Facts

Nonprofit environmental groups the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club brought an action against the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) relating to the department's emergency regulations that apply to the state's Underground Injection Control (UIC) program.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The environmental groups contended that DOGGR improperly allowed the oil industry to inject wastewater and other fluids into protected aquifers, resulting in the contamination of California aquifers. Instead of shutting down the alleged illegal activity, DOGGR promulgated a new set of "emergency" regulations that purportedly allowed the illegal injections to continue in most cases until 2017. Plaintiffs sought a judicial declaration that the regulation was invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act, and a writ of mandate ordering DOGGR to comply immediately with its obligation to prohibit injections into protected aquifers. It requested injunctive relief requiring DOGGR to vacate and rescind the aquifer regulations.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendant Department of Conservation contended that plaintiffs failed to show any evidence of irreparable harm, and were not likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. DOGGR's emergency regulations complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, and set a series of prioritized deadlines by which well operators must cease injection activities unless and until U.S. EPA approves an exemption authorizing injection into the receiving aquifer. As the regulations go into effect, DOGGR will continue to exercise its administrative enforcement authority to protect California's groundwater supplies. DOGGR's regulatory scheme presents a more effective and efficient means of halting injections into non-exempt aquifers than the relief requested by plaintiffs.

RESPONDENTS'-IN-INTERVENTION

Result

The court denied plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction. In the court's ruling, Judge Hernandez described the state's emergency regulations as systematic and rational, noting that allowing enforcement of the emergency regulations to proceed "appears likely to minimize collateral harm to the public, including the impact on California's economy of an immediate, across-the-board shut-down of injection wells." The court ruled that "vacating the emergency regulations and forcing DOGGR to proceed in the manner preferred by plaintiffs appears likely to cause greater harm to the environment than allowing the corrective action plan to remain in place." And that lack of knowledge [of groundwater contamination] does not establish a risk of imminent harm," citing to State Water Resources Control Board findings that no evidence had been found linking underground injection to contaminated drinking water.

Other Information

FILING DATE: July 16, 2015.