As the La Plata County Planning Commission convened Thursday night to consider the second draft of the county’s proposed gas and oil regulations, the atmosphere strayed from its usual tenor of decorum. Tense passive aggression punctuated moments of the evening, while vitriolic exchanges between members of the public highlighted the controversial nature of the intricacies in the land-use code.

At the end of the meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue its consideration on March 9.

The county has been working on revising Chapter 90 of the land-use code, which establishes regulations on gas and oil operations, since last year. The issues that arose point to the wide-ranging implications of the code, which will ultimately dictate how close wells can be to residential structures and schools, and the scope of drillers’ cleanup responsibilities after wells run dry.

Some public comments consisted of cordial pre-written statements, such as those shared by Executive Director of the Energy Council Michelina Paulek, who represents the gas and oil trade organization, and Energy and Climate Program Associate at San Juan Citizens Alliance Emelie Frojen. Both Paulek and Frojen have been highly involved in the revision process.

Other comments devolved into emotionally charged tirades.

One comment from county resident Deborah Shisler included misinformation that wind turbines are responsible for a significant number of bird and whale deaths (studies have found that wind turbines are linked to about 1.17 million bird deaths annually, which pales in comparison the number of birds killed by cars, pesticides and communication towers; no whale deaths have been connected to offshore wind farms, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

Within just a half-hour of the meeting starting, questions surfaced as to the Planning Commission’s powers concerning revisions of the draft.

The Planning Commission, to which members are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, is charged with making a recommendation to the BoCC regarding the adoption of the new regulations. The two decision items on the agenda were to repeal the existing Chapter 90 and replace it with the updated language.

The BoCC has held numerous work sessions and provided opportunities for public comment over recent months to parse everything down to vocabulary-level changes in certain parts of the proposed code. The issue of minimum required setbacks – the distance between wells and other infrastructure – and financial assurances demanded extensive attention.

Still, some industry representatives had objections to those elements of the code, as well as others.

“The Board of County Commissioners had very thorough and in-depth conversations about (setbacks and financial assurances),” County Attorney Sheryl Rogers told the commission. “Our suggestion is that that should be a topic that the Board of County Commissioners decides whether they want to relitigate and entertain those (objections), and are in the purview of the Board instead of the PC (Planning Commission).”

Planning Commission member Clark Craig questioned what the PC’s role is in the process given that the BoCC has already considered the financial assurances or setbacks part of the code.

“The (financial assurances and setbacks) language is in the draft that you’re being asked to recommend to the Board for approval, but relitigating all the policy issues that have already been determined by the Board is not an option,” Rogers said.

Confusion seemed to stem from Roger’s comment that it was “not an option” for the Planning Commission to consider changes to sections concerning those two issues.

County Manager Chuck Stevens clarified in an interview with The Durango Herald that the Planning Commission could request changes to the chapter or offer input to the BoCC, but that the BoCC has already done extensive legwork and heard hours of public comment on the issue.

Craig said that Rogers’ statement did not make sense to him. Planning Commission member Charly Minkler seemed to take offense.

“I find it somewhat disturbing that this process is being applied in this instance,” Minkler said during the meeting. “I don’t think it’s correct, and I’m sad that these decisions have already been made and pretty much preempted the efficiency and the purpose of the Planning Commission.”

Former Chairman of the La Plata County Republican Central Committee David Peters was in the audience and took an even firmer stance on the issue.

“I have some ethical concerns with some statements made by the county attorney,” Peters said during public comment, speaking of Rogers’ statement that only the BoCC could revisit the matter of financial assurances and setbacks. “I’m going to consult with some other citizens and may advance those concerns to the Colorado Supreme Court.”

Rogers said earlier in the meeting that the BoCC had held “six or seven” public meetings on the two topics, in which the BoCC heard extensive public comment, providing ample opportunity for input. Interested parties were invited to submit 10 pages of comments and present in 20-minute slots at those meetings.

Planning Commission chairwoman Geri Malandra indicated that she understood the rationale behind Rogers’ statement, clarifying that the implications of those sections were indeed beyond the Planning Commission’s purview.

“My take on it, having sat in on almost every discussion that we have had and that the board has had ... is that specifically in terms of the content related to setbacks and financial assurance ... the actual content of those were very focused on technical issues and financial issues that are usually outside the scope of the decisions that we’re making as a Planning Commission,” she said.

According to the draft, gas and oil infrastructure must be a minimum of 500 feet from surface property lines, commercial buildings, industrial buildings, residential building units, high-occupancy buildings and existing gas and oil facilities.

The setbacks issue also evoked a number of public comments from residents concerned with the impact on their private property rights. Some are concerned that the proposed setbacks, which are more restrictive than what is required by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in several cases, could reduce the value of their land by inhibiting development.

Frank Sinton owns a 65-acre parcel near Elmore’s Corner, which he wants to develop. He has a well pad in the corner of his property for which he receives no royalties.

Although he is generally a supporter of San Juan Citizens Alliance, the environmentalist group that has led the charge pushing for stricter setback regulations, Sinton said the mandatory 500-foot minimum setback devalues his property by excluding a significantly larger portion of his property from development.

“The benefits espoused of better health and safety are mostly unproven,” Sinton wrote in comments submitted before the meeting. “The damage caused to property owners is VERY real.”

County residents who work in the gas and oil industry spoke up as well, such as Mary O’Hare, whose family owns Maralex Resources Inc., which operates 45 active wells in Colorado.

“There is a push to destroy oil and gas. And oil and gas is a friend to all. Everything we touch is from petroleum products or delivered by petroleum products,” she said. “I want to urge less regulation and I think there needs to be an attitude of gratitude to the oil and gas industry. I’m tired of being lied about, I’m tired of people inventing things, saying we cause nosebleeds ... that fracking causes earthquakes.”

Kelly Hegarty, the first vice chairperson with the county’s Republican Central Committee, alleged that those who submitted comments using a form letter provided by San Juan Citizens Alliance were being paid.

Frojen said nobody was paid by San Juan Citizens Alliance to submit public comment, although she as a staff member of the organization does draw a salary.

Hegarty also extolled the virtues of gas and oil companies, saying they are “good stewards of the land.”

Lori Bryan, a 30-year La Plata County resident, disagreed.

She is among the property owners at risk of having wells drilled near their homes and spoke in favor of strong setback regulations. In many cases, property owners do no retain subsurface mineral rights, opening themselves up to the possibility that a developer could drill on their property.

“When I first moved here I bought a beautiful log house on 17 acres – nice and quiet. A year later, I had a gas well shoved down my throat 130 feet from my front door,” she said. “... I tried to get people to come out, nobody tested my water well. I was a single mom working 12 hours per night and didn’t have time to deal with this kind of stuff, and that is when I joined San Juan Citizens Alliance, which is a nonprofit.”

“Are you getting paid?” O’Hare interrupted from the back of the room.

When Bryan sat down, O’Hare continued to provoke her.

“They’re lying to you,” she could be overheard saying.

After more than 2½ hours of consideration, the commission voted to continue deliberation at its next meeting, which will be held March 9 at the La Plata County Administration Building.

rschafir@durangoherald.com

This story has been updated to include the full name of La Plata County Attorney Sheryl Rogers.