Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aquifer Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Water Board concurs on Kern River aquifer exemption; staff say criteria met, board votes unanimously
Summary
The board adopted a resolution concurring with a proposal to expand an aquifer exemption for hydrocarbon‑bearing zones in the Kern River oil field after staff said federal and state criteria were satisfied and potential well conduits were mitigated.
The State Water Resources Control Board voted unanimously on June 16 to adopt a resolution concurring with a proposal to expand an underground source‑of‑drinking‑water exemption for hydrocarbon‑bearing zones of the Kern River and Upper Chennac formations in Kern County.
State Water Board staff (Forrest Cann and Eric Merina) told the board the expansion is limited to oil‑producing zones below a laterally continuous sea‑silt cap and that no drinking‑water supply wells are completed within the proposed exempted area after a 30‑year fixed capture‑radius analysis guided boundary revisions. Staff said production logs and present production demonstrate commercially producible hydrocarbons in the proposed area and that injection operations have not measurably degraded groundwater quality over 20–25 years of monitoring.
Containment and conduits: Staff described multiple containment lines—low‑permeability sea silt, an inward hydraulic gradient due to production, lateral faulting and tar seals—and documented plugging of identified potential wellbore conduits. Of 81 wellbore diagrams originally reviewed, water‑board and CalGEM staff flagged 24 potential conduits; after mitigation and boundary adjustments 7 remained and those wells were plugged and abandoned in 2023, staff said.
Staff conclusion and board action: DWQ recommended adoption of the resolution, concluding the federal criteria in 40 C.F.R. §146.4 and California Public Resources Code §3131(a) were satisfied: (1) the aquifer does not now serve as a drinking‑water source; (2) the aquifer is hydrocarbon‑producing and not expected to be a future drinking‑water source; (3) injected fluids will not affect water usable for beneficial uses; and (4) injected fluids are expected to remain within the exempted portions. The board then moved and adopted the resolution by unanimous roll call.
Public engagement and conditions: Staff said two public comment periods were held (Nov–Dec 2025 across agencies, and a water‑board specific period Mar–Apr 2026); initial comments were mainly oppositional but did not change staff conclusions. The staff concurrence letter will include a condition limiting injected water quality to be similar to or better than existing groundwater; staff retained authority to require monitoring or further mitigation if future data suggest fluids are migrating beyond the exempted area.
Outcome and context: The board’s concurrence permits the applicant to proceed with federal submission to EPA (the concurrence is a state step under SB 1304). Staff emphasized that an aquifer exemption does not itself authorize injection; project‑level permitting and monitoring will occur under the Class II underground injection control program and may include additional monitoring conditions. The board adopted the resolution by roll call with each member voting 'Aye.'
