When Gov. John Hickenlooper appointed a task force to craft recommendations for addressing the conflict between state and local rules governing gas and oil development in the state, he was careful to structure a balanced board. Equally split among local governments and conservation interests, industry representatives and neutral members, the task force was asked to generate a series of recommendations that addressed the sometimes challenging relationship between state authority to regulate gas and oil development and local authority to control land use. Given the panel’s structure, as well as rules restricting communication between its members, it was unsurprising that the task force’s consensus recommendations were relatively small steps in addressing this enduring tension in Colorado. Nevertheless, two of them would give local governments a greater voice in regulating land use where large facilities are proposed – as long as the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, which makes such rules, fully honors the task force’s recommendations. The draft rules released last week fail to do so, further weakening that task force’s lackluster results.
The task force’s recommendations, to be embodied in COGCC-drafted rules, called for a robust consultation process between industry and local governments, particularly with respect to the location of large-scale facilities. This premise honors the rights of cities and counties to regulate land use within their jurisdictions, and encourages cooperation so as to best manage the inherent conflict between gas and oil development and the residential communities it affects. The proposed rules contain no clear statement requiring that proposed gas and oil activities go through a local land use approval process prior to receiving state permits; they encourage the consultation but do not enshrine it as essential. Without that requirement, cities and counties will lack the authority to negotiate siting of large-scale facilities – which was the intent of the task force’s recommendation. That must be remedied before the rules are finalized – a request local governments and counties, including La Plata, have made since the rulemaking began.
Another of the task force’s recommendations would require gas and oil producers to notify municipalities of their five-year development plans – with the recognition that such projections are just that. Such advanced notification would be useful to cities as they plan for future growth and could help forestall conflict between residential and industrial development. However, despite consistent, repeated requests from counties to be included that advanced planning requirement, the COGCC’s proposed rules only requires that municipalities be given the long-range development plans. Given the fact that the vast majority of gas and oil development in the state occurs in unincorporated areas of Colorado’s counties, that omission is difficult to fathom, much less justify.
The COGCC’s draft rules further restrict the opportunity for consultation and conversation between industry and localities by reducing the task force’s recommendation that adjacent jurisdictions within one mile of a proposed large-scale facility be notified of the project. The proposed rule would shrink that requirement to just 1,000 feet, thereby limiting neighboring jurisdictions’ ability to plan and prepare for potentially significant impacts to their communities.
As it moves to finalize the draft rules, the COGCC must ensure that the hard-fought recommendations of the task force are reflected in the outcome. The 21-member stakeholder panel did difficult work under challenging circumstances. To undermine their consensus – as well as local land use authority – is an unacceptable outcome that will surely lead to far more divisive action in the ongoing conversation surrounding gas and oil development in Colorado.
