California Oil and Gas Buffer Law Faces New Legal Challenge

Tensions rise over property rights as mineral rights holders file lawsuit to overturn SB1137

Jan. 28, 2026 at 9:07pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A new lawsuit has been filed challenging California's SB1137 law, which establishes buffer zones prohibiting new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, and healthcare facilities. Supporters say the law is necessary to protect public health, while opponents argue it unconstitutionally takes private property rights. The lawsuit was filed by a family who says the law prevents them from accessing their mineral rights, which they depend on for income. The legal fight comes amid broader concerns over California's fuel supply and energy security.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing tensions between California's aggressive climate and public health policies and the property rights of mineral rights holders. As the state pursues measures to limit fossil fuel production, the costs are being borne by a narrow group of private citizens who argue their constitutional rights are being violated.

The details

SB1137 was passed by the California legislature in 2022 and fully implemented in 2024. The law establishes 'health protection zones' that prohibit new oil and gas wells within roughly 3,200 feet of sensitive sites like homes, schools, and healthcare facilities. Supporters say this is necessary to protect public health from pollution linked to drilling operations. Opponents, including the National Association of Royalty Owners–California, argue the law disproportionately harms private citizens who own subsurface mineral rights, estimated at around 600,000 Californians statewide.

  • SB1137 was passed by the California legislature in 2022.
  • SB1137 was fully implemented in 2024.

The players

SB1137

A California law passed in 2022 that establishes 'health protection zones' prohibiting new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, and healthcare facilities.

National Association of Royalty Owners–California

An organization that advocates for mineral rights holders and argues SB1137 disproportionately harms private citizens who own subsurface mineral rights.

Pacific Legal Foundation

A law firm representing the family that filed the lawsuit challenging SB1137, arguing the law violates their constitutional property rights.

California Farm Workers and Families

An organization that criticizes SB1137, warning of broader economic impacts including job losses and higher fuel costs.

Gavin Newsom

The Governor of California, who has defended SB1137 as a necessary measure to protect public health.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“For many of them, SB 1137 wipes out income they depend on for mortgages, medical needs and sustaining family farms and small businesses.”

— Ed Hazard, President of the National Association of Royalty Owners–California

“California can pursue whatever climate policy it wants, but it can't force a small group of property owners to bear that entire burden.”

— Jeff Jennings, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

“Gas prices go up, jobs disappear, and families lose opportunities that supported generations.”

— Jesse Rojas, Founder, California Farm Workers and Families

“SB 1137 creates a science-based buffer zone so kids can go to school, families can live in their homes, and communities can exist without breathing toxic fumes from oil wells that cause asthma, birth defects, and cancer. California will continue to defend our communities.”

— Spokesperson, Office of Governor Gavin Newsom

What’s next

The lawsuit filed by the family challenging SB1137 is expected to proceed through the courts, potentially setting up a legal battle over the constitutionality of the law's property rights restrictions.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing clash between California's environmental and public health goals and the economic interests of the state's oil and gas industry and mineral rights holders. As the state pursues aggressive climate policies, the legal and political battles over who bears the costs of these policies are likely to continue.