CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 10, 2009 05:59 PM UTC
70 Comments
There are few things left that I am happy with the Governor on, and his environmental record was one of them. Frankly, this is just another in a series of letdowns from Ritter that will likely keep me from actively supporting him in 2010.
Please don’t suppot him with your usual ‘progressive vigor’.
are you trying to elbow in on my territory?
I’m but a page in the art of biting, relevant snarkiness.
But I can dream…
🙂
saves me the effort…
This is a disappointment. The clean energy economy is a good thing, and Ritter should be lauded for his efforts there. Some other things, not so much. This is one of those. Politicians need to know when they disappoint.
What a mountain of broken promises made by Ritter. McInnis might have put the wrong mountain range on his site for a day which gave the bloggers and inside baseball people something to talk about for about five days…Ritter has created an entire “mountain range” of broken promises. Only took him about two years.
Has the “am I popular now” kind of management worked so far for the state? Nobody knows where he stands, especially within his own party, on ANYTHING.
This man does not govern, he peers out from under his desk every once in a while, stands up to get on his black judicial black robe, asks for the camera to roll and then becomes Judge Bill.
One thinks his next gig might be a thirty minute bit shown on the Deuce at 3 in the afternoon.
Is there any group that he hasn’t pissed off? This reminds me of “Both Ways” trying to appeal to everyone two summers ago. It worked out real well for him, eh?
Ritter broke no promises. Lots of hyperbole and little substance in your comments.
As for working with DeGette and COGA to create a compromise position, that’s the job of a….good Governor.
An employee wasn’t allowed to blog on Colorado Pols…Which department in the State are you sucking funds from?
One figures that the only people that like Ritter are appointees and family. Which are you?
Just a supporter. It’s tough being a “moderate” in Colorado, and I appreciate the difficult position he’s in. All things considered, he is going well.
It’s not that Ritter probably ever said “I want frac control” in his campaign. Or, “I’m going to sign every pro-labor bill that hits my desk.”
It’s as a Democrat, he is not signing bills or in this case, making statements that most Dems support. Since Dems tend to be the party of health and business regulation, probably most of us want some oversight on frac’ing.
Those secret fluids must be about the only product in interstate commerce that nothing has to be divulged. That is shear lunacy if people get ill from them. And, since every drilling company seems to have a secret sauce, who are they keeping their ingredients secret from? Me?? You??
Are you a Republican? Do you support DeGette’s bill?
I not, please butt the hell out. You have nothing to offer to this conversation other than opportunist backbiting.
Et tu, Ritter? As the author of the diary Pols linked to, this is a really horrifying moment.
Comments on this blog take different directions all of the time. I didn’t realize that you were the content police. In other words, why don’t you “butt the hell out”?
Do you support this bill, or are you merely here to start shit among Democrats?
One is a legitimate purpose, the other is cheesy bullshit. Which one is it?
I voted for this non-leader and have been sorely disappointed with his lack thereof.
I don’t care about this particular issue. My point is that this is another example of his “make the popular choice” to get someone or some thing on his side.
Another example of how awful his lack of leadership has made certain groups waste time and effort is his killing of the Union’s efforts to work with Fire Department employees. Just telling the bill sponsors that he wasn’t going to sign-off on the effort would have been what leaders do. Instead he leads the group on and on and on and at the last minute, puts his wet finger in the air and feels for the direction of the wind.
I don’t care about Firefighters Unionizing. But I do care how a leader of our state government leads or in this case NOT…
So if you are a Dem, Unf, or Rep…we need a better choice in leadership in that office. Since you are such a big time D, why don’t you find a candidate that can challenge this….this…whatever? Stop bitching and do something about RITTER.
The unemployement for locked out employees was a good bill, but the fire one deserved to be vetoed.
1. Piss off only part of the base who still supports you
2. Try to cozy up to industry that will never support you
3. ???
4. Win re-election in 2010!
Ritter quite obviously could not care one whit about public perception, the base, or working class people; much less the environment. This is the art of the deal, and Ritter knows his hand better than anyone at the table.
He runs unopposed, raising impressive amounts of dough (as you’d expect, especially from someone giving the bird to his constituents and bending over for his Big Business lovers). Bill Ritter has been passed around more times than a cigarette at an AA meeting.
I may have voted for this double-dealing opportunist before, but won’t make the same mistake twice and will do everything I can to inform this view on others. Sad thing, Ritter knows he can’t lose re-election so is shoving it to us faster than we can catch.
Governor Ritter did not take the position that fracing should not be regulated. When you read the entire story his position is the state, not the federal government, should regulate that activity. Normally, state regulators under state law and as enforcement agencies for the Clean Air and Clean Water laws regulate industrial activity, including the oil and gas industry. His position reflects a preference for state regulation of this activity.
The assumption put forth in this thread that his preference for state regulation, as opposed to federal, means he is against regulating fracing is unfounded based the facts.
That’s extremely flawed, practically GOP logic. Federal regulations exist in circumstances where, due to any of a number of factors, state and local regulators are unable or unwilling to do their job.
Ritter has not been silent on the fracture drilling issue but the regulations as they exist today are not adequate. Pressure at the state and local level is frequently so intense that real reform is impossible, everybody knows this. There is absolutely no reason why fracture drilling chemicals should not be regulated by the federal government, it’s their job. Dick Cheney is the only reason it’s not. Is that the legacy Ritter is defending?
Can I ask you a question? Does Ritter think the Clean Water Act should be replaced with ‘state-based’ regulations? How about food safety? Or the Voting Rights Act? Aren’t those all “onerous one size fits all” approaches?
This is a horrifying capitulation to the oil and gas industry by Ritter, however he tries to cover for it. This is much worse for me personally than the lockout bill, which I also cared strongly about. And if you don’t mind my saying so, repeating a bunch of Republican talking points about “local control” to me only makes me angrier, so please find some better ones.
In our federalist system both the state and federal can regulate an activity.
But let’s assume for a second that he doesn’t believe the Fed is capable of administering this. Where is his proposal on regulation? And why didn’t he announce his new regulatory plan right after he “shared the news (that he was telling degette to back off regulating chemical dumping into groundwater) with several hundred gas industry executives at the Colorado Oil and Gas Association conference?”
Is Ritter purposing stricter regulation on Fracing? Does he want to administer the regulations with state $ as opposed to having the feds administer the regs through the EPA?
We await his plan.
While oil wells are located wherever (they don’t move around) and groundwater contamination is similarly local, the Oil service companies truck this stuff back and forth across the country. And you don’t really expect them to have type A frac’ing fluid produced and used in CO, type B in Wyoming, type C in Utah, and so on.
To me, it appears that the Guv is trying to mollify O&G for moving forward with perfectly sensible oil patch regulations. Why bother? O&G won’t support Ritter, they don’t police themselves, their actions can be shown to harm public health and the environment, and they oppose sensible regulation.
JeffcoBlue: I disagree with your assumption the pressure is too great to do anything on the state or local level, especially not with relation to oil and gas industry. The present O & G commissioners promulgated an entire new set of regulations that the industry fought tooth and nail. I believe they will act on fracing too. All the Governor said is he believes state regulators should deal with this and, as we’ve seen over the past two years, they have been more than prepared and ready to take on the O & G industry. Under the previous administration, I believe you would have a valid point but under Gov. Ritter it has obviously been different.
I can’t speak for the Governor but I don’t think the federal Voting Rights Act or the Clean Water Act (already primarily enforced by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) are relevant. The O & G industry, including environmental regulations, is primarily handled by state regulatory bodies. All the governer said was he believes fracing, like other O & G regulations, should be handled by the state of Colorado.
Danny the Red: I agree that both the state and federal governments have the authority to regulate fracing. Again, I can’t speak for the Governor, however your questions about what plans he has for regulating fracing are valid questions and I like you believe they should be answered.
My point is simply this: Governor Ritter did not, as the beginning of the thread implies, say that fracing should not be regulated. He said the regulation should be done by the state government. Finally, it is beyond question that Governor Ritter has been willing to take on the O & G industry over the regulation of oil and gas fields. Based on that, I believe he will address this issue too.
all other industries that discharge that amount of chemicals into the ground are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, because we have national standards.
Over a dozen states have a stake in Colorado’s clean water, and these are (multi)national companies developing a resource for a national market. Federal regulation is warranted.
The point of the diary, as I read it, it more to the point of the primacy of this issue in the gas patch and to environmentalists, and Ritter going the other way, making the announcement at a COGA meeting to the very folks likely to be funding the 527s that are attacking him a few months hence.
Governor Ritter and the good folks at DNR should be commended for their efforts this year and last with the oil and gas regulations. Some of them do get at fracking, disclosure, and the protection of water sources.
That was a historic lift, and appreciation and kudos to Ritter’s (and his staff’s) leadership on getting those through. But none of that obviates the need for appropriate federal regulations. Gov. Ritter should have used it as an opportunity to highlight that Colorado is a leader, not that state rules are a substitute for good national policy.
More on that last point later.
or is his plan to do it by rule. If his plan is to do it by rule I see the need for legislation either at the state or federal level.
Besides a rule is weaker than a statute.
Oh and by the way despite Wyeth, I don’t trust the 10th on preemption. Why would he oppose federal law on this matter? Though you say the Clean Water Act isn’t relevant, please explain how federal regulation of water is different than….federal regulation of water.
a rule is legally considered just as strong as a statute.
Second, the O & G commission already has broad authority to regulate drilling and all of the related processes. I believe they have, under existing statutes, the authority to regulate fracing. In my humble opinion, the authority is already vested in the O & G Commission.
I can’t speak for the Governor on when or what specifically he plans to do but again, my point is he did not say he was against regulating fracing. His point was he believes the state should do it.
I went back and read that part of my previous post about the Clean Water Act. I didn’t articluate my point very well. I did not mean to say or imply the Clean Water Act is irrelevant. What I meant was the O & G Commission already has the authority to regulate fracing. Second, even if the Clean Water Act was applied to this problem, it would be the state again that would most likely take the lead through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment because they presently enforce the federal Clean Water Act.
While it’s in effect – yes. But it is much easier to undo. And that is another measure of “strength.”
So they can, but aren’t doing so. That’s another argument for a federal law.
By your logic ending the federal ban should be fine with you then. So why not?
Then where is his plan to regulate fracing? You are asking everyone here to simply give him the benefit of the doubt. I’m not interested in giving him the benefit of the doubt any more. For once, just once, I’d like him to clearly state what he wants to do and actually do it.
I’m tired of reading these posts from people who’ve never said a critical word about Ritter telling the rest of us to simply trust him. It’s obvious that he can’t be trusted to do the right thing. He’s proven that time and time again. No more winking and nodding from the governor, he needs to make definitive statements on the issues.
This is the same problem that has lead to so much unhappiness from the base on other issues. The governor doesn’t want to make public commitments on issues (aside from not seeking further sources of revenue!) because he doesn’t want to go on record and offend anyone. He hopes that he can quash issues before they hit his desk or he’s forced to take a public stand. The hope is that he can keep speaking vaguely, not offend anyone and be everyone’s buddy.
That’s not leadership. It’s infuriating to see a Chief Executive who so clearly lacks the will to make executive decisions and actually lead.
I don’t want a Governor Penry or a Governor McInnis but Bill Ritter hasn’t earned a second term. It’s as simple as that. Republican 36 you can keep coming in here and try to demonstrate how wonderfully Solomon the governor is on issue after issue but the polls show that the people aren’t buying it.
I presume your referring to the PPP poll from about two months ago. I can categorically tell you it was wrong. That poll had Senator Bennett at 75% name ID. He hasn’t been in office long enough to have 75% name ID.
I cited a poll months ago that was taken either right before or right after New Year that had Governor Ritter with a 58% approval rating as opposed to a 28% disapproval. Two to one, right where he should be.
There was a private poll done in May that has him at the same level.
I don’t question your sincerity or the fact that some Democratic groups are upset but alot of that is insider baseball. The general public isn’t thinking the same way.
I also strongly disagree with your characterization of Governor Ritter. Your correct that on some issues he hasn’t taken a position but on most he has and he has done so publicly, including on some very difficult ones from a political standpoint like revenue measures and the oil and gas regulations. Most politicians would have run for cover rather than stand-up on those issues. The governor was front and center on those and many others. The legislators who carried the two union bills this past session were told before the bills ever landed on the Governor’s desk that he would veto them.
Sorry, R36, but his low numbers are not a secret.
I’m not referring to just the PPP poll. There have been at least 2 others since then that show him losing in a head to head to McInnis and almost losing to Penry.
The general public is thinking the same way, hence his approval rating in the 40s. He has an image problem as ineffectual and indecisive leader. This is 100% the govs own doing and he continues to play to that image on issue after issue.
So Terrance Carroll is a liar? That’s the logical inference from your statement so please tell us if that’s what you’re saying.
Anyone who’s been down in the Capitol knows the truth here. The gov never says that he will or will not veto before he gets a bill, that’s his policy. Instead they hint at issues and point to things that they’d like to see changed. They will never say the word “veto”, never.
He took a tough stand on revenues? Bullshit. He said he wouldn’t look at new revenues when asked explicitly about that issue in a press conference 2 weeks ago. That’s the easy way out. A leader would be honest and say that we need cuts and new revenues and even though new taxes aren’t popular we’ll need to look at that. A leader would call the leg back for a special session and find some new revenue streams. He’s done nothing of the sort.
Leadership on oil and gas regs? Seriously? Are you certain that you want to make that argument right now in this thread? He just went out of his way to appease the oil and gas industry.
He did a great job on the regs, I sang his praises all along on that issue. The fact is though now we see him backing down, undercutting his own base and hoping that maybe the oil and gas industry won’t remember the new regs or A58. That’s the reason why this attempted detente is so ludicrous. This was the one area he could stand up and point to a solid record of leadership in the face of withering opposition. So much for that.
With the absence of a primary challenger–Ritter’s recent fund raising numbers probably scared away whatever chance there still was–what are we supposed to do?
Nobody wants a Governor Penry or McInnis, but isn’t that the obvious alternative should Ritter lose? I know progressives hate the better of two evils vote, but is there any other reasonable course of action?
Who paid for that poll?
He’s trying to play the middle ground again. By coming out against federal regulation he pleases the industry, and by saying it’s a state issue he stays as close to neutral as possible.
Ritter’s administration has had a number of opportunities over the last two years to take on this issue, and with total Democratic control over the legislature he could easily encourage state standards that achieved the same results. But he won’t, because then he’d be taking a stand on something substantial. Not really his M.O.
..for preferring state regulation to federal? or for not having both? Simply stating a preference is not a good reason.
I’ve only read the newspaper reports and they don’t indicate whether he gave a reason or not but your point is well taken. He should express his rationale for preferring state regulation.
Listen to it yourself here:
http://www.colorado.gov/govern…
and here’s the relevant portions from the text of his remarks to the natural gas meeting:
…granted this was a speech, not a policy paper, but it’s not very enlightening as to why federal regulation would be a problem. “Potentially instrusive” didn’t win me over.
Exactly why is it that frac’ing fluid can remain completely secret when virtually every other substance on the planet must be revealed to regulators? My first guess is a current Federal law. That requires Federal intervention.
Just a guess…
in the Energy Act of 2005, passed by then-Republican controlled Congress to remove fracking from Safe Drinking Water Act.
Why is it called the “Halliburton Loophole,” though?
and apparently the request was made by execs in their secret ‘energy task force’ meetings with Cheney, aka Mr. Halliburton.
Has Pols chosen NOT to highlight the Denver Post’s banner front page story today, regarding Ritter’s sole source contract to his former law firm? Now THAT’s a story!
That what Ritter did was legal…It just smells. Did Colorado Pols funders say to back off though? Bet they did…
Just who pays the $15 a month this Soapblox blog costs? That’s the real scandal, we agree.
You’re accusing us of bias towards Ritter in the comments of a post that criticizes Ritter. That makes a world of sense.
Under the Stimuls bill, there are deadlines for state governments to have funds committed to projects (i.e. road construction etc.). If the money is not committed or only partially committed by the cut off date, then the uncommitted portion is returned to the federal treasury and reallocated to other states. Making sure the funds are committed is much more difficult that the “shovel ready” nomenclature makes it sound. Shovel ready means for example that a road construction project has been engineered and is ready to be put out for bid but that doesn’t mean the private road construction companies have bids ready to go. Those companies won’t spend the money to prepare a bid until it is actually put out for bid. Once the bidding is announced it takes time for the private contractors to put their respective bids together and for the government to evaluater and award the bid.
One of Mr. Elliman’s jobs is to see to it that Colorado meets those deadlines across the board.
Hogan & Hartson is a well respected national law firm with a large and effective office in Washington, DC. They can be very helpful in obtaining additional funds from federal agencies when other states fail to meet the dealines and they have the attorneys and staff in Washington DC to insure Colorado is well represented in these matters.
I’m surprised that after this story went out RITTER didn’t throw some else under the bus.
Pay to play, Bill Ritter, breaking promises almost as fast as he can make ’em.
Don’t try to sell me that Elliman is working diligently to make sure we hang on to all of the federal money coming in because I know first hand that they’re moving at a glacial pace on some of the requirements.
We need to learn what chemicals are used in fracking first and then we would know what to study.
Employees at the Garfield County dump, concerned about their exposure to drilling residues left on the pit liners, successfully petitioned the commissioners to stop accepting those items (shown above) for disposal. So now, drilling companies can either ship it to other landfills or bury it by the well pad.
Fracking fluid has been described by some riggers as a chemical mixture of embalming fluid and nail polish remover. Not once have gas patch locals ever mentioned fracking fluid and Ivory Soap in the same sentence.
And guess what, folks. This junk is being dumped in the Western Slope watersheds the Front Range siphons off for you to drink! Benzene anyone?
down here in Highlands Ranch, so what’s a few more carcinogenic chemicals among friends?
Someone will use it to get high.
I guess all that’s left is for him to endorse the Personhood amendment to piss off any lingering parts of his base that still like him.
Pols….again, did you think the banner story in the Post regarding the no bid contract to Hogan and Hartson was not really a story? I am not alleging anything—i enjoy Colorado Pols—but given the time spent on mountain pics, how about some good old-fashioned ‘pay to play’ for a slow friday??
Libertad gave it a obscure title though.
Very valid point. Maybe the “Pols” here don’t update their site regularly, maybe just once per day. That would seem to be the case, since Ritter being on the take in so many different ways and in so many different venues must be legitimate news to everyone editing this site. I’m sure they’ll make it top billing tomorrow when they have time to get to it.
Blush, blush.
From Judy Kohler at Associated Press
forges
It is nuts that we have this Safe Drinking Water Act – and then ban investigating this one product. It’s like saying that the govt will inspect meat for everything except e-coli. You don’t get safe water if FRACing is not measured & regulated.
How is it that the O&G companies can use a substance – and expose others to it – without even a tip to the Poison Control Centers?
This stuff could have Potassium Cyanide in it and the workers dealing with the stuff would never know.
Hospitals are apparently necessary to treat exposure sometimes, so it’s not harmless. It could be in our ground water, our supposedly non-hazardous landfills, our air…
Defending the current policy has to be one of the single most counter-intuitive (read: asinine) things a politician could do. Getting your parents to pay off your mistress seems tame by comparison.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…
Thanks, Gov, for clarifying your role to the public.
Makes the story less interesting, not more. I nearly hurt my jaw yawning at this iteration.
Good morning. I am Jim Carpenter, Gov. Ritter’s Chief of Staff. I thought I would jump on to talk about frac’ing, and try to provide some information about what Gov. Ritter is thinking on this. I know the discussion was happening Friday, and I am behind. And I know what follows is long. For both, I apologize. I hope some of this is helpful.
The Governor doesn’t for a moment discount the concerns of those who worry about protection of drinking water supplies.
The COGCC has documented examples where improper construction of wells has polluted groundwater. We do know of at least once case where a nurse fell critically ill after treating a worker who spilled fracturing fluid on himself.
Making sure that frac’ing is done right and that we are constantly pushing industry to develop better and safer technologies is tremendously important. Gov. Ritter and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conversation Commission (COGCC) are absolutely committed to protecting drinking water and assuring the safety of anyone who comes into contact with frac’ing fluids.
It’s why he pushed, starting in January 2007, for the COGCC to be reformed and new rules adopted. New rules are now in effect.
• The new rules require that every single frac job is monitored to be sure groundwater is not affected during frac’ing.
• They require operators keep detailed records of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid (including proprietary chemicals) and disclose them to state and county officials on request.
• Chemical information must also be disclosed immediately to medical providers in case of an emergency.
• The rules have additional oversight requirements for frac’ing in shallow coal seams that provide protection for drinking water, like baseline groundwater quality studies and ongoing monitoring during and after the operation, to ensure pollution isn’t occuring.
• They prohibit most drilling within 300 feet of rivers and streams that serve as public drinking water supplies.
• The rules have tougher requirements for lining pits to make sure fracking fluid and waste don’t seep into the ground or reach groundwater.
• They protect landowners by requiring that any spills or releases be reported to the landowner within 24 hours.
Tens of thousands of oil and gas wells are fracked every year, and it appears most frac’ing occurs without incident. State oil and gas commissions across the country have extensive experience in regulating these practices. Colorado’s rules are on the leading edge.
Now, to the federal legislation issue. The Gov. believes it’s important to understand the problems and the risks before developing a federal regulation that could supersede Colorado’s carefully designed state rules.
That’s why he has urged the Congress to take a hard look before it legislates.
Should there be a similar federal program? How would it be structured? Who would implement it, and who would fund that work? Does the EPA have the expertise? Can we add yet another large task to EPA’s agenda when it is already working overtime on a host of environmental issues? Especially when the states have regulatory programs in place? Is regulation of frac’ing even a good fit for existing federal laws, or would we need an entirely new regulatory program?
But it is important to recognize that local and state agencies will almost always be the first responders in response to any fracking problem, so a regulatory program tailored to a state’s needs may make the most sense. A federal backup may be needed, but it makes sense to ask whether that is needed, and if so, how it would work
One other point: natural gas is the cleanest burnig fossil fuel. It’s use can help with transportation, power generation, etc. and help us reach climate change goals. It’s also an important part of Colorado’s economy, and the Gov has always beleived natural gas must play a key role in the New Energy Economy. How we use our important resources in a way that protects health, safety, communities and the environment is something that the Gov. and his team worry about every day.
Thanks.
Long post, long reply…
Kudos to the state and Governor for having the leadership to finalize these rules. His leadership on the green energy economy is also commendable and appreciated. Please keep it up on those fronts.
I agree the rules are a great step in the right direction. We do need good strong state rules since much of this activity is regulated via the state. But we also need good federal policy–and that includes regulating fracking within the scope of the Safe Drinking Water Act. If the state wants to regulate beyond the federal minimum (in this case the SDWA) then sign me up.
I pose a question (to which I don’t have the answer) and then present a discussion below. Apologies for the length.
Question: Prior to 2005–when the Republican-led Congress pushed through the Cheney energy plan that exempted the oil and gas industry, alone among all industries discharging massive amounts of chemicals into the ground, from regulation under the SDWA, did fracking operations comply with SDWA requirements?
If so, then I am inclined to pass off industry concern as typical whining about any change to (favorable) business-as-usual; if not, then why?
In either case, however, the question regarding both the 2005 loophole and the current legislation remains: Why should this industry alone be singled out for exemption from the SDWA?
When it comes to shared resources as critical as safe drinking water, the purpose of laws like the federal SDWA is to incline the presumption toward protection, and to ensure basic standards everywhere.
In this case, the presumption for proof ought to be weighted toward those companies wanting to inject millions of gallons of (somewhat to completely) mysterious mixtures into the ground; these companies should show that their operations are not harming water sources and are meeting minimum standards of the SDWA.
Oil and gas related development constitutes an intense industrialization of the landscape. The history of energy development is littered with examples of what a lack of regulation, coordination, and oversight can do. Experience has shown that the oil and gas industry in particular needs strong local, state and federal oversight.
Protecting water sources is fundamentally within the federal scope of promoting the general welfare (i.e. ensuring minimum national standards for basic human needs like safe drinking water). Oil and gas activity in Colorado is being driven by national and international markets–regulating this industry to some degree is within the scope of the interstate commerce clause. At the same time, the state maintains significant authorities over water, wildlife management, land use, oil and gas permitting and regulation, etc. Thus, The relationship between state and federal governments on shared issues (like mineral, public land and water issues) should be a partnership.
On some issues, however, it might appear–at least to some–that Gov. Ritter is arguing for a type of preeminence rather than partnership, while worrying many of his supporters about his positions and his politics.
I, for one, hope that Gov. Ritter acts as an advocate for a partnership with our congressional delegation and the Obama administration to implement strong national environmental policies and protections.
Just as the new administration in Washington sees the value of applying some of the state’s new regulations to oil and gas operations on federal lands, Gov. Ritter should embrace–not shun–strong national conservation policies that protect our water, air quality, climate, and public lands.
I don’t have all the background to answer those questions. But I think the fundamental issue about SWDA is that the exemption was allowed to continue because there was not enough evidence that frac’ing needed to be covered.
That’s what the Governor is arguing; the feds need to look into this more.
Meantime, our new rules will provide a lot of information about frac’ing that is needed.
Jim Carpenter
Thanks to Jim Carpenter for all the information about the Colorado Rules. We applaud the Governor for all these improvements in Colorado’s regulations, and for the new, balanced appointees to the Commission.
It’s important to note that the DeGette/Polis/Hinchey bill — the FRAC Act — will allow EPA to leave considerable flexibility to most states. Most states have what is called “primacy” for regulating underground injection — including Colorado. So Colorado would be able to develop its own rules, tailored to local conditions, and submit them to EPA for approval. State rules may already be sufficient. Colorado already regulates certain oil and gas activities such as enhanced oil recovery and waste disposal under the same federal program.
This legislation is important because oil and gas production now occurs in 34 states and every state has different standards, with strength and effectiveness that vary widely. The proposed legislation would establish a minimum, consistent federal “floor” for all states, with EPA oversight. For example, a recent report by the Ground Water Protection Council found that some states don’t require surface casing of an oil or gas well to be below the lowest groundwater zone. Federal legislation is critical for all Americans living near oil and gas production to feel they have at least minimum protections for their drinking water.
Reports of water contamination linked to hydraulic fracturing are now coming from Texas, Arkansas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, among others.
Regarding your specific question, prior to 2005, Alabama had an EPA-approved rule for hydraulic fracturing. Production did not decline.
Amy Mall
Natural Resources Defense Council
For instance, what’s the penalty for, say, a company which refuses to reveal to an emergency room doctor the proprietary chemicals in their fracturing fluid, if a worker is injured?