CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. COUNTY OF MONTEREY, Defendant; PROTECT MONTEREY COUNTY et al., Interveners and Appellants.

 

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1luEkTRYsAUKxy8wshDH80WkEdkwpwxwZ/view?usp=sharing

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
COUNTY OF MONTEREY, Defendant;
PROTECT MONTEREY COUNTY et al.,
Interveners and Appellants.
H045791
(Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 16CV003978)

Appellant Protect Monterey County (PMC) appeals from the trial court’s judgment striking down a County ordinance banning “land uses in support of” new oil and gas wells and “land uses in support of” wastewater injection in unincorporated areas of Monterey County. These ordinances were enacted as part of Measure Z, an initiative sponsored by PMC and passed by Monterey County voters. The trial court upheld, in part, a challenge to Measure Z by plaintiffs, numerous oil companies and other mineral rights holders in Monterey County.

PMC contends that the trial court erroneously concluded that these two components of Measure Z were preempted by state and federal laws and that they constituted a facial taking of the property of some plaintiffs. PMC also contends that the trial court made prejudicially erroneous evidentiary rulings.

We find that the trial court correctly concluded that these two components of Measure Z are preempted by Public Resources Code section 3106. Section 3106 explicitly provides that it is the State of California’s oil and gas supervisor who has the authority to decide whether to permit an oil and gas drilling operation to drill a new well or to utilize wastewater injection in its operations. These operational aspects of oil drilling operations are committed by section 3106 to the State’s discretion and therefore local regulation of these aspects would conflict with section 3106. Our narrow holding does not in any respect call into question the well-recognized authority of local entities to regulate the location of oil drilling operations, a matter not addressed by section 3106 or Measure Z.

Because we uphold the trial court’s decision on the grounds of state law preemption, we need not consider whether Measure Z is also preempted by federal law or constituted a facial taking of plaintiffs’ property. We also need not address PMC’s challenge to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings as those rulings play no role in the resolution of the state law preemption issue, which is an entirely legal issue. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

REFERENCE:

California appellate court overturns fracking ban inMonterey

A California state appellate court awarded a victory to Chevron and other oil companies, saying a ban on fracking in Monterey County exceeded the local jurisdiction’s authority.

Matthew Renda / October 12, 2021