In a situation that surprises no one, Democrats and Republicans in the state Legislature have staked out differing positions on issues involving fracking and local control over gas production. It would be simplistic to say they both are right, but it is important to recognize they both have a point.
GOP lawmakers have introduced two bills to compensate mineral-rights owners in the event that a local government bans fracking. One simply would hold a local government liable for royalties lost because of such a ban. The other is more nuanced and would compensate owners if their royalties’ value was reduced by at least 60 percent.
Democrats counter by saying that any such measure is premature. Why not wait, they say, for the state’s gas and oil task force to make its recommendations?
And in that they are correct. Suggesting a legislative response to questions about fracking and gas development is, after all, the point of the task force.
At the same time, though, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says private property cannot “be taken for public use without just compensation.” And it is hard to argue that a 60 percent cut to a mineral owner’s royalties does not constitute a “taking.”
Given that the task force’s work is ongoing, it is too early to be legislating. But the circumstances also are instructive. While some individuals may see gas production as simply good or bad, the state as a whole is – or at lest should be – of two minds.
That is reflected in La Plata County. There is concern here about the effects of drilling on the environment, but there also is a concomitant appreciation for the jobs and tax revenue it brings. Those are not opposite or incompatible positions.
It is not ambivalence or indecisiveness but a recognition that the risk and the reward associated with gas production inextricably are linked; there never is one without the other. The risk can and should be minimized, even if at some cost to profits, but the good jobs and lower property taxes that local residents enjoy because of gas development simply do not occur in a vacuum.
Perhaps this county and its understanding of that duality can be an example for the state. This is not an argument to accept whatever the gas industry wants to do. And it has to be acknowledged that drilling along the I-25 corridor presents different challenges than La Plata County.
But this county’s experience does suggest that the industry can live with reasonable regulations to defend surface owners, protect air and water quality and limit noise. It also shows that with some common-sense rules people can live with the gas industry.
A body of regulations that acknowledges and fosters that sort of mutual recognition may well be what the task force recommends. The trick for the Legislature will be not to get out ahead of it with political posturing.
