PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 21, 2020
California's Land Preservation and Protection Act
This bill delays hydraulic fracturing of oil or gas resources on certain federal lands in California.
On December 12, 2019, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a record of decision for the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the BLM Bakersfield Field Office. This bill nullifies the EIS until the BLM completes and circulates for public comment a new EIS. The new EIS must consider the environmental effects of all oil or gas development in the planning area.
After the new EIS is published, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must review and publish comments regarding the EIS. If the EPA identifies significant environmental impacts or determines that there is insufficient information to assess the environmental impacts of all oil or gas development in the planning area, then the BLM must consult with the EPA before proceeding with federal oil or gas leasing in the planning area.
People & committees
Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5936 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5936 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5936 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5936 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.