Legislature

SACRAMENTO — A far-reaching proposal to outlaw hydraulic fracturing and ban oil and gas wells from operating near homes, schools and healthcare facilities failed in the California Legislature on Tuesday, a major setback for progressive leaders who hail the state as the nation’s bellwether on environmental protection.

Gov. Gavin Newsom in September called on state lawmakers to ban fracking and voiced his support for safety buffer zones around wells, saying they posed a significant health threat to vulnerable Californians, primarily in predominantly Black and Latino communities near well fields and refineries.

The legislation that failed Tuesday was much more ambitious than what Newsom proposed, however, and faced fierce opposition from California’s oil industry, which holds tremendous political sway among Central Valley legislators, along with trade unions, a powerful force within the Democratic Party.

The bill would have banned fracking and a series of other well injection methods used to extract oil — all opposed by environmental activists. It would also have prohibited wells from operating within 2,500 feet of homes, schools, healthcare facilities and other populated areas. Newsom’s proposals were limited to a ban only on fracking and the consideration of a buffer zone.

“Obviously I’m very disappointed,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), one of the legislators who introduced the legislation. “California really has not done what it needs to do in terms of addressing the oil problem. We have communities that are suffering right now, and the Legislature has repeatedly failed to act.”

Wiener’s bill failed to receive the five votes necessary to pass the Senate’s Natural Resources and Water Committee, the proposal’s first stop in the legislative process. State Sen. Susan Eggman (D-Stockton) was the only Democrat to vote against the legislation, but it failed largely because two other Democrats, state Sens. Bob Hertzberg of Van Nuys and Ben Hueso of San Diego, did not cast votes.

After the vote, Hertzberg said he supported California’s efforts to wean itself from fossil fuels but argued the bill did “nothing to foster that transition by reducing demand for oil in our state or in the global marketplace.”

Rudy Gonzalez of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council made a similar argument when testifying by video during the committee hearing, saying the legislation would lead to the loss of thousands of well-paying union jobs at California’s refineries and in other petroleum-related industries.

“It doesn’t do for workers or for the environment what it claims,” Gonzalez said. “Our domestic supply factors in 32 million cars and trucks that are on our roads today. Ending extraction in California won’t end the supply or the demand for that. In fact, they’ll shift production outside of California or supply avenues to other nations.”

Oil industry officials have argued that a mandate for 2,500-foot buffer zones around wells would effectively shut down the vast majority of oil production in California. California was the seventh-largest oil-producing state in 2020, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

At the beginning of Tuesday’s hearing, Wiener acknowledged that the bill would have a major impact on oil production in California and faced major obstacles in the Capitol. But he said he was open to amending the bill and having a conversation with opponents of the legislation.

Before the hearing, Wiener amended the bill to extend the period of time allowed to phase out fracking and other forms of ejection wells. But that did little to temper opposition. On Tuesday, four senators on the committee, all Democrats, voted in favor of the bill while three senators opposed it — the proposal needed five votes to pass the nine-member committee.

Wiener said he is weighing whether to ask the committee to reconsider the legislation. He vowed to continue pushing the bill, in total or in part, during the current session and said his top priority is establishing health and safety buffer zones around oil and gas wells.

“If there is a path to narrowing the bill and getting the votes, we are very open to doing that,” he said. “We’ll have to see what’s possible.”

Even if the bill cannot be revived, buffer zones may still be mandated by administrative action. At the direction of an executive order by Newsom, officials with the state Department of Conservation have been holding public hearings in person and online throughout the year on proposed public health and safety protections for communities near oil and gas operations, including imposing possible buffer zones around wells. Those proposed regulations are expected to be made public this spring.

From the outset, the fracking ban and mandatory buffer zones created a fissure within the Legislature’s Democratic majority, with liberal legislators from coastal areas and major cities seeing the proposals as essential to combat climate change and protect vulnerable families, and business-friendly lawmakers and those from inland areas worried about the potential loss of tens of thousands of jobs and the effect on local economies in California’s oil-rich San Joaquin Valley.

A proposed fracking moratorium stalled in the Legislature in 2014, and just last year a bill calling for less stringent buffer zone requirements around oil and gas wells failed in the same Senate committee as this year’s bill.

Eggman voted in favor of the setbacks proposed in last year’s bill but against this legislation, saying it would “shut down oil production in California.” Most of her Central Valley constituents cannot afford expensive electric cars, she said.

“I’m just thinking about the rest of California and in my district: the people who commute, the people who have to drive trucks, the people who drive tractors. None of those are electric,” she said.

When the Mississippi Legislature reconvenes in the Capitol’s marbled halls this month, one voice will scarcely be heard: constituents’.

Citizens and advocates are occasionally invited by lawmakers to speak at the Capitol. But unlike some other statehouses in the U.S., there are no formal opportunities for constituents in Mississippi to provide public comment or testimony in committee hearings, remotely or in writing.

“Constituents should have a voice when it comes to policy making,” said Sarah Moreland-Russell, an associate professor in the School of Public Health at Washington University in St. Louis who has studied testimony’s impact on the lawmaking process.

Moreland-Russell said she was “very surprised” to learn that there are no opportunities for Mississippi’s citizens to regularly provide testimony at the statehouse.

“If you’re not hearing from the people that are actually being affected by a policy, then how do you know it’s truly going to be effective?” she asked.

In Louisiana, House and Senate rules mandate proponents and opponents of bills have the opportunity to speak on a piece of legislation. In Alaska, a network of 22 offices across the state provides opportunities to participate in legislative meetings and submit written public comment, as well as provide legislative information to constituents in remote parts of the state. Every bill in Colorado receives a hearing with public comment. And in Arizona, an online system allows residents to register opinions and request to testify on bills from their homes.

Moreland-Russell’s research showed that most legislators, regardless of political party, find testimony from constituents and experts influential. Testimony increased lawmakers’ awareness of issues, encouraged them to conduct additional research and sometimes even changed their votes.

“Stories can be extremely influential,” Moreland-Russell said. She said legislators found personal anecdotes paired with supporting data most impactful.

In Mississippi, bills frequently fly through the committee process, often with little discussion by lawmakers and no input from the public. The Senate’s typo-riddled bill to phase out the income tax — one of the most notable bills to come out of the 2025 legislative session — quickly passed through committee with little debate.

Senate Public Health Committee Chairman Hob Bryan, a Democrat who has served in the Legislature since 1984, said committee hearings used to involve frequent debate, amendments and discussion among subcommittees.

“Everything now is just perfunctory,” he said.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many state legislatures implemented new ways for the public to participate remotely, including options to present remote testimony or gather constituent feedback online.

But Mississippians who do not live in Jackson or cannot attend the Legislature still do not have the opportunity to watch many of the state’s committee proceedings. The Mississippi House of Representatives does not livestream or record its committee meetings, though it does livestream proceedings in the House chamber.

Meanwhile, the Mississippi Senate livestreams most of its committee meetings and all of its full chamber proceedings. This is a marker of Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann’s commitment to transparency, spokesperson Hannah Milliet said in an email.

Republican House Speaker Jason White told Mississippi Today in 2024 that he has no objection to livestreaming committee hearings and said the Rules Committee would look into the policy.

But Republican House Rules Chairman Fred Shanks said in November there has not been any talk of livestreaming the meetings. White did not respond to a request for comment.

Simple changes, such as requiring committees to provide notice of hearings and publish agendas ahead of time, would give constituents more opportunities to participate in the legislative process, said Safia Malin, interim policy director for Jackson-based civic engagement nonprofit One Voice.

The Senate has a page on the Legislature’s website to publish agendas, though they are not always shared. The House does not post agendas online. And committee hearings in both chambers occasionally occur at the last minute.

Democratic Rep. Jeramey Anderson has proposed a rule to require House committees to post agendas 24 hours before meeting for the past seven years. None has ever made it out of committee.

“Mississippians deserve to know what bills are being taken up before they walk into a committee room — not five minutes before, and not after the decisions are already made,” Anderson said in a written statement to Mississippi Today.

“The refusal to provide even basic notice isn’t an accident,” he said. “It’s a deliberate choice that keeps the public from testifying, keeps advocates from participating, and keeps voters from holding their elected officials accountable.”

The state Legislature is allowed to meet behind closed doors. The Mississippi Ethics Commission has repeatedly ruled that the Legislature is not covered by the state’s open meetings law. Hinds County Chancellor Dewayne Thomas affirmed the ruling in February.

The House Republican Caucus — which holds a strong majority — frequently meets behind closed doors before committee meetings, effectively shielding discussion on legislation from the public.

Shanks said he has never had a constituent ask him about speaking at the Capitol. He said he makes his phone number available for constituents to call him at any time.

“As far as somebody making a public comment at a committee meeting, a lot of our committee meetings are pretty quick, and some of them are last-minute,” Shanks said.

“It would be pretty hard to do.”

Dilworth writes for Mississippi Today. This story was originally published by Mississippi Today and distributed through a partnership with the Associated Press.