\n<\/p>\n
Gov. Gavin Newsom is expected to sign a bill that will provide direct cash aid to 1,000 affected Inglewood households.<\/span>Adam Mahoney\/Capital B<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n This story was originally published by\u00a0<\/em>Capital B<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0is reproduced here as part of the\u00a0<\/em>Climate Desk<\/a>\u00a0collaboration.<\/em><\/p>\n As a child<\/span> in the 1950s and \u201960s, Regina Martin became so used to the oil pumpjacks near her home that she assumed every child lived beside them. Everyone was made \u201csick to [their] tummy\u201d by the sulfurous, rotten-egg smell that never seemed to leave, she thought.<\/p>\n Only until she was grown did she begin to see a possible connection between growing up on top of the nation\u2019s largest urban oil drilling field and her own sickness and the asthma that affected her sister.\u00a0<\/p>\n For over a century in Los Angeles and across the nation, Black people have been\u00a0disproportionately likely<\/a>\u00a0to live near oil wells, the machinery that draws oil from deep underground. The pollution from these drilling sites are connected to birth complications, child development issues, respiratory illnesses, and cancer.\u00a0<\/p>\n Now, a new California state law moves to turn that lived experience into a broader public-policy question: What does a state owe communities exposed to pollution for generations? And what happens when you can\u2019t offer support to every family that has struggled through the harm?<\/p>\n \u201cThe company has essentially just been extracting from the community with no investments in the community.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n California lawmakers have passed AB 1661, which would steer $5 million collected from penalized oil wells in Inglewood into direct cash aid for 1,000 nearby households with qualifying respiratory or reproductive health impacts. Some of LA\u2019s Blackest suburbs and city neighborhoods, including Inglewood, Ladera Heights, and Baldwin Hills, surround the oil field.\u00a0<\/p>\n The legislation, introduced by Assemblymember Isaac G. Bryan, is expected to be signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom by October. It sets aside enough money for payments of up to $5,000 for 1,000 impacted households under its initial structure. The money would come from the state\u2019s community repair and reinvestment fund for people living nearest the oil field.<\/p>\n For Black communities living nearest to refineries, highways, landfills, and oil wells, this fund may signal something larger than one oil field or payment. It asks whether money can begin to repair harms accumulated across generations: lives cut short by illness, household wealth drained by medical bills and depressed property values, and the anxiety of raising children amid pollution.\u00a0<\/p>\n Bryan and other supporters are calling it\u00a0environmental reparations<\/a>\u00a0and say it is a model that\u00a0could be replicated<\/a>\u00a0to make industrial companies help repair the damage borne by people living closest to polluting sites.\u00a0<\/p>\n To Tianna Shaw-Wakeman, the environmental justice program director with\u00a0Black Women for Wellness<\/a>\u00a0in LA, the law could provide a national organizing model. \u201cMy hope has always come at the community level, at the grassroots level,\u201d she said. \u201cI see how grassroots organizing has created long-term change in our local communities, and I see that that can be and is being replicated all over the country.\u201d<\/p>\n For Bryan, who represents the communities surrounding the Inglewood Oil Field, the cash-assistance program is part of\u00a0a longer fight over the field\u2019s legacy<\/a>. Bryan, the first Black legislator to chair the California Assembly\u2019s Natural Resources Committee, said his constituents have faced lower life expectancies and higher rates of asthma and heart conditions for decades.<\/p>\n \u201cThe company has essentially just been extracting from the community with no investments in the community, no care in the community and what feels like no regard at times for the broader community,\u201d Bryan told Capital B<\/em>. \u201cThe community [is] due this repair, and it\u2019s been long overdue.\u201d<\/p>\n The measure builds on Bryan\u2019s earlier legislation, AB 2716, which Newsom signed in 2024. That law requires the Inglewood Oil Field to close by 2030 and establish a penalty structure for low-producing wells. Low-producing wells can leak methane and other harmful gases into the air and water. To push operators to curb that pollution and clean up their sites, regulators imposed a penalty on companies that keep such wells operating. Bryan said operators are charged $10,000 per well each month, with the revenue directed into a community repair fund restricted to investments within 2.5 miles of the field.<\/p>\n The fund could eventually support affordable housing, urban greening, park infrastructure, and other community priorities, Bryan said. He described the cash program as a pilot that could help determine whether direct payments are the form of repair residents most want. \u201cWe know people are struggling,\u201d he said. \u201cWe know one of the biggest tools against an increasingly unaffordable society is to just put more money in people\u2019s pockets.\u201d<\/p>\n As communities nationwide press for stronger environmental protections, California\u2019s experiment could test whether government and industry are willing to move beyond preventing future harm and toward compensating people who have already lived with its costs.<\/p>\n \u201cCommunity members who have been deeply impacted, whose health have been deeply impacted, have never gotten restitution for that in any sort of way. We deserve more than we have been getting,\u201d Shaw-Wakeman said. \u201cAnd as we transition our city, as we transition our county, part of that story has to be addressing past harms.\u201d<\/p>\n At the same time, California has passed a law that would shield reparation payments from taxation. \u201cCalifornia is actively preparing for the implementation of reparations programs,\u201d\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0state Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, who introduced the legislation. \u201cWe must ensure that recipients receive the full benefit of these efforts.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe can\u2019t replace toxic oil extraction with gentrification\u2026There is still a lot more to address beyond those 1,000 households.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Three dozen community groups came together in support of the environmental reparations legislation. There were no groups in public opposition.\u00a0<\/p>\n The legislation would not close the oil field or resolve the long-running fight over drilling in Los Angeles County.\u00a0<\/p>\n Under the proposal, eligible households within 2.5 miles of the field could seek aid if a resident has experienced respiratory or reproductive health impacts. But the program\u2019s practical reach will depend on how Los Angeles County designs the application process, what documentation it requires, and how it handles demand if more than 1,000 households apply. There are tens of thousands more households in proximity to the oil field.<\/p>\n Bryan said Los Angeles County was still working through how the assistance would be delivered. It could come as a lump-sum payment, monthly payments, or another structure, he said, and county officials were evaluating which approach would best serve families.<\/p>\n Shaw-Wakeman said Black Women for Wellness and its allies pushed for a process that does not force residents to clear burdensome or invasive hurdles to prove harm. The organization has urged officials to consider\u00a0self-attestation<\/a>\u00a0rather than requiring applicants to produce medical records that may be difficult or costly to obtain.<\/p>\n That question of access may determine whether the fund actually proves relief or is another government program that excludes the people it was intended to help. Many families, particularly low-income ones, may be living with these illnesses without formal diagnoses.\u00a0<\/p>\n The program also lands amid a larger debate over what should happen to urban oil sites once production ends. Environmental justice advocates have argued that closing wells is only the first step. They want operators held responsible for plugging wells, cleaning contaminated land, and ensuring that redevelopment does not displace the same neighbors who lived with the pollution.\u00a0<\/p>\n As oil wells have closed in Los Angeles in recent years, rental prices and home values have risen, threatening to displace longtime Black residents.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe can\u2019t replace toxic oil extraction with gentrification,\u201d Shaw-Wakeman said. \u201cThere is still a lot more to address beyond those 1,000 households. We\u2019re trying to address the ways in which community members are still being harmed every day.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n
\n