NOPEC Challenges One-Way Application of SB 1137’s Health Claims

Native Oil Producers and Employees of California (NOPEC) has launched a strategy to bring SB 1137’s health-risk claims into the environmental review of new housing developments near existing oil and gas operations. In a September 28 comment letter to the City of Long Beach, NOPEC argues that local governments must confront the State’s proximity-based health claims when approving new residential development, just as those claims have been used to restrict oil production.

NOPEC is an industry-backed coalition and advocacy organization formed to protect California oil and gas rights through legal challenges. NOPEC successfully sued the city and county of Los Angeles over their illegal ordinance banning new wells. NOPEC is currently suing the state over the SB 1137 setback law.

The letter addresses the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 3401 Cerritos Project, a proposed 73-unit residential development with all units restricted to lower-income households except the manager’s unit. According to NOPEC’s review of CalGEM records, the nearest active well is approximately 922 feet from the project address, and 59 active wells and 50 idle wells lie within 3,200 feet.

NOPEC expressly supports the development of deed-restricted affordable housing. Its concern is the inconsistency between California’s stated justification for SB 1137 and the environmental analysis used to approve new housing near existing production.

SB 1137 establishes a 3,200-foot Health Protection Zone around sensitive receptors, including residences. The Legislature justified that distance arbitrarily, by asserting health risks associated with proximity to oil and gas extraction. NOPEC’s argument is straightforward: if the State maintains that proximity creates a health concern, local governments should address that same concern when placing new homes near existing wells. The order in which the uses are permitted does not change their physical proximity.

Putting “Reverse Setbacks” on the Table

The letter highlights recommendations from the scientific advisory panel that informed CalGEM’s public health rulemaking. The panel, co-chaired by Seth Shonkoff and Rachel Morello-Frosch, recommended considering “reverse setbacks” for new housing or schools near existing or permitted oil and gas development. NOPEC notes that this recommendation appeared in both the panel’s 2021 response to CalGEM and its 2024 final report.

That recommendation carries substantial implications for land-use planning. California has placed the regulatory burden of its proximity claims on oil producers. NOPEC is now asking cities and developers to explain how those same claims inform decisions to bring new residents into established oilfield communities.

The letter alleges that the Long Beach Draft EIR fails to inventory nearby wells, discuss SB 1137 or its Health Protection Zones, or meaningfully answer an earlier public comment about nearby oil operations. NOPEC requests a well inventory and map, revised environmental-setting and land-use analyses, and a reasoned determination about whether additional site-specific health-risk analysis is warranted.

Importantly, NOPEC does not concede that nearby production creates a significant health risk. The letter expresses confidence in its members’ compliance with California’s stringent regulatory requirements and states that well proximity alone does not establish emissions, exposure, or significant risk. Instead, it challenges the city to reconcile its analysis with the State’s assertions.

A Broader Statewide Strategy

The letter acknowledges the California Supreme Court’s general limitation on using CEQA to evaluate the existing environment’s effects on future residents. NOPEC nevertheless advances arguments for additional disclosure and analysis and asks the city to explain expressly how that precedent applies. These are legal arguments being presented for consideration, rather than an established statewide requirement for a 3,200-foot housing setback.

NOPEC is tracking ongoing EIR proceedings throughout California and plans additional comment letters. The effort broadens the SB 1137 debate to include real estate developers and local governments, pressing a consequential question: how can California invoke proximity-based health claims to restrict oil production while leaving those same claims unaddressed when approving new housing next door?