Turn to the nation's most objective and informative daily environmental news resource to learn how the United States and key players around the world are responding to the environmental...
By Tripp Baltz
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of six teenage activists who petitioned the state Oil and Gas Commission to consider a rule halting hydraulic fracturing until it can be proved the practice does not harm human health and the environment.
The ruling was the first time a higher Colorado court has said the commission has the authority to promulgate and enforce rules prioritizing public health, safety and the environment over oil and gas development, Julia Olson, attorney for the youths and executive director of Our Children’s Trust, told Bloomberg BNA March 23. The case has drawn intense interest in the oil and gas sector. ( Martinez v. Colo. Oil and Gas Conservation Cmm’n , Colo. Ct. App., No. 16CA0564, 3/23/17 ).
Recently rulings by the Colorado Supreme Court have sided with industry, including rulings in two cases on the question of whether local governments can ban fracking ( City of Fort Collins v. Colo. Oil and Gas Ass’n , Colo., No. 15-SC-668, 5/2/16 City of Longmont v. Colo. Oil and Gas Ass’n , Colo., No. 16-667, 5/2/16 ).
The appellate court said it disagreed with the commission’s conclusion that it lacked the authority to consider the petition because the state Oil and Gas Conservation Act “requires a balance between drilling and the protection of public health, safety and welfare.” It remanded the case to the commission for further proceedings.
The ruling means the commission has “full statutory authority” to adopt the youths’ proposed rule, Olson said. The court “is saying ‘don’t put oil and gas ahead of public health, safety and welfare,’” she said. “It is saying the commission is really the central entity to protect the people and the state.”
In finding the commission’s decision to reject the youth’s petition was erroneous, the appellate court focused on a section of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act, which states it is in the public interest of the state to “foster the responsible, balanced development, production, and utilization of the natural resources of oil and gas in the state of Colorado in a manner consistent with protection of public health, safety, and welfare, including protection of the environment and wildlife resources.”
The commission erroneously interpreted that section as requiring “a balance between oil and gas production and public health, safety, and welfare,” the court said. The commission said the youths’ petition would have required it to “readjust the balance crafted by the General Assembly under the Act,” something that was “beyond the Commission’s limited grant of statutory authority.”
The court disagreed, saying it was critical for the commission to put forward a proper interpretation of the phrase “in a manner consistent with.” That phrase does not require a balancing test, but rather “a condition that must be fulfilled,” the court said.
“The plain meaning of the statutory language indicates that fostering balanced, nonwasteful development is in the public interest when that development is completed subject to the protection of public health, safety, and welfare,” the court said.
Additionally, amendments to the Act in recent years reflect “the General Assembly’s general movement away from unfettered oil and gas production and incorporation of public health, safety, and welfare as a check on that development,” the court said. The clear language of the Act “mandates that the development of oil and gas in Colorado be regulated subject to the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, including protection of the environment and wildlife resources,” it said. In a dissent, Judge Laurie A. Booras said the commission has consistently recognized its duty to balance health and environmental concerns with the promotion ofoil and gas development. It has “promulgated an exhaustive set of rules and regulations ‘to prevent waste and to conserve oil and gas in the State of Colorado while protecting public health, safety, and welfare,’” she said, quoting a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court striking down local bans on fracking ( City of Fort Collins v. Colo. Oil and Gas Ass’n , Colo., No. 15-SC-668, 5/2/16 ).
“Small wins build up to create massive change,” lead plaintiff Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, 16, said in a March 23 statement. “Our movement to fight for the rights of people and the environment is evolving.”
Tracee Bentley, executive director of the Colorado Petroleum Council, a division of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement the council was disappointed by the “split decision,” saying it was “without sound legal basis.”
“The Colorado oil and natural gas industry’s long record of environmental stewardship belies the need for additional onerous rules and restrictions,” she said. “This sweeping decision imperils jobs, incomes, and development of natural resources in our state.” CPC and API were interveners in the case, and some 29 state agencies and interest groups were amicus curiae parties.
Todd Hartman, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, which houses the oil and gas commission, told Bloomberg BNA the state is reviewing the ruling.
To contact the reporter on this story: Tripp Baltz in Denver at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Pearl at firstname.lastname@example.org
The ruling is at http://src.bna.com/niT
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)