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.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
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)