The Plaintiff: The Sunflower Alliance is an environmental organization based in California that opposes the oil and gas industry and promotes clean energy alternatives. Its activism includes public campaigns, community organizing, and legal challenges against oil and gas projects that it views as harmful to the environment and public health. The Sunflower Alliance's purpose is to eliminate fossil fuels.
Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation et al.
The case Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation et al. concerns CalGEM’s approval of Reabold California LLC’s (Reabold) request to convert a production oil well in the Brentwood Oil Field (a large oil and gas field in Contra Costa County) into a Class II injection well. The well conversion was challenged under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Sunflower Alliance sued, arguing CalGEM violated CEQA when it determined that the conversion was exempt from CEQA review under the "minor alterations" to existing facilities exemption.
Reabold’s request to CalGEM was simple. Reabold sought to repurpose an existing oil well that formerly produced oil and associated production fluids so that it could inject produced water (water extracted during oil production) back into an aquifer that had already been exempted from drinking water protections. Sunflower Alliance raised concerns about environmental risks, arguing that the conversion to injection constituted a significant change in the well’s use, potentially harming water quality. Sunflower asserted that further environmental review under CEQA was required. The trial court agreed with Sunflower Alliance that the CEQA exemption should not apply.
In a published opinion that issued Friday, September 6, 2024, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and ruled in favor of Reabold and CalGEM, finding that the well conversion constituted only a negligible expansion of the well's previous use and thus fell within the CEQA exemption.
More on the Ruling
This ruling reaffirms that the conversion of oil wells into injection wells can proceed without the need for extensive environmental review under CEQA under certain circumstances. This sets a precedent for future well conversion requests, streamlining the regulatory process and reducing operational delays and costs for companies.
Oil companies may not need to undertake the lengthy and costly CEQA review process; instead, citing this case, companies can reasonably assert that their conversion requests are categorically exempt if the minor project modifications involve negligible environmental impact.
The exact wording from this case: “We conclude that any expansion of the well’s use is negligible because, under the facts here, the environmental risks of injecting the water are negligible. The well conversion project falls within the exemption. Because the trial court concluded otherwise, we reverse.”
Limiting Activists/Government Overreach
The ruling also limits potential government overreach by reinforcing CEQA's limitations in cases where environmental impacts are minimal.
The court emphasized the importance of common sense in applying environmental regulations, ensuring that projects with negligible environmental risks are not subjected to unnecessary regulatory burdens.
The decision highlights the court's recognition that government agencies like CalGEM, which have expertise in regulating oil and gas activities, should be trusted to make technical decisions within their regulatory frameworks.
By empowering CalGEM to retain discretion over such projects, the court upheld the principle that not all activities require exhaustive environmental review. This prevents unnecessary delays and legal battles from overzealous activists trying to apply CEQA to undertakings that have a negligible environmental impact.
Next Steps in the Litigation
Sunflower Alliance may petition the California Supreme Court to consider the Court of Appeal’s decision in this matter. Our team will continue to track the matter if such a petition is timely filed.
Link to the case: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A167698.PDF