Longmont Is Ground Zero In War Over Fracking
By Vincent Carroll
The Denver Post
10/17/2012
If you haven’t seen the video of anti-fracking protesters hectoring Gov. John Hickenlooper in Longmont last month and then thrusting signs against his car, you should Google it to get an idea of the passion behind the movement — here and nationally — to outlaw hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas.
Opponents are angry and determined, and ground zero for their crusade in early November just happens to be Longmont, where Ballot Question 300 would ban fracking within city limits.
It’s one thing for towns in upstate New York to outlaw fracking, as many have done, since they’re targeting an activity that exists nowhere in their state. But if a city in a state with a thriving oil and gas industry were to outlaw fracking — and do so by popular vote — now that might send a message far and wide.
But will Longmont voters consent to a leading role in the national campaign of fear-mongering against fracking — a drilling technique that has proved to be an economic godsend for the U.S. with only modest environmental fallout? Well, fracking critics did collect more than 6,000 signatures to get their ordinance on the ballot, a solid start in a city of nearly 90,000 residents. But the other side hasn’t been sitting on its hands, either.
Seven former mayors have come out against the measure, debunking the most commonly cited safety fears and pointing to the city’s potential liability to owners of underground mineral rights if Question 300 prevails. Of course, any future liability assumes the measure would survive legal challenge, which is somewhat doubtful.
Just 20 years ago the state Supreme Court ruled that Greeley could not impose a “total ban on the drilling of any oil, gas, or hydrocarbon wells within the city limits.” And while a fracking ban may not be a total drilling ban, it might as well be, since fracking is employed in the vast majority of wells these days.
It’s not as if local communities lack leverage when oil and gas companies come knocking. As Geoff Wilson, general counsel for the Colorado Municipal League, reminded me, cities often negotiate a “memorandum of understanding” with an operator — an enforceable contract that may cover everything from drilling setbacks from occupied buildings to when the lights go out at night.
Longmont in fact has such a contract with the sole fracking operator there.
Such contracts may be one reason why local jurisdictions aren’t clamoring in unison for the state to expand the minimum drilling setback in populated areas beyond 350 feet. Some local governments clearly think 350 is not enough — Longmont set a 750-foot minimum by ordinance this year and was promptly sued by the state — but others are not so sure.
Wilson said the municipal league’s primary goals in recent meetings of the governor’s “setback stakeholder group” were “to protect our communities” and ensure that “whatever was done with setbacks wouldn’t jeopardize local MOUs.” He added, by the way, that nothing he heard during those meetings suggested that current setback requirements threaten the health and safety of Coloradans.
Nancy Jackson, a Democratic commissioner in Arapahoe County and a close observer of the debate over fracking on the Front Range, also worries that any move by the state to increase setbacks might trump local agreements. She told me some of her constituents don’t mind nearby wells while others do, so it’s essential for her county to be able to sign agreements with operators that reflect local reality.
If I lived in a community where drilling was likely, I’d want local or state officials to monitor air and water quality, and to regulate dust, traffic, noise, lighting and, yes, set a reasonable distance between wells and homes. But all of those things can be done without banning fracking — which is why the Longmont vote is the bellwether of a far more extreme agenda.
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@ denverpost.com. Follow him on Twitter @vcarrollDP.