Committee hears heavy public comment on proposed interim control ordinance to stop acid well maintenance; no vote

A City Council committee heard extensive public comment on a proposed interim control ordinance (ICO) that would bar oil-well maintenance using strong acids, but took no vote Monday and moved discussion of agenda items 6 and 7 into closed session for legal consultation.

The committee convened a public-comment period during which community members, faith leaders and environmental advocates urged adoption of an ICO or the readoption of a previously denied ordinance to stop acid-based well maintenance near homes, schools and medical facilities. Industry representatives and some local residents opposed a ban, saying the maintenance is standard, tightly regulated and necessary for production.

Planning department staff told the committee the procedural window to prepare an ICO’s findings is typically about five months; an ICO would be effective for 45 days after approval, with possible extensions that the council must approve. Staff also warned that adopting a permanent ordinance will require additional legal review and findings and that the department faces staffing constraints: the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget would reduce four positions in the office that handles oil-related work. The committee’s next steps were to discuss items 6 and 7 in closed session for attorney-client advice.

Why it matters: Commenters described potential long-term health risks they attributed to acid maintenance operations — including respiratory and reproductive harms — and said notice to neighbors is inadequate. Supporters framed the ICO as an emergency protection for environmental justice communities. Opponents, including industry representatives and residents who said they depend on local oil production, argued that the maintenance is a routine, regulated safety activity and that a local prohibition could conflict with state and federal rules and existing industry–city agreements.

Public testimony and positions - Multiple speakers representing community groups, faith organizations and environmental justice coalitions told the committee that acid maintenance operations have been performed without adequate notice and that nearby residents and schoolchildren face exposure risks. Commenters referenced a city ordinance that was denied in September 2022 and said that, since that denial, maintenance projects had resumed. Several speakers asked the committee to readopt protections or to adopt an ICO while a full ordinance is drafted. - Industry representatives and operators said acid well maintenance is an established industry practice subject to state and federal regulation and local permitting, and urged the committee to work with operators and staff rather than impose an immediate ban. Industry speakers said the operations typically occur in closed systems, take only hours and are necessary for worker and public safety and continued production.

Staff and legal context - Planning staff said an ICO typically requires about five months of staff work to prepare findings and a draft for council consideration, and that the ICO period itself is limited (45 days) with the option for council-approved extensions. Staff noted that drafting a permanent ordinance would involve additional legal review and that prior work on a 2021–22 ordinance would inform any new draft. - Staff also said the department is operating with limited resources and identified four vacancies in the city program that handles oil-related ordinances; restoration of those positions would speed work but the department will proceed with available resources. - Committee members noted the city has received legal inquiries and communications regarding interpretation and litigation risk; the agenda language referenced state open-meeting code provisions relating to litigation consultation.

Immediate procedural outcome The committee did not vote on items 6 or 7. After questions and staff remarks, the chair said the committee would begin item 7 in open session and then move items 6 and 7 into closed session for attorney–client consultation; the meeting moved to closed session.

What’s next Planning staff told the committee they expect to present a draft ordinance and related findings after completing community engagement and the necessary legal review; staff stated a goal of preparing a readoption draft by late summer or early fall, but emphasized the ICO and ordinance timelines depend on resources and legal review. The committee indicated it would consider staff’s work product and legal guidance when it returns from closed session.