Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintifftrial
plaintiffappealtrialregulation

Related Cases

Khan v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Garcia v. Pasquareto
View Case »
Harrison v. Republic of Sudan
View Case »
Kellman v. District Director
View Case »
Yi v. Reno
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

U.S. v. Frio County Partners, Inc. d/b/a Jack’s Produce Co.

Facts

The case arose from a challenge to Measure Z, a local initiative passed by Monterey County voters that aimed to ban land uses supporting new oil and gas wells and wastewater injection in unincorporated areas. The measure was contested by oil companies and mineral rights holders, who argued that it was preempted by state law and constituted a taking of property. The trial court found that the measure conflicted with state law, particularly Public Resources Code section 3106, which grants the state authority over oil drilling operations.

Measure Z was a citizens' initiative on the November 2016 Monterey County ballot entitled: �rotect Our Water: Ban Fracking and Limit Risky Oil Operations Initiative.�It proposed to amend Monterey County's general plan [*160] to add three new land use policies. LU-1.21, which is not at issue in this appeal, would prohibit �and Uses `in support of well stimulation treatments�throughout Monterey County's unincorporated areas.

Issue

Whether the local initiative measure's ban on land uses in support of new oil and gas wells and wastewater injection was preempted by state law.

Whether the local initiative measure's ban on land uses in support of new oil and gas wells and wastewater injection was preempted by state law.

Rule

Local legislation is preempted by state law if it duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, as established under article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution.

CA(2) (2) �nder article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution , a] county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations [***9] not in conflict with general laws .`[` f otherwise valid local legislation conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void.`[Citations.]

Analysis

The court applied the rule of preemption by examining the conflict between Measure Z and Public Resources Code section 3106, which explicitly grants the state authority to permit oil and gas drilling operations. The court found that Measure Z's provisions directly conflicted with the state's authority to regulate oil drilling methods, thus rendering the local measure invalid under state law.

The trial court found that Measure Z is preempted by state law because, among other things, Measure Z conflicts with section 3106 , which not only permits and encourages the drilling of new wells and the use of wastewater injection but explicitly vests in the state the authority to permit this conduct.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the local initiative measure was preempted by state law and could not be enforced.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Who won?

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. and other plaintiffs prevailed because the court upheld the trial court's finding that the local measure was preempted by state law, specifically Public Resources Code section 3106.

The trial court found that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge LU-1.21 because no plaintiff was using or proposing to use any well stimulation treatments in Monterey County.

You must be