July 30, 2010
EPA in Arlington on Monday to talk about oil and gas regulation
The federal Environmental Protection Agency will be in Arlington next week to hear thoughts from Texans about the agency's plans to rewrite its rules on oil and gas activities.
The EPA signed a legal settlement last year in which it agreed to toughen its rules to require the industry to use the latest pollution controls.
The EPA has scheduled two public meetings, one in Texas and one in Colorado, to gather public comment before it writes its new rules. The Texas meeting will be two sessions: noon-4 p.m. and 6-10 p.m. Monday at Arlington City Hall, 101 W. Abram St.
According to Texas Energy Report, state Rep. Jim Keffer, who happens to chair the House Energy Resources Committee, plans on attending the meeting.
The EPA meeting days after the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality proposed new rules for oil and gas drilling permits. The agency argued that the rules will beef up regulations and better protect air quality in the Barnett Shale region in North Texas.
How the TCEQ rules are received and implemented could depend on what the EPA chooses to do.
-Aman Batheja
Read more: http://startelegram.typepad.com/barnett_shale/2010/07/the-federal-environmental-protection-agency-will-be-in-arlington-next-week-to-hear-thoughts-from-texans-about-the-agencys-pla.html#ixzz0vGm7Mhrm
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
EPA meeting in Arlington Texas August 2nd
A representative is speaking on the groups behalf during the noon to four p.m. meeting.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Meeting with EPA to provide public involvement.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505; FRL-9174-8]
Oil and Natural Gas Sector--Notice of Public Meeting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA will be conducting public meetings to provide an
opportunity for public involvement during EPA's review of air
regulations affecting the oil and natural gas industry. The review in
progress covers oil and natural gas exploration and production, as well
as natural gas processing, transmission, storage, and distribution. The
primary purpose of these meetings is to establish a dialog among
government, the affected industry, and other interested members of the
public early in the rule development process, as well as to receive
information that may be useful to EPA in its review. At these meetings,
EPA will explain the regulatory process, provide a brief overview of
its regulatory review, solicit information that may be useful to EPA in
the review of these rules, and provide an opportunity for participants
to ask questions and submit comments. These meetings will be open to
the public.
DATES: Meetings: There will be daytime and evening meetings to provide
greater public access. The first pair of meetings will be held on
August 2, 2010, from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., and 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., in the
Council Chamber of the Arlington Municipal Building, Arlington, Texas.
The second pair of meetings will be held on August 3, 2010, from 12
p.m. to 4 p.m., and 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., in the ballroom of the Holiday
Inn Denver East-Stapleton, Denver, Colorado. Meetings may end earlier
than the scheduled times based on participation.
Participation: Although not required for attendance, we ask that
anyone who plans to attend one or more of the meetings provide name,
affiliation, and sessions attending to the meeting information contact
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least
[[Page 39935]]
10 days prior to the meeting. However, anyone who wishes to present
comments at any of the meetings must notify the meeting information
contact at least 10 days prior to the meeting to facilitate EPA in
developing the agenda. We request that an electronic or hard copy of
any prepared comments be provided to EPA at the time of the meeting.
Special Accommodations: To request accommodation of a disability,
please contact the meeting information contact listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting,
to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.
ADDRESSES: The August 2, 2010, meetings will be held at the Arlington
Municipal Building, 101 W. Abram St., Arlington, Texas 76010. The
August 3, 2010, meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn Denver East-
Stapleton, 3333 Quebec St., Denver, Colorado 80207.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the EPA Oil and
Natural Gas Sector Program, contact: Mr. Bruce Moore, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr.,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-5460; fax number: (919) 541-0246; e-mail address:
moore.bruce@epa.gov. For meeting information, contact: Mr. Nick
Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, 109
T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-5372; fax number: (919) 541-0246; e-mail
address: parsons.nick@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
Does this action apply to me?
EPA is in the process of reviewing air regulations affecting the
oil and natural gas industry. This review may potentially affect any
segment of the oil and natural gas industry, which includes, but is not
limited to: Offshore drilling; onshore drilling; oil and natural gas
production; natural gas processing; natural gas transmission; and
natural gas distribution. You may be affected in some way by regulatory
action following this review if you own, operate, work, or live near
oil and natural gas operations in the segments listed above.
Docket. EPA has established a docket for the above mentioned review
process under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Public
Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
II. Background
Under sections 111(b)(1)(B), 112(d)(6), and 112(f)(2) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), EPA has a mandatory duty to take actions relative to the
review/revision of new source performance standards (NSPS) and national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) within 8 years
of the issuance of the standards. On January 14, 2009, WildEarth
Guardians and San Juan Citizens Alliance brought suit against EPA in
the District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that EPA
failed to meet its obligations under sections 111(b)(1)(B), 112(d)(6),
and 112(f)(2) of the CAA with respect to the Oil and Natural Gas
Production source category. On February 4, 2010, the Court entered a
consent decree that resolves the claims in this lawsuit. The consent
decree requires, among other things, that EPA sign by January 31, 2011,
proposed standards and/or determinations not to issue standards
pursuant to sections 111(b)(1)(B), 112(d)(6), and 112(f)(2) of the CAA,
and that EPA finalize its proposals by November 30, 2011. The consent
decree authorizes EPA to sign by January 31, 2011, a final
determination not to review the NSPS pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B)
of the CAA without issuing a proposal for such determination.
EPA is in the process of taking actions under CAA sections 111 and
112 relative to the review/revision of the following NSPS and NESHAP:
The NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC from Onshore Natural Gas Processing
Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK); the NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas
Processing: SO2 Emissions (40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL); the
NESHAP From Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities (40 CFR part 63,
subpart HH); and the NESHAP From Natural Gas Transmission and Storage
Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHH). As part of this process, EPA
is holding public meetings in the Dallas, Texas, and Denver, Colorado,
areas, both of which are in regions significantly affected by oil and
natural gas production operations. The purpose of these meetings is to
establish a dialog among government, the affected industry, and other
interested members of the public, as well as to receive information
that may be useful to EPA in its review of the NSPS and NESHAP
identified above. Such information could include information regarding
the nature of local oil and gas production operations, air emissions
from oil and gas production operations, control technologies and/or
practices that may minimize or otherwise address air emissions, and
information on the public health, welfare, and other environmental
impacts of air emissions from oil and gas production operations. At
these meetings, EPA plans to provide a brief overview of the Agency's
review process for the NSPS and NESHAP identified above, including
background information on these regulations. There will also be
opportunities for questions and answers. In addition, any interested
party from industry or the general public may present oral or written
information to EPA at these meetings.
Dated: July 7, 2010.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2010-17042 Filed 7-12-10; 8:45 am]
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505; FRL-9174-8]
Oil and Natural Gas Sector--Notice of Public Meeting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA will be conducting public meetings to provide an
opportunity for public involvement during EPA's review of air
regulations affecting the oil and natural gas industry. The review in
progress covers oil and natural gas exploration and production, as well
as natural gas processing, transmission, storage, and distribution. The
primary purpose of these meetings is to establish a dialog among
government, the affected industry, and other interested members of the
public early in the rule development process, as well as to receive
information that may be useful to EPA in its review. At these meetings,
EPA will explain the regulatory process, provide a brief overview of
its regulatory review, solicit information that may be useful to EPA in
the review of these rules, and provide an opportunity for participants
to ask questions and submit comments. These meetings will be open to
the public.
DATES: Meetings: There will be daytime and evening meetings to provide
greater public access. The first pair of meetings will be held on
August 2, 2010, from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., and 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., in the
Council Chamber of the Arlington Municipal Building, Arlington, Texas.
The second pair of meetings will be held on August 3, 2010, from 12
p.m. to 4 p.m., and 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., in the ballroom of the Holiday
Inn Denver East-Stapleton, Denver, Colorado. Meetings may end earlier
than the scheduled times based on participation.
Participation: Although not required for attendance, we ask that
anyone who plans to attend one or more of the meetings provide name,
affiliation, and sessions attending to the meeting information contact
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least
[[Page 39935]]
10 days prior to the meeting. However, anyone who wishes to present
comments at any of the meetings must notify the meeting information
contact at least 10 days prior to the meeting to facilitate EPA in
developing the agenda. We request that an electronic or hard copy of
any prepared comments be provided to EPA at the time of the meeting.
Special Accommodations: To request accommodation of a disability,
please contact the meeting information contact listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting,
to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.
ADDRESSES: The August 2, 2010, meetings will be held at the Arlington
Municipal Building, 101 W. Abram St., Arlington, Texas 76010. The
August 3, 2010, meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn Denver East-
Stapleton, 3333 Quebec St., Denver, Colorado 80207.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the EPA Oil and
Natural Gas Sector Program, contact: Mr. Bruce Moore, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr.,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-5460; fax number: (919) 541-0246; e-mail address:
moore.bruce@epa.gov. For meeting information, contact: Mr. Nick
Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, 109
T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-5372; fax number: (919) 541-0246; e-mail
address: parsons.nick@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
Does this action apply to me?
EPA is in the process of reviewing air regulations affecting the
oil and natural gas industry. This review may potentially affect any
segment of the oil and natural gas industry, which includes, but is not
limited to: Offshore drilling; onshore drilling; oil and natural gas
production; natural gas processing; natural gas transmission; and
natural gas distribution. You may be affected in some way by regulatory
action following this review if you own, operate, work, or live near
oil and natural gas operations in the segments listed above.
Docket. EPA has established a docket for the above mentioned review
process under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Public
Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
II. Background
Under sections 111(b)(1)(B), 112(d)(6), and 112(f)(2) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), EPA has a mandatory duty to take actions relative to the
review/revision of new source performance standards (NSPS) and national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) within 8 years
of the issuance of the standards. On January 14, 2009, WildEarth
Guardians and San Juan Citizens Alliance brought suit against EPA in
the District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that EPA
failed to meet its obligations under sections 111(b)(1)(B), 112(d)(6),
and 112(f)(2) of the CAA with respect to the Oil and Natural Gas
Production source category. On February 4, 2010, the Court entered a
consent decree that resolves the claims in this lawsuit. The consent
decree requires, among other things, that EPA sign by January 31, 2011,
proposed standards and/or determinations not to issue standards
pursuant to sections 111(b)(1)(B), 112(d)(6), and 112(f)(2) of the CAA,
and that EPA finalize its proposals by November 30, 2011. The consent
decree authorizes EPA to sign by January 31, 2011, a final
determination not to review the NSPS pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B)
of the CAA without issuing a proposal for such determination.
EPA is in the process of taking actions under CAA sections 111 and
112 relative to the review/revision of the following NSPS and NESHAP:
The NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC from Onshore Natural Gas Processing
Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK); the NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas
Processing: SO2 Emissions (40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL); the
NESHAP From Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities (40 CFR part 63,
subpart HH); and the NESHAP From Natural Gas Transmission and Storage
Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHH). As part of this process, EPA
is holding public meetings in the Dallas, Texas, and Denver, Colorado,
areas, both of which are in regions significantly affected by oil and
natural gas production operations. The purpose of these meetings is to
establish a dialog among government, the affected industry, and other
interested members of the public, as well as to receive information
that may be useful to EPA in its review of the NSPS and NESHAP
identified above. Such information could include information regarding
the nature of local oil and gas production operations, air emissions
from oil and gas production operations, control technologies and/or
practices that may minimize or otherwise address air emissions, and
information on the public health, welfare, and other environmental
impacts of air emissions from oil and gas production operations. At
these meetings, EPA plans to provide a brief overview of the Agency's
review process for the NSPS and NESHAP identified above, including
background information on these regulations. There will also be
opportunities for questions and answers. In addition, any interested
party from industry or the general public may present oral or written
information to EPA at these meetings.
Dated: July 7, 2010.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2010-17042 Filed 7-12-10; 8:45 am]
Thursday, July 22, 2010
More information about T.R.A.E.D
At the beginning of the drilling at Razyor Ranch in Denton Texas the neighborhood raised the money for air, soil, and water testing by Wolfe Environmental.
The test results showed several known carcinogens and neurotoxins over the safe state established levels. The results were given to the state agencies and released to the press. The response we received was surprising because our testing was called inaccurate and unscientific. An employee of Range Resources stated our complaints were politically motivated and the Texas Railroad Commission believed this to be the case according to Range Resources.
The above involvement resulted in very little positive change for the residents in the North Texas area, specifically the Barnett Shale.
After much discussion and collaboration we have decided to form a group which will broaden our range and involve legal counsel.
A local attorney and has been paid a retainer. She has agreed to assist us in getting the local, state, and federal agencies to listen to our concerns and file, if necessary, appropriate paperwork against regulatory agencies such as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Railroad Commission, and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency when they do not perform their jobs to the safe and acceptable standards set by the regulatory agencies.
We are requesting community involvement in our fundraising efforts to help cover legal fees. Please become a member of our group and attend as many meetings as possible. Donations are not necessary to become a part of this group.
Please let me know any ideas for fundraising. Please send donations for the legal fund to:
Texans for Responsible and Accountable Energy Development
1622 W. University #525
Denton, TX 76201
You may drop off donations at 805 Ector, Denton, TX or call me at 214-632-3735 and I will gladly pick them up. Money may also be donated thru my email: cathvmcmullen@live.com and I will link you to our donation page on the Texans for Responsible and Accountable Energy Development blog site. Checks can be made payable to TRAED or Texans for Responsible and Accountable Energy Development.
The test results showed several known carcinogens and neurotoxins over the safe state established levels. The results were given to the state agencies and released to the press. The response we received was surprising because our testing was called inaccurate and unscientific. An employee of Range Resources stated our complaints were politically motivated and the Texas Railroad Commission believed this to be the case according to Range Resources.
The above involvement resulted in very little positive change for the residents in the North Texas area, specifically the Barnett Shale.
After much discussion and collaboration we have decided to form a group which will broaden our range and involve legal counsel.
A local attorney and has been paid a retainer. She has agreed to assist us in getting the local, state, and federal agencies to listen to our concerns and file, if necessary, appropriate paperwork against regulatory agencies such as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Railroad Commission, and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency when they do not perform their jobs to the safe and acceptable standards set by the regulatory agencies.
We are requesting community involvement in our fundraising efforts to help cover legal fees. Please become a member of our group and attend as many meetings as possible. Donations are not necessary to become a part of this group.
Please let me know any ideas for fundraising. Please send donations for the legal fund to:
Texans for Responsible and Accountable Energy Development
1622 W. University #525
Denton, TX 76201
You may drop off donations at 805 Ector, Denton, TX or call me at 214-632-3735 and I will gladly pick them up. Money may also be donated thru my email: cathvmcmullen@live.com and I will link you to our donation page on the Texans for Responsible and Accountable Energy Development blog site. Checks can be made payable to TRAED or Texans for Responsible and Accountable Energy Development.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Opinion/Editorial regarding new gas drilling ordinances in Denton Tx
The proposed city gas drilling ordinance falls short of being the strictest legal ordinance.
In the past few years, a new presence has been added to skylines across urban and suburban North Texas- the gas rig. Without a doubt, as a nation we need domestic sources of energy- the cleaner the better. So it goes without saying that the gas industry is here for the long haul. Living, as we do, in a civilized society, we expect a certain decorum among our neighbors to keep the peace. The same should be said for our industries, including gas drilling.
Gas drilling in its current incarnation as hydraulic fracturing, is messy business, and that holds to true for the regulation of it as well. Contrary to popular belief, there is very little regulation of hydraulic fracturing. The regulatory structure governing gas drilling in Texas is an unholy marriage of Wild West lawlessness and bureaucratic buck-passing, shape-shifting and all-around obfuscation at every level. The few regulations that do exist are often “interpreted” away to the point of irrelevance by our civil servants in government.
Even within this profoundly broken framework, however, there is some room to protect the citizens. At the city level, that comes in the form of ordinances governing land use. Denton is currently rewriting its gas drilling ordinance in response to the rapidly changing energy production landscape. Proponents of drilling are quick to point out that drilling is as much a part of Texas’s heritage as cowboys and longhorns. That is undoubtedly true, but what has changed is the way we drill and where we drill. Hydraulic fracturing is a new technology and is very much a part of the urban landscape in North Texas. Our city leaders were right to recognize that our rules need to catch up with the new rules of the game.
On April 20, 2010 the City Council met in a work session to address the issues surrounding a new gas well ordinance for Denton. In that session the City Council members, again and again, charged the staff with researching and drafting the strictest possible gas drilling ordinance. After that work session, city staff met and decided to divide the process into two phases. According to the Planning and Zoning Agenda Information Sheet for July 14, the staff determined that “due to the magnitude and complexity of the topic, it would be best to approach the task [of drafting a new gas drilling ordinance] in two (2) phases.”
During Phase I, the city makes “initial amendment[s]” to the ordinance regarding: 1) a new fee structure; 2) revised noise levels; 3) increased screening requirements; 4) setback increases; 5) amended language regarding urban gas well plats, permits and site plans. In Phase II, approximately six months will be devoted to a comprehensive rewrite of the gas well ordinance accomplished while “consulting with various gas well experts.” On July 14, 2010 city staff publicly presented their proposed ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Committee.
STRICTEST POSSIBLE ORDINANCE?
While doing their homework, city staff discovered the following information: each gas well development plat costs $4,930.00 for the city and each gas well special use permit costs $12,435.00. Currently, the fees for these are $260.00 and $2,150.00, respectively. That means that each gas well costs the city taxpayers $4670.00- unless a Special Use Permit is required, in which case it costs the taxpayers $10,285.00. Fortunately, the proposed ordinance attempts to close this gap by increasing the fees assessed to $4,670.00 and $10,285.00. Unfortunately, these fees don’t cover the millions of dollars in subsidy the Denton taxpayers have already paid for gas companies to drill here.
Besides the subsidy, there are other glaring omissions. Notably, there is no requirement for “green completion.” This means that flaring will still be allowed under the rewrite. Flaring is not allowed in Southlake or DFW Airport. Further, there is no requirement that a gas company drill using best available practices, like a “closed loop system” which is used to prevent avoidable waste and contamination during the drilling process. Additionally, the city staff recommended a variance from the 1000 foot setback rule, which, thankfully, the Planning and Zoning Committee recommends be denied.
City attorney Jerry Drake, who, like his co-worker Mark Cunningham, was inappropriately and inexplicably seated in between Planning and Zoning Committee members, made no effort to address these glaring omissions in the proposed code. Instead, he offered a warning to those opposing the proposed ordinance. Basically, if citizens oppose this ordinance, we have to keep our old useless ordinance for the foreseeable future. Is that what we want? Well is it?
With respect to Mr. Drake and the city staff who put hard work into this proposal, please do not insult our intelligence with these false choices. It was city staff- not the city council- who created the two-phase process. Everyone understands the complexity and enormity of this task, so why is the city determined to rush through it with a watered-down ordinance? The city council gave the staff one charge time and time again- draft the strictest possible ordinance for Denton. Why is it that we are modeling our ordinance off of cities that have suspended gas drilling until they can sort their code out?
Perhaps the real question is, which is worse? For a city staff to ignore its public charge or for there to be no explanation to the public of why that charge has been ignored? The silence on this issue is deafening.
In all likelihood, the proposed ordinance will be passed by City Council. What remains to be seen is if we have lost all hope for the “strictest possible ordinance” or if the City Council will have the intestinal fortitude to stick to their word and accept nothing less than the strictest possible ordinance in “Phase II” of the rewrite.
******
Sara Bagheri is a Denton attorney with a degree in Environmental and Natural Resources Law. She currently represents Texans for Responsible and Accountable Energy Development. If you have questions for her regarding gas drilling regulation, she can be reached at sara.bagheri.law@gmail.com.
In the past few years, a new presence has been added to skylines across urban and suburban North Texas- the gas rig. Without a doubt, as a nation we need domestic sources of energy- the cleaner the better. So it goes without saying that the gas industry is here for the long haul. Living, as we do, in a civilized society, we expect a certain decorum among our neighbors to keep the peace. The same should be said for our industries, including gas drilling.
Gas drilling in its current incarnation as hydraulic fracturing, is messy business, and that holds to true for the regulation of it as well. Contrary to popular belief, there is very little regulation of hydraulic fracturing. The regulatory structure governing gas drilling in Texas is an unholy marriage of Wild West lawlessness and bureaucratic buck-passing, shape-shifting and all-around obfuscation at every level. The few regulations that do exist are often “interpreted” away to the point of irrelevance by our civil servants in government.
Even within this profoundly broken framework, however, there is some room to protect the citizens. At the city level, that comes in the form of ordinances governing land use. Denton is currently rewriting its gas drilling ordinance in response to the rapidly changing energy production landscape. Proponents of drilling are quick to point out that drilling is as much a part of Texas’s heritage as cowboys and longhorns. That is undoubtedly true, but what has changed is the way we drill and where we drill. Hydraulic fracturing is a new technology and is very much a part of the urban landscape in North Texas. Our city leaders were right to recognize that our rules need to catch up with the new rules of the game.
On April 20, 2010 the City Council met in a work session to address the issues surrounding a new gas well ordinance for Denton. In that session the City Council members, again and again, charged the staff with researching and drafting the strictest possible gas drilling ordinance. After that work session, city staff met and decided to divide the process into two phases. According to the Planning and Zoning Agenda Information Sheet for July 14, the staff determined that “due to the magnitude and complexity of the topic, it would be best to approach the task [of drafting a new gas drilling ordinance] in two (2) phases.”
During Phase I, the city makes “initial amendment[s]” to the ordinance regarding: 1) a new fee structure; 2) revised noise levels; 3) increased screening requirements; 4) setback increases; 5) amended language regarding urban gas well plats, permits and site plans. In Phase II, approximately six months will be devoted to a comprehensive rewrite of the gas well ordinance accomplished while “consulting with various gas well experts.” On July 14, 2010 city staff publicly presented their proposed ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Committee.
STRICTEST POSSIBLE ORDINANCE?
While doing their homework, city staff discovered the following information: each gas well development plat costs $4,930.00 for the city and each gas well special use permit costs $12,435.00. Currently, the fees for these are $260.00 and $2,150.00, respectively. That means that each gas well costs the city taxpayers $4670.00- unless a Special Use Permit is required, in which case it costs the taxpayers $10,285.00. Fortunately, the proposed ordinance attempts to close this gap by increasing the fees assessed to $4,670.00 and $10,285.00. Unfortunately, these fees don’t cover the millions of dollars in subsidy the Denton taxpayers have already paid for gas companies to drill here.
Besides the subsidy, there are other glaring omissions. Notably, there is no requirement for “green completion.” This means that flaring will still be allowed under the rewrite. Flaring is not allowed in Southlake or DFW Airport. Further, there is no requirement that a gas company drill using best available practices, like a “closed loop system” which is used to prevent avoidable waste and contamination during the drilling process. Additionally, the city staff recommended a variance from the 1000 foot setback rule, which, thankfully, the Planning and Zoning Committee recommends be denied.
City attorney Jerry Drake, who, like his co-worker Mark Cunningham, was inappropriately and inexplicably seated in between Planning and Zoning Committee members, made no effort to address these glaring omissions in the proposed code. Instead, he offered a warning to those opposing the proposed ordinance. Basically, if citizens oppose this ordinance, we have to keep our old useless ordinance for the foreseeable future. Is that what we want? Well is it?
With respect to Mr. Drake and the city staff who put hard work into this proposal, please do not insult our intelligence with these false choices. It was city staff- not the city council- who created the two-phase process. Everyone understands the complexity and enormity of this task, so why is the city determined to rush through it with a watered-down ordinance? The city council gave the staff one charge time and time again- draft the strictest possible ordinance for Denton. Why is it that we are modeling our ordinance off of cities that have suspended gas drilling until they can sort their code out?
Perhaps the real question is, which is worse? For a city staff to ignore its public charge or for there to be no explanation to the public of why that charge has been ignored? The silence on this issue is deafening.
In all likelihood, the proposed ordinance will be passed by City Council. What remains to be seen is if we have lost all hope for the “strictest possible ordinance” or if the City Council will have the intestinal fortitude to stick to their word and accept nothing less than the strictest possible ordinance in “Phase II” of the rewrite.
******
Sara Bagheri is a Denton attorney with a degree in Environmental and Natural Resources Law. She currently represents Texans for Responsible and Accountable Energy Development. If you have questions for her regarding gas drilling regulation, she can be reached at sara.bagheri.law@gmail.com.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Texans for Responsible and Accountable Energy Development's lawyer debunking industry's scare tactics
Denton Record Chronicle:
However, an attorney representing residents’ interests dismissed one
perceived threat — denying a mineral owner access to property by rule-
making — out of hand.
“You are so far away from a regulatory taking, I don’t know why it
even comes up,” said Sara Bagheri, of Texans for Responsible and
Accountable Energy Development.
REGULATORY TAKING
effects of government regulation deemed so severe as to destroy most
of the value of a property. In effect, the government has "taken" the
property without just compensation.
Example: Any town, USA, zoned a downtown property for single-family
residential use and required that all homes in that area have at least
3,000 square feet and be built with granite floors and genuine marble
bathroom fixtures. These restrictions rendered the downtown property
unusable, so they were considered a regulatory taking
REGULATORY TAKING
A legal theory that a particular government regulation has so
adversely affected the value of real property as to amount to a
condemnation of the property,for which the owner is entitled to
compensation.There are two varieties: categorical and noncategorical
takings. In order to establish a case of categorical taking, the
Supreme Court has held that the property owner must show (1) that the
land-use regulation does not substantially advance legitimate state
interests, and (2) that it denies an owner all economically viable
uses of his or her land. These are both heavy burdens to overcome. A
noncategorical taking does not require elimination of all economically
viable uses of property, but does require a case-by-case analysis of
the regulation regarding its character and nature, the severity of its
economic impact, and the degree of interference with the property
owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations.
REGULATORY TAKING
(n)
:an appropriation or diminution of private property rights by a
governmental regulation which exceeds the government's legitimate
police power (as the power to enact safety regulations) and for which
the owner may seek a writ of mandamus, declaratory relief, or just
compensation (as by inverse condemnation)
compare physical taking zoning
In order to determine whether a regulatory taking is effected by a
regulation, a court will consider the government's interest that is
being furthered by the regulation, the breadth or specificity of the
regulation, and the extent of the regulation's impact on the owner's
property rights and expectations. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that
an owner can bring an action for compensation when the taking has
deprived the owner of all use of the property even temporarily.
Otherwise, the owner may be entitled only to declaratory relief.
However, an attorney representing residents’ interests dismissed one
perceived threat — denying a mineral owner access to property by rule-
making — out of hand.
“You are so far away from a regulatory taking, I don’t know why it
even comes up,” said Sara Bagheri, of Texans for Responsible and
Accountable Energy Development.
REGULATORY TAKING
effects of government regulation deemed so severe as to destroy most
of the value of a property. In effect, the government has "taken" the
property without just compensation.
Example: Any town, USA, zoned a downtown property for single-family
residential use and required that all homes in that area have at least
3,000 square feet and be built with granite floors and genuine marble
bathroom fixtures. These restrictions rendered the downtown property
unusable, so they were considered a regulatory taking
REGULATORY TAKING
A legal theory that a particular government regulation has so
adversely affected the value of real property as to amount to a
condemnation of the property,for which the owner is entitled to
compensation.There are two varieties: categorical and noncategorical
takings. In order to establish a case of categorical taking, the
Supreme Court has held that the property owner must show (1) that the
land-use regulation does not substantially advance legitimate state
interests, and (2) that it denies an owner all economically viable
uses of his or her land. These are both heavy burdens to overcome. A
noncategorical taking does not require elimination of all economically
viable uses of property, but does require a case-by-case analysis of
the regulation regarding its character and nature, the severity of its
economic impact, and the degree of interference with the property
owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations.
REGULATORY TAKING
(n)
:an appropriation or diminution of private property rights by a
governmental regulation which exceeds the government's legitimate
police power (as the power to enact safety regulations) and for which
the owner may seek a writ of mandamus, declaratory relief, or just
compensation (as by inverse condemnation)
compare physical taking zoning
In order to determine whether a regulatory taking is effected by a
regulation, a court will consider the government's interest that is
being furthered by the regulation, the breadth or specificity of the
regulation, and the extent of the regulation's impact on the owner's
property rights and expectations. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that
an owner can bring an action for compensation when the taking has
deprived the owner of all use of the property even temporarily.
Otherwise, the owner may be entitled only to declaratory relief.
Denton Record Chronicle:
However, an attorney representing residents’ interests dismissed one
perceived threat — denying a mineral owner access to property by rule-
making — out of hand.
“You are so far away from a regulatory taking, I don’t know why it
even comes up,” said Sara Bagheri, of Texans for Responsible and
Accountable Energy Development.
REGULATORY TAKING
effects of government regulation deemed so severe as to destroy most
of the value of a property. In effect, the government has "taken" the
property without just compensation.
Example: Any town, USA, zoned a downtown property for single-family
residential use and required that all homes in that area have at least
3,000 square feet and be built with granite floors and genuine marble
bathroom fixtures. These restrictions rendered the downtown property
unusable, so they were considered a regulatory taking
REGULATORY TAKING
A legal theory that a particular government regulation has so
adversely affected the value of real property as to amount to a
condemnation of the property,for which the owner is entitled to
compensation.There are two varieties: categorical and noncategorical
takings. In order to establish a case of categorical taking, the
Supreme Court has held that the property owner must show (1) that the
land-use regulation does not substantially advance legitimate state
interests, and (2) that it denies an owner all economically viable
uses of his or her land. These are both heavy burdens to overcome. A
noncategorical taking does not require elimination of all economically
viable uses of property, but does require a case-by-case analysis of
the regulation regarding its character and nature, the severity of its
economic impact, and the degree of interference with the property
owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations.
REGULATORY TAKING
(n)
:an appropriation or diminution of private property rights by a
governmental regulation which exceeds the government's legitimate
police power (as the power to enact safety regulations) and for which
the owner may seek a writ of mandamus, declaratory relief, or just
compensation (as by inverse condemnation)
compare physical taking zoning
In order to determine whether a regulatory taking is effected by a
regulation, a court will consider the government's interest that is
being furthered by the regulation, the breadth or specificity of the
regulation, and the extent of the regulation's impact on the owner's
property rights and expectations. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that
an owner can bring an action for compensation when the taking has
deprived the owner of all use of the property even temporarily.
Otherwise, the owner may be entitled only to declaratory relief.
However, an attorney representing residents’ interests dismissed one
perceived threat — denying a mineral owner access to property by rule-
making — out of hand.
“You are so far away from a regulatory taking, I don’t know why it
even comes up,” said Sara Bagheri, of Texans for Responsible and
Accountable Energy Development.
REGULATORY TAKING
effects of government regulation deemed so severe as to destroy most
of the value of a property. In effect, the government has "taken" the
property without just compensation.
Example: Any town, USA, zoned a downtown property for single-family
residential use and required that all homes in that area have at least
3,000 square feet and be built with granite floors and genuine marble
bathroom fixtures. These restrictions rendered the downtown property
unusable, so they were considered a regulatory taking
REGULATORY TAKING
A legal theory that a particular government regulation has so
adversely affected the value of real property as to amount to a
condemnation of the property,for which the owner is entitled to
compensation.There are two varieties: categorical and noncategorical
takings. In order to establish a case of categorical taking, the
Supreme Court has held that the property owner must show (1) that the
land-use regulation does not substantially advance legitimate state
interests, and (2) that it denies an owner all economically viable
uses of his or her land. These are both heavy burdens to overcome. A
noncategorical taking does not require elimination of all economically
viable uses of property, but does require a case-by-case analysis of
the regulation regarding its character and nature, the severity of its
economic impact, and the degree of interference with the property
owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations.
REGULATORY TAKING
(n)
:an appropriation or diminution of private property rights by a
governmental regulation which exceeds the government's legitimate
police power (as the power to enact safety regulations) and for which
the owner may seek a writ of mandamus, declaratory relief, or just
compensation (as by inverse condemnation)
compare physical taking zoning
In order to determine whether a regulatory taking is effected by a
regulation, a court will consider the government's interest that is
being furthered by the regulation, the breadth or specificity of the
regulation, and the extent of the regulation's impact on the owner's
property rights and expectations. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that
an owner can bring an action for compensation when the taking has
deprived the owner of all use of the property even temporarily.
Otherwise, the owner may be entitled only to declaratory relief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)