The Kern County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to approve an oil and gas rezoning ordinance that could permit up to 2,700 new oil wells annually, reviving a plan courts had previously struck down for violating environmental laws.
Kern County produces the vast majority of California’s oil and gas, and continues to suffer from some of the worst air quality in the country. According to the American Lung Association, Kern ranks as the most polluted county in the United States for both short- and long-term particle pollution, intensifying concerns about the public health risks of continued fossil fuel development.
Backed by the Second Supplemental Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (SSREIR), the revised ordinance aims to correct the legal flaws that led to its rejection. Lorelei Oviatt, Director of the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department, said the changes address three key issues: the use of agricultural easements, the proximity of drilling to sensitive sites such as homes and schools, and the health risks posed by clustering multiple wells near each other.
To comply with these requirements, the ordinance includes several major revisions. It now requires applicants to provide permanent agricultural easements to preserve farmland, maintain a 3,200-foot buffer from sensitive receptors under state law (Senate Bill 1137), and pay a $9,732 fee per well to support a water relief fund for disadvantaged communities affected by oil operations.
Before the vote, more than 90 public interest organizations sent a letter urging county officials to stop expanding oil and gas development and instead prioritize public health, environmental accountability, and long-term economic sustainability. The coalition criticized Kern’s leadership for advancing policies that, in their view, shield the oil industry from meaningful environmental review and delay the transition to a more sustainable future.
During Tuesday’s meeting, several residents and concerned citizens voiced opposition to the ordinance before the Board of Supervisors.
One resident, Ellis Clemm, said he has lived in Kern County since 1969 and recalled driving south over the Grapevine through layers of thick smog.
“I’m here to remind you that we are living in the worst air quality in the nation, and by living here your whole life, you shorten your life by eight years,” said Clemm.
Cesar Aguirre, an organizer with the Central California Environmental Justice Network, emphasized that scientific studies have confirmed the harmful health effects of oil and gas extraction, including increased rates of respiratory illness and mortality and exacerbations of existing respiratory illness.
“When it comes to compliance, the folks that mentioned that they want to be responsible in the way that they produce actively oppose energy infrastructure that is not directly tied to oil or gas; they also oppose regulations that protect communities,” Aguirre commented.
“Our Kern communities are already overburdened with the harms from oil and gas and do not need the environmental harms expeditiously exacerbated by this ordinance, with a thorough and site-specific environmental review process,” said Kayla Karimi, a Staff Attorney with the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment. “The county should take community input seriously and ground its decisions in thorough environmental analysis, and pursue a path that supports a healthier, more sustainable future for all Kern County residents.”
Proponents of the ordinance also spoke during the meeting, arguing that it would benefit the local economy and job market.
Chevron, one of Kern County’s largest oil producers, warned that without the ordinance, the region’s energy operations could face further decline. The company reports employing more than 600 local workers and contributing over $40 million in property taxes each year.
After years of legal battles and nearly $68 million in litigation costs, the ordinance still faces a final court review. Opponents have 30 days to file a legal challenge.
