Colorado Anti-Fracking Measures To be Pulled Off the Ballot

Looks like Polis has caved in to Governor Hickenlooper and will take off the ballot anti-fracking measures that were to be voted on in November. I support fracking but I also think the people of the communities where the fracking takes place should get to vote on it. Don't like the idea of money limiting democracy.

Something I'm wondering about on this topic ---If certain communities decided to ban fracking, then how do you allocate the massive taxes and royalties that the county and state generate? How would you ensure that communities which did not allow fracking do not recieve the financial benefits?

OmniScience wrote: Something I'm wondering about on this topic ---If certain communities decided to ban fracking, then how do you allocate the massive taxes and royalties that the county and state generate? How would you ensure that communities which did not allow fracking do not recieve the financial benefits?

The oil and gas industry has also got a couple measures on the ballot that would penalize anti-fracking communities. So the deal essentially says the pro-fracking people will deep six their two bills and the anti's will stop their two bills. The Denver Post is supporting the deal so maybe it isn't as much of a rollover as I thought. And if either side changes their mind, they can make changes next year.

Sie note: The Feds to save the sage grouse just eliminated from drilling an area bigger than Yellowstone.

ScienceChic wrote: And that's exactly what Polis said last night at his Conifer Town Hall. He supports whatever each local area/municipality/town whishes for their area. For those towns who have passed moratoriums, he supports their position. For towns that have welcomed it, he supports that too. He also said he doesn't support the federal gov't (or corporations) coming in and saying "no you can't ban that" or that "you have to allow fracking", and over-riding the locals' wishes. The important thing is to have dialog, find out the real pros and cons, and decide what's best for your community.

Edit to add: we'll see if his actions match his words.

The problem with that is that the resources don't belong to the people who want to ban the fracking. Others have paid good money for those resources, and they, not the town, not the inhabitants of the town, are the rightful owners of the property, ie the oil and gas, that was purchased with their money. You do not have the right to deny to someone else property that belongs to them - it is a violation to the very foundation of the idea of property rights.

I'm not a real estate expert but when I bought my home I did notice that I signed a contract that did not grant me ownership of the mineral rights under my property. I own the ground and I own the buildings on my lot, I am obligated to grant access to the mineral owners should they request it. That means that the owner of the minerals under my property can erect a well, drilling rig, and use existing roads to access their equipment as well as cut their own roads on my property.

There also seems to be a large NIMBY factor in this issue. Citizens in Longmont don't want fracking in or near their city. I imagine that a rancher who owns property 15 miles northeast of Roggen might welcome the potential improvements to the roads on his property and the potential for some modest compensation from the companies harvesting the minerals under his land.

IMHO Polis seems to have a very shifty stance on this topic, he's trying to take a page out of Slick Willy's book attempting to be everything to everyone. If you are for and against anything then it's essentially the same as saying you don't have any opinion either way. The whole thing stinks of greasy palms and smoky back room deals to me.

PS what you say makes sense. Why then were there ballot measures? It is possible to get anything on the ballot whether it would be legal or not? And what about the Commission advising the state legislature. Will the Commission take into account the legal issues?

PrintSmith wrote: The problem with that is that the resources don't belong to the people who want to ban the fracking. Others have paid good money for those resources, and they, not the town, not the inhabitants of the town, are the rightful owners of the property, ie the oil and gas, that was purchased with their money. You do not have the right to deny to someone else property that belongs to them - it is a violation to the very foundation of the idea of property rights.

Ballot measures are sometimes a means to replace the rule of law with democracy, aka mob rule. That is why even after ballot measures are enacted, even ones which amend the State Constitution, and even laws enacted by duly elected legislatures, there are legal challenges to the results.

And don't hold your breath thinking any politically derived commission is going to be concerned with legalities. Those commissions are generally created to find a way to circumvent at least the spirit of the law if not the law itself.

Thanks PS. And then there is always the question whether the legislature will even listen or take into account what the Commission recommends.