Page 1

This report was prepared by the Center for Biological Diversity for

Californians Against Fracking and Dangerous Drilling December 2017.

This report is dedicated to the memory of Rosemarie Braz, August 4,

1961-May 3, 2017. As the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate

Campaign Director and Co-founder of Californians Against Fracking

and Dangerous Drilling, Rose worked passionately to protect

Californians from oil industry pollution.

Design Credits:

Ariel Newman, Rootskeeper

For more information:

Candice Kim

Climate Campaign Director

Center for Biological Diversity

ckim@biologicaldiversity.org

Contents

I. Fracking and Dangerous Drilling in California: An Overview ................................................................ 1

II. Many Governments Have Banned Fracking ............................................................................................ 3

III. Brief History of Unrestricted Fracking and Broken Promises in California ............................................ 4

a. Senate Bill 4, California’s Weak Fracking Law ............................................................................... 5

b. The Statewide Scientific Study and Recommendations from the Panel ........................................... 5

IV. Fracking Fuels the Climate Crisis ............................................................................................................ 6

V. Fracking Threatens the Air We Breathe and Hits Overburdened Communities the Hardest ................... 8

VI. Fracking Threatens the Water We Drink ............................................................................................... 10

VII. Toxic Wastewater From Oil Production Threatens California .............................................................. 11

VIII. Fracking Poses Grave Risks in our Seismically Active State ................................................................ 12

IX. Fracking Threatens California’s Ocean and Coast ................................................................................. 14

X. Oil Money has Bought the Industry Special Treatment at the Expense of Californians........................ 14

XI. A Large Majority of Californians Oppose Fracking .............................................................................. 17

XII. Policy Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 17

XIII. Californians Against Fracking and Dangerous Drilling Member Groups ............................................. 19

XIV. References .............................................................................................................................................. 22

Page 1

I. Fracking and Dangerous Drilling in California: An Overview

In California, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is defined by statute as one of several forms of

“well stimulation,” closely related to new extreme methods of oil and gas extraction.1 More

specifically, fracking is the high-pressure injection of water, proppant, and toxic chemicals into

the ground to crack open rock and release oil or natural gas. Proppants, typically the carcinogen

crystalline silica, are used to keep the newly created fractures open.

Other extreme methods used to extract oil in California include acid fracking, acid matrix

stimulation, and gravel packing. 2

Acid fracking is the injection of acid (usually hydrochloric and

hydrofluoric acid) at pressures high enough to fracture the formation.3 Acid matrix stimulation

injects these same acids but at lower pressures, using the acid to dissolve the formation. Gravel

packing involves placing gravel injected with a chemical mixture near the wellbore to form

filters that help prevent the buildup of sand or other debris and keep fissures in the formation

open.4 It can be combined with fracking for a process known as “frac-pack.”

5 Fracking and other

forms of well stimulation are used both onshore and offshore in state and federal waters.

In California, fracking brings both familiar and unique harms. This is because there are

similarities and differences between fracking in California and fracking in other states like

Texas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. In the Golden State, oil operators use

fracking in three main ways.6

First, oil operators use fracking to target the unconventional shale oil in California’s Monterey

Shale (also known as “tight oil”). This shale oil, like that extracted in North Dakota’s fracking

boom, is distributed throughout fine-grained sedimentary rock and will only flow to the surface

after the rock is blasted apart with fracking. California’s Monterey Shale is more difficult to

develop than shale oil in other parts of the country. Fracking and drilling horizontal wells up to

two miles long can produce oil from North Dakota’s pancake-like layers of shale. California’s

geology is far more complicated, and oil companies have not yet “cracked the code” of the

Monterey Shale to produce it at scale. However, with oil companies experimenting every day

with toxic techniques throughout our state, this could change at any time.

The second major way oil companies use fracking, acidization, and related techniques is to

extract the remaining oil from California’s “conventional” deposits. After more than 150 years of

oil production, the “easy” oil is long gone. The remaining oil tends to be the heaviest, dirtiest,

and hardest to extract. Oil operators employ fracking and the other well stimulation methods as

well as other dangerous techniques like water flooding, steam flooding, and cyclic steam

injection to get the remaining oil.7

The third way that operators use fracking is to aid the storage of natural gas. Since 2001, gas has

been stored in 11 pools – underground reservoirs – near major urban areas in California,8 until

there is sufficient demand for its use. The injection wells are fracked both to increase the rate at

which gas can be injected, and to increase the withdrawal rate.9 The four storage reservoirs in

Page 2

which more than half of all new wells are fracked provide about a third of the total gas storage in

the state.10

Fracking introduces harms and risks to our state that are common to fracking booms elsewhere,

including air pollution, drinking water contamination, risk of induced earthquakes, industrial

disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and noise and light pollution. Fracking also poses unique

threats to our state. Unlike other areas where fracking occurs at great depths, much of the

fracking in California is “shallow fracking” and occurs within a few hundred feet or even

directly adjacent to protected underground drinking water.11

According to a key science panel

convened to conduct the first statewide study of the risks of fracking in California, the risk of

water contamination is much greater in our state and shallow fracking should be prohibited,

unless it can somehow be proven safe.12

California also contains a tremendous

amount of “neighborhood drilling”

where oil production occurs in direct

proximity to where people live, work,

and go to school. Millions of people in

California are exposed to dangerous

air pollution from fracking and urban

oil drilling. Moreover, drilling in

California occurs disproportionally in

low income communities of color

already suffering from some of the

worst air quality in the nation, exacerbating our state’s environmental justice problem.13

Other risk factors identified by the science panel include the advanced average age of

California’s wells and infrastructure, high levels of background seismicity, the use of unlined

pits for toxic wastewater disposal, and the use of wastewater to irrigate food crops.14

Each of

these topics is explored further below.

Page 3

II. Many Governments Have Banned Fracking

A number of governments around the world and in the United States have banned fracking. 15, 16,

17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 The following maps show selected countries, states and local

bodies that have such bans. Only the U.S. states and California counties that have banned

fracking are shown. Many governments have imposed strict restrictions on the practice.

Page 4

III. Brief History of Unrestricted Fracking and Broken Promises in California

For more than 150 years, oil companies have been allowed to virtually drill at will in California.

The oil industry’s vast wealth and power has won the industry full or partial exemptions from

every federal environmental law, including the Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund), Safe Drinking Water Act;

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to- Know Act (EPCRA).29

As Californians became increasingly

alarmed about the harms of fracking, state

regulators attempted to downplay the risks,

at first falsely claiming that fracking

occurs only infrequently in California.30

When pushed for more information, California officials

proclaimed a near total lack of knowledge about and absence of oversight of fracking in our

state.31

Given the total abdication of responsibility by Governor Brown and state regulators, it’s

Page 5

not surprising that California ranked dead last in a peer-reviewed study of state fracking

regulations.32

Figure 1: Comparison of Protection and Compliance Indices for State Regulation of

Unconventional Gas Development (Source: Zirogiannis 2016, supra note 32)

In 2013, faced with mounting public concern about the damages of fracking in our state, the

legislature considered and advanced multiple bills that would have banned fracking until and

unless certain conditions were met. In the end, Governor Brown negotiated a deal with the oil

industry for last-minute amendments to Senate Bill 4. This bill then passed the legislature and

was signed into law,33

despite opposition from virtually every conservation and environmental

justice organization in the state.

a. Senate Bill 4, California’s Weak Fracking Law

In passing Senate Bill 4, legislators acknowledged the completely unacceptable lack of

information on and oversight of fracking in California and promised that future decisions about

fracking would be guided by the best available science. To keep this promise, the state

established a scientific panel to complete the first-ever, statewide study of the harms and risks of

fracking in California. Following the study’s completion, the law also required state oil

regulators to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to our flagship health protection

and community right-to-know law, the California Environmental Quality Act. State oil regulators

were also required to promulgate new fracking-specific regulations. Senate Bill 4’s fatal flaw

was that it authorized state regulators to allow fracking while this work was carried out.

Governor Brown and state regulators then proceeded to ignore and flout multiple provisions of

the law, breaking the promises made to the people and failing to rein in oil industry practices,

leaving Californians unprotected.

b. The Statewide Scientific Study and Recommendations from the Panel

Page 6

The statewide scientific study, coordinated by the California Council on Science and

Technology, was the first to evaluate the harms and risks of fracking in the state. It was supposed

to inform all future regulatory action. But the study was not completed by the deadlines set forth

in the law. This delay allowed Brown’s regulators to ram through new rules permitting fracking

to continue with little additional oversight. Regulators issued the new rules without considering

the statewide study, ignoring the Legislature’s intent that the rules would be informed by the

science.

When the statewide study was finally released, it included many critical recommendations from

scientists, including the following:

establishing a health and safety buffer zone around all oil wells, due to the health risks

from the air pollution;34

banning “shallow fracking,” a common practice in California that takes place in close

proximity to drinking water, unless it can be proven safe for water supplies;35

banning the disposal of toxic fracking wastewater into open pits, as other states have

done;36

To date, more than two years after the statewide study was released, none of these

recommendations has been implemented by Governor Brown’s oil regulators or even seriously

considered. The supposed assurance in Senate Bill 4, that future decisions about fracking in

California would be based on science, is a broken promise.

IV. Fracking Fuels the Climate Crisis

The climate crisis is driven primarily by fossil fuel production and combustion. California is the

nation’s third-largest oil-producing state. For decades, the oil companies that have done the most

to fuel climate disruption have been allowed to essentially drill at will in our state. They damage

our air, water and health, as well as our roads and other infrastructure, but do not have to pay for

any of it. To date, Governor Brown has ignored policies to curb California’s oil production and

has instead focused almost exclusively on measures to reduce consumption of oil while allowing

a drilling free-for-all to continue. California cannot help solve the climate crisis or claim climate

leadership unless the state addresses its own oil

production. According to a large body of research, the vast

majority of global and U.S. fossil fuels must stay in

the ground to avoid the worst dangers of climate

change.37

Globally, there are more than enough fossil

fuels in developed production fields to far exceed

targets to limit warming to 1.5°C or even 2°C.38

Thus, new fossil fuel development and infrastructure

Page 7

is unsafe and unjustified, and fossil fuel production must be phased out globally within the next

several decades.39

By increasing access to dirty fossil fuels, fracking and other dangerous

techniques worsen our oil dependence and threaten to undermine urgent greenhouse gas

reduction efforts.

Moreover, California produces some of the dirtiest and most climate-polluting oil on the planet.

Much of the remaining oil in California’s largest oil fields is extremely heavy and waterlogged,

making it very energy-intensive to pump out of the ground, make flow, and refine.40

In fact,

three-quarters of California’s oil production is as climate-damaging as Canadian tar sands

crude.41

Fracking is used to extract this climate-damaging oil, in conjunction with other extreme,

dangerous, and energy intensive techniques.

Governor Brown and other California politicians like to pretend that California’s oil production

is unrelated to our greenhouse gas reduction targets, and that the continued carte blanche to the

oil industry is justified by the large amount of oil our state uses for transportation. Nothing could

be further from the truth. The production and consumption of fossil fuels are interdependent, as

explained by economic principles of supply and demand. When oil production rises, prices tend

to fall, demand for and consumption of oil tends to rise, and renewable energy is placed at a

disadvantage. Global oil market economic analyses show that increasing oil production increases

consumption, while leaving oil in the ground decreases global oil consumption.42

The last

decade’s fracking boom caused a vast increase in North American oil production, which crashed

oil prices, stoked demand and consumption, and delayed the transition to renewable energy. The

Energy Information Administration estimates U.S. oil production will hit a record high 9.9

million barrels a day in 2018.43

It is absurd for politicians to pretend that oil policies, production,

and prices are unrelated to our ability to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

In 2013, twenty of the world’s leading climate scientists urged Governor Brown to halt fracking

in California because it fuels climate change and impedes California’s efforts to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions.44

The signatories included retired NASA climate scientist Dr. James

Hansen of Columbia University, Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University, Dr. Michael

MacCracken of the Climate Institute, Dr. Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science,

Dr. Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell University, Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich of Stanford University and

other experts. Since that time, the

case to end fracking and dangerous

drilling in California has grown ever

stronger.

As noted above, the science shows

we must phase out fossil fuel

production globally in order to

avoid catastrophic climate

disruption. California is one of the

wealthiest places on the planet, with far greater resources to invest in a rapid clean energy

transition than most other governments of the world. California also produces vast quantities of

Page 8

some of the world’s dirtiest and most carbon-intensive oil. The case is clear that California must

act to reduce oil production within its borders. This must include a ban on fracking and related

techniques, a halt to oil field expansion and new fossil fuel infrastructure, and a rapid phase-out

of all oil and gas production within the next several decades as we complete a just transition to

100 percent renewable energy.

V. Fracking Threatens the Air We Breathe and Hits Overburdened Communities

the Hardest

Oil and gas production, particularly fracking, poses such grave health risks that scientists and

public health officials have recommended that, in the absence of an outright ban, health and

safety buffers be implemented around where people live, work, go to school, or are otherwise

exposed to this air pollution. Within these buffer zones, all oil production activities would be

prohibited.

Hundreds of chemicals are used in fracking and other oil and gas production techniques. More

than 300 different chemicals or chemical mixtures have been reported as being used in fracking

fluids in California.45

With a large volume of additional chemical use hidden under “trade secret”

claims, this number may be far higher.46

Over 90 percent of fracking treatments use chemicals

from the following categories: breakers to lower fracking fluid viscosity before fracking fluid

flows back, proppants to keep newly formed fractures open, gelling agents to pry open fractures,

biocides to prevent bacteria from degrading gelling agents, carriers for aiding in transport of

other fluids, and crosslinkers to increase viscosity of fluids to increase fracking effectiveness.47

Many of these chemicals are categorized as air toxics—also known as hazardous air pollutants—

that can cause serious health effects when inhaled.

Such chemicals, which include a variety of gases known as volatile organic compounds

(“VOCs”), can enter the air during the venting of gases during fracking or the evaporation of

chemicals from fracking and produced fluids, leading to dangerous human exposures. For

instance, ethylbenzene and formaldehyde are both known carcinogens, while methanol is linked

to reproductive harm, and hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid can both cause eye irritation

and respiratory harm.48

Thus, being in the proximity of fracking operations can lead to serious

health effects. Since fracking operations use many of the same chemicals as conventional oil and

gas operations, some of the risks posed by fracking are posed by conventional methods as well.49

Besides risks from chemical additives, there are also emissions risks from other aspects of the

fracking process. For instance, the diesel equipment used to pump the fracking fluids into the

well produces nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) and particulate

matter (“PM”) emissions. Additionally, some VOCs

when exposed to light can transform into PM. When

gases are flared instead of vented, the combustion during

flaring may cause emissions of PM and NOx.50

NOx and

PM are both criteria pollutants regulated by the EPA

under the Clean Air Act. They both contribute to the

formation of ozone, another criteria pollutant.51

Ozone

Page 9

irritates lung tissues, interferes with breathing, and is linked to pneumonia, chronic obstructive

pulmonary disease, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and premature death.52

PM can enter a

person’s lungs and bloodstream, leading to respiratory and cardiovascular problems and an

increased risk of death.

Disturbing research findings continue to mount on the health risks of fracking, well stimulation,

and other oil and gas production activities.53

Research has found that people living near drilling

sites have a higher risk for developing cancer,54

increased asthma attacks,55

higher

hospitalization rates,56

and more upper respiratory problems and rashes.57

For pregnant women,

living closer to drilling sites is associated with a higher risk of having babies with birth defects,58

high-risk pregnancies and premature births,59

and low-birthweight babies.60

Millions of people in California are

exposed to air pollution from fracking and

drilling – and environmental justice

communities are hit the hardest. The health

harms from oil production are particularly

alarming because many of California’s

oilfields operate in densely populated

areas.61

Furthermore, drilling in California

occurs disproportionally in low-income

communities of color already suffering from some of the worst air quality in the nation.62

Analysis shows that 5.4 million Californians — 14 percent of the state’s population — live

within a mile of at least one oil and gas well.63

More than a third of these residents (1.8 million)

live in areas heavily burdened by environmental pollution.64

The two largest oil-producing

regions in California — the San Joaquin and South Coast air basins — are notorious for having

harmful levels of ozone65

and PM pollution.66

Moreover, our most vulnerable communities bear an unfair share of fracking and drilling

pollution while simultaneously suffering additional disproportionate impacts from climate

change itself. For example, environmental justice communities in California are more susceptible

to extreme heat events and lack sufficient access to basic necessities and healthcare. 67

It is thus

even more urgent to reduce pollution from fracking and drilling that both makes people sick and

fuels climate change.

To protect public health, California must prohibit oil and gas activities that create an acute

exposure risk for people.68

One of the top conclusions of the California Council on Science and

Technology’s statewide fracking review was that public health and safety buffers should be

considered around all oil and gas wells.69

Multiple studies provide support for this

recommendation, demonstrating that carcinogenic and toxic air contaminants travel two miles or

more from the point of production, and that harms and risks increase as distance from the

production sites decreases.70

For this reason, scientists are increasingly urging the immediate

adoption of such health and safety buffer zones.71

Because of the significant amount of urban drilling in Los Angeles, STAND-LA, an

environmental justice coalition of community groups that seek to end neighborhood drilling, has

Page 10

persuaded the Los Angeles City Council to commission a study of a 2,500 ft buffer zone around

oil and gas wells.72

When fracking was banned in New York in 2014, the Public Health Commissioner, who had

presided over a groundbreaking public health review of fracking, summarized the findings this

way: “I asked myself, ‘would I let my family live in a community with fracking?’ The answer is

no. I therefore cannot recommend anyone else's family to live in such a community either.”73

The people of California deserve as much protection from fracking and dangerous drilling as the

people of New York.

VI. Fracking Threatens the Water We Drink

Fracking poses grave and unique risks to our water supplies. In California, unlike the North

Dakota Bakken Shale or the Texas Eagle Ford Shale, fracking mostly occurs at shallow depths.

This is because much of the oil and gas in California has migrated from source rocks to

shallower formations.74

Our groundwater resources are also concentrated relatively close to the

surface. As a result, fracking in California frequently occurs in close proximity to, and

sometimes directly adjacent to, groundwater, posing a serious contamination risk. Considering

that about three quarters of fracked wells in California are within 600 meters of the ground

surface,75

and many at less than 305 meters below the ground surface,76

fracking may produce

fractures that intersect groundwater and surface water. These fractures are of great concern

because they provide a direct conduit for contamination of our water supplies.77

Many toxic and carcinogenic chemicals used in fracking and oil and gas extraction are water

soluble and pose a great risk to the water we drink. For instance, hydrochloric acid is used to

initiate rock fractures, ethylene glycol is used to prevent scale deposits in pipes, and

glutaraldehyde is used to eliminate bacteria from produced water.78

There are also chemicals that

are directly associated with fossil fuels and produced water, such as the well-studied BTEX

chemicals (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene).79

This suite of chemicals, both from

fracking fluids and fossil fuels, poses threats to virtually all systems of the body including the

sensory, gastrointestinal, immune, reproductive, cardiovascular, endocrine, and nervous

systems.80

Due to the risks of shallow fracking contaminating our groundwater supplies with

Page 11

these chemicals, the California Council on Science and Technology recommended that shallow

fracking be prohibited unless it can be proven safe.81

Finally, where the data exists, they show that the rates of well failure for oil and gas wells overall

are extraordinarily high.82

California regulators do not systematically collect data on well failure

rates in California.

VII. Toxic Wastewater From Oil Production Threatens California

Oil production in California brings vast quantities of water to the surface. This wastewater, also

known as “produced water,” is highly salty and can contain any of the hundreds of different

chemicals used in oil and gas production.83

It can also contain petroleum residue and other

contaminants from underground, including radiation. Produced water typically contains elevated

concentrations of numerous harmful chemicals, including VOCs like benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene, and xylenes (“BTEX”), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAHs”),

radionuclides, petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals like arsenic, and harmful trace elements

like boron.84

Several of these pollutants are carcinogenic85

and persist for long periods of time in

the environment.86

There is no good solution to the problem of the vast quantity of produced water in California.

Much of it is re-injected underground for further oil production, through “enhanced oil recovery”

techniques including water flooding or steam flooding. The rest must be disposed of by some

other means. In California, shockingly, these methods include using it to irrigate food crops,

injecting it into special “waste disposal” wells, and dumping it into open, unlined pits.

Produced water is used to grow citrus fruits, nuts, grapes, root vegetables, and other produce in

the San Joaquin Valley.87

Waste fluid is lightly treated to remove some chemicals before it is

applied to crops. It is impossible, however, to monitor levels of many chemicals in the fluid

because the full list of chemicals that may be present is not disclosed.88

Additionally, the current

standards and testing methods are outdated, and do not account for the hundreds of chemicals

now used in oil extraction operations. There are also huge gaps in our knowledge about how

plants absorb chemicals found in oil wastewater, how soils accumulate chemicals over time, and

how chemicals might interact with each other in agricultural settings. For these reasons, in its

independent scientific study, the California Council on Science and Technology recommended a

ban on irrigating crops with produced water from fracked wells.89

Due to safety concerns regarding fracking chemicals, the State Water Board has not authorized

the use of produced water from fracking for irrigation.90

However, because produced water from

wells that have not been fracked is still typically highly toxic, and can contain many of the same

chemicals as wells that have been fracked, the

Board’s limited restriction only addresses one

part of the problem.91

Another method commonly used to dispose of

oil wastewater is to inject it into underground

Page 12

aquifers. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits injections of oil wastewater into aquifers

that are or may one day be used for drinking water. For decades, despite this prohibition, the

California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources

(DOGGR) has allowed oil producers to inject oil wastewater into aquifers that are supposed to be

protected.92

To date, DOGGR has identified more than 2,500 wells injecting into non-exempt

aquifers.93

Even when the full scope of DOGGR’s failure to oversee these disposal wells was

revealed in 2015, DOGGR issued regulations allowing oil operators to continue dumping

wastewater into protected aquifers until February 2017.94

When the February 2017 deadline

came, DOGGR announced that it would allow more than 1,650 wells to continue injecting oil

waste into protected aquifers indefinitely.95

A third method of disposing of fracking and other oil wastewater is via percolation pits – open,

unlined pits that allow waste to evaporate and to percolate into the ground, where it eventually

reaches and mixes with groundwater. Although the disposal of fracking waste via percolation pit

is prohibited by regulation,96

it nonetheless continues to this day. The Central Valley Region

Water Quality Control Board has issued an order that it will allow operators to dump fracking

wastewater into unlined pits until 2020.97

Percolation pits have already contaminated several

groundwater resources in the Central Valley.98

Direct physical exposure to the contents of

percolation pits and the inhalation of fumes emanating from percolation pits can be extremely

harmful to humans and wildlife.99

Pit disposal disproportionately impacts low-income and

communities of color in the Central Valley that already suffer an extremely high pollution

burden. 100

California is one of only three states that allows the oil industry to dump toxic wastewater into

open, unlined pits for disposal.101

In response to the dangers that these pits pose to human health,

wildlife, water quality, and the environment, other states have banned this practice.102

The

California Council on Science and Technology has recommended that California follow suit, and

called for an investigation into the legacy effects of dumping oil waste into open pits.103

VIII. Fracking Poses Grave Risks in our Seismically Active State

Many oil and gas industry activities, including fracking, the underground injection of oil and gas

wastewater, enhanced oil recovery, and fluid extraction, can induce earthquakes.104

Earthquakes

induced by these activities are a particular concern for California because of our state’s high

seismic activity and dense network of faults.

Research on fracking-induced earthquakes in California is lacking, but studies in other regions

have linked fracking to induced earthquakes in Ohio,105

Oklahoma,106

British Columbia and

Alberta,107

including quakes ranging up to magnitude 4.6.108

Recent research indicates that

fracking can induce larger earthquakes than previously expected.109

The underground injection of oil and gas wastewater, often associated with fracking, has been

linked to the dangerous proliferation of earthquakes in many parts of the country, including

damaging earthquakes and some of the largest quakes recorded in those regions.110

To date,

induced earthquakes have been linked to wastewater injection in nine states, including

California. Damaging earthquakes induced by wastewater injection include a magnitude 5.8 near

Page 13

Pawnee, Oklahoma, in 2016 that injured one person and caused severe structural damage; a

magnitude 5.7 near Oklahoma City in 2011111

that injured two people, destroyed 14 homes, and

caused millions of dollars’ worth of damage to buildings and infrastructure;112

and a magnitude

5.3 induced near Trinidad, Colorado, in 2011113

and magnitude 4.8 near Timpson, Texas, in

2012114

that caused significant structural damage. A U.S. Geological Survey analysis found that

7 million people in central and eastern states live and work in areas vulnerable to damaging

injection-induced earthquakes.115

In California, recent research has linked earthquakes to wastewater injection. A 2016 study

linked wastewater injection in the Tejon oilfield near Bakersfield with a 2005 swarm of two

earthquakes reaching magnitude 4.7.116

These earthquakes occurred about five miles from the

injection wells linked to the seismic activity. In a related 2015 study, researchers identified at

least three other cases in Kern County where wastewater injection likely induced earthquakes,

including earthquakes greater than magnitude 4.117

The seismologists cautioned: “considering the

numerous active faults in California, the seismogenic consequences of even a few induced cases

can be devastating.”118

Despite these risks, Californians remain unprotected from

the dangers of injection-induced earthquakes. The majority

of California’s active oil industry wastewater injection wells

are very close to faults. A 2014 analysis found that nearly

one-third of active California wastewater injection wells are

within one mile of a fault (350 wells), while half are within

five miles of a fault (808 wells).119

As a result, millions of

Californians in major population centers, such as Los

Angeles and Bakersfield, are living where high densities of wastewater injection wells are

operating near active faults.

High volumes, high pressures, and long duration of wastewater injection can increase the risks of

induced seismicity,120

yet DOGGR continues to allow the oil industry to inject high volumes,

rates, and pressures of wastewater near faults.121

Many of California’s wastewater disposal wells

are injecting at rates associated with an increased risk of induced seismicity (e.g., greater than

100,000 barrels per month),122

and extremely high injection rates of 600,000 barrels per month

are common.123

Wastewater injection volumes in California more than doubled between 2000

and 2015, according to Department of Conservation data.124

More than 38 billion gallons (~917

million barrels) of wastewater were injected into California disposal wells in 2015 alone.125

The

use of extreme, water-intensive oil and gas recovery techniques, such as fracking, waterflood,

and cyclic steam injection, has contributed to this significant rise in wastewater production.

California’s high seismic activity also raises concerns that earthquakes—both natural and

induced—could cause significant damage to oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure. Such

damage could cause devastating leaks and spills that could contaminate water, soil, and air

quality. Oil and gas wells rely on the integrity of the well casing to prevent contamination.

Earthquakes may increase the likelihood of damage to the well casing or cementing, which can

allow contamination of underground sources of drinking through the leakage of hydrocarbons,

fracking and drilling chemicals, and produced water. Research suggests that well casing failures

Page 14

are common.126

A ProPublica nationwide review of injection wells found that between 2007 and

2010, there were 12 cases of groundwater contamination and 63 cases of significant leaks from

injection wells in California.127

However, the extent to which well casing failures are caused or

exacerbated by earthquakes remains unknown because DOGGR fails to track these data.

IX. Fracking Threatens California’s Ocean and Coast

Fracking and well stimulation are also used in the ocean off California’s treasured coast. Oil and

gas operations within three miles of the shore are regulated by the state, while operations more

than three miles out are regulated by the federal government. Oil companies have fracked at least

200 wells in state and federal waters off Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach and in the

wildlife-rich Santa Barbara Channel.128

At least 10 fracking chemicals used in offshore fracking

in California could kill or harm a broad variety of marine species, including sea otters and fish.129

Current federal regulations allow oil companies to frack and discharge their wastewater —

including toxic fracking chemicals — into the ocean. Federal regulators instituted a moratorium

on fracking in federal waters in 2016 in response to a lawsuit challenging the government’s

failure to disclose the environmental impacts of fracking. More than 30 of the world’s leading

ocean and climate scientists including Drs. Sylvia Earle, Carl Safina, and Michael Mann urged

the federal government to continue the moratorium.130

Nevertheless, the federal government

lifted the moratorium in late 2016 after conducting a cursory environmental assessment.

Currently, litigation brought by the State of California and environmental groups is ongoing over

the federal government’s inadequate environmental review and decision to allow offshore

fracking to resume.

California regulators allow fracking in state waters subject to the lax requirements developed

under SB4, California’s fracking law. DOGGR, the State Lands Commission, and the California

Coastal Commission have jurisdiction over fracking in state waters. While wastewater discharges

into the ocean are prohibited within state waters,131

the risks of spills, air pollution and

earthquakes remain. Although fracking authorizations in state waters and along the coast are

subject to review by the California Coastal Commission,132

oil companies have in the past failed

to comply with this requirement. Our nearshore waters and coast will remain unprotected until

fracking and drilling are prohibited in state waters.

X. Oil Money has Bought the Industry Special Treatment at the Expense of

Californians

It is no accident that the oil industry has been allowed to drill at will in California. Big oil bought

its special privileges with lavish lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions.

Page 15

In the ten-year period from 2007 to 2016, the oil industry spent almost $133 million on lobbying

in California, and $81 million on campaign contributions in California. In the 2015-2016

legislative session, the oil industry spent $36 million on lobbying expenses and nearly $20

million on campaign contributions in California.133

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) had the highest lobbying expenditure in

California in the 2015-2016 legislative session, at $18.7 million, and spent $62 million between

2007 and 2016. Chevron was the next highest oil lobby spender, having spent nearly $7 million

in the 2015-2016 session and $28 million from 2007 to 2016.134

Page 16

Governor Brown has also been the direct or indirect recipient of a staggering amount of oil

industry cash. As reported by Consumer Watchdog in 2016, “[t]wenty-six energy companies

with business before the state greased the skids via $9.85 million in political donations to

Brown’s gubernatorial campaigns, ballot initiatives, favorite causes such as the Oakland Military

Institute and Oakland School for the Arts, and the California Democratic Party since Brown’s

run for office in 2010, according to campaign reports.”135

While the millions of dollars expended sound like large amounts, they are but a tiny fraction of

the oil industry’s profits. And the expenditures have yielded extraordinary dividends for big oil.

In most other states, the oil industry pays a severance (or production) tax to help pay for the

damage they cause, however, the oil industry makes no such contribution in California, leaving

taxpayers holding the bag.136

In the state legislature, the oil industry routinely exercises its power to block measures that

would protect Californians, including multiple bills that would have limited fracking and the

reckless disposal of oil wastewater. In 2016 the oil industry crushed Senate Bill 350, which

would have cut oil use in vehicles by 50 percent by 2030.137

In 2017 the oil industry demanded

that the cap-and-trade bill, AB 398, include a measure exempting the industry from any

greenhouse gas regulation or limit outside of cap-and-trade.138

Page 17

XI. A Large Majority of Californians Oppose Fracking

A large majority of Californians already oppose fracking. The more people learn about this toxic

practice, the greater the opposition grows. The Public Policy Institute of California surveyed

support for fracking in California in five successive annual polls beginning 2012. As public

awareness of fracking increased over this time period, the number of Californians opposed to

fracking has increased steadily, from 46 percent in 2012 to 58 percent in 2016.139

Similarly,

opposition to more oil drilling off California’s coast grew from 59 to 69 percent between 2016

and 2017.140

XII. Policy Recommendations

California cannot meet its climate goals or protect our health and environment without banning

fracking and phasing out oil production. California must develop a concrete and enforceable plan

to end the state’s oil production within the next several decades.

Key components of this plan must include:

A ban on fracking and related extreme techniques used to extract the state’s most climate-

polluting oil and other reserves that must stay in the ground.

An end to new oil development in the state through a halt on permits for new drilling,

new fossil fuel infrastructure, and oil field expansion.

The creation of a health and safety buffer of at least 2,500 feet prohibiting oil and gas

drilling in communities.

The creation and implementation of a plan to phase out California’s dirty oil production,

starting with fields located in and near California’s most vulnerable communities already

overburdened with pollution.

Page 18

An inventory and elimination of subsidies for oil companies, which incentivize the

production of oil that would otherwise stay in the ground. These funds should instead be

used for the just transition to clean energy.

These key steps are essential components of the just transition to 100 percent clean energy we

urgently need. Without taking these steps, California cannot truly protect the climate or the

state’s most vulnerable communities.

With literally hundreds of laws and policies already in place to address climate change and

protect health and the environment, California has ample legal authority to enact the policy

measures recommended above. Governor Brown lacks the political will, not the legal authority,

to address fracking and dangerous drilling. With the exception of measures to eliminate subsidies

to the oil industry that may require legislative approval,141

the above steps can all be

accomplished through gubernatorial or executive agency action, without the need for new

legislation. The discussion below of the broad existing legal authority to enact the recommended

policy measures is illustrative, not exhaustive.

Multiple laws govern oil and gas operations in California. DOGGR’s most basic regulatory

mandate, pursuant to the California Public Resources Code, is to “prevent, as far as possible,

damage to life, health, property, and natural resources. . . .”142

Banning fracking, establishing

buffer zones around communities to protect public health, and other recommended measures all

clearly prevent damage to life, health, property, and natural resources, and as such fit squarely

within DOGGR’s regulatory mandate.143

Operators must obtain permits from DOGGR before undertaking activities including: drilling a

new well, re-working an existing well, fracking or conducting other well stimulation, conducting

steam injection or other form of enhanced oil recovery, and injecting wastewater underground

for disposal. DOGGR’s issuance of these permits is discretionary. That is, oil and gas operators

have no entitlement to receive a permit. To the contrary, DOGGR must ensure compliance with

all applicable laws, may deny any permit based on DOGGR’s evaluation of the environmental

and safety risks, and must decline to issue a permit if adequate environmental review has not

been conducted or the relevant legal standards for protecting the public have not been met.

Prior to issuing any discretionary permit, DOGGR must comply with the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), our environmental protection and community right-to-know

charter.144

Pursuant to CEQA, DOGGR must fully analyze, disclose, minimize, avoid, and

mitigate all of the environmental impacts of issuing a permit, issuing a group of permits, or

taking other action. DOGGR may not lawfully issue any permit prior to full CEQA compliance,

which provides for public participation and functions as our most basic environmental safety net.

And as noted above, DOGGR may deny any permit on the basis that issuing it would damage

life, health, property, or natural resources.

Page 19

Moreover, under the Public Resources Code, DOGGR has the authority to “order or undertake

the actions he or she deems necessary to protect life, health, property, or natural resources”

where an emergency exists.145

The Governor has broad authority to proclaim a state of

emergency and “make, amend, and rescind” any regulations as needed to address an

emergency.146

This authority applies to circumstances where “extreme peril to the safety of

persons and property within the state caused by such conditions as air pollution . . . drought . . .,

or other conditions, . . . which, by reason of their magnitude, are or are likely to be beyond the

control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of any single county, city and county,

or city and require the combined forces of a mutual aid region or regions to combat . . . .”147

Governor Brown has used his emergency authority on multiple occasions, including to

implement 20 emergency orders related to water usage in response to California’s historic

drought.148

These emergency powers provide an additional layer of legal authority to implement

the recommended policy measures, on top of that provided by California’s environmental and

natural resource laws.

XIII. Californians Against Fracking and Dangerous Drilling Member Groups

Californians Against Fracking and Dangerous Drilling is a coalition of more than 200 environmental

justice, business, health, agriculture, labor, political, faith, food safety and environmental organizations

working to win a statewide ban on fracking and other dangerous oil and gas extraction activities in

California.

350.org 350 Bay Area 350 East Bay 350 Marin 350 Sacramento 350 San Diego 350 San Francisco 350 San Luis Obispo 350 Santa Barbara 350 Silicon Valley AFSCME Council 57 Alameda Creek Alliance Alameda County Green Party Alliance for Democracy/Defending

Water Campaign Alliance of Nurses for Healthy

Environments Asian Pacific Environmental Network

(APEN) Association of Irritated Residents Baldwin Hills Oil Watch

Ballona Creek Renaissance Ballona Network Bay Localize Bees and Beyond Inc. Breast Cancer Action Burbank Green Alliance Butte Environmental Council California Coastkeeper Alliance California Environmental Justice

Alliance California Nurses Association

Cal Poly Biomimicry Club

Cal Poly Plant Science Club

Cal Poly Surfrider Club

California Public Interest Research

Group (CALPIRG)

CALPIRG UCSD

California State Grange

California Student Sustainability

Coalition

California Water Impact Network

Page 20

Californians for Western Wilderness

Californians Who Drink Water

Camp Nast Assocs. (CNA) LLC

Carpinteria Valley Association

Center for Biological Diversity

Center on Race, Poverty and the

Environment

Central California Environmental Justice

Network (CCEJN)

Central Coast Rising

Central Valley Safe Environment

Network

Citizens Action Network

Citizens Against Pollution

Citizens Climate Lobby

Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community

Clark Strategic Partners

Clean Water Now

Coalition for Grassroots Progress

Coalition to Protect San Benito

Coastal Environmental Rights

Foundation

CoFED

Comite Civico del Valle, Inc.

Communities for a Better Environment

Communities for Sustainable Monterey

County (CSMC)

Community Rights Network of

Mendocino County

Courage Campaign

CREDO

Decide Locally Carpinteria

Democracy for America

Earth Passages

Earth Justice Ministries

Earthworks

Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch

Ecological Farming Association

Elder Creek Center For The Land

Environment and Human Rights

Advisory

Environment California

Environmental Action

Environmental Action Committee of

West Marin

Environmental Protection Information

Center

Environmental Voices

Families Against Fossil Fuels

Family Farm Defenders

Food & Water Watch

Food Empowerment Project

Fossil Free UC

Frank Consulting Group

Fresnans Against Fracking

Frack-Free Butte County

Fractivist.org

Friends of the Earth

Friends of the Pogonip

Gage and Gage Productions

Garaventa Consulting

Global Alliance for Incinerator

Alternatives - GAIA

Global Exchange

Gray Panthers of the East Bay

Grayson Neighborhood Council

Green Festivals

Green Party of Alameda County

Green Party of Monterey County

Green Party of San Diego County

Green Planet Films

Green Retirement Plans, Inc.

Greenaction for Health and

Environmental Justice

Greenpeace

Heights Oil Watch

Humanist Association of the Monterey

Bay

Justified Cause

inNative

Klamath Forest Alliance

Klamath Riverkeeper

Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center

KyotoUSA

Label GMOs.org

Lasiewicz Foundation

Laytonville Grange

Local Clean Energy Alliance

Los Padres ForestWatch

Making Culver City Safe

Mainstreet Moms

Page 21

Marin Water Coalition

Martin Luther King Coalition of Greater

Los Angeles

Mercedians Against Fracking

Mill Valley Seniors for Peace

Model Neighborhood Program

Monterey County Against Fracking

Mothers of East Los Angeles

Movement Generation Justice &

Ecology Project

MoveOn.org

Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center

Naturegraph Publishers

Neighborhood Farmers' Model Markets

Nevada County Climate Change

Coalition

Northcoast Environmental Center

Northern California Recycling

Association

Oil Change International

Orange County Friends of Harbors,

Beaches, and Parks

Orange County Interfaith Coalition for

the Environment

Organic Consumers Association

Physicians for Social Responsibility SF

Planet Cruz Comedy with Richard

Stockton

Planting Justice

Presente.org

Preserve Wild Santee

Progressive Democrats of America

Protect Mustangs

Protect Our Water

Prunedale Preservation Alliance

Public Citizen

Radical Art For These Times (RAFTT)

Rainbow Grocery

Rainforest Action Network

Rootskeeper

Reconnect Nature

Residents Organized for a Safe

Environment (ROSE)

Restore the Delta

Rising Tide Monterey Bay

S.A.F.E. Students Against Fracking the

Environment

San Benito Rising

San Diego County Green Party

San Francisco Tomorrow

San Francisco Baykeeper

San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue

Center

San Joaquin Valley Conservancy

San Joaquin Valley Latino

Environmental Advancement Project

San Luis Obispo Clean Water Action

San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper

Santa Barbara County Water Guardians

Santa Barbara "Frack Back" To Save

The Central Coast

Santa Monica Greens

SaveWithSunlight, Inc.

Shaleshock

Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Sierra Club San Francisco/ Bay Chapter

Don't Frack California

Sierra Club Tehipite Chapter

Small Planet Institute

Solar One

Stewards of the Earth

Stop Fracking Brea

Stop Fracking Long Beach

Students Against Fracking at U.C.

Berkeley

Sunflower Alliance

Sungevity

Tar Sands Action SoCal

Team Zissou Environmental

Organization

Teens Turning Green

The Action Hub

The Orange County Interfaith Coalition

for the Environment

The River Project

Topanga Peace Alliance

Transition Culver City

Transition

Transition San Francisco

Tri-City Ecology Center

Trinity County Progressives

Page 22

Turtle Island Restoration Network

Urban and Environmental Policy

Institute, OccideTrntal College

Union de Vecinos

United Native Americans

Valley Improvement Projects

Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club

Wetlands Defense Fund

WHOW - Whittier Hills Oil Watch

Wholly H2O

Wicked Good Food, LLC

Wild Equity Institute

Wild Heritage Planners

Wild Nature Institute

WiserEarth

Women Occupy San Diego

Women's International League for Peace

and Freedom-US/Earth Democracy

Group

XIV. References

1 Public Resources Code § 3157.

2 Public Resources Code §§ 3157, 3158.

3 California Council on Science and Technology, An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well

Stimulation in California, Vol. I (2015) (“CCST Study, Vol. I”),

http://ccst.us/projects/hydraulic_fracturing_public/SB4.php at 56. 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District rule 1148.2(c)(7).

5 CCST Study, Vol. I at 56-57.

6 Fracking is used also to enable fluid flow in geothermal reservoirs drilled to extract geothermal energy,

to dispose of municipal waste such as brine, digested sludge and wetcake, and experimentally for carbon

dioxide sequestration. See CCST Study, Vol. I at 43. 7 Water flooding involves injecting water into the oil reservoir to cause more oil to flow to the production

well. Steam flooding is similar, but uses steam injected into the reservoir to heat and thin the oil to

increase viscosity so it flows to the production well. Cyclic steaming alternates steam injection and oil

production from a single well. Source: CCST Study, Vol. I at 4. 8 CCST Study, Vol. I at 115-116.

9 Id. at 43.

10 Id. at 115.

11 California Council on Science and Technology, An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well

Stimulation in California, Vol. II (2015) (“CCST Study, Vol. II”),

http://ccst.us/projects/hydraulic_fracturing_public/SB4.php at 121, 406. 12

California Council on Science and Technology, An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well

Stimulation in California, Executive Summary (2015) (“CCST Study, Executive Summary”),

http://ccst.us/projects/hydraulic_fracturing_public/SB4.php at 11. 13

Natural Resource Defense Counsel (NRDC), Drilling in California: Who’s at Risk (2014),

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/california-fracking-risks-report.pdf (“NRDC Drilling in

California”) at 4; See also Liberty Hill, Drilling Down: The Community Consequences of Expanded

Community Drilling in Los Angeles (2015),

https://www.libertyhill.org/sites/libertyhillfoundation/files/Drilling%20Down%20Report%20-

%20Full.pdf (“Liberty Hill Drilling Down”). 14

CCST Study, Vol. II at 280, 126, 110-111, 114-115, 164.

Page 23

15 Shale gas: Parliament bans the use of hydraulic fracturing, Le Mond.fr, Jun. 3, 2011,

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2011/06/30/gaz-de-schiste-le-parlement-interdit-l-utilisation-de-la-

fracturation-hydraulique_1543252_3244.html#meter_toaster (last visited Nov. 3, 2017); Jolly, David,

France Upholds Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing, N.Y. Times, Oct. 11, 2013,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/business/international/france-upholds-fracking-ban.html (last visited

Nov. 3, 2017). 16

Bulgaria bans shale gas drilling with ‘fracking’ method, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Jan.

19, 2012, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16626580 (last visited Nov. 3, 2017). 17

Office of the [German] Federal Government, No Fracking in Germany,

https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/EN/StatischeSeiten/Schwerpunkte/Nachhaltigkeit/2016-07-08-

fracking-gesetz_en.html (last visited Nov. 3, 2017); Gesley, Jenny, Germany: Unconventional Fracking

Prohibited, Library of Congress – Global Legal Monitor, Mar. 8, 2017, http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-

news/article/germany-unconventional-fracking-prohibited/ (last visited Nov. 3, 2017). 18

O’ Halloram, Marie, Ireland joins France, Germany and Bulgaria in banning fracking, The Irish Times,

Jun. 28, 2017, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/ireland-joins-france-germany-and-

bulgaria-in-banning-fracking-1.3137095 (last visited Nov. 3, 2017). 19

Scottish Government, Scottish Government says no to fracking, https://news.gov.scot/news/scottish-

government-says-no-to-fracking (last visited on Nov. 3, 2017). 20

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Officially Prohibits

High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing: DEC Issues Findings Statement Concluding Extensive Seven-Year

Review, http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/102337.html (last visited on Nov. 3, 2017). 21

Hurdle, John, With governor’s signature, Maryland becomes third state to ban fracking, National Public

Radio (NPR), Apr. 4, 2017, https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2017/04/04/with-governors-

signature-maryland-becomes-third-state-to-ban-fracking/ (last visited on Nov. 3, 2017). 22

Vermont first state to ban fracking, Cable News Network (CNN), May 17, 2012,

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/us/vermont-fracking/index.html (last visited Nov. 3, 2017). 23

Cuff, Denis, Alameda County first in Bay Area to ban fracking, The Mercury News, Jul. 19, 2016,

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/19/alameda-county-first-in-bay-area-to-ban-fracking/ (last visited

on Nov. 3, 2017). 24

Greene, Sydney, California Counties push for all-out fracking ban, Politico, Jun. 16, 2016,

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/california-counties-push-for-all-out-fracking-ban-224386 (last

visited on Nov. 13, 2017). 25

Ibid. 26

Rogers, Paul, Fracking ban: Environmentalist declare victory on Monterey Measure Z, The Mercury

News, Nov. 9, 2016, http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/09/fracking-ban-environmentalists-declare-

victory-on-monterey-measure-z/ (last visited on Nov. 3, 2017). 27

San Benito County voters pass fracking ban with Measure J, KSBW News, Nov. 5, 2014,

http://www.ksbw.com/article/san-benito-county-voters-pass-fracking-ban-with-measure-j/1055290 (last

visited on Nov. 3, 2017). 28

Hoppin, Jason, Santa Cruz County first to ban fracking, Santa Cruz Sentinel News, May 20, 2014,

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/ZZ/20140520/NEWS/140527991 (last visited on Nov. 3, 2017). 29

The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972): Oil and gas exploration, production, and

construction facilities are exempted from stormwater permitting requirements; The Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. (1976): Oil and gas exploration and

production wastes are not regulated as hazardous waste under RCRA; The Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. (1976): EPA does not currently require manufacturers and processors of

chemical substances used in oil and gas operations to submit information to the agency (but see below for

Page 24

ongoing rulemaking to close this loophole) (For further information see http://www2.epa.gov/laws-

regulations/summary-emergency-planning-community-right-know-act); The Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et

seq. (1980): Exemptions from liability if the toxic substance is found in crude oil or petroleum, and other

provisions limit EPA’s ability to hold the oil and gas industry liable for pollution; The Safe Drinking

Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §300f et seq: Injection of fluid for the purpose of producing oil or gas is exempted

from key provisions of the Act; The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act (EPCRA),

42 U.S.C. §11001 et seq. (1986): EPA has not added oil and gas facilities to the list of facilities required

to report data on releases and transfers of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Release Inventory. 30

Environmental Working Group, California Regulators: See No Fracking, Speak No Fracking (2012),

http://static.ewg.org/reports/2012/fracking/ca_fracking/ca_regulators_see_no_fracking.pdf at 5. 31

Letter from Elena Miller, State Oil and Gas Supervisor, DOGGR, to Hon. Fran Pavley, California State

Senate (Feb. 16, 2011), (“Miller 2011 Letter”) available at:

http://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/UtilityPages/Planning/EIRS/mckittrick_landfill/Vol5/Miller%202011%20(Le

tter%20DOGGR%20to%20Pavley).pdf 32

Zirogiannis, N. et al., State regulation of Unconventional Gas Development in the U.S.: An Empirical

Evaluations, 11 Energy Research & Social Science 142 (2016) (“Zirogiannis 2016”). 33

Statutes 2013, chapter 313. 34

CCST Study, Executive Summary at 13; CCST Study, Vol. II at 44-46, 433; California Council on

Science and Technology, California Council on Science and Technology, An Independent Scientific

Assessment of Well Stimulation in California, Vol. III (2015) (“CCST Study, Vol. III”),

http://ccst.us/projects/hydraulic_fracturing_public/SB4.php at 13-14. 35

CCST Study, Executive Summary at 11; CCST Study, Vol. II at 406. 36

CCST Study, Executive Summary at 8; CCST Study, Vol. II at 110-113. 37

The IPCC estimates that global fossil fuel reserves exceed the remaining carbon budget for staying

below 2°C by 4 to 7 times, while fossil fuel resources exceed the carbon budget for 2°C by 31 to 50 times.

See Bruckner, Thomas et al., Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (2014),

http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf at Table 7.2. 38

Oil Change International, The Sky’s Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require A Managed Decline

of Fossil Fuel Production (2016),

http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2016/09/OCI_the_skys_limit_2016_FINAL_2.pdf 39

A reasonable likelihood of limiting warming to 1.5° or 2°C requires global CO2 emissions to be phased

out by mid-century and likely as early as 2040-2045. Source: Rogelj, Joeri et al., Energy System

Transformations for Limiting End-of-century Warming to Below 1.5°C, 5 Nature Climate Change 519

(2015). 40

California is estimated to contain nearly one-half of the country’s heavy oil. Source: Independent

Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), The Story of California Crude, http://oilindependents.org/the-

story-of-california-crude/ (last visited on Nov. 3, 2017). 41

Wolf, Shaye et al., Oil Stain: How Dirty Crude Undercuts California’s Climate Progress (2017),

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/energy_and_global_warming/pdfs/Oil

_Stain.pdf 42

Erickson, Peter et al., Impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline on Global Oil Markets and Greenhouse Gas

Emissions, 4 Nature Climate Change 778. 43

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) (2017),

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/us_oil.cfm (last visited on Nov. 13, 2017). 44

Letter from Caldeira, Ken, Ph.D., Department of Global Ecology, et al, to Hon. Gov. Jerry Brown,

California State Governor, (Nov. 13, 2013) (“Letter from Scientists”), available at:

Page 25

https://biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/california_fracking/pdfs/Letter_From_Scientists_to_Jerry_Brow

n_2013_11_13.pdf 45

CCST Study, Vol. II at 70. 46

CCST Study, Vol. II at 81. 47

Stringfellow, William et al., Identifying chemicals of concern in hydraulic fracturing fluids used for oil

production, 220 Environmental Pollution 413 (2017). 48

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), ATSDR A-Z Index,

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/az/a.html (last visited on September 12, 2017) (“ASTDR A-Z Index”). 49

Stringfellow, William et al., Comparison of chemical use between hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, and

routine oil and gas development, 12 PLoS One 4 (2017). 50

California Council on Science and Technology, Advanced Well Stimulation Technologies in California

(2016) (“CCST 2016”), http://ccst.us/publications/2014/160708-blm-report.pdf, at 248. 51

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Criteria Air Pollutants,

https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants (last visited on Sept. 12, 2017). 52

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Health Effects of Ozone Pollution,

https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution (last visited on Nov. 3, 2017). 53

PSE Healthy Energy, The Science on Shale Gas Development, https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/our-

work/publications/archive/the-science-on-shale-gas-development/ (last visited on Nov. 3, 2017). 54

McKenzie, L.M. et al., Childhood hematologic cancer and residential proximity to oil and gas

development, 12 PLoS One 2 (2017). 55

Rasmussen, Sara G. et al., Association Between Unconventional Natural Gas Development in the

Marcellus Shale and Asthma Exacerbations, 176 JAMA Internal Medicine 9 (2016). 56

Jemielita, Thomas et al., Unconventional Gas and Oil Drilling Is Associated with Increased Hospital

Utilization Rates, 10 PLoS One 7 (2015). 57

Rabinowitz, Peter M. et al., Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status: Results of a

Household Survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania, 123 Environmental Health Perspectives 21

(2015). 58

McKenzie, Lisa M., Birth Outcomes and Maternal Residential Proximity to Natural Gas Development

in Rural Colorado, 122 Environmental Health Perspectives 1306722 (2014). 59

Casey, Joan A., Unconventional Natural Gas Development and Birth Outcomes in Pennsylvania, USA,

27 Epidemiology 2 (2016). 60

Stacy, Shaina L. et al., Perinatal Outcomes and Unconventional Natural Gas Operations in Southwest

Pennsylvania, 10 PLoS One 6 (2015). 61

Czolowski, E.D. et al., Toward Consistent Methodology to Quantify Populations in Proximity to Oil

and Gas Development: A National Spatial Analysis and Review, 125 Environmental Health Perspectives

086004 (2017). 62

NRDC Drilling in California; see also Liberty Hill Drilling Down. 63

NRDC Drilling in California, at 9. 64

Ibid. 65

CCST Study, Vol. II at 183. 66

American Lung Association, 2016 ‘State of the Air’ Report Finds More than Half of Americans Live

with Unhealthful Levels of Air Pollution, http://www.lung.org/about-us/media/press-releases/2016-state-

of-the-air.html (last visited on Nov. 3, 2017). 67

Morello-Frosch, Rachel et al., The Climate Gap: Inequalities in How Climate Change Hurts Americans

& How to Close the Gap, College of Letters, Arts and Science, University of Southern California (USC)

(2009), https://dornsife.usc.edu/pere/climategap/

Page 26

68 Wong, Nicole, Existing scientific literature on setback distances from oil and gas development sites

(2017), http://www.stand.la/uploads/5/3/9/0/53904099/2500_literature_review_report-final_jul13.pdf 69

CCST Study, Executive Summary at 13; CCST Study, Vol. II at 433; CCST Study, Vol. III at 13-14. 70

CCST Study, Vol II at 418-420. 71

For instance, in a University of Maryland study, it was recommended that a minimum buffer zone of

2,000 ft should be enacted to ensure public safety. Milton, Donald et al., Potential public health impacts

of natural gas development and production in the Marcellus Shale in Western Maryland, Maryland

Institute for Applied Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College

Park (2014). 72

Los Angeles City Council Motion (Apr. 19 2017), available at

https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=17-0447 73

New York State Department of Public Health, New York State Department of Health Completes

Review of High-volume Hydraulic Fracturing, https://www.health.ny.gov/press/releases/2014/2014-12-

17_fracking_report.htm (last visited Nov. 13, 2017). 74

CCST 2016 at 26. 75

CCST Study, Vol. II at 406. 76

CCST 2016 at 36-37. 77

CCST Study, Vol. II at 406. 78

CCST 2016 at 381. 79

Yost, Erin et al., Estimating the Potential Toxicity of Chemicals Associated with Hydraulic Fracturing

Operations Using Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Modeling, 50 Environmental Science and

Technology 14 (2016). 80

ATSDR A-Z Index. 81

CCST Study, Executive Summary at 11. 82

Ingraffea, A.R. et al., Assessment and risk analysis of casing and cement impairment in oil and gas

wells in Pennsylvania, 111 PNAS 30 (2014) (“Ingraffea 2014”). 83

Kassotis, Christopher et al., Endocrine Disrupting Activities of Surface Water Associated with a West

Virginia Oil and Gas Industry Wastewater Disposal Site, 557-558 Science of the Total Environment 901

(2016). 84

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Order R5-2017-0036: Waste

Discharge Requirements General Order for Oil Field Discharges to Land (2017) (“CRWQCB Order

Order R5-2017-0036”),

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/r5-2017-

0036.pdf, at 9. 85

National Toxicology Program, Substances Listed in the Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens (2016),

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/listed_substances_508.pdf 86

Wild, S.R. et al., The Long-term Persistence of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in an

Agricultural Soil Amended with Metal-Contaminated Sewage Sludges, 101 Science of the Total

Environment 3 (1991) (finding residual PAHs in soil more than 20 years after discharge, suggesting

“significantly longer half-lives for PAHs in field soils than has previously been suggested”). 87

Environmental Resources Management (ERM), Development of Risk-Based Comparison Levels for

Chemicals in Agricultural Irrigation Water (2016),

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/oil_fields/food_safety/data/studies/erm_riskassrpt.

pdf 88

In California, oil companies wishing to discharge wastewater must go through their Regional Water

Quality Control Board. These boards set limits for some pollutants (such as chloride and boron), but not

undisclosed chemicals due to their trade-secret status. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control

Page 27

Board, Order No. R5-2012-0058: Waste Discharge Requirements for Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Cawelo

Water District Produced Water Reclamation Project (2012) (“CRWQCB Order Order R5-2012-0058”).

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/kern/r5-2012-0058.pdf. In

addition, mandated monitoring does not include monitoring crops or soil where wastewater is applied. 89

CCST Study, Executive Summary at 9; CCST Study, Vol II at 115-116. 90

State Water Resources Control Board, Fact Sheet: Food Safety Expert Panel on Recycled Oilfield

Water for Crop Irrigation (2016),

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/oil_fields/food_safety/data/fact_sheet/of_foodsafet

y_fact_sheet.pdf 91

Environmental Working Group, Toxic Chemicals May Contaminate Oil Field Wastewater Used to

Grow California Crops (2016),

https://static.ewg.org/reports/2016/og_wastewater/OG_Wastewater.pdf?_ga=1.68513745.1126224887.14

86191706 92

CCST Study, Vol. II at 113-114. 93

Letter from Steven Bohlen, State Oil and Gas Supervisor, Dept. of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas

& Geothermal Resources, to Jane Diamond, Director, Water Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, (Feb. 6,

2015),

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/UIC%20Files/FINAL_Dual%20Letterhead_US%20EPA%20Letter.pdf at

4. 94

Title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 1779.1. 95

Letter from Kenneth A. Harris, Jr., State Oil and Gas Supervisor, Dept. of Conservation, Division of

Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources, to Michael Montgomery, U.S. EPA Region IX (Jan. 17, 2017),

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/general_information/Documents/L_Michael%20Montgomery_UIC

%20Well%20Review_01-17-17.pdf at 3, 4. 96

14 Cal. Code Regs., § 1786(a)(4); Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal

Resources (DOGGR), Analysis of Oil and Gas Well Stimulation Treatments in California (2015),

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/Pages/SB4_Final_EIR_TOC.aspx at 10.14-84. 97

CRWQCB Order R5-2017-0036 at 13. 98

CCST Study, Vol. II at 112. 99

Clean Water Action, In the Pits: Oil and Gas Wastewater Disposal into Open Unlined Pits and the

Threat to California’s Water and Air, (2014),

http://www.cleanwateraction.org/sites/default/files/docs/publications/In%20the%20Pits.pdf at 3; U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry, Interaction Profile for: Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX) (2004),

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/interactionprofiles/IP-btex/ip05.pdf at 2 (“All of the BTEX chemicals can

produce neurological impairment, and exposure to benzene can additionally cause hematological effects .

. . .”). 100

California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,

Maps and Data, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/maps-data (last visited May 24, 2016) (The top 25%

of CalEnviroScreen census tracts are characterized as disadvantaged communities, pursuant to Cal. Health

& Safety Code § 39711). 101

Zirogiannis 2016, at Table S.3; CRWQCB Order R5-2017-0036. 102

CCST Study, Vol. II at 110. 103

CCST Study, Executive Summary at 8. 104

Ellsworth, W.L., Injection-induced earthquakes, 341 Science 6142 (2013) (“Ellsworth 2013”);

Nicholson, C. et al., Triggered earthquakes and deep well activities, 139 Pure Applied Geophysics 3/4

Page 28

(1992); National Research Council, Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies, National

Academies Press, 2013. 105

Skoumal, R., et al., Earthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing in Poland Township, Ohio, 105

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1 (2015); Friberg, P.A. et al., Characterization of an

earthquake sequence triggered by hydraulic fracturing in Harrison County, Ohio, 85 Seismological

Research Letters 6 (2014). 106

Holland, Austin, Earthquakes Triggered by Hydraulic Fracturing in South‐Central Oklahoma, 103

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 3 (2013). 107

Farahbod, Amir Mansour et al., Investigation of regional seismicity before and after hydraulic

fracturing in the Horn River Basin, northeast British Columbia, 52 Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences

112 (2015); Atkinson, Gail et al., Ground motions from three recent earthquakes in Western Alberta and

Northeastern British Columbia and their implications for induced‐seismicity hazard in eastern regions, 86

Seismological Research Letters 3 (2015). 108

Schultz, R. et al., Hydraulic fracturing and the Crooked Lake Sequences: Insights gleaned from

seismic networks, 42 Geophysical Research Letters 2750 (2015); Schultz, R., A seismological overview

of the induced earthquakes in the Duvernay play near Fox Creek, Alberta, 122 J. Geophys. Res. Solid

Earth 492 (2017). 109

Atkinson, G.M. et al., Hydraulic fracturing and seismicity in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin,

87 Seismological Research Letters 3 (2016). 110

Ellsworth 2013. 111

Keranen, K.M. et al., Potentially induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, USA: Links between wastewater

injection and the 2011 Mw 5.7 earthquake sequence, 41 Geology 6 (2013); Keranen, K.M. et al., Sharp

increase in Central Oklahoma seismicity since 2008 induced by massive wastewater injection, 345

Science 6195 (2014). 112

Yeck, W.L. et al., Oklahoma experiences largest earthquake during ongoing regional wastewater

injection hazard mitigation efforts, 44 Geophysics Resource Letter 711 (2017). 113

Rubinstein, J. et al., The 2001-present induced earthquake sequence in the Raton Basin of northern

New Mexico and southern Colorado, 104 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 5 (2014). 114

Frohlich, C. et al., The 17 May 2012 M4.8 earthquake near Timpson, East Texas: An event possibly

triggered by fluid injection, 119 Journal of Geophysical Research 581(2014). 115

United States Geological Survey, One year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United

States from induced and natural earthquakes, Open-File Report 2016-1035 (2016),

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20161035 116

Goebel, T.H.W et al., Wastewater disposal and earthquake swarm activity at the southern end of the

Central Valley, California, 43 Geophysics Research Letter 43 (2016) (“Goebel 2016”). 117

Goebel, T.H.W. et al., An objective method for the assessment of fluid injection-induced seismicity

and application to tectonically active regions in central California, 120 Journal of Geophysical Research,

Solid Earth (2015) (“Goebel 2015”). 118

Goebel 2016 at 1098. 119

Earthworks, Center for Biological Diversity, and Clean Water Action, On Shaky Ground: Fracking,

Acidizing, and Increased Earthquake Risk in California (2014), http://www.shakyground.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/02/ShakyGround-FINAL1.pdf 120

Rubinstein, J.L. et al., Myths and facts on wastewater injection, hydraulic fracturing, enhanced oil

recovery, and induced seismicity, 86 Seismological Research Letters 4 (2015); Weingarten, M. et al.,

High-rate injection is associated with the increase U.S. mid-continent seismicity, 348 Science 6241

(2015). 121

Goebel 2015.

Page 29

122 Id., at 7016.

123 Id., at 7022.

124 Department of Conservation, Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), Oil and

Gas: Online Data, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/monthly_production_reports (last visited on Nov. 6,

2017). 125

Ibid. 126

Ingraffea 2014. 127

Lustgarten, Abraham et al., State-by-State: Underground Injection Wells, ProPublica, Sept. 20, 2012,

http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/underground-injection-wells (last visited Nov. 13, 2017). 128

California Coastal Commission, Briefing on Offshore Fracking and Other Well Stimulation

Treatments (2014) http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/12-AFC-

02/TN202688_20140713T210346_Briefing_on_Offshore_Fracking_and_Other_Well_Stimulation_Treat

m.pdf at 7, 12. 129

Center for Biological Diversity, Troubled Waters: Offshore Fracking’s Threat to California’s Ocean,

Air and Seismic Stability (2014),

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/offshore_fracking/pdfs/Troubled_Waters.pdf 130

Letter from Ackerly, David, Ph.D., Professor, University of Berkeley, et al. to Brian Salerno, Director,

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Department of Interior, et al. (March 22, 2016),

available at:

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/offshore_fracking/pdfs/16_03_22_Offshore_fracking_scie

ntist_sign-on_letter.pdf 131

CCST Study, Vol. III at 32. 132

Public Resources Code, §§ 30600 (requiring coastal development permit for “any development” in the

coastal zone), 30106 (defining development); Edwards, Andrew, California Coastal Commission to weigh

in on fracking off Long Beach, Press Telegram, Jul. 23, 2015,

http://www.presstelegram.com/2015/07/23/california-coastal-commission-to-weigh-in-on-fracking-off-

long-beach/ (last visited on Nov. 6, 2017) (Commission asserting that fracking requires a coastal

development permit)) 133

Stop Fooling California, Big Oil in California Politics, http://stopfoolingca.org/oil-lobbying/big-oil-in-

california-politics/ (last visited on Nov. 6, 2017). 134

American Lung Association, CA Oil Lobby Spending 2015-2016 Legislative Session (2017),

http://www.lung.org/local-content/california/documents/Oil-Industry-Lobbying-2016-update-4_1-31-

17.pdf 135

Consumer Watchdog, Brown’s Dirty Hands (2016),

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/BrownsDirtyHands.pdf 136

Oil Change International, Dirty Energy Dominance: Dependent on Denial (2017),

http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2017/10/OCI_US-Fossil-Fuel-Subs-2015-16_Final_Oct2017.pdf at

19, 34. 137

Chabria, Anita, How Big Oil Spent $10m to Defeat California Climate Legislation, The Guardian,Feb.

5, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/05/how-big-oil-spent-millions-to-defeat-

california-climate-change-legislation-sb-350 (last visited on Nov. 6, 2017). 138

Mulkern, Anne C, Businesses spent millions lobbying before cap-and-trade vote, E&E News, Jul. 26,

2017, https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060057923 (last visited on Nov. 6, 2017) 139

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment

(2016), http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_716MBS.pdf ; See also Public Policy Institute of

California (PPIC), Majority Say Global Warming Contributing to Drought: Most Support State Efforts to

Limit Emissions, But Partisan Divide Persists, http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?i=1824 (last

Page 30

visited on Nov. 6, 2017); Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), PPIC Statewide Survey:

Californians and the Environment (2014), http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_714MBS.pdf ;

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment

(2013), http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_713MBS.pdf ; Public Policy Institute of California

(PPIC), PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment (2012),

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_712MBS.pdf 140

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment

(2017), http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/s_717mbs.pdf, at 20. 141

Following the passage of proposition 26 (2010), a two-thirds vote of the Legislature is required to

enact certain fees and taxes. See California Constitution, art. XIIIC, § 1(e). 142

Public Resources Code § 3106(a); the Government Code also allows for emergency rulemaking under

section 11346.1; see also, Water Code § 1058.5(a), authorizing State Water Resources Control Board to

adopt emergency regulations to protect water resources. 143

The oil industry has incorrectly argued that a second legal provision, Public Resources Code §

3106(b), admonishing DOGGR to otherwise utilize all methods and practices to recover oil and gas,

should be interpreted to override the law’s first mandate to protect Californians and our environment.

DOGGR itself has at times adopted this position. This argument is clearly wrong, but any dispute on this

point is irrelevant due to the additional regulatory authority discussed in this section. 144

Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. 145

Public Resources Code § 3226. 146

Government Code §§ 8625 and 8567(a); see generally, Cal. Emergency Services Act, Gov Code §§

8550 et seq. 147

Government Code § 8558(b). 148

Office of the Governor, California, Governor Brown Declares Drought State of Emergency,

http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18379 (last visited on Nov. 6, 2017) (citing Government Code §§ 8558,

8625 as legal authority to promulgate 20 Executive Orders in response to drought).