The Colorado Task Force regarding State and Local Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations began with a Herculean task and an ambitious timeline. As the divergent panel wades through its charge to develop recommendations by Feb. 27 for the Colorado Legislature to consider, it must overcome the significant distinctions among the various positions task force members hold. Doing so within the constraints of a seven-meeting framework is not easy; it might not be possible. To maximize the task force’s effectiveness in developing recommendations, Gov. John Hickenlooper should consider giving the group more time.
Hickenlooper convened the task force in September as part of a compromise to avoid competing ballot initiatives regarding gas and oil regulations. It was a wise move. Among the proposed initiatives was a measure to amend the state constitution to dramatically increase gas activity setbacks to the point that much drilling would be rendered impossible, particularly in densely developed areas. Another proposed amendment would have given local jurisdictions essential veto power to prohibit any industrial activity. Two industry-supported measures would have withheld from communities that ban gas production any tax revenues the activity generates, and required a fiscal note be added to any citizen-proposed ballot initiative. None of these proposals was the appropriate answer to the challenge of navigating and coordinating state and local regulations. A task force comprising stakeholders from all sides is a far better prospect.
But the 19-member panel, with co-chairs Randy Cleveland of XTO Energy, and La Plata County Commissioner Gwen Lachelt, is hardly a monolith. Industry, conservationists, public-health experts, lawmakers, attorneys, farmers and ranchers, and Front Range as well as Western Slope representatives populate the group, as they should. Their interests are wide-ranging, though, and seven meetings – albeit most of them two-day marathons – is warp speed for building consensus. That is particularly true given the very different landscapes – political, geographical and demographical – of the communities addressing gas and oil development. What is true for Durango is not necessarily so for Louisville.
While the Western Slope’s deep and broad experience with gas development is instructive to the task force – and legislature’s – process, it does not paint the whole picture for Front Range communities now seeing significant gas and oil development. The issue is fundamentally one of density. In communities where population is more dense, more people feel the impacts of gas drilling more acutely. Finding a comfortable nexus for state and local regulation in this charged environment is an exercise in patience and perseverance.
Part of that will be to err on the side of gathering as much input as anyone has to offer. Ensuring that all who want to weigh in on the task force’s process and recommendations are given the opportunity to do so is critical. Given that the task force was convened in lieu of what would surely have been a politically fraught and divisive ballot initiative campaign, gathering public input is critical to the task force’s legitimacy. The panel itself has the skill, perspective and experience to use that input to inform its recommendations, but Coloradans who are concerned about this critical interplay between state and local rules governing gas and oil development must be encouraged to participate, and the task force must be given sufficient time to gather and consider as much information as possible in an iterative process. To facilitate that, the governor should extend the timeline and expand the structure of the Colorado Task Force regarding State and Local Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations.
