inequality is rising and climate shocks are intensifying, is both shortsighted and dangerous. Foreign aid represents less than 1% of the U.S. federal budget, and yet it has an outsized impact in the lives of women around the world—especially those at the margins. The justification for these cuts has been cloaked in the language of fiscal responsibility. But let's be clear: there is nothing fiscally responsible about abandoning the women who are holding up families, communities, and informal economies around the world. There is nothing responsible about walking away from proven programs that move people from dependency to agency. A Dangerous Retreat from Global Responsibility We are witnessing a global retreat from aid at precisely the moment when we should be doubling down on local solutions. And in that retreat, there's a dangerous silence about who gets left behind. As traditional donors scale back, there is a palpable sense of urgency and opportunity among local leaders. They are ready to lead, design, and scale solutions rooted in their own communities, but they still need partnership and resources. Cutting foreign aid sends a clear signal: that leadership will have to wait. But it shouldn't. Now is the time to recommit—not to the old models of top-down aid delivery, but to locally led development that centers women, shifts power, and invests in long-term resilience. Let's not balance budgets on the backs of the world's most vulnerable women. Let's build a future where their leadership isn't optional, it's central.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
She faced $500 daily HOA fines for an unapproved door in her home. A new state law saved her
Jinah Kim's HOA said she couldn't fix a doorway inside her condo. She did it anyway. She figured it was fine. After all, the doorway was completely inside her home, separating an office and dining room. But when the complex's manager peeked into her place through the open garage door one day in March and saw the renovation, she received a notice the next day. The privacy intrusion was shocking, but the cost of noncompliance was even worse: a single $100 fine at first, then up to $500 per day — $3,500 per week — starting July 10 until she changed the doorway back. But on July 1, when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 130 into law, her HOA nightmare vanished with the stroke of a pen, and her fee for defiance was capped at $100. "It's a game changer," Kim said. "For years, HOAs have been able to bend entire communities to their will on a whim. This stops that." Industry experts and HOA lobbyists were taken by surprise in June when Newsom pushed AB 130 through the state Legislature and signed it into law — not because it passed, but because it included a last-minute update redefining HOA law in California. The overall goal of the bill is to expedite housing by easing California Environmental Quality Act regulations for many projects, but it also amends the Davis-Stirling Act, the framework that governs homeowners associations. The biggest change? HOA fines are now capped at $100 per violation unless there are health or safety impacts. Want to paint your house neon green? $100. Erect a giant Halloween skeleton on your front lawn year-round? $100. The bill also bans interest and late fees on violations and prohibits HOAs from disciplining homeowners as long as they address violations before the hearing. It allows homeowners to request internal dispute resolution if they don't agree with the board's findings at hearings. It's a massive win for disgruntled homeowners, who have long claimed that California HOAs are too aggressive, stringent and overbearing. It's a startling blow for HOAs, which were left blindsided by the changes. Dyanne Peters, an attorney with Tinnelly Law Group who practices HOA law, said her firm was tracking the legislation, but in a different bill. The HOA language was originally part of Senate Bill 681, a housing bill authored by state Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward). Peters said HOA lobbyists were making headway negotiating the bill and coming to a mutual agreement, but on June 27, the HOA language from SB 681 was added into AB 130 and passed three days later, leaving the HOA industry reeling. "As an industry, this came as a shock," she said. "Everyone is scrambling to get a handle on the changes." Peters said no one likes paying fines, but noted that fines aren't a money-making tool for HOAs. Instead, they're used as deterrents for actions that disrupt communities. For example, if a neighborhood doesn't allow homes to be used as short-term rentals such as Airbnbs, but a homeowner shirking the rules only has to pay $100 one time, they'll probably just pay the fine and keep renting out their home. Or if a resident wants to build a huge fence but doesn't want to deal with the architectural approval process, they'll just eat the $100 and build whatever they want. "It's frustrating because these new rules are handcuffing homeowners associations," Peters said. "It takes away the ability for HOAs to govern their own communities. Clients are calling us asking, 'What's the point?'" However, the bill added a lifeline for HOAs by specifying that fines can be greater than $100 if they "result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another association member's property." Peters said associations should go through their current rules and see which could be health or safety violations, and then adopt resolutions that specify in writing that certain actions, such as speeding or having aggressive pets, have health or safety impacts and therefore qualify for fines greater than $100. Luke Carlson, an attorney who represents homeowners in HOA disputes, called the bill a "long-overdue course correction." "AB 130 is more than a law — it's a signal that Sacramento is finally starting to hear the voices of homeowners who've suffered in silence for too long," said Carlson, who authored the book "Bad HOA: The Homeowner's Guide to Going to War and Reclaiming Your Power." Carlson said HOAs in Southern California are uniquely aggressive because of soaring home prices. Property values are high — and so are the stakes for maintaining a problem-free community that keeps those values high. But he said when an association is bad, it tends to feed off its own power, making arbitrary decisions or giving out preferential treatment until someone pushes back. "Everyone agrees bad HOAs are a bad thing, and it takes legislative reform to stop them," he said. HOA horror stories abound in California, the state with the most HOAs (more than 50,000) and the most homes within HOAs (4.68 million) in the country — roughly a million more than Florida, the state with the second most. More than a third of Californians live in HOA communities, and nearly two-thirds of homeowners are a part of HOAs, according to the California Assn. of Homeowners Assns. In San Ramon in Contra Costa County, a woman was fined for replacing her lawn with drought-tolerant plants. In Oakland, HOAs are installing surveillance cameras to track cars and sharing the data with police. Last year, a Times investigation dove into allegations of grand theft and money laundering inside a Santa Monica co-op. Kim, a resident of Shadow Ridge in Oak Park in Ventura County, wanted to remove a blockage in the doorway between her office and dining room. The previous owner had filled the top of the entry with drywall to cover up plumbing pipes, but Kim grew tired of ducking to get under it. The HOA denied her initial request to fix it since the work required briefly shutting off shared water and rerouting pipes. But Kim had her contractor do it anyway. It was an hourlong fix. A few months later, the complex's general manager spotted the unauthorized renovation. The next day, she received four violation letters: one for the door, one for installing an EV charger in her garage, one for having her dog off-leash and one for an unpermitted rug on her balcony. "It's a door within my home that no one else sees and no one else is affected by," Kim said. "It felt like accidentally tapping someone in the hallway and getting the death penalty." She resolved the dog and rug violations and is appealing the EV charger one. But she refused to change the doorway back. On June 27, Kim received a letter saying that since the renovation rerouted shared plumbing lines, she'd have to pay to fill the doorway back in, plus pay $100. If she didn't resolve the issue by July 10, she'd get slapped with fines of up to $500 for every day it wasn't fixed. But after AB 130 went into law, the deadline came and went. She hasn't heard a peep from her HOA, which didn't respond to a request for comment. "It was a big relief. Having a daily $500 fine hanging over my head was a huge source of anxiety," Kim said. She acknowledged that the new blanket of rules will probably allow homeowners to get away with things they shouldn't. But for now, she's just happy to stop banging her head on drywall every time she walks through her dining room. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Solve the daily Crossword
