The La Plata County administrative board room was filled, once again, with enlivened debate this week as the Planning Commission considered whether to enact the latest draft of proposed regulations on the oil and gas industry. Before the meeting concluded around 10 p.m., the five members of the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue conversation in a work session on March 23.
The regulations will dictate, among many things, how close oil and natural gas wells can sit to surface property lines, as well as residential, industrial and high-occupancy buildings. They will also determine the size of the bond that drillers must post to ensure wells are properly plugged after use.
More than 70 people packed the room and about 25 attended virtually Thursday night. The public comment period stretched on for nearly two hours, during which time 42 people, including industry representatives, land owners and environmentalists tugged at planning commissioners’ ears.
It was evident that, in the minds of those who spoke, the issue is as intimately connected to climate change, conservation and the nation’s energy transition as it is to small business, county tax revenue and private property rights.
Those in favor of the regulations encouraged commissioners to foster a healthy skepticism of the input offered by members of the industry, who stand to profit from lack of regulations. Those against the regulations asked commissioners to dismiss that skepticism as the conjectures of out-of-touch environmental crusaders.
Some landowners repeatedly expressed concern over the impact that a proposed mandatory 500-foot minimum setback rule would have on their property values, deeming the regulation an unconstitutional takings. Conversely, other landowners have expressed fear over the health impacts of wells drilled near their homes.
At times, the room began to feel like a cacophonous echo chamber. Some comments were predicated upon a misunderstanding of the code, such as the one man who lamented the fact that he would have to build his hay barn in the middle of an agricultural field. County Attorney Sheryl Rogers clarified that a barn did not qualify as one of the structures subject to a 500-foot minimum setback.
Members of the public were more cordial with one another than at the Feb. 23 meeting, albeit for a handful of off-handed comments. However, suspicions were aroused when Emelie Frojen, the energy and climate program associate at San Juan Citizens Alliance, told the Planning Commission that the first sheet to sign-up for public comment – which contained the names of seven people speaking in favor of the regulations – had been moved to the bottom of the stack, delaying those comments by over 45 minutes.
Frojen said the delay meant that five people who had intended to speak in favor of the proposed regulations had left.
Although a comment that the industry contributes to climate change garnered contemptive laughter from a portion of the audience, those speaking in favor of the regulations said they did so with an eye on the future.
Genevieve Buzan-Dansereau, a teacher, said she had one student who had been expelled from multiple schools because he could not see any reason to work.
“He’s convinced that there is no future in the world,” she told commissioners. “He’s utterly hopeless – and he’s 15.”
The expansive range of comments and the variable veracity of the claims within them have complicated a revision process that will celebrate its second birthday on March 30.
Members of the Planning Commission must now work to parse what they have heard. Comments have included false claims that the public was not notified of the revisions and anecdotal evidence speaking to both the presence and absence of harmful health impacts of living near gas wells.
Buried within the deluge of concerns, members of the public have also brought forth substantive questions for the Planning Commission to consider.
Heather Riley, who works in the industry, noted that proposed setback rules for pipelines refer to a setback from the easement, rather than the pipeline itself.
“If you have a 50-foot, or a 40-foot right of way easement, and then you add 100 feet on top of that, that’s a pretty wide width,” she told the Planning Commission.
By the end of the lengthy comment period, members of the Planning Commission agreed to discuss any requests for changes at the next meeting.
“There’s no way I can make another informed vote tonight,” Planning Commissioner Jean Walter said.
Because Planning Commission Chairwoman Geri Malandra closed public comment, the commission could recommend approval of the draft to the Board of County Commissioners at its next meeting on March 23. The planning commissioners indicated that they are likely to recommend approval of the draft with some changes, the substance of which they will discuss in a work session in two weeks.
Although the work session will be open to the public, it will not include an opportunity more for public comment. The public will be able to comment when the Board of County Commissioners takes up the topic following the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
rschafir@durangoherald.com
