LOGIC 2016 Voter Guide: Boulder County Commissioner Race Responses

Transcription

1 LOGIC 2016 Voter Guide: Boulder County Commissioner Race Responses Question 1: What role should counties, municipalities, local governments, and the state have in regulating oil and gas facilities? The state needs to set a strong foundation of statewide protections to address the impacts of oil and gas development, including ensuring that wells and related facilities are not located near homes, schools and other inhabited structures or near water bodies and other important environmental areas because all Coloradans deserve clean air and water and freedom from the threat of industrial accidents and contamination. Cities and counties should be able to go farther than these state standards to address the more site-specific concerns and desires of their constituents to safeguard their local economies and quality of life. Coloradans expect their local governments to have local control over if, when, where and how industrial land uses like oil and gas development occur, just as we do over all other land uses. Local governments should have local control to authorize and regulate oil and gas facilities, just like they do with other land use and zoning decisions. On May 2, 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against Longmont and Ft. Collins efforts to regulate and/or ban fracking citing well established preemption principals. That is an oxymoron because the concept of preemption is unprincipled to begin with! Local governments have the authority to regulate other industrial activity such as mining, gravel extraction, and marijuana manufacturing, to keep our citizens and environment safe. Oil and gas development should not be the only exception. The state should be involved in a general way to provide direction and regulation at the 30,000 foot level. Only local entities have the expertise, experience, and self-interest in the safety and welfare of their citizens to be able to make zoning and regulatory decisions that work in the local environment. Question 2: What role should counties, municipalities, local governments, and the state have in approving large-scale oil and gas facilities in urban areas? I believe that the bigger the footprint of an oil and gas facility, the stronger the protections need to be. While there can be some benefits to consolidating oil and gas facilities, these larger acre facilities can also have enormous impacts in terms of emissions, surface disturbance, potential accidents and contamination, and degradation of the quality of life for surrounding neighbors through noise, odors, lights, vibrations and dust. The state should set much larger setbacks for large-scale facilities, impose stricter operational controls on emissions, require operators to consider alternative sites that are farther from homes, and provide early notification and involvement of the neighbors and community (including

2 other nearby jurisdictions). Again, local governments should be able to go beyond these standards in their own regulations to ensure local residents are fully protected from impacts. Our citizens expect us to keep them and the environment safe. It is a fundamental role of government. Local governments should be able to establish set backs from houses and schools for large-scale oil and gas facilities that ensure the air is free of toxic chemicals like methane and benzene and safe to breath. Recent studies have shown that levels of these are even higher than originally suspected. Leaks in equipment are common, even with repeated testing. Local government are able to make zoning regulations that keep all other types of Industrial operations out of neighborhoods we should be able to do the same for large scale oil and gas facilities. Large-scale facilities have the potential for large-scale impacts. The local government should be able to decide, with much input from their citizens, if and where those facilities would be located and how they would be operated. Question 3: What role or rights should surface owners have when it comes to siting oil and gas facilities in or near their neighborhoods? Surface owners near oil and gas facilities can face significant impacts from oil and gas development air pollution, accidental emission releases and spills, contamination of water supplies, truck traffic, 24/7 noise and lights, vibrations, dust, odors, degradation of local roads, loss of agricultural lands and open space, decrease in property values and other negative effects on their quality of life. As a result, they need to be engaged in the process of whether and where facilities are sited. This includes early notification, mandatory community meetings prior to permitting to ensure local input on siting decisions, and an opportunity to appeal permit decisions. I also believe the burden of proof should be on the operator to show why it is necessary to locate a facility within a half mile of homes or other occupied structures and that it is infeasible to extract the minerals from another location. Too often surface owners do not even know about the potential for drilling in their neighborhoods before it feels too late for them to effectively express their concerns. Before an application is even submitted to either the COGCC or the local government, notice should be posted on the site and there should be a requirement that operators notify surrounding surface owners that would be potentially impacted by the oil and gas development. Surface owners should be able to participate in the process in the same way as any other land use development process. There should be multiple opportunities for all the interested and effected parties to speak about their concerns in neighborhood meetings and public hearings regarding impacts to their property and health and safety. Industry would need to apply for permits and the approval process should include input from the public.

3 Question 4: What role should counties, the state, and federal agencies take in regulating air emissions at oil and gas facilities? Air pollution is one of the biggest impacts associated with oil and gas development. Research has shown that the state has consistently underestimated the emissions associated with this industrial activity. For example, recent air quality data from our region found that the level of benzene, a known carcinogen, was seven times higher than the state estimated in its modeling, methane was three times higher and ozone precursors two times higher. The federal government should set stringent national standards for air emission controls from oil and gas, to ensure a foundation of protections for all Americans. The state should be able to go beyond these to achieve regional attainment with the Clean Air Act s ozone standard and to protect the public from air toxics. Similarly, localities should be able to build on these protections in their own regulations to address site-specific concerns and ensure their residents are fully protected. Oil and gas facilities should not be allowed to degrade the surrounding air quality. Hats off to the Obama administration and the EPA for the new rule that will reduce methane emissions. Colorado has some of the toughest laws on the books with regard to air emissions from oil and gas facilities but they do not go nearly far enough and there are still not enough inspectors or the fines high enough to keep the public safe from the harmful effects of air pollution from oil and gas operations. That is why counties need to be able to regulate all emissions including fugitive emissions from oil and gas facilities. That regulation should include the requirement that operators maintain leak detection equipment to notify them when a leak has occurred. Leaks and other problems should be reportable to the public and carry stiff enforcement penalties. Question 5: What role should counties, the state, and federal agencies take in reducing natural gas and methane waste at oil and gas facilities? Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Recent research found the EPA s estimates of methane waste in Colorado are underestimated by a factor of three. Leaks can reduce or even negate any climate advantage gas might have over coal. Consequently, we need stringent requirements at all levels to end the venting of natural gas, greatly minimize flaring, require operators to regularly monitor facilities (including smaller, older facilities and collection facilities), and repair all leaks immediately. I support the EPA s methane rule but it doesn t address existing facilities, which produce most of the emissions. The state s regulations do, but still should go farther, including requiring operators to implement tankless production wherever possible to eliminate fugitive emissions. Again, local governments should be able to go beyond federal and state standards in their own regulations.

4 State of the art technology and equipment should have the effect of reducing waste to 1% or less. A robust testing program has to be in place. Testing and enforcement programs at both the state and federal level should be fully funded to ensure there were enough inspectors to effectively test and monitor all the oil and gas activity. The penalties for non-compliance need to be higher so to motivate operators to take action quickly and effectively when needed. Absent robust state and federal monitoring then it becomes the responsibility of the local government to do that work. Not being able to enter the well site without permission severely limits our ability to have an effective monitoring program if and when drilling begins again in Boulder County. The law needs to be changed at the state level to allow for this local inspection and I will advocate for that change. Question 6: When it comes to siting and regulating oil and gas, how should the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and local governments be working together? The COGCC should work closely and cooperatively with local governments by providing information, open lines of communication, and assistance, where necessary. Oil and gas companies should be required to go through local permitting processes first before seeking a permit from the COGCC, and the COGCC should honor the decisions and conditions set by local governments. Currently the mission of the COGCC is to foster oil and gas development; this needs to be changed to administer so that the COGCC is more balanced and neutral in its work with the industry and communities. I supported the state legislation proposed to accomplish this change, as a way to help bolster the agency s actions to protect public health, safety and welfare, and increase the public s trust in the agency s oversight of the agency. Unfortunately, industry opposition led to the defeat of this bill. Ideally they would work in a complementary fashion. The COGCC would have broad siting and operating rules to allow for extraction of the resource while protecting the public and the environment. The local governments would then have regulations that are more specifically related to the local environment and the needs of the general public. That is not how the system is working now. With the COGCC membership tilted in favor of industry and the preemption rules in place, power grossly favors industry in any regulation decision. Typically an operator applies to the COGCC for a Permit to Drill and receives approval, then would apply to Boulder County for a permit and would begin the special review process. The order should be reversed. An operator should go through the local approval process to ensure they meet all the local regulations, which are likely to be more stringent before receiving COGCC approval. Question 7: What changes, if any, would you like to see in how oil and gas is regulated in Colorado? Colorado s oil and gas statute must be amended to explicitly state that local governments have the authority to adopt regulatory protections that go beyond state laws and rules, including how, when, where and whether oil and gas development occurs within their boundaries. The COGCC s mission should be changed to administer oil and gas development rather than foster it, which would end the contradictory fox guarding the henhouse problem we have now. State setbacks between wells and homes, schools and other occupied structures need to be significantly increased (e.g., 2500 feet), and emission controls need to be further strengthened to regularly identify and quickly repair emission

5 leaks from all facilities, including small facilities and collection systems. Lastly, the federal government should significantly scale back new drilling on federal lands, given that these lands are meant to serve multiple public purposes and this isn t possible with the industrial impacts of drilling. Local control of all aspects of oil and gas development. Local governments should be able to regulate if, where, when and how oil gas development occurs in their jurisdiction to protect public health, safety, welfare, and the environment. Set back rules from inhabited structures and sources of water that would allow for the extraction of oil and gas but also keep people and the environment safe from the impacts. Rules that prohibit harmful emissions, even fugitive emissions and the funding for strict enforcement and fines high enough to motivate operators to right action. Regulations that would require operators to completely restore the land, especially agricultural land to its predevelopment status. Regulations that would require operators to mitigate negative impacts but also to compensate surface owners for impacts that cannot be mitigated. Require operators to offset their water and electrical usage with contributions to water conservation and renewable energy funds. Question 8: Do you have active oil and gas wells in your district? How often do you hear from your constituency regarding oil and gas issues? There are currently about 310 producing wells in Boulder County. About 80% are on unincorporated lands and the rest are within municipal boundaries like Longmont and Erie. The County has a pending moratorium on new oil and gas development in the unincorporated area of the County, which is scheduled to expire on November 18, after we update and strengthen our regulations (recent Colorado Supreme Court rulings banned longer moratoriums). My constituents care deeply about oil and gas development, and are concerned about the impacts it can have on their families health. People are also worried about its effects on our local economy, which is based on scenic landscapes, outdoor recreation, a pristine environment and a high quality of life. Since 2012, we have received thousands of communications from constituents calls, letters, s and hearing testimony 99% of which were opposed to oil and gas development. There are no new wells but there are active wells and Boulder County gets frequent complaints about leaks, spills, odors, water quality issues, and other impacts. Boulder County frequently hears from people on both sides of the Boulder and Weld county line about the negative impacts of drilling in Weld County. The people concerned about drilling in their neighborhoods in Weld County have no one to turn to for help so they contact Boulder County authorities. There is a reasonable expectation on the part of the general public that their local government should be to act to keep them safe from the harmful impacts of oil and gas development near the places where they work, play, live, and go to

6 school. Local governments do not have full regulatory and zoning authority over the oil and gas industry and we should, just like we do over every other industrial activity. Question 9: What reporting, if any, would you want to see in place at oil and gas sites regarding air and water pollution? Who should be responsible for gathering the information? There should be field certification of all new oil and gas facilities to ensure all equipment is operating to required standards. We need regular monitoring of air emissions at all new and existing facilities and testing of nearby water wells to ensure that standards are being maintained and no contamination is occurring. Boulder County did infrared camera monitoring of wells in the county and found a leak rate of over 40%. Consequently, larger facilities should undergo monthly leak detection, and smaller facilities should be monitored at least annually. Oil and gas companies should pay for COGCC and local inspectors to undertake this monitoring to assure compliance with state and local regulations. This data should be reported on a public database linked to the COGCC website, so that the public and local governments can easily track the results and be assured that compliance with air and water standards is being achieved. The public has a right to know if the air they are breathing or the water they are drinking is polluted. First, the local government should be able to set the standard for what is considered an unsafe level for any toxic substance because currently both the state and federal laws are too lax and do not keep the public or the environment safe. Second, the oil and gas developer should be required to self-report to the public, the COGCC and the local governing body if they exceed safe levels of emission of a toxic substance. Third, the state and local government should be allowed to continually test for unsafe emissions of any substance, report that information to the public, and act on any toxic emissions that exceed the standards by stopping the operation. All of this information should be readily available to the public. Question 10: How should information regarding new oil and gas development be relayed to the public? Oil and gas development can have a significant impact on a community. Consequently, there should be informed engagement of all neighbors near the proposed development, as well as the broader community. To achieve that goal, operators should be required to send written notices to the local jurisdiction and all property owners and renters within a half mile, and to post large signs at the most visible entrances to the site. These notices should include a website and phone number to call for more information. The website should provide details about the proposed development, and a sign-up to receive s as the project moves through the process. The affected jurisdiction should similarly provide information on all oil and gas developments on its website. The operator should be required to hold a well-advertised public meeting to discuss the proposal with members of the public and receive input.

7 The public feels left out of the process because they actually are until it is pretty much a done deal. Developers should be required, as a part of the application process at the COGCC and at the local level to notify the public in multiple ways to ensure the public has every opportunity to know about potential development and express their concerns. An advertised page on the COGCC website, physical notice at the potential site, requirements to mail notices to neighbors within a certain radius, requirement for local governments to have a visible and logical place on their websites for people to go find information. This information dissemination should begin when the operator is first considering oil and gas exploration in an area. The public has a right to know what is going on within their neighborhoods. There should be signs, mailings to potentially effected surface owners, website postings, etc. Question 11: How should information regarding regulatory violations noise, air, water pollution be relayed to the public? Requiring full and immediate public disclosure of spills, emission releases, and noise violations is critical to providing transparency, ensuring protection of public health, and fostering trust. Consequently, the affected municipality or county and neighbors should be immediately notified of any violations, along with the corrective action taken, and if the violation has been fixed. The local jurisdiction should be required to post this information on its public website in a visible location. If the violation is not immediately corrected or is more than a de minimis infraction, the oil and gas operation should also be required to inform the local media. Violation information, along with any associated fines, should also be visibly displayed on the COGCC website, and all violations should be automatically added to a public database, linked to on the COGCC site, that allows for easy searching by site, jurisdiction and operator, and easy aggregation of information. The public has every right to know what is happening around them. If there is an immediate threat to public the operator should be required to call 911 and have the authorities do a reverse 911 call to all potentially affected people. All regulatory violations, regardless of the source should be made available to the public. Industry should be required to self-report, the state, COGCC, and local governments should also post on their websites any and all violations. Operators should also be required to post signs at the well locations of any and all violations. The operator should have to send a written letter to all people living within a reasonable distance of the facility any violations exceed a certain threshold, as established within local regulations.