News
Despite the state's contention that counties cannot win against the state in dispute over oil and gas drilling activities, at least one county proved differently.
In a case decided in 2006, Gunnison County won court approval to enact its own rules, albeit with some limitations, governing oil and gas activities within that county, despite efforts by the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission to derail Gunnison County's efforts.
Now, some Garfield County political activists are hoping that something similar can happen in Garfield County with regard to how close a gas drilling rig can come to a home, although no formal action has been taken yet.
“It's hard to step forward with anything until the company submits an actual application,” said Leslie Robinson, a member of the Grand County Citizens Alliance, which is actively working on plans by Antero Resources to drill up to 200 gas wells in Battlement Mesa. Antero has not yet filed its formal application with the COGCC, which rules on drilling permits.
State rules covering oil and gas exploration state that a gas well can be drilled as close as 150 feet from a home.
In Garfield County, some feel that 150 feet is far too close for comfort and would like to see the rules changed to 1,000 feet. Specifically, some residents of Battlement Mesa have demanded the rule change due to worries that the drilling rigs would be too noisy, generate too much traffic and pollution of the air and water, and post wildfire and other hazards.
The county government has yet to address the issue in a formal way, but it has come up numerous times at meetings regarding Battlement Mesa, a community of some 5,500 near Parachute.
At least one local organization, the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance, has demanded the rule change in public before the COGCC, at recent meetings in Battlement Mesa and Glenwood Springs.
A representative of the Colorado Attorney General's office, which acts as legal counsel to the COGCC, recently told the Post Independent that in a conflict between the county and the state over gas drilling permits, the state has the upper hand.
The state appeals court that issued the Gunnison County decision was looking at a specific question of law and not reaching a broad conclusion necessarily applicable to other counties or to all possible disputes, according to Gunnison County Attorney Dave Baumgartner.
And, the case was decided in 2006, before new rules were written for the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission that expanded the COGCC's regulatory powers in 2008.
Rule 201 of the new COGCC rules and regulations, passed by the state legislature, states that “nothing in these rules shall establish, alter, impair or negate the authority of local and county governments to regulate land use related to oil and gas operations, so long as such local regulation is not in operational conflict with” state rules.
This has been called “a Catch-22” by some, who say it seems to give counties some authority over oil and gas exploration, but only if the counties stay out of the way of the COGCC.
Saying he knows of no case in which the new rules have been challenged in court, Baumgartner added, “That's going to be a fascinating one.”
He pointed out that, in broadening the scope of the COGCC's powers, the state legislature set the stage for the state to work more closely with local governments in protecting the health and safety of citizens as it relates to a growing numbers of gas wells across the state. He said that under the old rules, the COGCC had primarily been concerned with “down-hole” issues, meaning what went on deep underground, while Gunnison County's regulations deal mainly with surface issues.
In the past, conflicts between the industry and the general population had not posed a big problem, because gas wells tended to be located in remote areas far from towns. But as the state population has grown and homes have been built in places once considered unbuildable or undesirable, conflicts between residential development and gas drilling have become more common.
Chief among the issues in this debate are questions about the health effects of exposure to the chemical associated with the drilling process its aftermath, both in terms of air pollution and contamination of groundwater supplies.
Concerning the Garfield County issues, Robinson said community organizers are waiting for the application to be submitted by Antero, both to the COGCC and to Garfield County under its land use review regulations
The county, in approving the Battlement Mesa subdivision in the 1970s and 1980s for use as housing for Exxon Corporation's oil shale workers, included a requirement that any oil or gas extraction within the Planned Unit Development boundaries must go through a special use review.
“It's hard to discuss anything at a county level at this time,” she said. “But at least we've got a special use hearing. We've never had that before.”
jcolson@postindependent.com
In a case decided in 2006, Gunnison County won court approval to enact its own rules, albeit with some limitations, governing oil and gas activities within that county, despite efforts by the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission to derail Gunnison County's efforts.
Now, some Garfield County political activists are hoping that something similar can happen in Garfield County with regard to how close a gas drilling rig can come to a home, although no formal action has been taken yet.
“It's hard to step forward with anything until the company submits an actual application,” said Leslie Robinson, a member of the Grand County Citizens Alliance, which is actively working on plans by Antero Resources to drill up to 200 gas wells in Battlement Mesa. Antero has not yet filed its formal application with the COGCC, which rules on drilling permits.
State rules covering oil and gas exploration state that a gas well can be drilled as close as 150 feet from a home.
In Garfield County, some feel that 150 feet is far too close for comfort and would like to see the rules changed to 1,000 feet. Specifically, some residents of Battlement Mesa have demanded the rule change due to worries that the drilling rigs would be too noisy, generate too much traffic and pollution of the air and water, and post wildfire and other hazards.
The county government has yet to address the issue in a formal way, but it has come up numerous times at meetings regarding Battlement Mesa, a community of some 5,500 near Parachute.
At least one local organization, the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance, has demanded the rule change in public before the COGCC, at recent meetings in Battlement Mesa and Glenwood Springs.
A representative of the Colorado Attorney General's office, which acts as legal counsel to the COGCC, recently told the Post Independent that in a conflict between the county and the state over gas drilling permits, the state has the upper hand.
The state appeals court that issued the Gunnison County decision was looking at a specific question of law and not reaching a broad conclusion necessarily applicable to other counties or to all possible disputes, according to Gunnison County Attorney Dave Baumgartner.
And, the case was decided in 2006, before new rules were written for the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission that expanded the COGCC's regulatory powers in 2008.
Rule 201 of the new COGCC rules and regulations, passed by the state legislature, states that “nothing in these rules shall establish, alter, impair or negate the authority of local and county governments to regulate land use related to oil and gas operations, so long as such local regulation is not in operational conflict with” state rules.
This has been called “a Catch-22” by some, who say it seems to give counties some authority over oil and gas exploration, but only if the counties stay out of the way of the COGCC.
Saying he knows of no case in which the new rules have been challenged in court, Baumgartner added, “That's going to be a fascinating one.”
He pointed out that, in broadening the scope of the COGCC's powers, the state legislature set the stage for the state to work more closely with local governments in protecting the health and safety of citizens as it relates to a growing numbers of gas wells across the state. He said that under the old rules, the COGCC had primarily been concerned with “down-hole” issues, meaning what went on deep underground, while Gunnison County's regulations deal mainly with surface issues.
In the past, conflicts between the industry and the general population had not posed a big problem, because gas wells tended to be located in remote areas far from towns. But as the state population has grown and homes have been built in places once considered unbuildable or undesirable, conflicts between residential development and gas drilling have become more common.
Chief among the issues in this debate are questions about the health effects of exposure to the chemical associated with the drilling process its aftermath, both in terms of air pollution and contamination of groundwater supplies.
Concerning the Garfield County issues, Robinson said community organizers are waiting for the application to be submitted by Antero, both to the COGCC and to Garfield County under its land use review regulations
The county, in approving the Battlement Mesa subdivision in the 1970s and 1980s for use as housing for Exxon Corporation's oil shale workers, included a requirement that any oil or gas extraction within the Planned Unit Development boundaries must go through a special use review.
“It's hard to discuss anything at a county level at this time,” she said. “But at least we've got a special use hearing. We've never had that before.”
jcolson@postindependent.com
