Coloradoan endorsements: Proposition 112 and Amendment 74 aren't right for Colorado This is the view of the Coloradoan editorial board, written this week by columnist Kevin Duggan. News reporters are not involved in the editorial board process.

Kevin Duggan | The Coloradoan

A note to readers: An informed community is vital to our democracy. And we want you to make informed decisions as you head to the polls this year. All election-related content is free for everyone to view through the week of Election Day. To support the local journalists who produced this work and will continue covering Northern Colorado in depth, subscribe today through a limited-time offer.

Highly contentious initiatives on the November ballot ostensibly are about topics that are close to Coloradans’ hearts: Local control of land use, property values, jobs, and health and safety.

But they are really about the oil and gas industry and the powerful influence it has in our state. To some extent, voters will determine whether that should change.

Proposition 112 would establish a 2,500-foot setback for new oil and gas drilling and fracking operations from occupied structures and “vulnerable areas,” which would include playgrounds, public open spaces and parks, drinking water sources as well as waterways such as lakes, rivers, canals and streambeds. It would include dry creeks that only carry water during summer gulley-washers.

The current state standard is 500 feet from homes and 1,000 feet from high-occupancy buildings such as schools and hospitals. Proponents say the greater distance is needed to protect the health and safety of residents and reduce their exposure to toxic emissions produced during oil and gas development and extraction.

Supporters cite incidents such as oil field fires and spills and the explosion of a home in Firestone that killed two people and severely injured another in April 2017 as evidence of the far-reaching risks of oil and gas development.

Some say given the danger and potential for long-range health impacts, 2,500 feet is not far enough.

Opponents of Proposition 112 say it goes too far, especially since Colorado already has strict regulations on the oil and gas industry. They claim 112’s restrictions would effectively ban new oil and gas development in most of the state.

Surface areas to establish new well and pads would be gone, they claim. High-tech, long-distance drilling techniques to reach deposits won’t work if no surface area is available to build on.

Critics predict economic ruin for Colorado as oil and gas companies abandon it. Tens of thousands of jobs — pick a number, because anything seems to be fair game — would be lost and millions if not billions of dollars in revenue would not flow into government coffers in the next decade.

Both sides make compelling, emotionally charged arguments. And voters don’t know who to believe.

The Coloradoan editorial board is not unanimous on this issue. In general, we are skeptical of the claims made by the oil and gas industry and its costly campaign against the proposition. Conflicting scientific studies on the health and environmental impacts of oil and gas development also stir our skepticism.

But the one-size-fits-all approach to setbacks — 2,500 feet regardless of circumstances and community values — is not appropriate for Colorado. It is an inelegant solution to a bigger problem that calls for much more nuanced conversations.

The core issue here is the stranglehold the state and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission holds on energy development statewide and its inflexibility in allowing communities, including Fort Collins, to establish their own setback requirements and other regulations.

Communities may set distances between marijuana and liquor stores but not oil and gas development and neighborhoods. What matters to Larimer County communities may be different than those in Weld or Washington counties.

Those differences should be recognized with the understanding public health and safety is paramount. The state with its health expertise can set minimum distances in the name of consistency, but not de facto maximums.

Communities need to set their own destinies. And the industry needs to collaborate with communities to come up with workable solutions.

Amendment 74 would change the state constitution to require governments to compensate property owners when a law or regulation reduces the fair market value of their properties.

That sounds reasonable until the vagueness of the proposal sinks in. Fronted by the Colorado Farm Bureau yet bankrolled by oil companies, according to published reports, the amendment would open the door to endless legal wrangling over the value of land and the impact of government decisions like changing oil and gas setbacks.

Its intent appears to be to protect farmers and their oil and gas development rights. But it could stymie any number of projects — road improvements, utility work, commercial and residential development — through costly court battles.

Amendment 74 would have far-reaching consequences that would hamper the ability and local communities to make land-use decisions.

For Amendment 74 and Proposition 112, the editorial board encourages voters to say “no” and to look for other answers.

This is the view of the Coloradoan editorial board, written this week by columnist Kevin Duggan. The board meets weekly to set the topic and direction of the Coloradoan's Sunday editorials. News reporters are not involved in the editorial board process.