LOGIC 2017 Voter Guide: Longmont
Question 1: What role should counties, municipalities, local governments, and the state have in regulating oil and gas facilities?
Responses:
Mayor
Brian Bagley and Roger Lange did not respond.
Sara Levison: State has authority to have authority over the industry standards. Depending on the location of the facility, the local government entity, county, town, city or even special district should have the ability to have local control over aspects of the facility. Local regulations on setbacks, access to facilities, methane gas releases can have some fine tuning to respond to local conditions. While it is said there has to be uniformity of regulations, every site is different, regulations cannot just be one fits all sites. Localities, the state and the industry can work to address the differences and agree on regulations.
At Large:
Polly Christensen: The federal government SHOULD regulate oil and gas facilities. They do not. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) SHOULD regulate the oil and gas industry to provide consistent rules for the industry and protections for the citizens of Colorado. It does not. Its mission is allegedly both “to regulate and promote” the oil and gas industry. You cannot do both. Therefore the municipalities and counties must have the right to protect their residents’ health, property, and safety.
Ron Gallegos: All levels of government have a role to play in the regulating of oil and gas facilities in terms of the health and welfare, safety, and land use regulations.
Catherine Jarrett: did not respond
Aren Rodriguez: In my opinion, municipalities/local government/counties should have the final say on whether oil and gas development is permitted, how it is permitted, and where it can be located. Having the regulations come from the state level does not allow for true partnerships between oil and gas developers and the communities they are operating within.
Ward 2:
Jeff Moore: State – regulate state-level operating standards, as they do for any business entity licensed by the state to operate in Colorado. This would include overarching environmental protections, tax and legal liabilities, insurance and safety requirements, inspections, and reporting. Assessing and administering an adequately-funded pool for mitigation of closed and/or abandoned wells, and requirements for Industry to conduct and maintain Pipeline mapping data accessible to the public.
Counties – regulate concerns specific to that county’s economy (whether oil and gas development should be an economic factor, protecting environmentally sensitive recreational areas from drilling), population base, open space policies, and protections for residents of unincorporated areas
Municipalities – should have ultimate local control over siting within their boundaries and within residential areas; noise, air, and water pollution; storage ponds; what activities are permitted on their open space/recreational areas; and say over exercising of city-owned mineral rights.
In pragmatic terms, cities and counties should work with state legislators to change existing laws or actively support new legislation that prioritizes health, safety and natural resources. I testified on behalf of Longmont at the state house in support of SB17-1256 (the setback bill).
Marcia Martin: A Home Rule City like Longmont should be able to regulate oil and gas facilities within its city limits the same way it regulates any other industry, with zoning, with setbacks from businesses, schools, and residences, with noise ordinances, with regulations that protect the citizenry from dangerous and noxious conditions caused by the industry. The present position of the Colorado Supreme Court, which is that State laws to encourage industrial development should overrule the rights of municipal government, is misguided.
The role of the State government ought to be to set minimum protections for residents of the state, and for the state’s public lands and environment. Counties and municipalities may enforce more stringent local regulations if the elected local government, or the electorate, in a referendum, deems more stringent regulation to be necessary. Local governments should not be able to relax standards set by a senior authority.
For example, the City of Denver is sited in a depression such that certain weather patterns cause a temperature inversion that traps automobile and industrial emissions close to the ground, causing high levels of air pollutants to accumulate. It is therefore proper for Denver to have more stringent regulations than Brush on activities that pollute.
Question 2: What role should counties, municipalities, local governments, and the state have in approving large-scale oil and gas facilities in urban areas?
Responses:
Mayor
Brian Bagley and Roger Lange did not respond.
Sara Levison: The state approves the permits. Local governments, county or municipal role is to match the state interest with local land use and insure there are adequate public resources for safety in case of an accident. The state needs to work with the local government entities to develop regulations that will balance the different roles and concerns of the state and local government.
At Large:
Polly Christensen: Counties and municipalities should have every right or approve or deny all businesses within their city or county limits.
Ron Gallegos: All levels should have a say in the approval of oil and gas facilities particularly in the case of Home-Rule-Cities.
Catherine Jarrett: did not respond.
Aren Rodriguez: This again speaks to my opinion that local control is the best control when dealing with oil and gas development. This type of facility would already be out of conformance with Longmont’s land development codes, which I am fully supporting keeping in place.
Ward 2:
Jeff Moore: Large-scale industrial operations do not belong in urban areas. Municipalities currently have zoning authority within their jurisdiction and that should include oil & gas development. The municipality, or unincorporated community, or county should have the ultimate local control in siting, enforced under overarching state regulations. For already-existing wells, or those done by negotiated agreement with the entity involved, the local entity should be able to impose environmental and safety standards for development and operations, as well as cleanup and mitigation standards over and above those required by the state.
The state should be concerned that their overarching requirements are met for safety, liability, minimum environmental and mitigation standards, during development, operations, and when the well is capped or abandoned.
Marcia Martin: Municipal government should have the final say as to what types of industry they welcome, and on what terms. Public discourse and democracy will ensure that the economic benefits of industry are balanced with potential harm from noise, pollution, and other damage to the environment affecting the public good. County and State governments, hierarchically, may make the same determination for areas not controlled by a more specific level of incorporated government.
Colorado inappropriately prioritizes the economic growth of the State, as a whole, over the rights of home rule municipalities for self-determination. What may be safe and appropriate for sparsely populated, windy areas such as the Eastern Plains is dangerous for the population densities and geographical peculiarities of the Front Range. Colorado law should acknowledge this.
Personally, I believe that fossil fuels need to be left in the ground. I understand that there must be a transition period, but I plan to work to shorten the transition.
Question 3: What role or rights should surface owners have when it comes to siting oil and gas facilities in or near their neighborhoods?
Responses:
Mayor
Brian Bagley and Roger Lange did not respond.
Sara Levison: I think is this a question of property rights. When you purchase a property, you have the right to enjoy your ownership without fear of an adjacent subsurface land use from diminishing your investment. The locating of a large industrial operation next to a single family residential neighborhood is incompatible in any other circumstance except when it comes to oil and gas facilities. A property owner who may lose value in their investment has no recourse to protect his property from this intrusion. Individual property owners seemingly have few property rights unless they have the ability to navigate the state’s agencies. Only through local governments can the collection of property owners can have a role in voicing their opinion to state government regulators.
At Large:
Polly Christensen: They have the right by zoning to approve or deny any heavy industry /business within their municipality or county limits.
Ron Gallegos: Surface owners should receive some type of symbolic compensation [conservation Easement payment] for their surface rights within municipalities that have prohibitions on development within city limits. A possible answer might be in the form of tax credits for loss of development rights.
Catherine Jarrett: did not respond.
Aren Rodriguez: Surface owners should play an active role in engaging both the elected officials responsible in their jurisdictions and the oil and gas operators proposing facilities in or near the neighborhood. The process should ideally be in the best interests of all the stakeholders, and I consider surface owners in close proximity to operations as stakeholders at-large as the operations could potentially adversely affect the property values and health of the surface owners.
Ward 2:
Jeff Moore: “Rights” are defined as “the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts.” This would imply that surface rights should be as equally protected under the law as mineral rights. Surface owners should also have the protection of local ordinances and zoning restrictions.
Further, it would imply that surface-right owners should have the authority, and the option, to negotiate under full legal protection and the ability to decline to relinquish these rights, should they so choose. They should also have the right to join in negotiations collectively, should an entire community or neighborhood be involved.
Oil and gas development is a heavy industrial activity. Mineral rights should not supersede the rights of surface owners, or local ordinances or zoning.
Surface owners should also have the right to be fairly and adequately compensated for any disturbance, loss of property value, damages, or health impacts resulting from oil & gas activities near their homes or neighborhoods.
Those with both surface and mineral rights should be protected from “forced pooling”.
Marcia Martin: Surface owners are subject to neighborhood covenants, city zoning ordinances, and state regulations governing building codes, regardless of what construction they choose to erect on their property. A property owner may request rezoning or a zoning variance, but if she does, then owners of adjacent or nearby properties are stakeholders and must have a voice in the decision.
Example: if a surface owner gives permission for a well to be sited on his property, but the property is not large enough for the state-defined setbacks from neighboring property lines to be met, then the well may not be sited on the property.
My principle is that local authority must be strongest for increasing regulation, but local ordinances may not relax protections set by the county or state government.
One danger is that state legislatures, persuaded by the oil-and-gas lobby (or another strong lobby) may pass concessions for the industry which have the effect of relaxing local regulations. This should not be permitted. Particularly, the practice of using [essentially] eminent domain on behalf of a polluting industry must not be permitted. Colorado’s forced pooling laws are an example of “corporate eminent domain,” highly favoring subsurface owners over surface owners.
Question 4: What role should counties, the state, and federal agencies take in regulating air emissions at oil and gas facilities?
Responses:
Mayor
Brian Bagley and Roger Lange did not respond.
Sara Levison: All agencies that regulate air emissions need to coordinate each other’s roles. The big regulations, the most general come from the federal and state agencies. As stated previously, local conditions should dictate the regulation of air quality and emissions from each facility. The big agencies at the state and federal level cannot know what the local needs are as well as the government closest to the facilities. County and municipalities have a greater role on the fine tuning regulations to protect air quality and public health. The state and federal governments already grant local governments authority for health and safety in other programs.
At Large:
Polly Christensen: The state should provide inspectors, and municipalities should have access to their regular reports.
Ron Gallegos: The role of municipalities falls under the general health and safety category of regulations.
Catherine Jarrett did not respond.
Aren Rodriguez: It would be the most responsible option if all of the entities mentioned would do air quality monitoring and regulation. The more data available, the better equipped we are to deal with problems and make effective solutions. After all, good stewardship of the environment is a partnership that we must all participate in.
Ward 2:
Jeff Moore: The federal government customarily sets minimum environmental standards via the EPA and the Clean Air Act. However, states, counties, and municipalities should be able to establish local standards that are more restrictive (i.e. Protective) than those at the federal level. Currently, states can do this. However, it varies by state as to whether local governmental entities below the state level can adopt more restrictive measures exceeding those of the state.
In Colorado, local entities are not permitted to impose restrictions that exceed those at the state level. I do not agree with that, and think each government entity should be able to establish their own regulations at their particular governmental level that reflect the collective wishes of their residents.
Currently the Industry refuses to acknowledge that they emit polluting gas and water. The state should legislate stricter air and water pollution standards for the Industry.
The Industry argues that it is too burdensome to have to comply with a patchwork of regulations at each site. However, all other industrial activities are subject to that “patchwork” of regulations, and manage to comply. I believe that the time is over when the Industry should be subsidized and favored with pre-emptive authority and lower environmental/safety standards.
Marcia Martin: Higher authorities should set base-level protections which may not be relaxed by local authorities. Local authorities may strengthen protections for citizens and property owners. At any level, eminent domain must be reserved for public facilities such as highways, public buildings, etc.
When it comes to monitoring emissions and enforcing regulations, differences in state and local protections create difficulty. If the state has an inspection force adequate to monitor all facilities, then it can be argued that county or municipal inspections are an unnecessary expense. State inspectors must make their findings available to other government agencies.
If the state inspections are not frequent enough, or lack adequate resolution, or do not address the quantities or axes on which local government regulates, then local government must be responsible for setting up its own monitoring mechanisms.
Question 5: What role should counties, the state, and federal agencies take in reducing natural gas and methane waste at oil and gas facilities?
Responses:
Mayor
Brian Bagley and Roger Lange did not respond.
Sara Levison: Localities can monitor and report what is happening at facilities located in their jurisdictions. The state and federal government cannot observe or record what is happening on a daily basis – they set policy on what should happen, and can’t actually enforce what may happen. You have look at the issue from the perspective of who will be most affected in reducing waste. It is both the state and federal governments who may have to pay for remediation in the future and the local governments whose residents have to live it any leaks or accidents with waste storage.
At Large:
Polly Christensen: There should be national standards for this, enforced by the state. That will not happen yet, so municipalities and counties should set their own, allied regionally with other counties.
Ron Gallegos: Market based approach should be taken [take in reducing waste]…with the cost causers having to pay for any costs associated with the reduction of waste caused by the production of natural gas and methane products.
Catherine Jarrett did not respond.
Aren Rodriguez: Governmental agencies should focus first on three common sense ways to reduce methane pollution. First, oil and gas operators should be required to regularly detect and repair any leaking lines and flow ways. This also would help with certain safety issues. Another way is working with operators that are using as new of equipment and technologies as possible. Older equipment produces more methane pollution at a substantial level. Also capturing any natural gas that would be released or “flared” would substantially help with methane pollution.
Ward 2:
Jeff Moore: Require the collection of escaping gasses at well sites and require leak detection equipment at the site for leaks at joints and valves.
Support state legislation imposing strict emission standards, and fund the hiring of a sufficient number of inspectors to ensure compliance.
Establish heavy fines for non-compliance.
Marcia Martin: The polluter, not the government or regulatory body, should be responsible for controlling emissions and mitigating spills and leaks. Regulatory agencies should use the courts to force active development activities to cease if the developer is not meeting standards set by law.
Capture and use of natural gas (which is nothing but impure methane, sometimes with added odorants to aid in detection) is preferable to flaring. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than its combustion product, carbon dioxide. So, once the gas is freed from the shale, the best outcome is that it is used for energy, e.g. home heating or compressed into liquid fuel for UPS trucks or making steam for generating electricity. Second best is flaring – turning strong greenhouse methane into weak greenhouse CO2. Worst is letting the methane escape into the atmosphere. New extraction facilities (if they are needed at all) should be installed with capture mechanisms built-in. This ought to be a federal requirement, but as long as it is not, it must be enforced by the jurisdiction that makes the regulation.
Question 6: When it comes to siting and regulating oil and gas, how should the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and local governments be working together?
Responses:
Mayor
Brian Bagley and Roger Lange did not respond.
Sara Levison: Currently, local government has an assigned staff person who receives information on applications for permits. Local governments should be able to have equal weight given to their comments on the siting and regulation of facilities. There could be less conflict for the industry if local government felt the COGCC was incorporating their perspective in their decisions. The COGCC could have voting members who solely represent local government.
At Large:
Polly Christensen: COGCC should be holding quarterly meetings with municipalities and counties and working together with decision to allow or deny permits and eliminate ridiculous and unfair laws like forced pooling.
Ron Gallegos: Local government should be the initial point of contact and decision making with CC in a secondary role.
Catherine Jarrett did not respond.
Aren Rodriguez As I mentioned before, there is no one size fits all approach to oil and gas that truly works on a statewide level in Colorado. The COGCC should make a more concerted effort to allow for flexibility in the ability of local governments to regulate how oil and gas development occurs.
Ward 2:
Jeff Moore: Currently, there is no real direct interaction between the COGCC and local governments.
Local governments issue local permits but do not actually have the authority to deny one if the COGCC has approved the drilling request.
The Colorado Energy Office could be developed into a regulatory office with full authority and funding to set policy and oversee energy development of all kinds in Colorado including renewable sources.
If that is not possible, the COGCC should be recomposed to include citizen stakeholders, elected officials, and environmental groups rather than the present composition of Industry representatives. This would hopefully create a real permitting process, instead of a rubber stamp of all drilling requests.
Local governments should have complete authority to deny local permits based on zoning, ordinances, etc.
Marcia Martin: Unfortunately, COGCC sees its role as promoting oil and gas development rather than regulating it. It tends to defend the industry, and does not perform due diligence to ensure that permits it grants do not place the surrounding community at risk. In fact, in its over 65-year history, no occasion when it has denied a permit application has been identified.
In several paragraphs above I have described the desirability of allowing more local regulation of oil and gas development. COGCC as a specialized agency could be useful as an interpreter of local regulations, assessor of local conditions, and author of appropriate constraints on developers for each proposed locale.
Question 7: What changes, if any, would you like to see in how oil and gas is regulated in Colorado?
Responses:
Mayor
Brian Bagley and Roger Lange did not respond.
Sara Levison: There has to be a balance between the state’s regulations and granting of permits and local needs. Everyone acknowledges this is a challenge. The legislature needs to support the residents of Colorado feel confident in regulations that govern the industry. Because local governments are preempted in many areas of oil and gas regulation, the legislature needs to insure that our cities and counties, and all surface property owners can enjoy the use of their land. I believe that there can be regulation that meets the industry needs and local concerns.
At Large:
Polly Christensen: I would like COGCC to regulate the oil and gas industry, not just promote it.
Ron Gallegos: Statewide hearings and local hearings should be undertaken to get public input for new rule making procedures or legislation.
Catherine Jarrett did not respond.
Aren Rodriguez: It continues to be my firm desire to see local control of oil and gas development become the law of the land.
Ward 2:
Jeff Moore: It’s time to set policies establishing the transfer of incentives and subsidies away from fossil fuels and toward alternative energy sources. Oil and gas is now an established industry and does not need the incentives that are subsidizing their activity.
I would like to see the COGCC revamped to include citizen stakeholders, elected officials, and environmental groups rather than the present composition of Industry representatives. As an alternative, the Colorado Energy Office could be developed into a regulatory office with full authority and funding to set policy and oversee energy development of all kinds in Colorado.
Municipalities and counties should be granted the rights for local control, including the right to deny permits per their zoning regulations. Reasonable standards for justifying denials could be set up, as well as an appeals process for the Industry company.
Inspectors should be hired in numbers sufficient for inspecting the thousands of wells operating in Colorado.
As we move beyond fossil fuels there will be hundreds of wells closing and even abandoned. A stakeholder group should be convened to identify funding shortfalls associated with closed or abandoned oil and gas facilities. This group should establish fees companies should have to pay sufficient to meet projected mitigation costs.
Marcia Martin: Colorado favors the O&G industry in a number of ways, but the two most egregious are these:
- Local government is prohibited from banning development of fossil fuel resources within its limits of jurisdiction; and
- COGCC does not record and report, for every issued permit, what landowners, and what percentage of the affected surface acreage, have been subjected to forced pooling. The percentage of surface owners who enter into a voluntary mineral leasing agreement before adjacent surface owners can be forced pooled can be very small.
The changes I favor are:
- Home-rule municipalities should be able to regulate this industry like any other; and
- The percentage of surface owners agreeing to lease their mineral rights to a developer before non-consenting owners can be forced-pooled must be at least 50%. Study would be required on how to weight the percentage – for example, by number of parcels, or by area of parcels. But the present condition is unreasonable – and is the most favorable to Oil and Gas of any state.
Note that while the Supreme Court of Colorado struck down Longmont’s fracking ban, the ruling was based on a Colorado law. The law can be changed, and then the ban would be allowable.
Question 8: Do you have active oil and gas wells in your district? How often do you hear from your constituency regarding oil and gas issues?
Responses:
Mayor
Brian Bagley and Roger Lange did not respond.
Sara Levison: The City of Longmont was the first municipality in the state to have a ban on fracking. This was accomplished through a ballot initiative that wrote the ban into the city charter. Longmont was the first city to have local oil and gas regulations. I hear almost every day from people who are concerned about both their property values and health and safety when they know a facility will be permitted within the city. Currently there are many permits for new facilities within the city’s borders. One will be very close to the site of the city’s recreation center and the school district to be built Innovation center.
At Large:
Polly Christensen: We have some now, and since the defeat of Longmont’s fracking ban within the city limits was ruled illegal by the Colorado Supreme Court, the oil and gas industry is making it a point to drill and frack Boulder County to the utmost. I hear about this issue on a weekly basis. NO one is in favor. People are enraged at these companies, COGCC, the Supreme Court, and the State of Colorado.
Ron Gallegos: I am not aware of any. But I am currently not in office. [active oil/gas wells within district]
Catherine Jarrett did not respond.
Aren Rodriguez: We do have some older oil and gas wells in the district, and now that the citizen voted fracking ban has been overturned by the State Supreme Court, we are seeing applications for new drilling sites with hundreds of potential wells. The citizens of Longmont are very concerned with this new application, and would like to see the city and its officials do everything we can to discourage drilling in close proximity to the city.
Ward 2:
Jeff Moore: We do have active wells in Longmont. Not any that I am aware of in my ward. There are a number of plugged and abandoned wells in my ward though. The city is currently inspecting those wells to verify that the wells have been properly plugged to prevent potential releases of methane.
Oil and gas issues are very high on the list of things I hear about from constituents. I hear at least weekly about issues of oil and gas development. There is a large contingent of residents opposed to all oil and gas development in Longmont.
Marcia Martin: Yes, there are active oil and gas wells just outside the Longmont city limits, and new permitting papers just filed by 8 North (Extraction Oil & Gas) will allow drilling on city property at the Eastern Edge of Longmont. It is not clear yet whether the site will be inside or outside the Longmont city limits, but it (the “second site” in the linked article) is in Boulder County.
As I have canvassed in my election bid, about 1 in 5 residents I speak to brings up fracking as an issue. I do not prompt residents on the topic, but only ask for their primary concerns. The nearer the resident lives to the city limits, the more likely he or she is to be concerned. When it is mentioned, it is always mentioned as the “#1 Concern.” There is a positive correlation between the affluence of the neighborhood and the level of concern about fracking.
Question 9: What reporting, if any, would you want to see in place at oil and gas sites regarding air and water pollution? Who should be responsible for gathering the information?
Responses:
Mayor
Brian Bagley and Roger Lange did not respond.
Sara Levison: The state can set rules about pollution levels and set a reporting schedule. The local government entities, city and county should be able to help set the rules and reporting. Local governments should be given the monitoring role, accompanied by state funding. The state should provide training to local government to assist with monitoring and reporting. Pollution may happen quickly, first responders to an accident caused by pollution will be local.
At Large:
Polly Christensen: See #4, above.
Ron Gallegos: See answer for question #10.
Catherine Jarrett did not respond.
Aren Rodriguez: In my opinion, there should be nearly constant monitoring of air and water quality around oil and gas sites. This responsibility should fall to a third party outside of the influence of the COGCC, local government, and most definitely outside of the oil and gas operator.
Ward 2:
Jeff Moore: Industry Operators should be required to reveal all information about leaks, emissions, accidents (including injuries and deaths) and other infractions committed by their operations. They would be responsible for collecting that information.
This could be reported to the state (DNR or CEO, etc.) on a publicly accessible online site, available in writing via FOIA, published in both online and print media, and stakeholder and community meetings.
Inspectors should also routinely report on their inspection findings – and provide verification of Industry reports, both good and bad. The Colorado Energy fund could be used to pay for reports available to the general public on energy issues.
Marcia Martin: In 2017, after a long period of research, Boulder County has adopted the strictest rules governing drilling and extraction of any county or municipality in the state of Colorado. The new rules include provisions for monitoring air quality, requirements for controlling hydrocarbon emissions (VOCs), and sampling of water wells to detect contamination of the water table. The 53-page document released by Boulder County is here.
It is problematic whether the developers can be trusted to report their own compliance accurately. Boulder County does some monitoring, in addition to obliging developers to initially report the emissions-related performance of their existing active wells and to monitor the in-county operations using state-of-the art detection instruments (e.g. FLIR), leak-detection equipment, monthly visual inspection of pipelines, and more.
Ideally, an independent monitoring organization would spot-check sites to ensure compliance. Monitoring is costly. Some environmental groups are considering providing equipment to citizen-scientists to reduce the cost, but doing this opens the door to industry challenges.
Ultimately, cessation is the only reasonable solution. Colorado’s oil and gas resources are so plentiful that they could power the country for nearly a decade. They are not concentrated on the Front Range. Drill where it’s safe!
Question 10: How should information regarding new oil and gas development be relayed to the public?
Responses:
Mayor
Brian Bagley and Roger Lange did not respond.
Sara Levison: The public should be able to easily track pre permit application correspondence with the state regulators. Any member of the public should be able to do a search of violations and fines from the comfort of their home computer. Information about permits should be public.
The state could publish a quarterly report with details of applications and inquiries divided by zip code and local government locations. Municipalities can also have the information on communication with the COGCC and the state on their websites.
At Large:
Polly Christensen: As broadly as possible: at Council and County Commission meetings, through local and regional newspapers, on the radio, TV, etc.
Ron Gallegos: Gathering [reporting info of air/water pollution] of info by state and local government. Metrics to be developed by state/local government.
Catherine Jarrett did not respond.
Aren Rodriguez: There should be an information portal on the city website that is continually updated throughout the process. This information should also be available to those that call the city. Major parts of the process, such as initial application, approval of application, etc., should be released by the city as press releases to the local media.
Ward 2:
Jeff Moore: New state laws & regulations: via newspapers, media, social media, town halls, public forums
Local development: There should be a public process so that residents can provide input like any other major development permit.
Marcia Martin: COGCC should allow interested parties to subscribe to alerts on permits. Subscribers should be able to enter their address and choose their radius of concern:
“Alert me on new [ ]permits [ ]applications within [nn] miles of my home.”
I designed an automated mechanism for doing that, done by scraping their web site. It’s a clumsy process but it works. However, the published information is not adequate to allow affected citizens to assess their personal risk, in my opinion. The disclosures made during the permitting process should be available, translated into layman’s language. Currently, a lot of information is available through the COGCC web site, but it is difficult to find and more difficult to interpret.
Question 11: How should information regarding regulatory violations – noise, air, water pollution – be relayed to the public?
Responses:
Mayor
Brian Bagley and Roger Lange did not respond.
Sara Levison: Local government could get the information from the state and relay it to residents. With many active on social media instances of noise, air, water pollution, may be reported by residents. We have already seen how quickly the video of the house explosion in Firestone got out to the public via social media. It is not just how information is relayed TO the public but how well information FROM the public on nuisances will inform federal, state and local governments.
At Large:
Polly Christensen: See #10, above.
Ron Gallegos: Gathering [reporting info of air/water pollution] of info by state and local government. Metrics to be developed by state/local government.
Catherine Jarrett did not respond.
Aren Rodriguez: All infractions concerning noise, air, and water pollution should be similarly registered in the city website and available for those that call as well. More serious and serial infractions should be released to the local media via press release.
Ward 2:
Jeff Moore: This information should be fully transparent.
Industry Operators should be required to reveal all information about leaks, emissions, accidents (including injuries and deaths) and other infractions committed by their operations.
This could include such things as Industry operator and inspection reports to the state on a publicly viewable site, available in writing via FOIA, published in both online and print media, and stakeholder and community meetings.
The Colorado Energy fund should be used to pay for periodic reports to the general public on energy issues.
Marcia Martin: First of all, I don’t consider air and water pollution to be mere nuisances. But it’s the same deal. Reports should be aggregated in layman’s language on a web site – and interested people should be able to subscribe to alerts that have intelligent filtering associated with them, so that they don’t get overwhelmed with data.
The main issue in this case is quality control. If reports by citizens are aggregated, bulletin-board style, then there needs to be a monitor that verifies reports. Frequent posters who check out clean can be “badged” as reliable sources.
Question 12: What role should local government have in determining and enforcing nuisances – fines, policing powers, etc.?
Responses:
Mayor
Brian Bagley and Roger Lange did not respond.
Sara Levison: First, those who are closest in distance from the nuisances are the most impacted. This is obvious but the enforcement must come quickly – in real time to lessen the impact of failure of health and safety regulations at a facility. In an emergency situation, there should be in place a protocol for the state to give their powers for enforcement and regulation to a local government so that evidence can be preserved and reporting of violations accurate. The severity of the situation has to be agreed upon. The state has authority for more severe fines than a local government can. Furthermore, the state needs to provide training for local government staff to respond.
At Large:
Polly Christensen: Since the state refuses to do this, municipalities and counties should have full power to enforce nuisances, fines, etc.
Ron Gallegos: Info should be published online, public meetings/hearings, and annual reports to city council by state and civil staff as well as interested third parties.
Catherine Jarrett did not respond.
Aren Rodriguez: Ideally the local government entity would be able to completely regulate any infractions concerning noise, air, and water pollution. The local entity is the one most affected, and would therefore be the one most able to determine the cost for punitive repayment.
Ward 2:
Jeff Moore: Nuisances should be determinable by both subjective complaints by citizens (about noise, dust, odors, fumes, lights), as well as objective data measured by inspectors (gas plumes, noise and light levels, etc.). Colorado law has a very clear definition of what constitutes a nuisance. There should be no exceptions automatically granted to the Industry.
In terms of enforcement, local government entities should have the authority to assess fines, over and above development fees, in an amount sufficient to recover the administrative and enforcement costs for environmental nuisance violations. Because it is left to local entities to negotiate with Industry operators, local entities should be able to deny permits to those operators who, in the past, have failed to either negotiate in good faith, or have reneged on their prior commitments.
A sufficient number of inspectors must be hired, trained, and funded at the state level. It would be too costly or impractical for many municipalities and counties to all have their own inspectors. However, they could reimburse the state for infractions at the local level using the fee structure described above.
I think this would also need to include refuse pits, and site cleanup/mitigation after operations close.
Marcia Martin: Boulder County rules require that the developer must notify both the County and the owner (surface owner, or water source owner) when mandatory self-test results are outside limits. However. The county relies on the courts to enjoin the developer from the activity causing the violation, and to force the developer to remedy the violation.
Boulder County can provide the information it has to municipal governments that have policing and code enforcement entities. Funding to expand municipal enforcement staff would be required. Municipalities could pass opening fees and infraction fines to fund the activity.
Question 13: How would you address safety concerns related to unmapped active and inactive oil and gas pipelines and related infrastructure?
Responses:
Mayor
Brian Bagley and Roger Lange did not respond.
Sara Levison: While the state can take the lead on this effort, the impact of unknown infrastructure is at the local level. As seen was revealed after the Firestone accident, if this important safely issue is not addressed, there will be more accidents. The other point of mapping the oil and gas infrastructure is that it conforms with common practice in local government to have accurate GIS maps of all underground infrastructure within their boundaries. The state should fund local government’s projects to complete GIS mapping. Smaller cities and counties in rural Colorado may not have the resources to perform the mapping.
At Large:
Polly Christensen
Ron Gallegos
Catherine Jarrett
Aren Rodriguez: While it isn’t feasible to accurately map all oil and gas pipelines and related infrastructure due to gaps in record keeping, it should be imperative that all efforts be made to adequately try and obtain as much information about unmapped active and inactive oil wells as possible. If it is determined there is an area with high certainty of unmapped oil and gas pipelines whether active or not, then surface owners should be immediately advised of the likelihood of that particular infrastructure. Surface owners should also be advised that it would be a good idea to invest in a detector in the event that a leak occurs and increases danger to the residents.
Ward 2:
Jeff Moore: Regulations should be created at the state level to require the Industry to complete mapping of pipelines. The legal authority for counties and cities to require mapping has yet to be tested in court, and cities and counties should not have to risk litigation from the Industry in order to protect their citizens.
Existing operators should have a deadline for mapping their existing infrastructure, with penalties for non-compliance or delay in meeting the deadline.
A database should be created at the state level so that it is complete – contains everything that should be included, and on a reasonable timeline. The actual mapping data would be collected, entered and maintained by the oil and gas companies. Regular quarterly reports and maps should be submitted and published by the state in a publicly accessible, searchable website.
It is not an undue burden for operators to have to input and maintain data in a government-hosted database. This is a requirement in many other fields, at both state and federal levels, and those who want to participate in that activity simply must comply or be denied permits
Marcia Martin: Mapping of all existing infrastructure must be required, at the expense of developers. Removal of abandoned infrastructure should be done where feasible, and, if subsequent structures have rendered removal of subsurface infrastructure like flow lines impossible, then safety certification must be performed instead. E.g. the lines must be tested at both accessible ends and capped.
The industry will object that safety measures this stringent make developing the resources economically infeasible. All the better. Develop resources on the open plains, where the surface owners welcome their activity. People in the population centers do not.