G2. Local Greens

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

This article is a brief overview.
See all of the articles from the Water Quality campaign.

Historically, the Gualala River was home to abundant coho salmon and steelhead trout populations that numbered in the tens of thousands. Today, the endangered coho salmon are all but gone and threatened steelhead are struggling to survive in the home river they evolved and adapted to over millennia. The dwindling salmonid population is a critical indicator of the declining health of the Gualala River, and its 300 square mile watershed, and continues to be at the core of Friends of Gualala River’s work.

FoGR is working with state agencies to reduce water quality impairments from both sediment pollution and pollution from stormwater run-off containing toxic tire grit (6PPD).

Adult coho salmon; photo by NOAA Fisheries Sediment (TMDL)

In 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) listed the Gualala River as impaired under the Clean Water Act due to excessive sediment and high temperatures – both conditions that hamper fish spawning and create unhealthy conditions for fish throughout their lifespan. The chief sources of sediment are roads, landslides, and legacy timber harvesting practices.

California agencies failed to develop plans to reduce sediment and temperature for 20 years. In 2021, FoGR petitioned the State Water Resources Control Board and North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board to incorporate the EPA’s Gualala River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for sediment into the North Coast Basin Plan and to develop and implement an action plan specifying how sediment pollution will be reduced throughout the watershed. That petition was successful. FoGR achieved a major accomplishment that will help improve water quality and reduce sediment pollution in the Gualala River and its tributaries – a pivotal step in assisting salmonid recovery efforts.

Now that FoGR has successfully negotiated an agreement, work can begin in earnest to restore the impaired Gualala River and its tributaries. The Regional Water Board adopted the Action Plan for the Gualala River Sediment TMDL in February, 2026, and is developing a Gualala Roads Assessment Order, a watershed-specific order that will address sediment pollution by requiring the inventory, assessment, and prioritization of sediment-generating roads.

Sediment from the remains of a timber company’s summer crossing sheds into the North Fork during winter flows. (Photo courtesy of FoGR) Stormwater (6PPD)

In 2020 FoGR learned of a chemical found in tire grit that pollutes stormwater and kills a number of different aquatic species. It is especially toxic to coho salmon— 40 parts per trillion in a quart of stormwater kills juvenile coho. Information has been pouring out of the State of Washington where the effects of 6 PPD were first discovered as scientists race to learn more about how the compound kills and what can be done about it.

In 2022, CA Urban Streams Alliance-The Stream Team (The Stream Team) expanded its long-standing watershed monitoring program and began collaborating with Friends of Gualala River (FoGR) to investigate 6PPD-Quinone (6PPD-Q)—a tire-derived pollutant highly toxic to Coho Salmon and Steelhead—in the Gualala River estuary.

In May of 2024 the team of volunteers ran their first samples and discovered that stormwater runoff from the downtown area of Gualala contains high levels of 6PPD-Q, confirming their suspicions. “It makes sense,” says Baker. “Even though Gualala is a small town in a rural area, we have concentrated traffic, especially trucks, trailers, and other heavy vehicles all using Highway 1.”

Storm-event samples were collected at four sites upstream and downstream of major road surfaces and analyzed for 6PPD-Q, zinc, oil and grease, and standard field parameters. Results show elevated 6PPD-Q (up to 170 ng/L), zinc, conductivity, and turbidity, with highest concentrations at sites influenced by Highway 1, gas stations, and parking lots.

Book Event at SOMOS, 108 Civic Plaza Drive, Taos, on Saturday, May 9, 4:00 pm

 

We’ll be talking about Ike DeVargas’s remarkable political life and reading passages in his own words of his many battles for justice: La Raza Unida Party’s conquest of a corrupt political machine; the struggles that ended corporate logging;  the removal of the Juan de Oñate statue; and challenging the prison industrial complex. Those who knew Ike can share their stories and others can learn about a complex history of northern New Mexico.

Ask most Americans what they know about the Arctic, and you’ll likely hear something like, “It’s far away.” Or “I’ll probably never get to go there.” Or even “I have no idea where that is.” And they’re mostly right. The Arctic is vast, wild, and remote. Most people will never stand on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge, never watch the Porcupine Caribou herd migrate across the tundra, never hear the silence of a landscape untouched by roads or cities or noise. 

And yet, what happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic. 

Whether you live in upstate New York or the Deep South, the Midwest or the mountains of Colorado, the coast of California or somewhere in between, the Arctic is connected to you. And right now, the policies being made in the stuffy halls of Congress in D.C. about that distant, breathtaking place are policies that affect every American who cares about public lands, clean water, wildlife, and the wild places that belong to all of us. 

Learn More Why the Arctic? 

It’s a fair question. The Arctic Refuge alone spans more than 19 million acres of wilderness in northeastern Alaska. There are no roads, no trails, and no campgrounds. It’s one of the last truly wild places left on Earth. The coastal plain, a 1.6-million-acre stretch along the Beaufort Sea, is the calving ground of the Porcupine Caribou herd and home to polar bears, musk oxen, wolves, and hundreds of species of migratory birds that travel to all 50 states and six continents. For the Gwich’in people, it’s sacred, they literally call it “the sacred place where life begins.” 

But the Arctic isn’t just a place for those who can reach it. It’s a place that belongs to every American, and what happens there matters to every American. The birds that nest on the coastal plain in summer return to backyards, wetlands, and flyways across the country. The caribou that have sustained the Gwich’in for millennia are part of an ecosystem that influences climate and biodiversity far beyond Alaska’s borders. And the decisions being made about the Arctic, about whether to drill it, protect it, lease it, or preserve it, are being made through policies that touch public lands from Minnesota to Montana to Wyoming and beyond. 

The policies that shape what happens to the Arctic aren’t Alaska policies. They’re American policies, written by Congress, signed by presidents, implemented by federal agencies that manage hundreds of millions of acres of public land from coast to coast. 

A Wave of Policy Changes 

Across the country, there’s been a rapid restructuring of how public lands are managed, who has a say, what gets prioritized, and who benefits. 

On day one of the current Trump administration, an executive order titled “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential” directed federal agencies to reverse protections across Alaska, including the Arctic Refuge, the Western Arctic, and the Tongass National Forest. Interior leadership followed with orders rolling back climate priorities and removing limits on energy development. 

Source: X / Sen. Dan Sullivan

Then came massive budget cuts. A proposed 35% reduction to key land management agencies, including the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management. Thousands of staff positions have been eliminated or left unfilled, including rangers, scientists, and land managers. 

The result is visible on the ground, from closed ranger stations, unmaintained trails, reduced scientific monitoring, to fewer people responsible for overseeing hundreds of millions of acres of public land. 

Public lands without the people to steward them aren’t really protected, they’re just waiting. 

The “One Big Beautiful Bill”  

A sweeping budget package passed in July 2025 reshaped federal land policy across the country, not just in Alaska. 

While proposed land sales in the West were removed after public pushback, the final law still dramatically expanded fossil fuel leasing and reduced environmental protections. 

It mandates quarterly oil and gas lease sales across more than 200 million acres of public land, removing agency discretion to protect sensitive areas. It requires millions of acres in the Western Arctic to be opened for leasing and mandates drilling in the Arctic Refuge coastal plain while limiting public input and judicial review. 

Source: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee budget reconciliation bill text (as of June 16, 2025); BLM, USFS. Map by The Wilderness Society

It expands coal leasing, increases fees on renewable energy development on public lands, and reduces funding for national parks. 

These decisions don’t just stop in Alaska. They affect Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, California, and beyond, shaping wildlife habitat, water systems, recreation economies, and public access nationwide. 

The CRA: One Tool in a Much Bigger Toolbox 

Outside the halls of Congress, few people are familiar with something called the Congressional Review Act (CRA), but they should because it’s one of the most powerful and consequential tools in American politics, and it’s increasingly being used to dismantle protections for the public lands and waters that belong to all of us. 

The CRA was originally designed to allow Congress to review major federal regulations. Historically, it was used sparingly, only once in its first 20 years. But in recent years, it’s been expanded, weaponized, and stretched far beyond its original intent.  

In 2017, the Trump administration used it to invalidate 17 Obama-era rules. In 2025 alone, 22 CRA repeals were signed into law. And each repeal carries a particularly alarming consequence because once a rule is overturned by the CRA, a future administration is barred from issuing anything “substantially similar” without an act of Congress. A single vote can permanently foreclose future protection, shutting the door not just for today, but for generations. 

Now, since 2025, it’s been used to overturn land management plans across Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota.  

It took years of public input, environmental review, and collaboration to build these protections. It takes one vote to erase them, and another act of Congress to restore them. 

From the Arctic to Your Backyard 

If you thought some of these policies, like the CRA, were just an Alaska problem, think again. 

In January 2026, the House passed a CRA resolution to overturn a 20-year mining ban protecting the headwaters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northeastern Minnesota. In April 2026, the Senate followed, voting to open more than 225,000 acres of the Superior National Forest to sulfide-ore copper mining, even though the U.S. Forest Service had concluded such mining would cause irreversible harm to the ecosystem. 

Canoeing the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Northern Minnesota. (Brad Zweerink / Earthjustice)

The Boundary Waters is a 1.1-million-acre designated Wilderness Area, one of the most visited wilderness destinations in the country, with roughly 250,000 visitors each year. The 20-year mining ban at its headwaters was put in place in 2023 after years of extensive public input. That process, that democratic, science-based process, was undone in a matter of months by a simple majority vote using a tool that was never intended for this purpose. 

The same playbook. The same tool. The same consequences. Whether it’s the Arctic Refuge’s coastal plain in Alaska or the birch forests of northern Minnesota, policies are being used to dismantle public land protections across the country, one resolution at a time. 

The Stakes for Every American 

Public lands belong to every American. Every acre of the Arctic Refuge, every mile of the Boundary Waters, every stretch of BLM land in Wyoming or Montana or central Alaska, these places are held in trust for all of us. And the decisions being made about them right now are decisions about who gets to use those places, and for what, and whether future generations will have them at all. 

When policies are used to overturn a resource management plan in Buffalo, Wyoming, it affects the ranchers and hunting outfitters and outdoor recreation businesses who depend on balanced, responsible management. When it’s used to repeal a leasing plan in the Arctic Refuge, it cuts the Gwich’in people out of their own future and opens sacred calving grounds to industrial drilling. When it’s used to erase a mining ban at the Boundary Waters, it threatens the clean water that communities across northern Minnesota rely on and sets a precedent that every protected landscape in America is vulnerable. 

What’s happening is a coordinated shift in how public lands are defined, managed, and valued. Executive orders. Budget cuts. Large-scale leasing mandates. Legislative overrides of long-standing protections. Together, they form a pattern, faster approvals for extraction, fewer protections, reduced public participation, and diminished agency capacity.  

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
Photo Credit: BLM / Tarpley

And the Arctic is often the front line because it’s remote, symbolic, and easy to overlook.

But it reflects a larger question: Who are public lands for? 

Everything is Connected 

So, sure, you may never set foot in the Arctic. You may never paddle the Boundary Waters or drive through the open range of the Powder River Basin. But the birds that nest in these places pass through your sky, in your backyard. The water that flows through these watersheds feeds rivers and ecosystems that stretch across the continent. The policies that strip them of protection are the same policies, written by the same hands, using the same tools, that could one day come for the public lands near you. 

From upstate New York to the Deep South. From the Midwest to the Rockies to the Pacific Coast. The Arctic isn’t a faraway problem. It’s the frontline of a much larger fight, a fight about who gets to make decisions about public lands, how fast and with how little accountability, and whether the voice of Americans who say “protect these places” still means anything in D.C. 

We believe the Arctic belongs to all of us, and so does the responsibility to defend it. Because everything is connected. And the decisions being made today will determine what kind of country, and what kind of wild places we leave behind. 

Will you go beyond your backyard?

  By donating and/or signing, you will join Alaska Wilderness League’s Activist Network and receive communications from both Alaska Wilderness League and affiliate Alaska Wilderness League Action. We will keep you informed with the latest alerts and progress reports.

 

With Alaska once again in the administration’s crosshairs, we’ve heard a big question from supporters across the country: How are we fighting back? 

The answer is: in every way we can. From the halls of Congress to communities across the country, we’re building a movement to defend the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This blog focuses on one of our most powerful tools to get there—the Arctic Refuge Protection Act—and why it matters right now. 

A Once-in-a-Generation Opportunity 

The Arctic Refuge Protection Act introduced by Senator Markey (D-MA) and Representatives Huffman (D-CA) and Fitzpatrick (R-PA), offers something we’ve never needed more: a lasting solution.  

This bipartisan bill would repeal the destructive oil and gas leasing program mandated by the 2017 Tax Act and permanently protect the Refuge’s 1.5-million-acre coastal plain as Wilderness.  

At a time when short-term political decisions threaten long-term ecological futures, this bill charts a path rooted in respect, responsibility, and permanence.  

Why This Bill Matters on Capitol Hill 

Not only does the Refuge Protection Act provide the best opportunity to create lasting change, but it is a crucial tool to build support and empower our champions on the Hill. 

Every new co-sponsor is a public commitment to protecting one of the last truly wild places in America. It gives Members of Congress a clear way to stand with their constituents, with Indigenous communities, and with future generations.  

And in a deeply divided political moment, this bill provides a powerful opportunity to demonstrate that protecting the Arctic Refuge is a shared value and not a partisan issue. Growing this bipartisan support sends a clear message across administrations and party lines that the Arctic Refuge is not a bargaining chip for industrial extraction. It is a shared heritage that is worth protecting. 

 People Power Makes This Possible 

Our team is pushing our decision-makers on the Hill every single day, but we also know that the people fundamentally power this work. We’ve seen the impact when advocates step forward to share why the Arctic matters to them. Gwich’in leaders have traveled thousands of miles to speak about their deep, enduring connection to the land and the caribou. Their voices have opened hearts, shifted perspectives, and built lasting relationships with decision-makers

We’ve also partnered with organizations like Love Is King and Hip Hop Caucus to bring new voices into the conversation—veterans, young leaders, and community advocates who have experienced the Refuge firsthand and carry its story with them. 

And just as importantly, we’ve seen how powerful it is when constituents—people like you—speak up. Whether you live in Portland, Oregon or Portland, Maine (or anywhere in between), your voice reminds Congress that the Arctic Refuge belongs to all of us.  

When Contra Costa voters approved the Urban Limit Line (ULL) in 1990, they made a decision about what kind of county this would be. They drew a boundary beyond which urban development couldn’t go – protecting the farms in the Tassajara Valley, the open hillsides above Walnut Creek, and the wetlands along the shoreline – and they asked future generations to keep it in place.

For 35 years, it has held. In that time, the line has been adjusted only six times, and voters renewed it in 2006 with 64% support. The landscapes that define Contra Costa exist in part because that commitment has been kept.

It expires December 31, 2026. Measure A on the June 2 ballot is how we renew it again.

The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors has referred the measure to voters, with updates to the boundary to better reflect current conditions on the ground. Greenbelt Alliance urges a YES vote in June.

Why the Urban Limit Line Matters

The ULL isn’t about stopping growth. It’s about making sure growth happens in the right places: in existing communities where infrastructure already exists, where people can get around without a car, where new housing and new neighbors strengthen what’s already there. By establishing a clear line beyond which no new urban land uses can be designated, the ULL has protected the county’s agricultural lands, open hillsides, and natural landscapes for more than three decades.

Protected open space and farmland are not optional extras — they are foundational to the health, climate resilience, and livability of Contra Costa communities. Clean water, cooler temperatures, local food, open land that absorbs carbon, and buffers communities from wildfire and flood. The ULL supports all of that by directing growth where it belongs and keeping natural lands open.

Why Greenbelt Alliance Supports Measure A

 

“Greenbelt Alliance has been following the Urban Limit Line since before it was even a measure, working with the county to ensure the lines being drawn are protecting open spaces and encouraging growth in the right places. We do both those things. We want to encourage infill housing and also make sure the open spaces we love are protected.”

Zoe Siegel, Senior Director of Climate Resilience at Greenbelt Alliance

Greenbelt Alliance has worked to protect the Bay Area’s open spaces and farmland for more than 60 years, and the Contra Costa Urban Limit Line is central to that work. By keeping growth focused within existing communities and away from natural landscapes, the ULL directly supports our mission to protect the greenbelt and help Bay Area cities thrive. 

Measure A is also a critical climate tool. Compact infill development reduces the vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions that drive the climate crisis, while preserving open lands sequester carbon, filter water, and buffer communities against extreme heat, flooding, and wildfire. At a time when federal rollbacks are threatening environmental protections across the board, locally-driven policies like this one matter more than ever.

Voting yes on Measure A advances priorities that matter deeply to residents across the county, including:

• Protecting agricultural lands and open space from conversion to sprawl development
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic by directing new housing and jobs to infill locations
• Maintaining the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, which ensures that at least 65% of the county’s land remains non-urban
• Restricting new development in fire hazard severity zones and on steep slopes, reducing wildfire risk
• Supporting successful implementation of the county’s newly adopted 2045 General Plan

There Is Room to Grow Inside the Line

Opponents of urban growth boundaries sometimes argue that such limits constrain housing production. The Contra Costa ULL tells a different story. The county’s 2045 General Plan process confirmed that vacant and underutilized land inside the existing ULL can accommodate 23,200 new housing units, 1.2 million square feet of new commercial development, and 5 million square feet of new industrial space. There is no need to expand into open space and farmland to meet the county’s growth needs — and there never has been.

Measure A also includes targeted adjustments to the ULL map that would make it more accurate and functional: removing areas with major development constraints or protected status, aligning the county line with city boundaries where cities have adopted their own urban growth boundaries, and cleaning up inconsistencies like so-called ULL “islands.” These changes reflect reality on the ground without opening the door to sprawl.

A Long Track Record of Stability

The ULL has proven to be a remarkably stable and durable policy. In its 35-year history, it has been adjusted only six times, and only once in response to a private development application. That’s a record that reflects both the policy’s durability and the strong public commitment to the values it protects.

Renewing the ULL through Measure A also has a practical financial benefit: the county is required to maintain it in order to receive approximately $2 million annually in local street maintenance funding from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Letting the ULL expire would put those dollars at risk.

In the June 2026 election, vote YES on Measure A to renew the Contra Costa Urban Limit Line. Renewing the ULL is a tangible way for Contra Costa voters to say that the landscapes they love — the farms, the hills, the open shorelines — are worth protecting for the next generation.

The post Vote Yes on Measure A to Renew Contra Costa’s Urban Limit Line appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

Opportunity for Public Support Comments to clean up Los Alamos Labs, until June 8th

 By email to: HWB-WIPP-Comment@env.nm.gov
By postal mail:
Megan McLean, WIPP Program Manager
Hazardous Waste Bureau – New Mexico Environment Department
2905 Rodeo Park Drive East, Building 1
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505-6303

On April 23, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) issued a Draft Permit proposing to require a minimum percentage of legacy shipments from Los Alamos National Lab (LANL) to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, (WIPP).

NMED’s action would help stop LANL plans to leave 1 million cubic meters of radioactive and hazardous waste buried above our regional aquifer in a seismic zone between a rift and a dormant super volcano. The action would also limit waste from new pit production.

Here are some of the provisions of the Draft Permit that we must support in our comments –

* From January 1, 2027 through December 31, 2031, at least 55% of the total volume of all waste emplaced at WIPP from all generator/storage sites must be LANL legacy waste.

* Beginning January 1, 2032, and until all LANL legacy waste has been emplaced at WIPP, LANL legacy waste must be at least 75% of the total volume of waste emplaced from all generator/storage sites.

* Legacy waste currently stored above-ground at LANL Material Disposal Area-G shall be shipped and emplaced at WIPP by July 1, 2028.

* If at any point any of those conditions are not met, all generator/storage site shipments (with the exception of LANL) must cease until all deficiencies are cured.

Written public comments can be submitted until 5:00 p.m. MT, on June 8, 2026. The NMED Draft

Permit, Public Notice, and Fact Sheet are on the WIPP News https://www.env.nm.gov/hazardous-waste/wipp/.

For more info: http://www.stopforeverwipp.org,

http://sric.org/ , http://nuclearactive.org/,  http://www.nukewatch.org

 

The campaigner challenging consent for lower-volume fracking in East Yorkshire has added a new ground to his case.

Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

Peter Lomas, from Hornsea, is taking the first legal steps against the Environment Agency (EA), over its issue of a permit at the West Newton-A site in Holderness.

The site operator, Rathlin Energy, had said lower-volume fracking is required to allow commercial exploitation of a well at the site.

The new ground is based on the Finch Ruling, a successful case at the Supreme Court brought by Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group on climate emissions from onshore oil and gas.

In a legal letter in early April, solicitors Leigh Day set out four grounds for Mr Lomas’s challenge:

• Risk of induced seismicity
• Risk to groundwater pollution
• Impact on the Lambwath Meadows site of special scientific interest
• Failure to consider international guidance on climate change

But a second letter has recently added that the EA failed, when making its decision on the permit, to consider and undertake a detailed environmental impact assessment (EIA).

The planning permission for production at West Newton-A was passed without an EIA, in March 2022.

This was more than two years before the Finch Ruling, which stated that decisionmakers must consider the downstream carbon emissions from using oil or gas produced onshore.

The Finch ruling also emphasised the importance of public participation in the EIA process and public understanding of the environmental impact of developments.

Mr Lomas’s lawyers argued there had been no environmental information about the downstream emissions from oil or gas produced at West Newton-A.

They said the EA was obliged to assess the environmental impact of oil and gas production resulting from lower-volume fracking.

Information was needed, they said, on emissions from using hydrocarbons from the well to ensure the public could properly participate in the process.

The lawyers have also revised the fourth ground in the case. It now argues that the EA failed to consider the impact of lower-volume fracking on climate change, under its duties in the Environment Act 1995.

Leigh Day has asked for further information from the EA on the first three grounds.

The company behind the suspended oil site that is subject of a landmark Supreme Court ruling has reported declining assets and revenue.

UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG) revealed today in delayed annual accounts that it has interests in just one hydrocarbon site.

The value of the company’s total assets and its revenue both fell by more than 60% in the year to September 2025.

During the same period, the accounts show that UKOG gave up an onshore PEDL (production, exploration and development licence) and two exploration sites.

It also sold its stake in two more UK production sites in southern England and exited from its Turkish licence interests.

The company’s remaining oil and gas site at Horse Hill – once called the Gatwick Gusher – has been mothballed since October 2024. The Supreme Court stripped the site of its planning permission in what became known as the Finch Ruling in June 2024.

A separate statement this morning announced UKOG had submitted a retrospective planning application for the reinstatement of production consent at Horse Hill. The application announcement was not mentioned in the accounts and the details have not yet been published online.

But the accounts admitted:

“There is no certainty when consent will be reinstated or that production [at Horse Hill] will recommence.

“The Group continues to evaluate available technical data and maintain cost discipline; however, the timing, level and economic viability of any future production remain uncertain.”

Loss of oil and gas assets

The accounts confirmed that in June 2025 the company relinquished PEDL246, which included the Broadford Bridge oil exploration site in West Sussex and the planned Loxley gas site, near Dunsfold, in Surrey.

UKOG said it had plugged and abandoned the Broadford Bridge wells, BB-1/1z, in February 2026, despite discussions on their geothermal potential.

The company said:

“This milestone confirms the Company’s compliance with its regulatory obligations, demonstrating its continued commitment to responsible operations and asset stewardship during its transition into clean energy.”

But it did not mention the planning requirement to restore the site to farmland, which has not yet happened, nor the planning contravention notice issued against UKOG’s subsidiary, the site operator, and the landowner.

UKOG said it relinquished PEDL246 because representatives had failed to find a farm-in partner to drill at Loxley.

UKOG also sold its subsidiary, UK (GB) Ltd, which had stakes in the Horndean (10%) and Avington (5%) oil fields in Hampshire.

It exited its Turkish licence in October 2024 and later received a claim of $100,000 from its former partner, the accounts reveal. They said UKOG directors considered there was “no remaining formal legal or contractual basis for the claim”. To date, UKOG has received nothing further, the accounts added.

Finances

UKOG said the 2025 financial year “marked a period of strategic realignment for the Group as the Group continued its transition from legacy oil production towards hydrogen storage and clean energy infrastructure”.

But according to the accounts, the company remains largely dependent on revenue from hydrocarbon sales. The auditor noted a “material uncertainty exists that may cause significant doubt on the group’s ability to continue as a going concern”.

Revenue, entirely from Horse Hill and Horndean crude oil sales, fell to £432,000 in 2025, from £1.1m in 2024. The accounts said the decline reflected lower volumes from Horse Hill, which voluntarily suspended production in October 2024.

Total UKOG assets fell from £3.361m (restated) in 2024, to £1.136m in 2025. Cash and cash equivalents were down from £1m to £40,000.

Net liabilities rose from £2.471m in 2024 to £5.684m in 2025.

Total annual losses were reduced compared with 2024, when the balance sheet included £32.544m in impairment of oil and gas assets.

Key figures

Revenue: £432,000 (2024: £1.1m)

Cost of sales: £423,000 (2024: £912,000)

Gross loss: £20,000 (2024: £189,000)

Total comprehensive loss: £4.09m (2024: £38.490m)

Admin expenses: £2.636m (2024: £1.716m)

Decommissioning provision at 30 September 2025: £1.591m (2024: £1.253m). Of the £1.591m, £1.184m was for Horse Hill and £407,000 was for Broadford Bridge.

Non-current assets: £337,000 (2024: £1.705M)

Total assets: £1.136m (2024 restated: £3.361m)

Cash and cash equivalents: £40,000 (2024: £1m)

Total liabilities: £6.822m (2024: £5.832m)

Net liabilities: £5.684m (2024: £2.471m)

Operating loss: £3.9m (2024: £3.8m)

Loss before tax: £4.098m (2024: £38.490m)

Stephen Sanderson total earnings from UKOG: £243,000 (2024: £314,000

Total payments to directors: £504,000 (£457,000)

Loan interest payments: £152,000 (2024: £128,000)

Total finance cost: £202,000 (2024: £172,000)

Loans payable to non-controlling interests: £3.462m (2024: £3.310m)

Outstanding loan balances owed to HHDL shareholders at 30 September 2025: Alba Mineral Resources £2.8m (2024: £2.6m), Doriemus plc £0.6m (2024: £0.6m), UK Oil & Gas plc £18m (2024: £17.8m)

UK Oil & Gas plc announced this morning it has submitted a revised planning application for its Horse Hill site , near Redhill, in Surrey.

The company said the retrospective application seeks to reinstate consent for oil production.

Horse Hill, Surrey, England. January 2026. Photo: Goldman Environmental Prize

Planning permission for the Horse Hill site, now UKOG’s only hydrocarbon asset, was quashed by a landmark climate judgement, known as the Finch Ruling, at the Supreme Court in June 2024.

The court ruled that the planning permission granted by Surrey County Council in 2019 was unlawful. The judgement said the permission failed to take into account the climate impact of burning oil from the site.

Sarah Finch, who brought the challenge on behalf of the Weald Action Group, was last month awarded the leading international award, the Goldman Environmental Prize.

The Weald Action Group said this morning:

“This is an appalling but predictable move by UKOG. After repeatedly claiming they were transitioning away from fossil fuels, they have now submitted plans to Surrey County Council to restart oil production at Horse Hill, showing that they are still relying on this site as a financial lifeline.

“There is simply no room left in the rapidly dwindling global carbon budget for any more fossil fuel developments.  Instead, the site should be urgently decommissioned and fully restored. Given their disastrous financial position, with cash reserves reported at just £32,000, this application appears to be a way by which UKOG can further delay meeting these costly obligations.

“Enough is enough, this cannot be allowed to drag on any longer, and this application must be rejected.”

Immediately after the Supreme Court judgement, UKOG said it was working to reinstate planning permission.

This required a revised application with information on the carbon emissions from combustion, known as downstream or scope 3 emissions.

Surrey County Council reported in November 2024 it was waiting for this information.

Since then, UKOG has promised the details but repeatedly delayed submission.

At the time of writing, the new application was not listed on the county council planning register.

When the application has been validated, a public consultation is expected on the new information.

In a statement today, UKOG said:

“The Company has worked closely with its planning advisors and SCC to prepare the revised planning submission, which includes updated ecology, environmental and technical baseline studies and an assessment of downstream emissions in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment.

“A successful planning outcome would permit stable production at Horse Hill to resume, generating valuable revenues which would help support the Company’s ongoing transition to its announced clean energy projects in Dorset and Yorkshire.”

UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, said:

“This retrospective planning submission seeks to address the Supreme Court’s ruling on SCC’s 2019 Horse Hill planning consent in a thorough and transparent manner. Horse Hill remains a valuable UK onshore asset and, subject to planning consent, has the potential to generate revenues that can be responsibly reinvested to support the Company’s strategic transition towards hydrogen storage and other clean energy initiatives.

“The Company continues to pursue a balanced approach, managing its legacy oil and gas assets while actively investing in the UK’s energy transition and clean power future.”

UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) previously announced production had voluntarily ceased in October 2024.

More reaction

The local MP, Chris Coghlan (Lib Dem)

said:

“Last year I urged the government and Surrey County Council to ensure Horse Hill is restored to woodland. It’s no surprise that UKOG has now submitted a retrospective planning application, but with the company’s financial track record, I am worried they will not be able to deliver proper site restoration. Any decision by Surrey County Council must recognise residents’ concerns and guarantee that the site is fully returned to woodland.”

Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council said in a statement:

“In 2024, Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council supported local resident Sarah Finch in her ground-breaking legal challenge against Surrey County Council’s decision to extend planning permission for the oil drilling site at Horse Hill which is in our parish. Councillors recognised Sarah’s argument that the Environmental Impact Assessment failed to include the effects of emissions released from burning the extracted oil, assessing only emissions from the development itself.

“What began as a local campaign evolved into a five-year legal battle that climbed through the courts, culminating in a historic ruling by the UK Supreme Court in June 2024 and, crucially, the planning permission being overturned. The Parish Council was delighted to see Sarah Finch and her colleagues at the Weald Action Group recently being awarded the 2026 Goldman Environmental Prize for Europe. Sarah’s landmark legal victory is already reshaping climate accountability across the UK and beyond.

“In August 2025, we also wrote to Tim Oliver, leader of Surrey County Council, expressing concern as to who will be responsible for restoration of the Horse Hill oil site in the event the UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) entered formal insolvency.

“The Parish Council has been advised on 5 May 2026 that UKOG will be submitting a retrospective planning application for reinstatement of production consent at the Horse Hill site. Once formally notified, Councillors will review all the new planning documents and make representation on the application on their merits including consideration of protection to our Green Belt and the local environment.”

• UKOG also announced today the month-long suspension of its shares had been lifted. Trading was suspended after the company missed the stock market deadline for publishing its accounts. The accounts, due to be published at the end of March 2026, were released this morning (5 May 2026). DrillOrDrop has reported on the contents of the accounts.

By Lauren Bourg, Director, Mississippi River Delta Program, National Audubon Society & Alisha Renfro, Coastal Scientist, Mississippi River Delta Restoration Program, National Wildlife Federation In July of 2025, the Landry Administration canceled the Mid Barataria Sediment Diversion (MBSD), a cornerstone of the state’s Coastal Master Plan since 2007. The state offered various excuses for the decision to legislators in committee last year, including concerns about project costs (despite funding being fully covered by Deepwater Horizon oil spill funds), potential hypoxic ...

Read The Full Story

The post Landry Administration Writes Off Barataria Basin While Offering New Justification for Cancellation of the Mid-Barataria Diversion appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Groups Sound the Alarm on Massive Tar Sands Oil Pipeline, Demand Additional Opportunity for Public Comment President Trump on Thursday issued cross-border permit for Bridger pipeline before completing environmental review, consulting Tribes   For Immediate Release: May 1, 2026 CONTACTS Perry Wheeler, Earthjustice, pwheeler@earthjustice.org Stephanie Russell Kraft, Honor the Earth, press@honorearth.org Shannon James, MEIC, sjames@meic.org …

The post Press Release: Groups Sound the Alarm on Massive Tar Sands Oil Pipeline, Demand Additional Opportunity for Public Comment appeared first on Montana Environmental Information Center - MEIC.

Gualala River estuary / lagoon at sunset, April 27, 2026.
Photo courtesy of Efi Benjamin, River Bend Kayaks.

Opinion by KAY MATTHEWS

Kudos to Rio Arriba County for passing Resolution 2026-057 opposing any uranium mining in the Carson National Forest and requesting a full environmental impact assessment by the Forest Service. A Canadian corporation, Gamma Resources, has filed for a permit to do exploratory drilling in the Canjilon area of the Carson. The New Mexico congressional delegation is on board with the county’s opposition: Senator Ben Ray Lujan is drafting legislation to withdraw the Chama watershed from mineral development with Senator Heinrich and Representative Leger Fernandez’s support.

Several administrative concerns give pause, however. The US Forest Service, which would ordinarily be the agency overseeing the request for a permit is currently being dismantled  by the Trump administration, with the Washington headquarters moved to Salt Lake City, home of the movement to privatize public lands, all regional offices shut down, and fifty research facilities closed. The administration had already eviserated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by allowing actions on federal lands to proceed with expedited or curtailed environmental review. Individual agencies are making the decision whether to allow public comment via scoping or draft environmental assessments (EA). Kit Carson Electric Coop released an EA on the proposed “green energy” solar array and hydrogen facility in Questa with no public input.

The other worry is that the administration will supplant the NEPA process with the FAST-41 program that allows the fast-tracking of environmental reviews for infrastructure projects, as established by Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act. Now Trump has directed that mineral production projects be accelerated under the FAST-41 program. We don’t know how this is going to proceed regarding the Canjilon mining permit request, but Luis Peña submitted a request to the county to inspect public records regarding anything related to Gamma Resources.

Mount Taylor is also under siege. After years in the works, Laramide Resources company submitted the La Jara Mesa Mining application to New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division for the proposed uranium mine north of Mount Taylor early this year. During the initial public comment period the state agency received over 200 letters opposing the mine; in light of this strong opposition it extended the comment period and committed to holding a public hearing, but not until it receives answers to questions that will be submitted to Laramide. Because the proposed plan is on the Cibola National Forest, that agency is also responsible for a NEPA analysis, as in the proposed Canjilon uranium exploration. Unfortunately, the La Jara Mesa mine has already been listed on the FAST-41 fast-track.  This is the rationale, as stated in the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council press release: “The Permitting Council is committed to working closely with the National Energy Dominance Council and other Federal partners to advance President Trump’s bold agenda to make America energy dominant again, and use all necessary resources to build critical infrastructure.”

Uranium mining in the Mount Taylor area in the 1970s led to legacy waste from the open-pit Jackpile Mine on Laguna Pueblo, a Superfund site, and the mining and milling operations at Ambrosia Lake, Kerrmac, and Homestake north of Grants. The Navajo Nation suffered extensive uranium ore extraction and in 1979 the Church Rock spill unleashed 94 million gallons of radioactive waste into the Rio Puerco. As mining booms always do, it kept miners employed during the boom, then out-of-work and contaminated after the bust. The Trump administration is doing everything in its power to enhance nuclear energy production with already compromised accountability from the mining industrial complex and the federal government.

The Navajo Nature currently has a moratorium on uranium mining. Diné activist Leona Morgan and others were out on the streets in Bernalillo a week ago protesting the Nuclear in New Mexico conference where industry and its proponents were advocating for not only uranium mining but SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors), reprocessing, enrichment facilities, and more. They’re pushing nuclear reactors as “renewable energy” and, as NM State Representative Meredith Dixon stated, “I would really like to see New Mexico as a leader in all things nuclear.” Virginia McLemore of the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources called New Mexico’s supposed one billion pounds of uranium “world class deposits . . . [that are]  going to keep going until we have exploited all of it.”

The idea of drilling rigs crisscrossing the forests of Canjilon is anathema to all of us. Carson National Forest, if it proves to be the decision maker via the NEPA process, has a huge responsibility, not only to the Chama Valley but to the state of New Mexico, to protect our forests and watersheds from an industry that enables nuclear bombs, desecration of the environment, and unhealthy people.

 

 

 

 

 

In a CalMatters piece published today, Rachel Becker outlines the major obstacles facing efforts to revive the Delta Tunnel project. Even as Governor Newsom claims the state is “closer than ever” to completing it, significant hurdles remain, including a massive price tag, unclear financing plans, pending critical water rights decisions, and a lack of commitments from water agencies to fund the project.

Becker highlights the project’s long history of controversy, dating back more than half a century, and voters rejecting an earlier version in the 1980s. She notes that Delta communities continue to denounce the plan, calling it a water grab that would devastate one of the country’s largest estuaries and harm towns, wildlife, and multigenerational farms.

The article also points out that with the Delta’s current state of decline due to algal blooms, degraded water quality, and struggling fish populations, diverting water through the tunnel would only further damage the already fragile ecosystem.  

“Nobody seems to care about the people out here on the ground,” Duane Martin Jr., a third-generation cattleman in the Delta, told CalMatters, describing what he sees as the project’s irreversible impacts on the region and its communities.

Read more from CalMatters here.

###