Hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) is a method used to extract natural gas or oil from underground. A drill is used to inject a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into shale, causing it to crack and release gas and oil. Environmentalists have raised concerns that the chemicals involved in fracking contaminate drinking water and that fracking sites contribute to air pollution.
On January 13, 2026, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) published a Notice of Availability which sought public comment on its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“the Statement”) for the Central Coast Field Office.[1] The federal government plans to open thousands of acres of public land for fracking in Central California.[2] The proposal affects part or all of the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San Benito, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Fresno, Merced, and San Joaquin, which may affect state and national parks, forests, and areas of wildlife.[3] The BLM published the Statement in response to a 2022 settlement agreement from the Center for Biological Diversity v. BLM.[4] In that lawsuit, environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, the state of California, and local governments alleged that the environmental impact review in a proposal that opened land for drilling did not adequately evaluate the impact of fracking on the environment.[5] The Trump administration proposed the plan in 2019 to increase the country’s energy independence which “attempted to lift environmental regulations on federal lands.”[6] The 2022 settlement prevented the leasing of public lands for fracking until the BLM published new environmental analyses evaluating the impacts of oil and gas drilling.[7] The current Statement concludes that the effect of fracking on emissions, water resources, and newly listed wildlife species are minimal.[8] However, the Statement does not propose any new alternatives to the 2019 plan.[9]
In requesting public comment on the Statement, the BLM points to President Trump’s Executive Order “Unleashing American Energy,” which emphasizes exploring federal land for developing energy resources, including oil and natural gas.[10] The Executive Order cites concerns about energy affordability, job creation, and national security as reasons to prioritize the United States’ energy policy.[11]
Despite these considerations, critics of the plan point to new California policies that have been enacted since the 2022 settlement.[12] In 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom began the process of limiting fracking activity by ordering the California Geologic Energy Management Division to issue regulations that stop the issuance of fracking permits by 2024, which went into effect in October 2024.[13] California is also moving toward phasing out oil extraction altogether by 2045 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.[14] Therefore, efforts to begin leasing land for fracking would conflict with state energy, environmental, and health policy. While the BLM oversees the process of leasing public land for the development of oil and gas resources, it must comply with the environmental review process.[15] Given that both state and federal policy decisions consider the effects of fracking on the environment and health, the Statement warrants closer scrutiny to understand how the state and federal government arrived at different conclusions.
However, there are advocates in California that would likely agree with the policy considerations behind President Trump’s Executive Order. In 2021, Governor Newsom chose to issue the order directing the state agency to prohibit new fracking permits because the Legislature did not pass a bill that would have banned fracking by 2035.[16] The proposed bill would have also required oil wells to be 2,500 feet from hospitals and homes.[17] The failure to pass the bill illustrates disagreement on energy policy even within the state of California.
Fortunately, California passed another law to address the second issue. SB-1137 Oil and gas: operations: location restrictions: notice of intention: health protection zone: sensitive receptors (“SB 1137”) prohibits oil drilling from occurring within 3,200 feet of homes and schools.[18] SB 1137, enacted on September 16, 2022, also conflicts with the new BLM plan.[19] The bill was enacted in response to the impact of climate change and the significant health risks from “proximity to oil and gas extraction sites.”[20] However, shortly after the BLM published the Statement, the Department of Justice filed a complaint against SB 1137, alleging that the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Land and Policy Management Act preempts the California law.[21] While this complaint represents the earliest stages of a dispute in energy and environmental policy, it indicates conflicting views on the balance between finding new sources of energy and keeping individuals safe from the potential hazards of fracking.
With the background of these new fracking policies, one potential solution to the new BLM fracking plan is to find a compromise between state and federal policy. History has shown from the failed fracking ban in 2021 that there are supporters of fracking in California.[22] Simultaneously, the passage of SB 1137 also shows that the California Legislature was willing to pass some protections for California communities. While supporters of Governor Newsom’s 2021 order would prefer no further federal or state fracking occur, Governor Newsom’s order is only a state executive order that provides directions to a state agency. While it conflicts with the policy decisions of the BLM, it does not conflict with the law. By contrast, SB 1137 is a bill that the California Legislature passed and may conflict with federal law. The conflict is the reason why the Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit that challenges the state law.[23] Therefore, to remedy this, the BLM should adopt a compromise like SB 1137 by amending its proposal to restrict the use of fracking within a certain distance from inhabited communities.
Notably, if the recent lawsuit over SB 1137 succeeds and BLM moves forward with leasing land, the only option available may be that the State of California and other environmental organizations sue the BLM again for failure to properly consider the environmental and health hazards associated with fracking. This filing will restart a similar process to the response to the 2019 leasing plan.
Ultimately, the prioritization of energy independence is meaningless without ensuring that the people living in states producing energy are healthy enough to make use of that energy. The comment period will end on March 6, 2026, which is 45 days after the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register,[24] with a final decision expected in July 2026.[25] Until that date, Californians and others concerned about the environmental and public health impacts should voice their concern to BLM and oppose further attempts to control California’s land use.
[1] Notice of Availability of the Draft Central Coast Field Office Oil and Gas, Leasing and Development Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, California, 91 Fed. Reg. 1329 (proposed Jan. 13, 2026) [hereinafter Notice of Availability].
[2] Central Coast Field Office Oil and Gas Leasing and Development Supplemental EIS, Bureau of Land Mgmt. [hereinafter Central Coast Field Office], https://eplanning.blm.gov/Documents/?id=FB0AABE9-A7F2-F011-8406-001DD802FDEA&spid=15f36492-a8f2-f011-8406-001dd8008d46 (last visited Feb. 24, 2026); Victoria Bogdan Tejeda, Trump Proposes Opening Over 1 Million Acres of California Public Lands to Drilling, Fracking,Ctr. for Biological Diversity (Jan. 12, 2026), https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-proposes-opening-over-1-million-acres-of-california-public-lands-to-drilling-fracking-2026-01-12.
[3] Tejeda, supra note 2; Notice of Availability, supra note 1.
[4] Central Coast Field Office, supra note 2.
[5] Blanca Begert, Will Trump’s Push to Drill on California Public Lands be More Successful This Time Around?,Inside Climate News: Fossil Fuels (Jan. 16, 2026), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16012026/trump-california-public-lands-oil-extraction.
[6] Gabrielle Canon, Trump plans to allow fracking near California’s national parks, The Guardian: Env’t (Apr. 26, 2019, at 15:07 ET), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/26/trump-plans-to-allow-fracking-near-californias-national-parks.
[7] Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom Announce Federal Moratorium on New Oil and Gas Drilling in Central California, Cal. Dep’t of Just.: Off. of Att’y Gen. (Aug. 1, 2022), https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-and-governor-newsom-announce-federal-moratorium-new-oil.
[8] Central Coast Field Office, supra note 2.
[9] Id.
[10] BLM seeks input on proposed oil and gas management updates in central coast region, Bureau of Land Mgmt. (Jan. 12, 2026), https://www.blm.gov/announcement/blm-seeks-input-proposed-oil-and-gas-management-updates-central-coast-region-0.
[11] Exec. Order No. 14154, 90 Fed. Reg. 8353, 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025).
[12] Begert, supra note 5.
[13] Rachel Becker & Laurel Rosenhall, Newsom orders ban on new oil fracking by 2024, CalMatters: Env’t (Apr. 23, 2021), https://calmatters.org/environment/2021/04/newsom-ban-new-oil-fracking; Hollin Kretzmann, California Fracking Ban Takes Effect Statewide Today, Ctr. for Biological Diversity (Oct. 1, 2024), https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/california-fracking-ban-takes-effect-statewide-today-2024-10-01.
[14] Emma Bowman, California Governor Moves to Ban Fracking By 2024, NPR: Env’t (Apr. 23, 2021, at 7:59 ET), https://www.npr.org/2021/04/23/990368418/california-governor-moves-to-ban-fracking-by-2024.
[15] Leasing Process, Bureau of Land Mgmt.: Leasing, https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/leasing (last visited Feb. 5, 2026).
[16] Becker & Rosenhall, supra note 13; Adam Beam, Fracking ban fails to advance in California Legislature,Associated Press (Apr. 13, 2021, at 8:42 ET), https://apnews.com/article/legislature-san-francisco-scott-wiener-legislation-oil-and-gas-industry-963839657250764c4296dfd461dbe22a.
[17] Beam, supra note 16.
[18] S.B. No. 1137, 2021-2022 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2022).
[19] See id.; see also Amanda Pampuro, Feds plan to lease 1 million acres in California to oil, gas developers, Courthouse News Serv. (Jan. 12, 2026), https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-plan-to-lease-1-million-acres-in-california-to-oil-gas-developers.
[20] S.B. No. 1137, 2021-2022 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2022).
[21] Justice Department Files Complaint Against California Over Unconstitutional State Regulation of Federal Lands,U.S. Dep’t. of Just.: Off. of Pub. Affs. (Jan. 14, 2026) [hereinafter Justice Department Files Complaint], https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-complaint-against-california-over-unconstitutional-state-regulation.
[22] Beam, supra note 16.
[23] Justice Department Files Complaint, supra note 21.
[24] Notice of Availability, supra note 1; Environmental Impact Statements, 91 FR 2131 (Jan. 16, 2026).
[25] Begert, supra note 5.