On May 14th, representatives from COGCC and COGA met with the BOCC, members of the CDS department, and Grant Thayer representing the proposed oil & gas zoning regulations and MOU, in a study session. The entire video is here:
COGCC and COGA raised a number of objections about the proposed zoning regulations as follows:
(Each of the links in this list starts the video at the relevant point. You might want to open them in a separate tab.)
- The MOU is a vehicle for you to negotiate things which you cannot mandate
- Operational conflicts in general
- The MOU is NOT the entire agreement for expedited CDS approval
- The community meeting requirements are redundant of state regulations
- If you want to have a completely duplicative process (with COGCC), you can
- Page 14 dust control measures with produced water. Operational conflict with COGCC rule 910.
- Hazardous material inventory statement undefined and potentially conflicting with COGCC.
- All weather surface on private property undefined. COGCC recommends this be in MOU. Fire Depts. want it regulatory. Not resolved.
- Disposal of produced water section thoroughly regulated by COGCC. Operational conflict.
- There is no presumption against open pit storage at COGCC. Operational conflict.
- COGCC regulates produced water pits used by multiple operators
- Permit time frame for removal of operational equipment conflicts with COGCC interim reclamation.
- Most counties are not using an MOU legal structure. Most rely on COGCC LGD interface.
COGA – “We’re not seeing this is the norm by any case.”
The proposed oil & gas zoning regulations and MOU, both dated May 10, 2013, were subsequently sent to the BOCC for approval without any of the above cited operational conflicts and other problems addressed.
As of this writing on 7-13-2013 they are still on-line at the county website at:
It would appear that Rowland and Schlegel paid attention this day, and Ross did not. Knowing that none of these concerns had been addressed in the draft documents, Rowland and Schlegel subsequently ruled on them in the only reasonable way they could have.
Why did the oil & gas edit committee and the CDS department not respond to the COGCC warnings?
Why did the planning commission accept documents they knew had been made obsolete by COGCC criticisms?
Why did the edit committee, the planning commission, and the CDS department, try to convince the BOCC to put Elbert County on a litigation collision course with the state?
Should there be wholesale changes in personnel in all of these groups?
How can the citizens of Elbert County trust future advice from the people currently operating these groups?
B_Imperial