Oil and gas: groundwater monitoring.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 1882 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on AB 1882.
You're tracking AB 1882
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 1882 — Oil and gas: groundwater monitoring.
Last action — In committee: Held under submission.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
Existing law requires the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells and the operation, maintenance, and removal or abandonment of tanks and facilities attendant to oil and gas production. Existing law authorizes the supervisor to require a well operator to implement a monitoring program, designed to detect releases to the soil and water, for aboveground oil production tanks and facilities. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act regulates certain wells as Class II wells. Under existing federal law, the authority to regulate Class II wells in California is delegated to the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. Under existing regulations, a well operator is required to obtain approval from the supervisor or a district deputy for a subsurface injection or disposal project, including Class II wells, or any change in a project, as provided. This bill would require the division to provide an opportunity and the information necessary for the State Water Resources Control Board and the appropriate regional water quality control board to review, comment on, and propose additional requirements for Class II underground injection well projects. The bill would require the state board or the appropriate regional water quality control board to review, comment on, and propose additional requirements it deems necessary for those projects to ensure that the injection of fluids will not affect the quality of water that is, or may reasonably be, used for any beneficial use. The bill would prohibit the division from approving those projects without written concurrence from the state board or the appropriate regional water quality control board and would require the written concurrence to describe the rationale for the concurrence and explanation as to why additional requirements were or were not required for those projects.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
1 added · 1 removed1 line(s) added, 1 removed.
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBillText Information PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
View plain text versions (2)
- Introduced 02/11/16 - Introduced Current pdf February 11, 2016
- AB1882 View text html
Action History
-
In committee: Held under submission.
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (April 4). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Referred to Com. on NAT. RES.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 13.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Williams · Primary
- Mark Stone · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 1 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Williams
Co-sponsors (1)
Not signed on (120)
120 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 120 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 67% | 22% | 0% | 11% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hadley | — | Not Voting |
| Harper | — | Nay |
| McCarty | — | Yea |
| Williams | — | Yea |
| Wood | — | Yea |
| Gomez | — | Yea |
| Cristina Garcia | — | Yea |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Nay |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 1882 do?
- Existing law requires the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells and the operation, maintenance, and removal or abandonment of tanks and facilities attendant to oil and gas production. Existing law authorizes the supervisor to require a well operator to implement a monitoring program, designed to detect releases to the soil and water, for aboveground oil production tanks and facilities. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act regulates certain wells as Class II wells. Under existing federal law, the authority to regulate Class II wells in California is delegated to the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. Under existing regulations, a well operator is required to obtain approval from the supervisor or a district deputy for a subsurface injection or disposal project, including Class II wells, or any change in a project, as provided. This bill would require the division to provide an opportunity and the information necessary for the State Water Resources Control Board and the appropriate regional water quality control board to review, comment on, and propose additional requirements for Class II underground injection well projects. The bill would require the state board or the appropriate regional water quality control board to review, comment on, and propose additional requirements it deems necessary for those projects to ensure that the injection of fluids will not affect the quality of water that is, or may reasonably be, used for any beneficial use. The bill would prohibit the division from approving those projects without written concurrence from the state board or the appropriate regional water quality control board and would require the written concurrence to describe the rationale for the concurrence and explanation as to why additional requirements were or were not required for those projects.
- Who sponsors AB 1882?
- AB 1882 is sponsored by Williams and Mark Stone.
- What is the current status of AB 1882?
- This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track AB 1882?
- Track AB 1882 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 1882
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 1882
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →