La Plata County has released the third draft of the proposed gas and oil regulations, kicking off what is likely to be the final round of public input and revision before the Board of County Commissioners votes on the code.
Staff members in the County Attorney’s office wove some flexibility into the code in response to recommendations made by the Planning Commission. The draft acknowledges the eight recommendations that the Planning Commission made when members voted to recommend draft two for approval and incorporates some, but not all, of them into the chapter.
The two-year long revision process has included more than two dozen meetings and workshops. The latest draft is likely go to the BoCC for a vote by May 2.
Most of the changes in the draft appear in the section containing setback regulations. Industry representatives, environmentalists and planning commissioners have clashed repeatedly over the topic.
The section of the code regulates the minimum distance between gas and oil infrastructure and buildings. The setbacks section of the code applies to gas and oil operators, while the “reciprocal setbacks” section applies to developers and landowners seeking to build near existing industry infrastructure.
The conversation has shone a light on the swirl of contradictory conclusions on the health impacts of living and working near oil and gas infrastructure.
In January, county commissioners indicated approval for drafted language that established an absolute minimum setback of 500 feet between well pads and commercial, industrial, residential and high-occupancy buildings, as well as from surface property lines.
However, the planning commissioners resisted that level of regulation – which is more restrictive than the state’s minimum setbacks – and urged the BoCC to consider more flexible alternatives. The Planning Commission also recommended that the BoCC revisit whether any regulation beyond the state’s newly drafted rules was necessary, an idea that gained no traction at last week’s work session.
In response to the planning commissioners recommendations, the county commissioners indicated to staff members that they were amenable to revisiting the setbacks question.
The new proposed setbacks are tailored to vary depending on the type of adjacent development.
| Setback applies when well is near: | Version 2 | Version 3 |
| Property lines if adjacent parcel contains commercial or industrial building or public gathering space | 500 feet | 300 feet |
| Property lines if adjacent parcel contains dwelling unit or high occupancy building | 500 feet | 400 feet |
| Property line with informed consent of neighbors | 500 feet | 150 feet |
| Commercial and industrial buildings | 500 feet | 300 feet |
| Residential or high occupancy building units, | 500 feet | 400 feet |
| Reciprocal setbacks | 500 feet | Matches regular setbacks as dictated by use |
Setbacks from surface property lines were reduced from 500 feet to anywhere between 150 and 400 feet, depending on the type of development located on the adjacent parcel. Any oil and gas infrastructure that may be sited within 2,000 feet of a property line is contingent on the operator gaining the informed consent of all impacted tenants and property owners.
The new language reduces the minimum setback from residential or high-occupancy building units to 400 feet and reduces the setback from commercial and industrial buildings to 300 feet.
The county’s staff members did not heed recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding reciprocal setbacks. The planning commissioners suggested a provision that would allow these setbacks to be waived contingent on agreement of both the operator and the applicant.
“After reviewing it further, the staff believes that the modifications create confusion about the legislative intent of the provision,” a comment left by county staff members in the margins of the draft reads. “If the reciprocal setbacks are necessary to protect public health and safety, then it is inconsistent to state that they may be waived.”
Instead, the code took what staff members called a “more straightforward approach.”
The reciprocal setback regulations now correspond to the standard setbacks; so, a residential building could be built no closer than 400 feet to an operating well pad but a commercial building could be sited 300 feet from a well pad.
Still, industry representatives area are dissatisfied.
Michelina Paulek, executive director of the Energy Council, called the regulations arbitrary and capricious in light of what she said is the absence of evidence indicating there are adverse health impacts from living near infrastructure.
“I have a better idea,” she said in response to the new draft. “How about you let landowners and operators decide what is appropriate for their property?”
Emelie Frojen, energy and climate program associate at San Juan Citizens Alliance, said the science reflects that a 2,000-foot setback is necessary, but that the minor reductions from the original 500-foot minimum might be an acceptable compromise.
“If that’s what it takes to get this regulation moving forward, we think it’s a good step in the right direction,” Frojen said. “It’s not complete and probably not up to what scientific studies have shown is needed, but it’s much better than what we currently have.”
One amendment to the code, offered by Planning Commissioner Charly Minkler at the eleventh hour of the penultimate Planning Commission meeting, would send major oil and gas permit applications to the Planning Commission for consideration before the BoCC makes a final decision.
In a work session last week, County Manager Chuck Stevens told the board that the extra step would likely add a month to the review process. Minkler’s stated intention was to ensure that applications received adequate and unbiased review – he highlighted that the current BoCC is composed of three Democrats.
County staff members previously indicated they were unsure how industry representatives and environmentalists might react to the provision.
However, Frojen and Paulek indicated tepid support for the regulation. The extra step for public input and review was beneficial, both reasoned.
The chapter will go before the BoCC for consideration for the first time at its business meeting on April 18. Given that the volume of public comment is expected to be high, the board is likely to consider the resolution on adopting the code on April 26 and possibly on May 2.
The public can submit feedback on the draft to the BoCC on the county’s comment portal (bit.ly/3nZpmmj), by email to ted.holteen@co.laplata.co.us, over the phone at 382-6265, or by mail or in person at 1101 East Second Ave., Durango, CO 81301.
rschafir@durangoherald.com
