Five states have banned hydraulic fracturing: Vermont, New York, Maryland, Washington, and California. The states where fracking is banned reached that result through very different legal routes, and those differences matter because a ban enacted by statute is harder to reverse than one issued by an agency or a governor. Vermont was first, in 2012. California was most recent, with its setback law becoming fully enforceable in 2024.
The Five States and How Each Ban Works
Vermont (2012)
Governor Peter Shumlin signed H.464, making Vermont the first state to prohibit fracking by legislation. The state has no commercially recoverable shale gas, so the law was precautionary and drew little industry opposition.
New York (2015)
New York did not pass a statute. Its Department of Environmental Conservation issued a findings statement concluding that the environmental and public health risks of high-volume hydraulic fracturing were too uncertain to allow the practice, and selected the “No Action” alternative in its environmental impact review. The result is a statewide prohibition imposed through administrative action, which in principle a future administration could revisit through the same process.
Maryland (2017)
The Maryland General Assembly passed HB 1325, which prohibits any person from hydraulic fracturing a well for oil or natural gas exploration or production in the state. The ban took effect October 1, 2017. Maryland was the first state with active shale gas potential to enact a permanent legislative prohibition.1Maryland General Assembly. Legislation – HB1325
Washington (2019)
Governor Jay Inslee signed SB 5145, prohibiting fracking for oil and natural gas exploration and production throughout the state.2Washington State Senate Democrats. Governor Signs Prohibition on Fracking in Washington
California (2024)
California took two steps at once. SB 1137 created 3,200-foot health protection zones around homes, schools, hospitals, and other sensitive locations and prohibits new drilling inside those zones. Separately, the state directed its oil and gas regulator to stop issuing new fracking permits. SB 1137 became fully enforceable in June 2024, and all existing facilities inside the protection zones must meet new safety standards by July 1, 2026.3California Department of Conservation. Understanding California’s Oil and Gas Safety Zones: Senate Bill 1137
States With Partial or Temporary Restrictions
A handful of other states have taken partial steps that do not amount to permanent bans. Florida’s governor issued executive orders banning fracking and offshore drilling; executive orders lack the permanence of legislation and can be reversed by a successor. Oregon enacted a moratorium on fracking that was set to expire in 2025. The states that have gone furthest with bans tend to fall into two groups: those with little or no recoverable shale gas, where a ban costs the state almost nothing economically, and a smaller number with real reserves, where the political fight is more intense.
Why There Is No Federal Ban
Fracking is regulated state by state because Congress deliberately kept the federal government out of it. In 2005, the Energy Policy Act amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to exclude hydraulic fracturing fluids (other than diesel fuels) from the definition of “underground injection.” That change removed fracking from the EPA’s Underground Injection Control program, which otherwise regulates what gets pumped underground near drinking water sources.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 300h – Regulations for State Programs
The exemption is commonly called the “Halliburton Loophole,” a reference to Vice President Dick Cheney’s former role as the company’s CEO and its lobbying on the legislation. The practical effect is that the EPA cannot require operators to disclose fracking chemicals or obtain federal permits for most fracking operations under the Safe Drinking Water Act. When diesel fuels are used in the fracturing fluid, the exemption does not apply and EPA permitting kicks in.5Environmental Protection Agency. Fact Sheet: Implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Existing Requirements for Oil and Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Activities Using Diesel Fuels
With federal oversight largely off the table, states became the default regulators. They issue permits, set well construction standards, oversee produced water disposal, and enforce environmental compliance. The same authority lets a state choose to prohibit the practice entirely.
Can Cities and Counties Ban Fracking?
Where the state has not banned fracking, local governments have tried to do it themselves, usually through zoning. A city or county can designate which activities are allowed in which areas and can impose conditions, most commonly a setback requiring a minimum distance between a drilling site and homes, schools, or water sources. California’s statewide 3,200-foot setback is the largest, but local setbacks vary widely. When setbacks are large enough, or conditions strict enough, they can function as a ban without saying so explicitly.
How well a local ban holds up depends almost entirely on state law. In New York, the Court of Appeals ruled in 2014 that the towns of Dryden and Middlefield acted within their zoning authority when they prohibited oil and gas extraction, holding that “a municipality is not obliged to permit the exploitation of any and all natural resources within the town as a permitted use if limiting that use is a reasonable exercise of its police powers.”6Justia Law. Wallach v. Town of Dryden (2014) That decision helped pave the way for New York’s statewide ban. In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court struck down portions of Act 13 in Robinson Township, restoring local governments’ ability to enforce zoning rules on drilling.
Texas went the other way. In November 2014, Denton voters passed a ballot initiative banning fracking within city limits. The Texas Legislature responded in May 2015 with HB 40, declaring oil and gas operations subject to “the exclusive jurisdiction of this state” and prohibiting any municipality from enacting an ordinance that “bans, limits, or otherwise regulates an oil and gas operation.” Denton repealed its ban within weeks. HB 40 still permits local regulation of aboveground matters like traffic, noise, and lighting, but only if the rule is “commercially reasonable” and does not “effectively prohibit” the work of a reasonably prudent operator. Multiple other oil-and-gas-producing states have passed comparable preemption laws or have regulatory frameworks courts read as preempting local bans.
What Could Undo a Ban
Two legal challenges shape how durable any fracking ban really is. The first is preemption, as Denton showed: a local ban can survive a court fight and still be erased by the legislature. State-level bans face a political version of the same risk, since a statute can be repealed and an agency finding or executive order can be withdrawn by a later administration.
The second is a regulatory takings claim under the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation.7Constitution Annotated. Early Jurisprudence on Regulatory Takings If a ban prevents a mineral rights owner from extracting oil or gas, the owner can argue the government has destroyed the property’s economic value and owes compensation. Courts weigh these claims under the Supreme Court’s Penn Central framework, looking at the economic impact of the regulation, how far it interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.8Legal Information Institute. Regulatory Takings and the Penn Central Framework A ban is not automatically a taking; the owner has to show the rule eliminated essentially all economic use, not just one potential use among several.
The theory is being tested now. In California, mineral rights owners have filed a federal lawsuit challenging SB 1137’s 3,200-foot setback zones, arguing the law “destroyed any economic use” of their severed mineral estate. Because their mineral rights exist as a separate property interest from the surface land, they say the setback leaves them nothing. How that case and others like it come out will shape whether broad buffer zones remain financially practical for states to enforce.