|
Draft Rules are Unveiled in Denver / Observations of a
Hick Under the Golden Dome
This week I was invited by the Colorado
Environmental Coalition to attend the COGCC briefing at the Capitol building
at which time a summary of the draft rules were shared by Dave Neslin
(acting Director, COGCC) with the legislature, press and various
organizations invested in this issue. It was wonderful to be asked to attend
this conference and deliver comments from a landowner's perspective, and it
was a particular honor to be within the capitol building itself.
I took a great picture of the Capital - all back-lit
in a shrouded mist reflecting the golden dome. But I can't figure out how to
down-load the blasted thing from my cell phone. Sigh. I also forgot
my purple umbrella in Mr. Sherman's office. Whoever finds it will hopefully
enjoy its nifty spring action instead of just pitching it in the trash.
It's a good umbrella. It fetched Duke's cell phone out from under a parked
car when he dropped it before our appointment.
So, anyhow, I attended the conference with Duke Cox, interim
Director of the Western Colorado Congress, who was kind enough to carpool -
and drive in Denver traffic... which was not without near GASP
incident as we peered into the skyline to find the hotel where the first
conference was to be. What an adventure. Duke
left his gloves someplace. Truth be told, we're both probably too old to be
left alone in the big city. I'm sure Duke would say, 'speak for yourself.' It has been twenty years since I've visited Denver,
and, while I thoroughly enjoyed the charm of old downtown, the extravagance
of the Adam's Mark, the architectural wonder of the glass and steel canyon
that swamped the downtown sky, I, frankly, couldn't wait to escape back to
my home in the mountains where I daily bask in the charm of a squirrel
nibbling a pine nut, the extravagance of a Rocky Mountain sunset and the
architectural wonder of Summerhawk Valley.
Checking out the prices at Sak's in the Cherry Creek Mall ($355.00 for a
denim jacket) and wandering about through traffic and pedestrian
congestion, I was grateful to come across a leashed black terrier with whom
I felt an instant kindred connection. The only other semi-wild thing within
ten square bocks, we gazed in each other's eyes with a knowing sense of
condemnation. Oh well, I enjoyed a frosty something or other at an
over-priced chocolatier and beat feet for the corner where I was to
rendezvous with Duke. During the course of
our two-day jaunt, I appreciated the opportunity to stand beside folks with
shared concern for our environment. Folks like Senator Gail Schwartz of
Snowmass, CO; Elisa Jones, the Executive Director of the Colorado
Environmental Coalition, Ivan James of the Colorado Bow Hunters Association and a small herd of hunters and anglers from
(I think) the
Colorado Wildlife Federation. In my comments
to the press prior to the release of the draft rules, I noted that I was
half tree-hugger and half redneck. All that means, I
explained, is that I irritate twice the people more of the time. Alas.
All my life I've thought and acted independently - which is why I've been a
registered Independent voter since I was old enough to write 'hell no'
next to some names and initiatives on the ballot. It makes it hard for
folks to classify me or categorize my thinking and align me with a specific
political strategy. It makes me a challenge to some, I guess. But, heck, I think I'm
pretty simple really. Basically, I stand for common sense - at least I
think I do. I believe in the rights
of individuals, but also the sanctity of society as a whole. Capitalism and
environmentalism together. I'm of the belief that two interests - like
democracy and social services; like profit and the environment don't have to
be exclusive of one another. In fact, I believe that such concepts can
actually compliment one another when a balance in brought to bear on the
policies that govern each.
When I take a position on something, it's based on
three criteria. 1) Is it right or wrong? 2) Does it make common sense? 3) Is
it fair? Pretty simple. Listening to the summary of the draft rules
provided by Mr. Neslin, I was heartened by the overall design adopted by the
COGCC.
The moderators and COGCC staff did an outstanding
job of distilling the commentary provided through some 2,000 comments, 250
stakeholders and 160 hours of meetings. Additionally, my thanks goes out to
the Division of Wildlife for hammering down recommended guidelines in very
short order. Given that the COGCC could have whittled and pared the
pre-draft rules and commentary into a toothless facade, I was impressed by
the sound design that prevailed and emerged as a draft document.
Overall, I felt the draft framework represents an
efficient and high-performance vehicle to move both environmental
protections and industry forward. It's an initial framework - an idea for
design. But we'll have to wait and see what it will do when the proverbial
wheels get put on - if it ever makes it out of the drawing room.
Immediately after the briefing, lots of folks filed
out and began both posturing and reacting to the draft in such a really
predictably human way that I couldn't help but be drawn in by the drama of
it all: Great big dudes in cowboy hats hitching up their belts and talking
loudly about how all these rules "are just a bunch of B.S." (kind of reminds
me of my uncle and a few others in my family line); little skinny lobbyist
dudes in black suits from both camps gravitating to opposing corners of the
capitol building's lunchroom, whipping out their Blackberrys and cell phones
and frantically whispering about shifts in strategy; politicians and
association lackeys from both parties - some in slacks, some in skirts -
pumping hands with their cronies and grinning that suspicious politician
grin. I picked up a paper and browsed the funnies while sipping my V-8 and
observing the obscene level of self-importance that coursed through the
capitol carrying a lot of folks along on a current of hyper-ego, power-lust
and the kind of hob-knobbing that I might normally associate with a
Chihuahua in heat. Wow. So this is what it's like to operate at this level
of policy making. In the unseemly struggle for power between two sadly and
sometimes vehemently polarized parties, this thirty-minute snap-shot out of
the course of a long, adversarial and arduous tango is a real and gritty
part of our political process. And in the midst of it all, happily reading
Zits and Garfield, an unfamiliar and anonymous face to those
too consumed by the performance to be concerned by the players, I truly was
the hick under the golden dome.
For all our hopes, and from whichever side we may
advocate, we all have to remember that the
draft is only a draft, an articulation of intent... a beginning. And
industry as well as other stakeholders are invited to participate in
crafting the final document. In fact, the COGCC has done an exemplary job of
making this process not only inclusive, but accessibly so.
Still, from my perspective, the draft needs
some major strengthening of issues that were left to dangle. From the
get-go, I wanted to see comprehensive planning and best practices
made mandatory, neither of which happened. Why do I want this? Well, for
starters and enders, a comprehensive plan would be the best tool for sharing
information across multiple agency jurisdictions and would also provide a
guiding document for local land-use planners. Further, it would require
industry to stand up and demonstrate some concern for the current
environmental, social and economic state as well as future condition of a
community. I suspect strongly that mandatory comprehensive planning and best
practices would eliminate 80% of the problems we are experiencing from this
latest energy boom.
Some in industry are quick to funnel public relations cash into
certain projects, but folks who really live in a community and want
to stay there for longer than the current job market dictates, tend to want
to invest across the board in the long-range livability of a place, not just
in a few pet projects designed to create good will, fuzzy feelings or cause
verbal constipation in political discourse. Mandatory best practices are
common sense - and required in other areas of the world - like Canada. By
industry snubbing their noses at good environmental stewardship and pitching
a fit about "cost" only demonstrates that while preservation of air, water
and soil quality is important in other countries, America is just not worth
it. Garfield County is just not worth it. Piss on that attitude. So, I'm very
disappointed that comprehensive planning and best practices are left as
voluntary considerations while industry revs up to drill even more even
faster, but, that said, COGCC did build in incentives into the draft to encourage compliance through a
more rapid permitting process of 30 days.
Additionally, there are a whole host of other
issues that bear strengthening. Here we
go.... Adjacent
Landowner Involvement
The Good
Adjacent landowners and those living within 500 feet of a proposed pad
will be given individual notice of development and can submit
comments to the COGCC to be taken under consideration during the permitting
process. Whoooohoooo! Seriously, Whooooohooooo! The Bad
But, what level of representation does that really afford? Will those
comments be genuinely considered? Well, to be fair, maybe. But hang loose
for the ugly....
The Ugly
The hearing of a landowner's voice may depend upon... now, I don't want
to shock anyone here, so, hang on to your hat... political will. Yes,
that's right. "POLITICAL WILL". Just like now, it appears to even a blind
mouse feeling its way around an elephant, that landowners are enjoying
unprecedented levels of acknowledgment (not necessarily sufficient, but
certainly unprecedented) within our state government. But, what happens if -
gasp - republicans take over the capital again! And we have a
republican Governor - oh wait! - not just a republican, but maybe even -
double gasp - a former oil and gas industry lobbyist! (can you spell
OWENS)? Well, now don't you fret none, because the COGCC has taken some pity
on us landowners and given us the option of petitioning our county for
representation at the table, which of course, takes away any remaining
doubt I may have for our concerns to be taken under consideration. Not.
Again, political will (or in the case of Garfield County's Mr. Martin
(R) and Mr. McCown (R), lack of it) will determine the extent to which your
elected officials (provided you voted for them) will take your concerns
before the COGCC.
Adjacent landowners need a broader avenue through which to approach the
COGCC. Even if allowed to petition the local government, can you imagine the
increased burden this will pose to even the most laze faire of
commissioners? Just having to say "no" all the time is bound to become
tedious and tiring.
Unlike urban areas where shared roads and water
sources are governed by a municipality, in rural areas, responsibility for
such infrastructure is often shared among neighbors. An absentee owner who
is gung-ho for mineral development with a 'take the money and run' attitude
can leave his or her neighbors to bear the burden of lost or damaged
infrastructure, not to mention degraded or compromised resources of air,
land and water. This is so not cool.
Wildlife
The Good
There are a set of criteria by which the industry must consider the needs of
wildlife. If industry wants a waiver from these stipulations, they must
undergo consultation. Again, there is an incentive for industry to comply
with these stipulations if they want expedited permitting.
The Bad
In any case, even with consultation, the permitting process can whip
through in 40 additional days with alternative mitigation options on the
table and conflicts promptly 'settled' by the COGCC. So there is no extension beyond what industry is already
working with. This may be an insufficient disincentive to encourage planning.
And what does 'settled' mean? Cripes. Probably threatened lawsuits by
industry and landowner lackies who couldn't care less about preserving
anything but more and more profits. These folks really do exist - mostly in
the form of absentee surface owners who also hold a big stake in the mineral
wealth. And some of them own enough land to encompass a significant portion
of diverse habitat. We're not just talking 40 acres here and there. We're
talking hundreds or thousands of acres. But hopefully, DOW can lay out, stand behind and enforce
recommendations that benefit wildlife. That should be the bottom line.
There are ways to protect wildlife and develop gas resources. Already studies have shown that
global warming trends could drive the elk from the Rockies in under a
decade. Though I haven't reviewed the data behind this study, and therefore
must speculate, I hesitate to accept any forecasting data which projects
wholesale numbers. Elk may be driven north, but I believe it is as likely
that many will die from habitat stress as still others strive to adapt. That
is given that the global warming projection itself is accurate. I think it is
more likely that there is some give and take in the picture which could lead
to dramatic herd reductions but perhaps pockets of the species which linger
under ideal habitat circumstances. With other studies forecasting that all
of Colorado's pine forests will be dead from pine beetle infestation over
the next three to five years, our big game and indeed all Colorado wildlife
need as big a break as we can give them in order to survive, and frankly,
it's an ecosystem we depend upon too. We would be fools not to consider the
impacts this industry continues to have on already threatened habitat and
species. An interesting side note here is
that in the Canadian Rockies, some twenty years ago, pine beetle
infestations were the convenient catalyst and justification for clear-cut
logging operations that took trees down all the way to the banks of streams
and rivers. The numbers predicting the beetle-kill I noted above were
generated and promoted by an insurance company. Certainly these folks could
benefit from less forests in Colorado and therefore less implied fire
danger. I just find that sort of correlation interesting. The Ugly
There needs to be more than a maximum three month protective period for
wildlife. In the case of the 'Summerhawk' elk (and by God if no one wants to claim
them then we certainly will), they depend upon forage during part of
winter, and cover and forage for calving the rest of the winter into spring.
Since winter stipulations cannot be stacked (that is three months tacked
onto three more months), I wonder which circumstance will win
preference? Access and protection of winter forage, or calving grounds? Or
either? This winter we've seen NO protection for the elk that utilize the
Schwartz property. And what will happen if two species compete for
protection, and their need for stipulations overlap? Which species will win
favor? Will we have to sacrifice some species, under certain conditions
which would otherwise fall within their normal use of the land? You know, it
seems to me that this shouldn't even be an issue, but the DOW is being
forced to decide - forced to prioritize in a potentially lose/lose
situation. Industry should be leading the way in providing for voluntary
measures to protect critical habitat. Come on industry - I think you can give a little.
Colorado already has some of the most lax rules when it comes to energy
development. You aren't fooling anyone with your gripe and whine tactics
meant to distract a lot of hard-working folks from being taken advantage of.
Exploitation is what it is. Oh, did I mention that the draft rules include
asking industry to "avoid drilling if possible within 1/4 mile of active
bald eagle nests"? If possible. Evident message to industry: 'We don't want
you to pee yourselves getting excited over this, now. You can go ahead and
drill if you need to.' Please.
Health Studies
The Good
Nothing good to report and here's why... The
Bad
I'd like to say - YAY! the COGCC is working with the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment to seriously look at the health
effects of living with heavy industrial development. But no. What they want
to do is look at existing studies. Uh huh, says I. This falls in line with
the CDPHE's invitation a few months ago to 'let us know' if landowners are
experiencing any suspected problems. I took this to mean the CDPHE really
did want us to let them know, so I called and shared information about the 'gunky
eye' thing [see Canary Watch]. Never did hear back. See, the thing about health studies (or any
other scientific study) is that they need to be comprehensive and taken over
an extended period of time accounting for multiple variables and reflecting
a compilation of unbiased, accurate and precise data. They, further, should
arise from a pattern of complaints which are categorized in order to develop
a relevant approach and resulting conclusion. By the way, I just heard a
great line the other day. It goes, "A conclusion is when you get tired of
thinking.". It seems to me that the state is readying to look at conclusions
when they don't even have a handle on what the question is. That's a big
disappointment as we go on living with industry and literally absorbing
through our air, water and soils the fouled effluence of their trade. Think Shrek
and Donkey. Remember the scene where donkey's mouth was open - and
everything? Well, that's how some of us feel.
Folks are flakin' off and breaking down and a lot of
reasonable people are looking around and saying' "Huh... benzene in the
air... huh. Ozone. Asthma. Rashes. Methane, fumes, passing out... two and
two..." One study regarding air quality suspects that we may be
underestimating the long-term effects of these kinds of exposures. But the
money is hot. The sexy dope of development stuns a lot of folks right out
their senses. A neighbor said she went to a
dermatologist with a weird rash on her arms and legs and they told her it
was some funky thing associated with the gas patch, and brought in by
workers who, themselves, get immunized against this stuff - but, of course,
none of us do. I can't say whether any of this is actual fact - the whole
story could be a load of malarkey, but it was shared with me, and while I
don't like to repeat hearsay, the stakes are pretty high and there are big,
organized and highly-funded barriers to slowing the growth of development. With
thousands of wells in the area and a crap-load more loading into the pipeline we
really need to develop an open discourse about what a lot of folks are
talking about in private. The state health department should lead that effort. I am
less than impressed with the recent air quality meetings and the county
health department's "Community Air Quality Program". Give me a frigging
break. It is estimated that some 85% of the pollution now happening in
Garfield County is due to industry. Yet, the county health department and
the state health department are hinting ever more firmly that wood-smoke and
vehicles are a source of air pollution which need to be stamped out. I
cannot see taking home heating away from folks who may not otherwise be able
to afford the high costs of energy just to keep their families warm when
industry is allowed to belch out all kinds of toxic crap into the air. Hey
CDPHE, how about let's not let industry be exempted from source pollution
just because their rigs are "temporary". You should see some of the noxious
black foul crap that blows from these stacks.
And here's a message for the county health
department: you're targeting the wrong people and pointing the finger at
families trying to simply survive. You need to be looking at a subsidized
industry exempted from pollution-generation and raking in billions in profit
at the expense of citizen's health. That's the real problem health
department folks - in case you can't see the obvious.
I keep hearing that the county can't afford to conduct
studies or cannot afford the equipment to monitor. You know what? I'm not
buying it. Why is the county sitting on a rainy-day fund worth some thirty
million dollars when people are begging to know what is in the air that they
believe is making them sick? Where are the priorities? My guess is it's in
not torquing off industry. Who are these weenies that proliferate throughout
our region? Texans and Oklahomans and even Wyoming folk have stood up and
said - 'here's where there's going to be a little balance.' I get so sick of
gutless ignoramuses who are scared to death to offend an industry that
has got them totally bullied and buffaloed. Grow a pair and stand up. The Ugly
A few months back there was a physician who purportedly was so fed up with
getting nowhere when he raised legitimate scientific questions about the
weird maladies that were appearing in his clinic - that... whoops, big
surprise, he and his family relocated to Virginia. We lost a conscientious
physician truly interested in his patients' wellbeing. But, clearly, he was
also concerned for the wellbeing of his own family. And in an environment of
"speak no evil" his actions speak volumes.
The state needs to be thinking about air quality. In
the Northeast, acid rain nearly ruined old-growth and new-growth
forests. There, they enjoy significant moisture and habit conditions which
promote more rapid recovery of forests. We don't have that luxury here. Yet,
acid rain and acid snow are real threats and the kind of pollution we are
talking about can devastate the high country and other areas which act as airsheds. Recovery? Who knows when or if it will even be possible.
So, while the state doesn't want to be bothered with undertaking new health
studies (or apparently even developing a system of logging complaints) the fire-hazard
condensate tanks and all their nasty off-gassing toxic fumes are still outside of common
sense consideration and regulation. Pits, the flotsam they spawn and their
potentially toxic soil coagulants are still just sitting around evaporating. I'm just so encouraged I could puke. Water
The Good
Protection of drinking water supplies is not mentioned in the current
rules, nor was it mentioned in the initial proposal - but it darned sure
came up in stakeholder meetings. From the newly proposed draft rules:
"Draft rule prohibits construction of oil and gas activities within 500 feet
of sources of drinking water for a distance of 5 miles upstream of a public
water supply intake. It also requires performance standards for activities
with 1/2 mile of such sources. Draft Rule 317B" The Bad
Please see "The Ugly"
The Ugly
West Divide Creek (and gas seep) April 01 2004 through today. The Gode well.
Garden Gulch. La Plata County Natural gas seep. Fruitland Outcrop.
Take your pick. Drilling and fracing activities in highly faulted areas
doesn't make a whole lot of sense as our situation and many others
demonstrate. Yet, drilling goes on. Some technologies - like fracing need to
be prohibited in certain geological situations. And drilling needs to be a
greater distance from water sources - for all of us and for the wildlife
that also depend on it. Driving to Grand Junction from Rifle, it makes me
sick to see the kind of development allowed adjacent to the Colorado River.
We were 'lucky' to find the crap going on in Divide Creek. Who is around to
notice these things on public lands or on lands owned by industry and
absentee owners - or those who prohibit government access to their
properties which are essentially offered up for exploitation to the highest
bidder? Let me tell you folks - we haven't even begun to see ugly. I
predict the health of many of our rivers will be substantially compromised
within the next three to five years, even with the proposed rules in
place. I predict little of the damage will be occurring and corrected under our noses. It will be higher up along streams and tributaries - far
upstream of water supplies. It will be in the watersheds and transported
through the air and contaminated snow, rain and run-off. That's when we're
really going to see ugly. And once the wells are tapped out and a fat
percentage are left abandoned, how will the state address the damage done?
Will Garfield County be the equivalent of a Brownsfield? "Welcome to
Beautiful Colorado - Superfund Site".
Rig and Pad Setbacks from Homes
The Good
So far no operator has tried to set up a rig in someone's living room
(although the county is considering offering up other areas of someone's
private land as little as 150 away so contingencies of pad workers have
somewhere to live, too).
The Bad
At 150 feet away, the fumes, filth and all the magnificent ilk that
blossoms on and around well pads that the workers are generally protected
from by OSHA standards drift right into living room windows so kids, pets
and families can experience the full effect of the energy industry from the
comfort of their own living rooms.
COGCC in all their former and glorious concern for the lives of Colorado
citizens allowed the placement of rigs up to within 150 feet of homes so
that if the rig fell over there was less likelihood of it smashing through
someone's roof. Of course, now the newer rigs are even taller. But the
set-backs remain the same.
The Ugly
That a rig can be established only 150 feet from a home is the dumbest, most
invasive, dangerous and irresponsible allowance I've ever seen. It is an
outrage beyond all reason or reasonable argument.
Some folks are advocating 1000 foot setbacks. But that is a bit of an
abstract ideal, which is only a reasonable beginning. In attempting to
mitigate the noise, dust, light pollution and noxious odors that plague
families living with industry, regulations need to be adopted which pertain
to operations on the pads which apply directly to specific and often
dangerous nuisances like those noted above. Closed-system or pitless waste
operations (odor mitigation) / combustors (odor mitigation) / piped or
tankless condensate systems (odor, toxic fume, explosion and fire
mitigation) / baffles (light mitigation) / electric vs. diesel rigs (fume
and noise mitigation) / rig floor baffles (noise, light mitigation) / rubber
mats for offloading pipe (noise mitigation) / limited traffic, shared roads
and dust control are reasonable, easily implemented and cost effective
measures which could go a long way toward lessening the impacts to families
next to these heavily industrialized operations.
The fact that setbacks nor pad-site operations have
not been addressed by rule-making folks? I can't even conceive of this
failure to consider public health and human impacts, yet, these abuses have
been going on despite public complaint for the last five years.
Bottom Line
Here's the simple bottom line: Industry, bring your
stuff, do your thing, be a part of Colorado's economy; but do it while
demonstrating genuine respect and concern for our people and our environment
- including your own workers and their families - by using best practices
and common sense to protect our precious and finite resources of water, air,
soil and wildlife. If you can't see the value in doing so - get the hell
out, because in the end - long after the gas is gone - we have no choice but
to rely on the very environment we've sold down the river for the last
half-decade. That's what I would say to any houseguest who chose to
misbehave at my family's expense. Five years of living with Jaba the Hut is
long enough. Shape up or ship out. And as for those in industry who are
committed to doing the right thing - why should you be penalized by those
who don't? We want you to stick around. Leveling the field brings a standard
- a higher standard - for all participants and helps everyone keep their
competitive edge. That helps ensure jobs and that helps the economy
even more.
There's a good summary-comparison table the COGCC put
out on some of this that makes the whole proposal very digestible (it's like
two and a half pages).
Here's the link to the "Comparison of current
rules, initial proposal and draft rules" If this link doesn't work,
you can get there through the COGCC home page and then click on "links to
rule making activities"
http://www.oil-gas.state.co.us/RuleMaking/RulesLegislation/Comparison-DraftRules-033108.pdf |
