Constitutional Challenges to Oil Buffer Zone Law
Oil producers and mineral owners have filed two lawsuits challenging California’s law that bans well maintenance and new drilling within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, and other “sensitive receptors.” The suits challenge the constitutionality of SB 1137, arguing, among other issues, that it is an illegal public taking of private property without just compensation.
SB 1137, enacted in 2022, 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. 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. The law took effect in June 2024.
California mineral rights owners filed a lawsuit on April 16, 2025. Four oil companies and an industry group filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on April 23, 2025, according to the Bakersfield Californian. Both suits allege, among other issues, that the law violates due process, equal protection, and is an unlawful taking of property without just compensation.
The Native Oil Producers and Employees of California (NOPEC) filed the more recent lawsuit, stating that the law “threatens the backbone of California's energy industry.” NOPEC challenges claims from the law’s proponents on the health risks of proximity to oil operations, arguing that the studies do not prove causation and the 3,200-foot setback is arbitrary and not scientifically supported. It notes that the law shuts down wells that are already permitted and adhere to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In support of its due process and equal protection allegations, NOPEC notes in its press release that “entities with much higher proven emissions that exist in the setback zones, such as landfills, ports, water treatment facilities, and other industrial sites, are not shut down by this or any other law.”
The NOPEC suit also argues that passage of the bill did not go through the usual legislative process. It states that the law was introduced and passed five days before the end of the 2022 legislative session without “substantive committee hearings, expert testimonies, or scientific data analysis.”