BLM Issues Records of Decision for Bakersfield and Central Coast Regions, Ignoring State Health Protections and Fracking Ban
Environmental organizations across California are condemning Trump’s Bureau of Land Management’s approval of oil and gas leasing and development plans for both the Bakersfield and Central Coast field office regions—a decision that critics argue was a rushed, legally deficient move that ignores California law, bypasses the public, and offers some of the state’s most beloved public lands over to the fossil fuel industry.
The BLM issued the approvals without allowing the standard 60-day Governor’s Consistency Review period required before a federal land use decision affecting California can be finalized, and without responding to formal administrative protests filed by community organizations. That review exists precisely to ensure federal actions do not conflict with state law and policy—and this decision is in direct, flagrant conflict with both.
Among the state laws the BLM has chosen to ignore: SB 1137, California’s landmark legislation establishing 3,200-foot health and safety buffer zones between oil and gas drilling operations and sensitive receptors including homes, schools, daycares, and hospitals; and California’s ban on fracking, which prohibits the dangerous well stimulation practice contemplated in the BLM’s plans.
“The Trump administration didn’t just ignore the public—it ignored the law,” said Jeff Kuyper, Executive Director of Los Padres ForestWatch. “Issuing these approvals without the Governor’s Consistency Review, without regard for SB 1137, and without honoring California’s fracking ban is not just procedurally reckless—it is an affront to every Californian who has fought for cleaner air, safer communities, and protected public lands.”
The BLM’s action comes after nearly half a million public comments were submitted opposing Trump’s “drill baby drill” agenda onshore and offshore across California—one of the largest public comment mobilizations in recent memory. Those voices have been summarily dismissed.
Pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement between conservation organizations at the BLM, the agency’s quarterly oil and gas sales were held in abeyance while the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and Records of Decision (RODs) were completed. Now that the RODs have been issued, the leasing process can move forward.
The next step allows oil companies to submit Expressions of Interest, identifying specific federal parcels they wish to lease. The BLM then determines which parcels to include in a future quarterly lease sale. Traditionally, the agency prepares site-specific environmental analyses for those parcels and provides opportunities for public comment and administrative protests before leases are finalized. However, recent changes limit that analysis and opportunities for public input.
The agency’s plans open more than a million acres of California’s public lands and federal mineral estate to oil and gas leasing across Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, Ventura, Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San Benito, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Merced, and San Joaquin counties—threatening communities, wildlife, drinking water, and air quality across some of the most pollution-burdened regions of the state. These are the same communities that already breathe some of the worst air in the nation.
This is the third time in a decade the BLM has attempted to ram through oil and gas expansion in the Bakersfield region, and the second such attempt for the Central Coast. Litigation previously halted both.
“The public made its voice loud and clear. Nobody wants to spoil our parks and neighborhoods with new oil drilling,” said Benjamin Pitterle, Director of Advocacy and Field Operations at Los Padres ForestWatch. “The BLM’s response was to rush through a final decision before the Governor even had any opportunity to weigh in. This is just rubber stamping for the oil industry.”
The BLM’s final decisions—issued under Secretary’s Order 3418, which directs federal agencies to maximize fossil fuel development on public lands—also rely on analyses that are more than a decade old, failing to account for the accelerating climate crisis, updated public health research on proximity to drilling, or California’s own sweeping policy changes to protect communities from fossil fuel harm.
At the same time it finalized these leasing plans, the BLM announced a proposal that would dramatically weaken environmental review and public participation for future federal oil and gas lease sales. The proposal, which is open for public comment through late August, would:
- Allow the BLM to lease parcels even when drilling could cause unnecessary or undue degradation to important fish and wildlife habitat, sacred sites, historic properties, and recreation areas such as trails and campgrounds.
- Reduce opportunities for public participation from a cumulative 90-day review process to a single 10-day protest period.
- Allow the agency to charge the public $1 per page to file administrative protests, even though protests often include hundreds of pages of supporting scientific studies and technical documents.
- Eliminate requirements that operators notify private surface landowners when federally owned mineral rights beneath their property are offered for lease.
- Significantly reduce costs to the oil industry by lowering lease application fees from $3,100 to $155, reducing royalty rates from 16.67% to 12.5%, and slashing bonding requirements for both individuals and statewide leases.
This leasing plan threatens public lands near Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Yosemite National Parks; Carrizo Plain National Monument; the Los Padres, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests; and state and county parks and beaches like Montaña de Oro State Park and Port Hueneme Beach Park— places that millions of Californians depend on for clean water, clean air, outdoor recreation, and refuge.
The Last Chance Alliance is calling on Governor Newsom and state agencies and departments to formally object to these decisions and assert California’s rights under federal and state law.
Members of the Last Chance Alliance and allies said the following:
“We’ll fight this with everything we’ve got,” said Cooper Kass, an attorney for the Center of Biological Diversity. “It’s a reckless decision that shows who’s really calling the shots at the White House. From Ventura to the Bay Area, California’s public lands have always been a refuge for people and wildlife. We’ve got to protect these places and our communities from a government hellbent on lining this toxic industry’s pockets.”
“BLM’s decision to rush this process shows just how much Trump and the fossil fuel industry are walking in lockstep to the detriment of our public lands and environment,” said Food & Water Watch California Director Nicole Ghio. “Californians have made it abundantly clear that we don’t want drilling on our public lands and it’s despicable that the Trump Administration is so eager to disregard anyone who dares stand up to it.”
“California leaders won’t meet the people’s climate goals if they allow the Trump administration to vastly expand oil and gas operations on beloved public lands in already burdened areas,” said Miguel Miguel, Director of Sierra Club California. “Affordability goals won’t fare any better. These corporate giveaways are doing nothing to reduce energy prices. They block access to public lands, harm wildlife, destroy cultural resources and leave pollution in the air and water of communities who later often pick up the tab for the mess.”
“By ramping up the timeline the BLM is deifying procedures that protect our public lands. America’s public lands are owned by We the People. A right protected by Congress. We the People will not see the profits from the oil and gas industry as we continue to be subjected to price volatility at the gas pump. We will see the devastation and destruction to the California environment. Once the drilling starts those areas will be lost to everyone,” said Ramona Cornell du Houx, Elected Officials to Protect America (EOPA) Communications Director. “Elected Officials to Protect America (EOPA) will do everything within our power to stop this apparent land grab for the oil and gas industry.”
Oily scum.
2.2 billion is inexpensive?
Facts and information are something you seem to lack.
An update from NRG
https://www.nrg.com/insights/sustainability/nrg-update-on-ivanpah-ppa-buyout.html
The plant’s massive transmission infrastructure will not be abandoned; the site is slated to be decommissioned and repowered for standard photovoltaic (PV) solar energy
With the power purchase agreements bought out, regulators and industry experts are planning to tear down the complex thermal plant setup and replace the land with more economical, traditional PV panels NRG Update on Ivanpah Solar Power Plant.Grid Value: While the mirrors and boilers failed economically, the facility sits on prime, pre-approved desert land with existing connection rights to major California transmission grids. This makes it incredibly valuable for repowering with modern, efficient utility-scale solar arrays NRG Update on Ivanpah Solar Power Plant.
Some facts you seem to avoid: Decommissioning the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in the Mojave Desert is estimated to cost $100 million. The $2.2 billion federally backed project is closing units early due to its inefficient and obsolete concentrating solar power (CSP) technology.
Why did you leave this out?
Which parts of the NRG update did you not understand? Which parts of “Which part of “The plant’s massive transmission infrastructure will not be abandoned; the site is slated to be decommissioned and repowered for standard photovoltaic (PV) solar energy” – Should we give you an etch-a-sketch and a dolly to help explain very rudimentary concepts to you?
Which part of “the plant will be repurposed” did you not understand? You literally know nothing about any subject matter that you whine about.
What part of failure do you not understand?
“The $2.2 billion Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in California’s Mojave Desert is closing more than a decade ahead of schedule. The concentrated solar power (CSP) plant failed due to high operating costs, reliance on natural gas for daily startups, and an inability to compete with cheaper, highly efficient photovoltaic (PV) solar panels ”
More than a decade before it was supposed to? This is what happens when unproven tech is used at the cost of taxpayers.
Ivanpah cost significantly more to operate and often relied on burning natural gas to support daily startups, which generated thousands of metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. It also drew controversy for incinerating thousands of migrating birds with its concentrated solar beams – INCINERATED THOUSANDS OF MIGRATING BIRDS & generated thousands of metric tons of DO ANNUALLY – this was a complete failure.
Quit snapping at the bait, when it is proven tech then I am all for it. “Solyndra’ cost taxpayers $535 million” fact.
KAPO – yeah, the whole “concern” for wildlife while you support unmitigated on and offshore oil drilling, production and use is the first sign you really don’t give AF about wildlife.
All stages of fossil fuel use (from extraction to final end use by consumers) kills FAR MORE birds AND PEOPLE than wind or solar. This has been proven over and over again.
You can choose to accept facts or keep listening to lies and then spreading them so you sound uninformed. Up to you. But seriously, quit pretending you care about wildlife. The hypocrisy and dishonesty is just gross.
So the Ivanpah Solar Power Plant killing of wildlife is acceptable to you?
Are the known facts about the plant are lies?
I actually devote a great deal of my time saving wildlife, and pets (in the field) – how about you?
You would rather categorize me to fit your agenda / posts. Sad.
Unfortunately for you I do care deeply about wildlife and pets and devote money and time to both.
Mock me all you want, it is something I find extremely important.
KAPO – I never said they were lies. Most of everything else you say is though.
It’s so funny to see you trying here. You talk about “agendas” as you pretend to care about wildlife and the environment while you gleefully cheer for more oil production.
Oil. Kills. Way. More. Than. Renewables. And you don’t give a flying rats butt. Maybe think about that next time you’re “rescuing” wildlife.
And yeah, mocking a hypocrite who lies and insults others while being unable to make an honest argument is something I will continue to do.
Oil and gas extraction unfortunately does kill wildlife, but to add to it for a plant that is a economic failure is absurd. New tech should be able to reduce these numbers.
Sorry GT but I has no respect for you, you are hate bait.
KAPO – Sable is a failure and has already killed MILLIONS of local wildlife organisms yet you continue to beg for them to be here. Why?
And yes, the technology in renewable energy production has drastically reduced wildlife casualties yet you continue to ignore it.
I understand you “has no respect” for GT, but why should anyone respect you? You plagiarize, lie and insult others when they call you out and correct you. You’re no better than GT or I. Stop pretending you’re some noble and honest person.
The Trump regime is corrupt and evil, and is backed and supported by corrupt evil people.
Cancelling wind leases and then FORCING offshore (and now onshore) oil drilling in a state that whole heartedly opposes it is just spite. No intelligent or educated adult could honestly believe that wind farms are less destructive to our planet than oil drilling.
Trump is basing US policy on spite, not what is good for our nation.
The massive $2.2 billion Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the Mojave Desert is shutting down after Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) terminated its power purchase agreements A massive Mojave Desert solar plant shut down after just 11 years. While the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein spent years protecting pristine Mojave land from massive energy developments Feinstein seeks block solar power from desert land – Phys.org, the shutdown of this specific 20-year-old plant was primarily driven by economic inefficiency and high operating costs A massive Mojave Desert solar plant may shut down after just 11 years.
Kaposer – You continue to copy/paste (with no analysis of his own). It is what 5th graders do. Your “argument” (if you call it that) is intellectually dishonest. You miss completely that this plant will likely be repurposed for a different type of SOLAR ENERGY. The cost of the energy from this solar thermal plant was inexpensive when the plant was built, but became more expensive than photovoltaic energy. SO IT IS LITERALLY BEING REPLACED WITH ANOTHER SOLAR PLANT. You are entertaining today.
KACOPYPASTE – you don’t understand what any of the means so just stop. That has nothing to do with what I stated.
The inaction by those who are so vocal about ending “Big Oil” is laughable. DRIVING to Earth Day events or to a protest to hold up a “Stop Big Oil NOW!!!” sign does nothing. EVs rely heavily on petrochemicals and petroleum-based products to move on inch. How ridiculous to think that we can reduce brown outs and overloading the electrical grid by….plugging in MORE EVs. People can move to Arizona or elsewhere to communities where people get around in electric golf carts. How progressive (“Hey Grandma, bet I can get to the bingo hall on my bicycle before you can rev up your pink golf cart!”). MTD buses, many of them, are nearly empty or empty/empty if you ever take the #14 to Montecito or often the #3 State/Cottage/Downtown/Sutter Foothill. If you want to stop “Big Oil”…stop using their products!
What a stupid and quickly demolished “argument.” Not worth the time to do it again.
Stay out of the sun and quit enjoying flowers, BEES. Your own tragically failed “logic” won’t allow it.
Bend knees, emit flatulence.
BeezHivez posts like this one seem alcohol fueled.
> The inaction by those who are so vocal about ending “Big Oil” is laughable.
What “inaction” is that, you insufferable twit?
> DRIVING to Earth Day events
Aside from this being a non sequitur to the claim of “inaction”, I for one have never done that.
> EVs rely heavily on petrochemicals and petroleum-based products to move on inch.
https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/ev-vs-ice-most-comprehensive-study-ever-performed-report-by-american-chemical-society.50203/
“There is a net savings of 16 tonnes over the entire lifecycle for each EV.”
And, yet again: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
Republicans are in favor of BIG GOVERNMENT these days.
Democrats and liberal-leaning voters primarily support a larger federal government to provide more public services, enforce regulations, and address systemic disparities. According to data from the Pew Research Center, nearly three-quarters of Democrats favor a bigger government
Hey Look – Kapono used ChatGPT. He can’t seem to explain why the Republican party has shifted to liking bigger government under Donald the Ped0. But – MAGACRATS are brainwashed by this vile cult. It’s always fun having an argument with a toddler. Here are a number of examples of your own party’s descent into dystopian governance.
-direct equity stakes (ownership interests) acquired by the U.S. federal government during Donald Trump’s 2nd term (INTEL, MP Materials, Lithim Americas, Trilogy Metals, US Steel
-Artificial intelligence for government monitoring of US citizens
-Expanded facial recognition
– Greater integration of federal data
-Industrial policy and tariffs
-Expanded use of executive power
-Support for restricting corporate behavior
-Pressure on the Federal Reserve
-Expansion of national-security authorities
-Continued growth of the national debt
KA PLAGIARIST still doesn’t know how to show his/her work.
Will you support Sable’s request to use eminent domain to seize private property for their pipelines along our coast? It really doesn’t get more “big government” than taking peoples’ land for a forced and unwanted oil pipeline.
It’s easy to tell with certain posts when the poster’s hat size is greater than the IQ.
KAPO – thinks this one photo represents all the land, including our coastal land, that is at stake here. Talk about lukewarm milk…..
Just rebutting the GT false claim about big government. That was a straight out lie – and as usual personal attacks, often a tactic used when someone feels they are losing and wants to discredit the speaker – hat size? child please.
You folks just spin everything to suite your opinion, just like MSM.
Suite your opinion?
You really need an English dictionary, not to mention some critical thinking skills.
KAPO – GT did not lie at all. In fact, the only lying here is you. All those things he listed are things the GOP/MAGA support. You can’t seriously be denying that.
Since all of those things are true AND they indicate a tendency for larger government interaction into our lives, GT is 100% accurate.
You. Are. Wrong.
Here are a few more examples Kaposer that support my argument (borrowed from the Interwebs without direct attribution):
Donald Trump’s turn towards big government represents a fundamental ideological shift, replacing traditional conservative principles of limited government with aggressive executive power, centralized authority, and state interventionism. This shift is characterized by several key actions across domestic and economic policy:
Executive Dominance: Trump has centralized authority and expanded the use of emergency powers, including deploying federal enforcement agents and the military to police domestic cities and usurp local control.
State-Run Capitalism and Trade: Moving away from free-market conservatism, his administration relies on aggressive tariffs, regulatory coercion to force corporate policy changes, and massive state intervention in the manufacturing sector.
Dismantling and Repurposing Agencies: Rather than shrinking the government footprint, Trump has fundamentally reshaped its purpose by removing independent civil servants, replacing them with political loyalists, and shifting federal agencies to pursue his political objectives.
Expanded Social Intervention: His administration has utilized federal power to reshape cultural and educational institutions, most notably by strictly enforcing policies to defund programs related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and expanding federal oversight into public health.While the administration continues to pursue deregulation in certain areas, scholars and policy critics observe that Trump’s approach actively strengthens the administrative state but repurposes it to enforce broad ideological mandates and centralized control rather than reducing the overall scope of federal power.
Blah, blah, blah.
It is proven Democrats want more government / bigger government than the right.
Your argument is baseless, 75% of democrats want bigger government, along with you.
Just admit you made a false statement already.
I unlike you do not need to insult whomever I am debating, but to ignore the actual fact that democrats want bigger government vs the right screams being hypocritical.
You just try to change the subject with other issues.
Call me whatever names you want, you know I am right.
The left has no knowledge to the quiet majority of the right, hence the last election.
KAPO – you’re just making stuff up now and lying even more.
You’re losing so hard. Just stop.
KAP0NO – The argument was that under the Trump administration, the right (who has typically favored smaller government ) has made a shift towards big government. I gave a dozen examples. These examples are easily verifiable (many are current news). You said I “try to change the subject with other issues” – and no, I actually added more examples to back my argument. Yet, you have no argument to the contrary other than “lies” and “democrats want more government”. I am not debating you at all. You are amusing me. You are not capable of debate it appears. I am simply informing you that your party is entirely hypocritical for claiming to back smaller government, but turn their heads when Trump takes actions to the contrary. You can go ask your wife if you need helping read the big words.
The right has only *claimed* to favor smaller government … it has never been true.
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2023/04/28/the-myth-of-limited-government%EF%BF%BC/
https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/columns/the-hypocrisy-of-small-government-republicans/
> Blah, blah, blah.
Failure to refute.
> It is proven Democrats want more government / bigger government than the right.
You haven’t proven anything, and it’s not even relevant. GT’s statement is about Republicans; it’s not a comparison of Republicans to Democrats, so your statement is simply a non sequitur.
GT’s statement is about factual support of a certain sort of big government by the Trump administration — a sort that is hostile to humanity. Democrats and liberals want a different sort of big government, as you said: “more public services, enforce regulations, and address systemic disparities”. Those are GOOD things. GOOD people want those things; being against them is BAD. The sort of big government that GT referred to are BAD things; being for them is BAD and being against them is GOOD.
> Your argument is baseless, 75% of democrats want bigger government, along with you.
Yes, we want GOOD things.
> Just admit you made a false statement already.
He didn’t make a false statement. His statement was “Republicans are in favor of BIG GOVERNMENT these days.” — that statement is true. That Democrats want GOOD forms of big government is not relevant and doesn’t make his statement false.
> I unlike you do not need to insult whomever I am debating
It’s not our fault that factual statements about you and your arguments are insulting to you.
> but to ignore the actual fact that democrats want bigger government vs the right screams being hypocritical.
GT did not make a comparison; only you have done that.
Both liberals and right wingers want big government — liberals want GOOD kinds of big government (along the lines of democratic socialism, as per your Pew quote) and right wingers want BAD kinds of big government (along the lines of fascism).
> You just try to change the subject with other issues.
The subject is “Republicans are in favor of BIG GOVERNMENT these days.” — you changed the subject by talking about Democrats and making comparisons.
> Call me whatever names you want, you know I am right.
No, we know you are wrong … see above.
> The left has no knowledge to the quiet majority of the right, hence the last election.
Incoherent nonsense.
> screams being hypocritical
Your false insulting projection that we are lying and know nothing is typical of the hypocrisy that is the life blood of right wingers. Every accusation is a confession.
[crickets]
You didn’t rebut anything and have no idea what a rebuttal is.
GT wrote “Republicans are in favor of BIG GOVERNMENT these days.”
Any statement about Democrats is a non sequitur, specifically a case of whataboutism.
[crickets]
Who said it’s unwanted?
Do you know anyone who works in the oil field? They are not subject to being working class?
It’s OK to for them to lose there jobs because you object to Sable?
Lose where jobs?
Anyone who works in the oil industry knows their (see how that’s spelled?) jobs are temporary. Layoffs are the rule.
Choosing to work for a negligent company has risks. No one is forcing people to work for Sable. There are plenty other oil companies to work for.
The tired old MAGA “concern” about jobs is a pathetic joke. They only care about owning the libs by forcing oil on us even if it means destroying thousands of renewable energy jobs for their neighbors.
These people are scum.
KAPO – you’re not making much sense. What are you asking?
MOST Californians oppose the forced reopening of a pipeline owned by a negligent company. Not sure why you don’t understand that.
Who works in the oil field is irrelevant to the subject of eminent domain. You might want to research that term.
No one will lose their job at Sable if eminent domain is approved by Trump (which it will because he hates CA). The pipeline will still exist. There are other ways to get land access for this.
Finally, if you care about jobs, why don’t you worry about all the thousands of wind power jobs Trump has cancelled?
California’s oil and gas industries employ roughly 59,200 workers.
KAPO – you completely ignored my question with an irrelevant statement that does nothing to explain your previous post.
You’re not able to do this. Give it a rest, kid.
He’s a walking ChatGPT prompt.
We need to use the jumbo Crayons with this one!
Just more insults, typical.
It’s just a logical reaction to your bad faith behavior.
> Who said it’s unwanted?
GT did. (Glad I could help.)
> It’s OK to for them to lose there jobs because you object to Sable?
Yes, of course.
Now what about all those people who have lost their jobs because Trump and Musk took a hatchet to them? Aren’t government workers “subject to being working class”, to use your tortured English?
Hypocrisy is the life blood of the right wing.
[crickets]
“Doesn’t show his/work” ? Are you still in elementary or high school?
“Sable Offshore Corp. has not officially acquired land in Santa Barbara County”
No, but you sound like you are. Backing your claims with data and providing sources for your copy/paste rants is what adults do when they’re being intellectually honest. You fail every time.
What is your point about Sable not acquiring land? They just asked Trump to use eminent domain to seize land. Do you understand what that means?
Tons of consumer products require petroleum. Wind and solar can’t generate that, of course. NIMBY’s are clueless.
Off topic
BASIC – wait, what? Are you serious? OMG what an astute observation! Dude, did you know that at night you can see stars in the sky if it’s not cloudy? Oh wait till you learn that boats can float in the water….
LOL talk about “clueless”
You really can’t make this stuff up!
But they will never admit it. Sad but true.
KAPO – can you specify what I am “clueless” about?
KAPO and BASIC – you guys (or gals, who knows) keep saying I and other “libs” here are “clueless” or “lying” yet you NEVER can specify what we’re wrong or lying about.
I get it if you have no real argument but insults, but if you do see something I or others are saying that is false, please let us know. I pride myself on stating the truth with as much accuracy as possible and would definitely like to know if I missed something.
No human being has ever denied that numerous consumer products currently require petroleum.
Kaka’s comment reflects a basic inability to reason, similar to the way he takes “Republicans like big government” to mean “Democrats don’t like big government” or “Republicans like big government more than Democrats do” and so he absurdly calls the former a lie and offers refutations of the latter.
If you con twits think petroleum products are so precious and necessary, why do you insist on burning it?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772737822000116
“Sustainable materials alternative to petrochemical plastics pollution: A review analysis”