Committee pauses interim ban on acid well maintenance after days of public comment and legal concerns
Loading...
Summary
A Los Angeles City committee heard extensive public testimony for and against an interim control ordinance to halt acid well maintenance near neighborhoods, received planning timelines and legal concerns, and continued items 6 and 7 for a later date after closed session.
A Los Angeles City committee on May 6 took public testimony and technical briefings on a proposed interim control ordinance that would halt oil well asset maintenance — commonly described in testimony as “acid maintenance” or “acidization” — but did not adopt the ordinance. After hearing many residents’ accounts and industry objections, the committee recessed to closed session and, upon returning to open session, continued items 6 and 7 to a later date.
Why it matters: The motion seeks to restore local discretionary oversight of well maintenance after a prior oil phase-out ordinance was overturned. Supporters said acid maintenance exposes frontline communities to hazardous chemicals and inadequate notice; industry representatives said maintenance is a longstanding, regulated practice necessary for production and compliance. Planning staff warned making legal findings for an interim control ordinance (ICO) is complex and will require time and resources.
Public comment at the committee hearing was dominated by residents and community groups who urged swift action. Kobe King, chair of the Sierra Club’s Angeles chapter, said the group supports the ICO and “encourage[s] the committee to move forward with this important ordinance and protect our neighborhoods.” Richard Parks of Redeemer Community Partnership told the committee that E&B Natural Resources planned three asset maintenance jobs at the Murphy drill site beginning at 8 a.m., near three schools that together enroll about 1,300 K–12 students, and said neighbors had received little or no notice.
Speakers representing environmental-justice groups including Communities for a Better Environment and Stand LA described acid maintenance as exposing residents to chemicals they called carcinogenic and endocrine-disrupting. Tanya Borja of Scope LA and other community speakers urged readopting a citywide oil phase-out ordinance that was overturned in 2022 and asked for expedited public updates if the city moves forward.
Industry and property-rights speakers urged caution. Matt Rakesham, speaking for EMB Natural Resources, argued an ICO is legally inappropriate under Government Code Section 65858 because well cleanouts, he said, preserve the status quo and are regulated by state agencies such as CalGEM and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Ted Cordova of E&B Natural Resources and Lauren Glaser of Latham & Watkins, speaking for Warren E&P, said maintenance activities are subject to multiple state and regional regulations and warned unilateral local prohibitions could conflict with state or federal law and expose the city to litigation.
City staff outlined the regulatory and timing landscape. Planning staff said preparing an ICO could take roughly five months to prepare ordinance findings, environmental review and a report, but cautioned that ICOs are scrutinized and can take longer; extensions beyond 45 days require council findings under California Government Code provisions. The chief zoning administrator said a zoning administrator’s interpretation (ZAI) defining maintenance could be issued to create a discretionary process while the city works on a new ordinance. The petroleum administrator said some acid-maintenance processes use different chemicals and quantities than household pool treatments, noting hydrofluoric acid is sometimes used in well maintenance and the operations can involve larger volumes and different safety processes than residential pool cleaning.
Committee action and next steps: After public comment and staff presentations the committee recessed to closed session to confer with legal counsel about threats of litigation. On returning to open session the city attorney reported that both items 6 and 7 were continued to a later date to be determined. Planning staff said their goal for a full readoption ordinance — separate from an ICO — is to bring a draft to the City Planning Commission by late summer to early fall, followed by the legislative process, while noting that the department faces staffing constraints that could affect timelines.
The committee did not vote on any ordinance or adopt interim restrictions during the meeting; the matter will return to committee at a later date for further action.
