As currently written and approved by the Elbert County Planning Commission, the proposed zoning amendment for Part II, Section 27, Administrative Review and MOU Process for Minor Oil and Gas Operations and Related Facilities to Elbert County Zoning regulations will expose Elbert County to multiple lawsuits.
The proposed regs define the nature of a minor oil & gas operation in terms of equipment, operational characteristics, etc. In addition to specifying the physical characteristics of a minor oil & gas operation, the regulations require that a “voluntary” Memorandum of Understanding be inked between Elbert County and a prospective operator. Without a “voluntary” MOU, an operator’s physical equipment cannot constitute a minor operation.
Moreover, this fiction was invented to shelter the incorporation of local zoning operational conflicts with COGCC regulations into local law through the MOU. Operational conflicts are more restrictive regulations that conflict with state regulations, unless an operator voluntarily agrees to them. They cannot be required by local regulations.
Elbert County Planners are attempting to hide operational conflicts in plain sight by placing them inside a voluntary contract of an MOU.
Except the MOU isn’t voluntary. It’s a document required by zoning before equipment – with certain characteristics that don’t change whether or not the MOU exists – can meet the terms of a minor oil & gas facility in the proposed zoning section.
In this context, the MOU fits the definition of a contract of adhesion between parties of substantially unequal bargaining power. A “voluntary” MOU in the context of a required regulatory framework will not survive a court challenge as an enforceable contract.
Elbert County Planners have every right to follow a policy to seek truly voluntary MOU agreements with oil & gas operators. And an operator has every right to agree to more restrictive operational terms in an MOU with Elbert County.
But the construct currently proposed is not voluntary, it is regulatory. As such, it fails as a contractual construct, and it fails as a local regulatory operational conflict with COGCC state regulations.
The BOCC would be wise to turn this proposed language down. Passage will lead to litigation which can only delay the onset of oil & gas operations in Elbert County.
The Elbert County Planning Commission raised more rebuttable presumptions in their 1-2-14 recommendation to the BOCC, however, the above major problems should be sufficient to cause a re-tool of this zoning debacle.