When Gov. John Hickenlooper’s oil and gas task force began its deliberations in September, the group had a tall order to fill: develop policy recommendations that address the interplay between state and local control over gas and oil development. Its genesis was conflict and, despite the 19-member panel’s best intentions, that inherent dynamic has influenced its progress. As the group readies for its final stages, it has many recommendations to consider. Given the short timeframe and divergent positions its members hold with respect to gas and oil development and how it should be regulated, it will be hard-pressed to find a two-thirds majority on significant policy revisions. It should not settle for window dressing.
The task force, whose co-chair is La Plata County Commissioner Gwen Lachelt, will consider 54 proposals when it meets in Denver this week. Whatever the panel approves will then funnel to the appropriate decision-making body for enacting — or not.
The extent to which the task force can reach agreement on actionable policies that address the conflict between landowners and mineral rights holders, particularly with respect to land use, public health issues related to hydraulic fracturing, and state and local governments’ regulatory rights and responsibilities depends largely on sufficient time to work through the proposals and reach meaningful consensus. Gov. John Hickenlooper has offered an extension so that the task force can forge recommendations to address the challenging nexus that includes the gas and oil industry, residents, conservationists, public health experts and lawmakers at the local, county and state levels. More time is appropriate to the task’s size and complexity.
Lachelt’s recommendation that the state create an ombudsman role to handle complaints about gas and oil development-related issues is one to consider, but the issue’s context will likely influence how effective an ombudsman will be. While an ombudsman would function to receive and address complaints, if the underlying tension between industry, landowners and various governments remains then the role would be limited in its ability to solve problems. An ombudsman would prove most valuable if the underlying regulatory framework is settled; that is far from the case. Lachelt’s ombudsman suggestion could prove to be an integral component of a suite of policy changes. It does not stand on its own.
In order to be successful, the task force must dig a bit deeper to bring its members closer to consensus. While a two-thirds majority presents a high bar for so disparate a group, the political landscape — both party and positions with respect to gas and oil development — will challenge progress beyond the task force. Rather than advancing proposals that show little compromise but provide the appearance of action, the task force should accept Hickenlooper’s offer of more time and strive for consensus on setback issues, air and water quality concerns, and land use agreements. There is precedent for agreements in the state, and plenty of room to find balance, consistency and compromise on the matter. No one party will get all it seeks, nor will any group required to surrender its position altogether. The oil and gas task force should redouble its efforts, then, to make meaningful progress on its mission and forgo solutions that sound nice but do little.
