The announcement advances the specific lease sale that BLM began reviewing in July, following completion of broader environmental reviews. BLM’s June 23 decision allowed oil and gas leasing to resume within the Bakersfield Field Office. The December offering covers approximately 35,000 acres.

Lease offering narrows following public review

BLM initially sought public input on 50 parcels totaling approximately 36,000 acres. By August, the proposal included 44 parcels after the agency combined several adjacent parcels. The October announcement lists 43 parcels covering approximately 35,000 acres.

The offering includes public lands and parcels where the federal government owns mineral rights beneath privately owned land. Most fall within the Bakersfield Field Office’s jurisdiction, with one under the Central Coast Field Office.

The BLM published a Draft environmental assessment for the proposed lease sale on August 21, 2026.

The broader planning process included a draft supplemental environmental impact statement released in January. That review followed litigation and settlement agreements requiring BLM to revisit earlier environmental analyses.

California disputes environmental analysis

California Attorney General Rob Bonta submitted comments challenging the environmental assessment for the proposed sale. In a September 21 announcement, his office argued that BLM inadequately evaluated public health, water supply and quality, air pollution, and sensitive habitats and species.

The attorney general’s office said approximately 16 parcels in the earlier, 44-parcel proposal fell within California’s 3,200-foot public health and safety setback around homes, schools, and other sensitive locations.

Drilling requires additional approval

Leasing does not itself authorize drilling. Before operations begin, an operator must submit a drilling permit application describing its plans. BLM says it will review applications, provide public review, conduct environmental analysis, and coordinate with state partners and stakeholders.

Subscribe now

The ordinance amendments prohibit drilling new wells and reentering abandoned wells. Existing operations may continue, and the prohibition does not prevent drilling already authorized under a vested land-use permit or an approved Oil Drilling and Production Plan.

Supervisors Laura Capps, Joan Hartmann and Roy Lee supported the amendments. Supervisors Bob Nelson and Steve Lavagnino opposed them, according to the Santa Barbara Independent.

Ban covers coastal and inland areas

The amendments apply to areas governed by the county’s Land Use and Development Code and Coastal Zoning Ordinance. The Montecito Community Plan area is not affected because oil and gas drilling is already prohibited there.

The inland zoning amendments can take effect without further state approval. The Coastal Land Use Plan amendment must be certified by the California Coastal Commission before the prohibition becomes effective in the county’s coastal zone.

Approximately 1,039 active wells may continue operating, while the amendments would prevent the reentry of approximately 1,221 abandoned wells, according to the Santa Barbara News-Press.

The county has no pending applications for new oil and gas wells. Its most recent approval of a new drilling project was a 2019 land-use permit for the Amrich Casmalia Oil Field southwest of Santa Maria.

The county’s oil and gas amendments page contains the ordinances, staff reports, and related project materials.

County divided phaseout into two stages

The Board of Supervisors voted in May 2025 to develop a framework for ending oil operations in the county. In October 2025, the board directed county staff to prepare a two-part plan. The first phase prohibits new wells, and the second phase would develop a long-term plan for phasing out existing oil and gas facilities and operations.

The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission recommended approval in April, sending the amendments to the Board of Supervisors for final consideration.

County staff divided the project into two phases because of its legal, regulatory, and economic complexity. The September 15 action completes the county portion of the first phase, subject to Coastal Commission certification of the coastal amendment.

The second phase is expected to require an environmental impact report and an amortization study. The study would assess how long operators must be allowed to continue producing oil to recover their investments before the county may require facilities to close.

The county has allocated $250,000 for the amortization study. Developing the phaseout proposal could take approximately three years, while implementation could extend over a substantially longer period.

State law expanded local authority

The county’s action follows California’s 2024 enactment of AB 3233. That law authorizes cities and counties to limit or prohibit oil and gas operations or development within their jurisdictions, including through requirements that are more protective of public health, the climate, or the environment than state rules.

The Board of Supervisors adopted Santa Barbara County’s 2030 Climate Action Plan in August 2024. The plan calls for phasing out oil and gas production as part of the county’s effort to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions 50 percent below 2018 levels by 2030.

Supporters argued that the prohibition would prevent additional emissions and health effects while giving the county time to plan for workers and communities affected by a future phaseout. Opponents argued that restricting local production would eliminate well-paying North County jobs, reduce tax revenue, and increase reliance on imported oil.

The Coastal Land Use Plan amendment will require certification by the California Coastal Commission before it becomes effective in the county’s coastal zone. The inland zoning amendments are not subject to that certification process.

Subscribe now

The July 2 parcel review covers approximately 36,000 acres in Kern, Kings, San Luis Obispo, and Fresno counties. It represents an early implementation step following BLM’s completion of a supplemental environmental review of oil and gas leasing across the broader region.

The decisions do not authorize drilling. BLM must select parcels for a lease sale, issue leases, and separately review applications for permits to drill before development can begin.

Decision completes review begun in 2025

In June 2025, BLM announced that it would prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement addressing oil and gas leasing within the Bakersfield planning area. That review covered approximately 400,000 acres of BLM-managed surface land and another 450,000 acres of federal mineral estate.

BLM released its draft supplemental environmental impact statement in January 2026. The agency preliminarily concluded that additional leasing and development would not produce significant new effects on public health, air quality, biological resources, soil, or water.

BLM completed the final environmental review in May and issued a record of decision in June 2026. The agency determined that it did not need to amend its 2014 Bakersfield Resource Management Plan because the supplemental analysis did not identify a notable increase in environmental effects.

The decision allows BLM to consider leasing within approximately 850,000 acres across Central California, including federal mineral interests in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Kern, Kings, Fresno, and Ventura counties. The affected areas reportedly include federal mineral interests near Lake Cachuma, Lompoc, and Carpinteria.

BLM begins reviewing specific parcels

On July 2, BLM opened a 30-day public scoping period for 50 parcels that could be included in a future lease sale.

BLM said leasing is only the first step toward development. A lease gives its holder the right to seek approval to develop federal oil and gas resources, but an operator must submit a separate drilling application. BLM would then review the proposed operation, conduct additional environmental analysis and coordinate with state agencies and other stakeholders.

More than 95 percent of federal drilling in California occurs in established Kern County fields, according to the BLM’s July 2 announcement. The agency estimates that federal drilling supports approximately 3,500 jobs and generates more than $200 million in annual economic activity. Federal oil and gas operations in California generate between $65 million and $90 million in annual royalties, about half of which is returned to the state.

State restrictions remain disputed

The federal actions are part of a broader effort to expand oil and gas development on federal lands in California.

In June 2025, the federal government separately terminated a 2012 memorandum of understanding between BLM and the California Geologic Energy Management Division. The agreement governed coordination between the agencies where state and federal regulatory authority overlapped.

That action is separate from the Bakersfield planning review but could affect coordination over future federal drilling permits involving federal mineral interests.

California and environmental organizations have previously challenged BLM’s environmental reviews of Central California leasing. Opponents contend that the latest analysis does not adequately address effects on public health, water, wildlife, and the climate.

Another unresolved question is whether California restrictions, including the state’s 3,200-foot health-protection zones around homes, schools, hospitals, and other sensitive locations, apply to development involving federal lands or mineral interests.

The June record of decision and July parcel review move the federal leasing process forward, but additional environmental reviews, permitting proceedings, and potential litigation remain before drilling could begin.

Federal leasing rules could also change

The Central California actions coincide with a broader BLM proposal to revise federal oil and gas leasing regulations. The proposed rule, published June 24, 2026, would eliminate leasing-preference criteria, modify public-participation periods, restore noncompetitive leasing, and return minimum bonding requirements to levels in effect before BLM’s 2024 rule.

The rulemaking is separate from the Central California land-use decision and the review of the 50 potential lease parcels, but it could affect how future California lease sales are conducted.

Subscribe now

The vote sends the proposed land-use amendments to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for final consideration.

The proposed amendments represent the first phase of a broader county initiative that could eventually end existing onshore oil and gas operations. Existing wells would not be required to close under the first phase.

County adopts two-phase approach

The Board of Supervisors directed county staff in October 2025 to prepare ordinances prohibiting new drilling and to develop a long-term plan for phasing out existing oil and gas facilities and operations.

County officials divided the initiative into two phases because of the legal, economic, and regulatory issues involved.

The first phase would amend the county’s zoning rules to prohibit new wells and the reentry of plugged and abandoned wells. Existing production and wells authorized under qualifying previously approved drilling or production plans could continue.

The second phase would examine options for gradually ending existing oil and gas operations. The study is expected to consider legal, economic, environmental, and workforce effects and take at least three years.

Oil production has declined

Santa Barbara County last approved a new oil-production plan in 2014. County staff described prohibiting new drilling as the most viable and least resource-intensive option for limiting future greenhouse-gas emissions from onshore oil and gas development.

As of September 2025, the county had approximately 1,039 active and 1,221 idle onshore oil and gas wells, according to county staff citing CalGEM records. An additional 3,663 wells had been plugged and abandoned.

Supporters described the proposal as a climate and public-health measure that would reduce the potential for additional pollution and community exposure to oil and gas operations.

Opponents questioned whether restricting local production would reduce petroleum consumption or shift production and its environmental effects to other jurisdictions. They also raised concerns about employment, mineral rights, and potential legal challenges.

Subscribe now

U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins rejected a U.S. Department of Justice motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of SB 1137, a 2022 law that implements a 3,200-foot buffer zone, known as a setback, between oil wells and schools, homes, and playgrounds.

The ruling preserves one of California’s most consequential oil and gas restrictions and is a setback for the Trump administration’s broader effort to challenge state-level environmental restrictions on fossil fuel development.

SB 1137 prohibits the approval of new wells and restricts the reworking of existing wells within designated health protection zones surrounding residential areas, schools, and other sensitive sites. The oil industry has also challenged the law since it was passed, including initial efforts around a voter referendum on the law and lawsuits from oil producers and mineral owners.

Trump Administration Challenge

The challenge to the law is part of President Donald Trump’s policy, outlined in an April 2025 executive order, to stop the “overreach” from “burdensome and ideologically motivated ‘climate change’ or energy policies that threaten American energy dominance and our economic and national security.”

The Trump administration filed suit against the law in January 2026, arguing that the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Land and Policy Management Act preempts the law. The administration said the law would “knock out about one-third of all federally authorized oil and gas leases in California.”

The court found that the federal government had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its preemption claim. The court concluded that SB 1137 is “a reasonable environmental regulation that does not preclude alternative methods of accessing the oil and gas within those locations and the vast majority of federal leased lands are not within 3,200 feet of sensitive receptors…”

The decision found that the law regulates development rather than land use. The court cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co. to distinguish between permissible environmental regulation and impermissible land-use control. The court noted that conflict preemption occurs when “it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law.”

The court also rejected the federal government’s characterization of the law as a “de facto ban” on drilling. The court said this “characterization would apply to the 79 leases out of 616 (12.8%) that are located entirely within HPZ [health protection zone.” Those operators “are not prohibited from continuing to operate existing wells.”

The court further noted that the law does not prohibit access to oil and gas resources within those zones. Operators may still use alternative methods to reach subsurface reserves.

In addition, the ruling clarified that certain infrastructure, including production facilities, may still be permitted within buffer zones if approved through California’s regulatory process, including authorization from the state’s Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM).

The Justice Department argued that SB 1137 would reduce federal revenue by deterring leasing activity. The court found that argument unpersuasive, noting that the federal government had already paused its leasing program in California for roughly a decade and had not issued new leases during that period.

The court also found no evidence of irreparable harm that would justify emergency relief, a key requirement for granting a preliminary injunction.

Subscribe now

The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) from the Bakersfield Field Office concluded that emissions from oil and gas development are “minor and are not expected to significantly affect regional air quality or public health.” The statement states that drilling will have minimal impacts on the area’s biological resources, soil, and water.

In June 2025, the BLM proposed the expanded oil and gas leasing and development and released a notice of intent to prepare a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The proposed area would include federal land in eastern Fresno, western Kern, Kings, Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and Ventura counties.

The proposed development expansion is part of President Donald Trump’s policy to “encourage energy production and exploration on federal lands and waters, including on the Outer Continental Shelf.”

The Bakersfield planning area encompasses approximately 400,000 acres of public land and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate across eight counties: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and Ventura. The office estimates that the Planning Area could see up to 400 new wells per year.

The office prepared the 2025 DSEIS in response to litigation challenging the adequacy of the 2019 Hydraulic Fracturing Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) and the 2020 Lease Sale Environmental Assessment (EA). Environmental groups argued that BLM did not adequately consider environmental harms.

In 2022, the U.S. District Courts for the Central and Eastern Districts of California approved stipulated settlement agreements. These agreements require BLM to prepare a new supplemental EIS and reconsider the 2014 Resource Management Plan’s (RMP) fluid minerals decisions, as well as to supplement the 2020 Lease Sale EA.

Subscribe now

SB 1137 implements a 3,200-foot buffer zone, known as a setback, between oil wells and schools, homes, and playgrounds. The buffer zone prevents new wells and the reworking and maintenance of existing wells. The legislation passed the law in 2022 and it took effect in June 2024.

The administration’s challenge to SB 1137 is part of President Donald Trump’s policy, outlined in an April 2025 executive order, to stop the “overreach” from “burdensome and ideologically motivated ‘climate change’ or energy policies that threaten American energy dominance and our economic and national security.”

Oil producers have fought against the law since its passage. A voter referendum on the law qualified for the November 2024 ballot, but the California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA) withdrew the referendum to pursue legal challenges against the law instead.

In 2025, oil producers and mineral owners filed two lawsuits against SB 1137, arguing, among other issues, that it is an illegal public taking of private property without just compensation. These lawsuits are still proceeding in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Subscribe now

The complaint states that 157 of the 581 unplugged wells in the Inglewood Oil Field are “idle” and 70 other wells are “exhausted.” These wells, the complaint alleges, “continue to emit toxins into the surrounding community and environment and to otherwise inflict the harms set forth in this Complaint.”

An idle well is one that has not been used for at least two years and has not yet been plugged and abandoned in a process that permanently seals the well. An exhausted well is an oil well that yields an average daily production equal to or less than two barrels of oil over the prior two years.

The complaint alleges that these companies have “profited from its oil and gas operations” without paying to retire the wells. “Defendants have left hundreds of unplugged, exhausted wells that harm the environment and the health of people living nearby and threaten to saddle taxpayers with an environmental cleanup bill that could total hundreds of millions of dollars,” the county alleges.

These companies “have unfairly and unjustly enriched themselves by refusing to properly decommission their exhausted wells, prioritizing their profits over responsibly operating” the oil field.

The county seeks injunctive relief to require Sentinel to plug the wells and pay for the harms caused by the pollution from the wells. It also seeks civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each well that is in violation of the law.

California’s Policy on Idle Wells

According to the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), there are more than 37,000 known idle wells in California. These wells can leak hydrocarbons or other contaminants into underground drinking water or to the surface.

In addition to environmental and health concerns, idle wells pose a financial risk to the state if they are deserted by an insolvent operator. In this case, an idle well becomes an “orphan well,” and the state often takes the responsibilities and costs for decommissioning the well.

In 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 1167, which requires individuals or companies to take greater upfront financial responsibility for plugging and abandoning wells. Under the law, the full cost of plugging and abandoning wells must be financially assured before CalGEM can approve the transfer of a well.

While the Santa Barbara County staff estimates that implementing the plan will take approximately three years, the actual transition period to phase out oil operations could take many years.

Subscribe now

Ordinance to Prohibit Drilling

In approving the first part of the phase out, the supervisors authorized county staff to develop an ordinance to prohibit drilling of new oil and gas wells. This would amend the Land Use Development Code (LUDC), Petroleum Code, and the Coastal Zoning Ordinance (CZO). The staff estimates that these amendments could be approved and adopted within six months. The California Coastal Commission, however, would need to review the amendments before they could become effective in the coastal zone. This review process could take an additional 9-15 months, according to county staff.

Phase Out Existing Operations

Additionally, the supervisors voted to authorize the county staff to begin sourcing an amortization study to determine an appropriate period to phase out existing oil and gas facilities and operations. The study will estimate how long it will take oil revenues to offset the investment by oil companies and their expected returns on investment.

After the amortization study is completed, county staff would develop the second ordinance amendments based on the findings of the study. The ordinances would include a timeline to shut down existing oil and gas facilities and operations as well as plugging and abandonment of these operations.

The staff estimates that the phaseout ordinance could be adopted within three years. This would include the amortization study, which would take approximately 9-12 months, as well as the ordinance amendments, environmental reviews, and public review and hearings.

Increasing Local Control

The move to end oil operations in Santa Barbara County comes after the September 2024 passage of AB 3233, which gave local governments control over oil and gas operations. The law authorizes local governments to regulate, limit, or prohibit oil and gas operations or development in their jurisdictions.

Subscribe now

While the impact of increased in-state oil production on refinery closures or gas prices is uncertain, the environmental opposition is based on incomplete accounting. Any discussion over expanding oil drilling in California must consider the state’s dependence on imported oil that is produced under weak environmental protections, contributes to the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest, and is shipped thousands of miles across the ocean. Oil from California’s main suppliers is produced with environmental protections that are weaker than California’s standards and total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are higher than those associated with oil produced in the state. Increasing in-state oil drilling would reduce this dependence and lessen California’s global environmental impact.

California’s Dependance on Imported Oil

California’s in-state oil production has declined steadily since the 1980s, from a high of 393 million barrels in 1985 to 104 million barrels in 2024. Oil demand, while falling from a high of 708 million barrels in 1988, has been steady at more than 500 million barrels per year since 2021. Imports of foreign oil have made up the difference and have provided an increasing share of California’s oil supply to refineries, growing from below 10% in the early 1980s and mid-1990s to 56% in 2021, 59% in 2022, 61% in 2023, and 64% in 2024.

California’s oil imports come from nine countries, according to the California Energy Commission. The top sources in 2024 were Iraq at 21%, Brazil at 20%, Guyana at 16%, and Ecuador at 14%. None of these countries is known as a steward of the environment. Iraq ranks third in the world—behind Russia and Iran—in flaring natural gas, a process in which excess gas is burned during oil extraction. California’s other leading oil suppliers produce oil in the Amazon region, where deforestation from the exploitation of natural resources is a significant contributor to climate change.

Ecuador has a long history of Amazon oil production and related environmental degradation. Guyana, meanwhile, looks to become a growing producer in offshore oil in the Atlantic Ocean, along the so-called “Amazon coast.” Brazil, which currently produces oil in the Amazon, recently approved exploratory drilling near the mouth of the Amazon River.

Oil production in the Amazon looks to increase, as almost 20% of global reserves discovered during 2022 and 2024 are in the region. California, for its part, is the top consumer of crude oil from the region, as approximately 50% of all oil exported from the Amazon goes to California refineries, according to a California State Senate resolution.

The production process is only a part of the environmental impact from California’s dependance on oil imports. After extraction, the oil is shipped to the state by tanker, traveling thousands of miles for more than two weeks. Oil tankers produce a significant amount of GHG emission through the burning of heavy fuel oil and marine diesel, but the emissions from the journey are not tracked. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) tracks and reports emissions from ocean-going vessels within 100 nautical miles of its coastline only. The total emissions from shipping are significantly underestimated.

The California legislature has resisted efforts to account for the emissions and environmental impact of imported oil. State Senator Shannon Grove has repeatedly introduced legislation to monitor crude oil imports into California and publicly identify countries that have documented human rights abuses or environmental standards for oil production that are lower than California standards. The bills would also require CARB to publish an annual assessment of the GHG emissions associated with the transportation of oil from the point of origin to its point of destination in California. This would include both imported oil and oil produced in the state. Grove has been unable to advance these bills.

A More Comprehensive Approach

A more serious energy policy would require an accounting of the emissions and environmental impact of imported oil. It would recognize that, while demand might be falling, California will need a substantial supply of oil for a long time to come. Oil not produced in the state will be produced in foreign countries under weaker environmental standards and with much greater GHG emissions.

A serious energy transition policy would also recognize the need for the state to reduce exposure to oil-related geopolitical shocks on its economy and the need to maintain political support for its energy transition policies by making energy more affordable. It would also recognize the potential for tax revenue from oil production to fund energy infrastructure and the benefit of keeping a highly skilled oil workforce in the state.

Beyond simply increasing oil production in Kern County, SB 237 provides state leaders with an opportunity to take a holistic approach to energy policy, recognizing the continued need for oil and honestly assessing the global environmental impact of its overall oil policy. This approach, rather than pursuing international climate partnerships, would do more to fulfill California’s claims to be a global climate leader.

The compromise energy package is seen largely as a compromise between the need to address rising energy costs, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and the continued need for fossil fuels. Legislators and the governor agreed to the legislation on September 10, 2025 after last-minute negotiations.

Ease regulations to increase oil production

SB 237 streamlines approvals to drill up to 2,000 new oil wells a year in Kern County through 2036. The law does this by deeming a Kern County environmental impact report sufficient for full compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This ends the ongoing legal challenges since 2015 against the county’s the county’s oil and gas rezoning ordinance. The bill also increases oversight for offshore drilling. Lastly, the bill allows the governor to suspend the state’s lower-emissions summer gasoline fuel standards if prices increase substantially over a 30-day period.

Extend cap and trade

Newsom signed into law AB 1207, which extends California’s cap-and-trade program, now called “cap-and-invest,” through 2045. The bill also changes how the California Air Resources Board (CARB) distributes allowances. He also signed SB 840, which revises spending from the program’s revenue, including $1 billion for high-speed rail each year, $1 billion for spending through the budget, and $1.7 billion for various safe drinking water, fire prevention, transportation, and clean air programs.

Join a regional electricity market

Newsom signed into law AB 825, which allows California to participate in a Western regional electricity market by expanding partnerships with other states. This law provides the groundwork for developing a Western market and is intended to promote the inter-state trading of solar and wind power. The bill is intended to reduce electricity costs, improve grid reliability, and increase the use of renewable energy.

Air pollution monitoring programs

Newsom signed SB 352, which establishes air pollution monitoring programs in heavily polluted communities. The law requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to select the locations, and the program must be in place for at least five years with optional five-year extensions.

State wildfire liability fund

Newsom signed into law SB 254, which provides $18 billion in new funding for the state’s wildfire liability fund. The bill would, among other things, deems the financing of projects related to the clean energy projects funded by the Clean Air Bond Act of 2024 to be in the public interest and eligible for financing by the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank. The bill also requires electrical utilities to submit a wildfire mitigation plan to the office for review at least once every four years.

Subscribe now

The proposed expansion of development is part of President Donald Trump’s plan to “unleash America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources” to “restore American prosperity...” Trump’s executive order on “Unleashing American Energy” established U.S. policy to “encourage energy production and exploration on federal lands and waters, including on the Outer Continental Shelf.”

Criteria for Supplemental EIS

The supplemental EIS will consider a number of issues, including air quality, water quality, special status species, archaeology, oil and gas resources, and social and economic conditions. The BLM will update only the portions of the 2014 Bakersfield resource management plan that need to be updated to respond to the issues and management concerns identified in a 2022 court order and settlement agreement. The plan will also consider alternatives from the BLM’s 2019 supplemental EIS for hydraulic fracturing.

Planning Area

The Supplemental EIS will analyze the impacts of oil and gas leasing and development on BLM-managed public lands. The Bakersfield planning area encompasses approximately 400,000 acres of public land and an additional 450,000 acres of federal mineral estate.

The area excludes the California Coastal National Monument and the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The notice further state that “lands withdrawn from mineral entry by law, including national monuments and designated wilderness areas, would remain unavailable for leasing and development.”

Potential Resources

Oil and gas production on federal lands is mostly in western Kern County and is approximately 9% of all oil and gas produced in California, according to the BLM. A resumption of oil and gas leasing in the planning area could bring the development of 10 to 40 new oil and gas wells on new leases each year, according to the BLM. New leases would require environmental review.

Planning Timeline

The BLM is seeking comment on the supplemental EIA by July 23, 2025. According to the BLM, a draft of the EIS will be completed by October 24, 2025 with a comment period until January 22, 2026. The BLM will then publish a final EIS on February 27, 2026.

Subscribe now

The 2012 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) outlined state and federal collaboration on the regulation of oil production where both the federal and state agencies had jurisdiction. The 2012 MOU replaced a 2008 MOU, which delineated the roles and responsibilities of the two agencies during the permitting process. The 2012 MOU, however, allowed the state agency to delay new oil permits on federal property in California.

Four California Republican congressmen sent a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum thanking him for rescinding the MOU. In the letter, representatives David Valadao, Vince Fong, Doug LaMalfa, and Tom McClintock stated that the MOU has “historically acted as a significant barrier to oil production in California, compounded by CalGEM’s persistent failure to meet its obligations regarding the timely issuance of permits for new well drilling.” This “dereliction of duty is jeopardizing our energy independence and undermining our economic stability at a time when the demand for reliable energy sources is critical.”

The congressmen argued that the “outdated nature of this MOU, in conjunction with CalGEM's current regulatory practices, has stifled energy production on federal lands within California, despite our state's vast untapped oil and gas resources.”

The letter noted that, before Governor Gavin Newsom took office, California oil and gas operators usually drilled more than 3,000 new oil and gas wells and produced more than 500,000 barrels of oil each year. That rate has fallen significantly since he took office, they stated, noting that “just 21 new oil and gas wells were permitted in 2024 and daily production of oil fell to under 325,000 barrels.”

“BLM continues to permit new wells in California; however, CalGEM has asserted that the state must conduct a dual permitting process despite the fact that no statute recognizes their role on federal land,” the letter stated. “Over the last 15 years, BLM has increasingly granted CalGEM the ability to review, delay, and affect permit applications on federal lands. This was accomplished through informal practices and agreements, not through any statutory changes. As a result, over 100 permits that have been fully approved by BLM languish awaiting CalGEM’s contrived permitting process.”

The congressman stated that the reduced production has reduced oil revenue in California by $9 billion per year, including a loss of $100 million in property tax revenue for Kern County each year.

Oil production on Federal lands in California is approximately 8% to 10% of the state’s total oil and natural gas production, according to the BLM. The agency manages nearly 600 producing oil and gas leases in California, and more than 95% of all Federal drilling occurs in Kern County.

In June, the BLM opened public comments on potential changes to a regional resource management plan for Federal lands in Central California that the Biden administration closed to new oil and gas leasing in 2022 pending environmental review.