At 4:37 Anita Sherman presented a petition to return compliance language to the comp plan. The discussion that followed lasted until about 5:00 — an extremely enlightening 23 minutes. Be sure to watch!

**********

Guest post by Anita Sherman*

The revisions to land use codes being rolled out by the Commissioners remove all local 1041 regulations. The 1041 regulations are found in Article 7: Standards of the land use codes, and provide local governments with the ability to strengthen water, wildlife, and impact regulations locally, regardless of state interests in local developments, like oil and gas. Despite John Martin’s use of words like “limited” to describe 1041 powers, these local controls provide strong regulating authority for land use and permits. Further, 1041 powers have stood the test of judicial review and support since 1912.

Decisions regarding revisions to our land use codes rest solidly in the hands of Garfield Board of County Commissioners John Martin, Tom Jankovsky, and Mike Samson. By removing the compliance language from the comprehensive plan in 2011, permit approvals returned to a private right to use without public review process in unincorporated Garfield County. Without the umbrella guidance of a mandated comp plan, changes were made to the board’s governing structure moving it from a Council-Executive system — with interdepartmental checks and balances — to a Commission-Board with full legislative authority. The current board members haven’t been shy about their support for landowners’ private right to use property. The oil and gas industry makes up the largest group of private landowners in unincorporated Garfield County.

As the push continues to remove local controls and punt public health, safety, and environmental regulation to the state and feds, Commissioners and their advisors evade specifically discussing the oil and gas industries. During the public hearing for land use code revisions on Monday 5/13 in a room with a dozen people, the oil & gas industry received a few cursory comments from the Commissioners. That’s right. In a public hearing about land use code revisions, the number one industry in the county was barely mentioned.

When I brought up the oil and gas industry, my comments were met with irritation. No distinctions were ever made by the Commissioners between local and state interest developments, and land use. Nor mention of the fact that the industry enjoys sweeping exemptions from provisions in the major federal environmental statutes intended to protect human health, wildlife, and the environment. As provided by the Oil and Gas Accountability Project (OGAP) these statutes include:

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Clean Air Act
• National Environmental Policy Act
• Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community Right Know Act

For local interest developers, like PUDs, the revised land use codes won’t be equitable. A local PUD or bakery in unincorporated Garfield County would have to follow federal environmental statutes that the state follows. However, the oil and gas industries are exempt. There are two separate interests that are homogenized to distract from the root focus of these changes. New revisions are created to close the split estate permit process that will substantially increase oil and gas development without public review, impact assessments, human health, wildlife, or environmental protections afforded in local 1041 powers. Further, these changes set a standard for other industry owned counties across the state to follow. All eyes are on Garfield.

The changes to our land use codes allow for state interest in oil and gas development, while using relaxed local codes to rubber stamp ancillary permit approvals, as fast as COGCC can issue state drilling permits.

Removing barriers is “commissioner code” for local 1041 powers to protect human health, wildlife, and environment, benefit the industry, not the public. Economic development – as rationalized for removing barriers — is “commissioner code” for more unregulated oil and gas drilling in Garfield. In fact, state and national figures show the outdoor recreation industry has outpaced the oil and gas industry for job creation since 2005. Revisions to land use codes will continue to reduce economic diversity, and continue the county’s reliance on either oil or gas extraction for export until the next bust.

The recent Williams Parachute Creek spill is a perfect example of the state and feds inability to adequately regulate and enforce regulations on an exempt industry. An industry with impacts traced to illnesses, and even death, to people and wildlife. Public and environmental protections from high impact industries and developments rely on the strength of land use codes that are compliant under a state mandated comprehensive plan. The mandated comp plan provides a consistent measure to build strong policy short term and long term, as opposed to a fluctuating partisan approach to creating policy each election cycle.

Removing compliance did four things effectively:

1. Removed public review and impact assessment for permit requests not compliant with the Land Use Codes.
2. Centralized permitting within the power of the elected BOCCs without public accountability, oversight, or transparency beyond an act of recalls.
3. Removed the mandated protections afforded by the state to challenge drilling permits issued by COGCC.
4. Changed our county’s governing process from a Council-Executive Administration — governing authority balanced between hired executives and board — to a Commission-Administrator board with full legislative board authority; extending limited powers to executives at the pleasure of the board.

At the public hearing, the Commissioners reminded everyone they were elected to office by the voters. But no one remembers the voters demanding the removal of tools that put our voice in the permit process, impact assessment, or the local controlling powers to challenge state issued oil and gas drilling permits. The oil and gas industries are well developed in Garfield County. The industry doesn’t need any more help under the disguise of economic development. The revisions being proposed provide an unregulated hall pass for a global industry to drill from Parachute to Carbondale, and dictate the terms of our local policies and land use. Public voice, health, safety, and environment impacts be damned!

The Commissioners viewed my concerns about removing local regulatory controls as nothing more than an “ideological difference.” I’d like to remind the Commissioners that ideology is a road map — the words spoken to convey one’s beliefs. The way our county is being driven under full legislative authority of the Commissioners is a matter of ethics. Actions speak louder than words.

As a matter of ethical concern, it’s clear the Commissioners are trying to defraud Garfield County’s residents of their 1041 powers in favor a state and federal regulations for an industry that is exempt from those regulations. If the Commissioners don’t want to support local controls over land use, maybe it’s time for a recall petition, instead of a petition to return compliance language to the comp plan.

* Anita Sherman is a consultant for Blue Wing Strategies, LLC; cofounder of the citizens advocacy group Garfield Transparency Initiative; and a local pledged supporter of the international collaborative The Mothers Project. She is the 1st Vice Chair for the Garfield County Democratic Party, and a strong community voice for equitable process and social justice in public policy.

Dr. Theo Colborn, President and founder of TEDX (The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Inc)

Do not miss this exclusive KNDK interview with Dr. Theo Colborn on the Parachute Creek spill — Chemical Expert,Industry Workers Question Cleanup Methods at Natural Gas Contamination Site

GVCA’s Leslie Robinson sounds off on CDPHE:  Activist condemns state’s non-penalty for Williams

Official: Williams penalty not off table
CDPHE Director Dr. Chris Urbina says, “It is premature to say there may not be penalties or fines in the future.”

Colorado health dept. working with Williams on Parachute Creek cleanup
CDPHE Director Dr. Chris Urbina says, “We’re considering other fines and penalties associated with this spill.”
This article also contains the quotes from Martha Rudolph (CDPHE director of environmental programs) which appeared in the May 15 article by DBJ’s Cathy Proctor and was pulled from the website on May 16. (see Day 70)

**********

Water sampling test results at Williams Answers for Parachute website:  Testing Results & Other Info
Note: No test results are being shown for sampling sites upstream closer to the Williams gas processing plant.

**********

CDPHE is accepting questions and comments from the public. Call or send your questions to:

David Walker, Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Project Manager
(303) 692-3354
Or toll free 1(888) 569-1831, Ext 3354
david.walker@state.co.us

Hazardous Materials and Waste Mgmt Division
Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S.
Denver, CO 80246

**********

Get involved in citizen action regarding the Parachute Creek spill.
Join the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance
Please donate and volunteer today!
Like GVCA on Facebook

]]> http://fromthestyx.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/parachute-creek-spill-day-71/feed/ 1 toxic thumb Peggy Dr. Theo Colborn, President and founder of TEDX (The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Inc) http://fromthestyx.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/parachute-creek-spill-day-70/ http://fromthestyx.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/parachute-creek-spill-day-70/#comments Thu, 16 May 2013 21:49:59 +0000 Peggy Tibbetts http://fromthestyx.wordpress.com/?p=6141 ]]>

Click here for the last known map:  Benzene Concentrations in Groundwater & Isoconcentration Map 4-19-13

State issues no penalties for plume

… In response to a question from the Post Independent, Salley had indicated earlier in the email that the CDPHE’s decision about penalties should not be interpreted as meaning that the state does not hold Williams or other companies responsible for keeping their pipelines, storage tanks and other equipment in good working order.

“They have a duty to maintain their equipment,” Salley wrote, adding that “since what was being spilled was valuable product from their operation they have a vested interest in the performance of their equipment.”

If toxic compounds from the leak are later discovered to have contaminated domestic water wells along Parachute Creek, Salley said, “New facts can result in us reassessing the situation.”

Colorado health officials don’t plan to fine Williams for Parachute spill – As you will see this article has been removed from the website, however I did grab this snippet from the article before it disappeared down the memory hole. The rest of the article is just a re-wording of the May 15 CDPHE update:

“The bottom line is that we’ve got things pretty much under control,” said Martha Rudolph, director of the environmental programs at the public health department.

“We know where the [contamination] plume is, we are cleaning it up, and the [contamination] levels in the monitoring wells are going down, which we are pleased about.”

Rudolph said it will probably be months, or longer, before the cleanup is considered finished, and the department wants to see how the spring runoff affects the pollution and cleanup efforts.

“We have no reason to believe that the runoff will have an adverse affect on the conditions there, but the spring runoff is a fairly significant event, and we’ll be continually monitoring it,” she said.

The consent order will cover future cleanup activities as well as the development of contingency plans in the event that hydrocarbon elements from the NGL spill appear in the creek, recovering hydrocarbons floating on the groundwater table, reducing the concentration of dissolved benzene –a cancer causing agent — in groundwater and developing a long-term strategy for final cleanup.

“From a cleanup standpoint, it’s manageable,” Rudolph said. “There’s been many, many monitoring wells that have been drilled since this was discovered to try to quantify the material in the groundwater and also to get an idea of the extent of the plume.”

Suncor spill still taints South Platte, proves benzene a tough mop-up

… a review of Suncor case documents and interviews show that, even though benzene technically is easier than other toxic chemicals to remove, full cleanup can be complicated and slow.

As oil and gas operations expand in Colorado, so does the number of spills and leaks.

“The question is whether or not the industry is doing all it can to prevent the spills and leaks, to monitor for leaks, and to clean up spills and leaks promptly and completely,” University of Colorado environmental engineer Joseph Ryan said. “Industry might be able to reduce the frequency of spills and leaks and we still might see more because of the increased production.”

… Extracting benzene from soil is tricky because this transfers toxic material into the air. State air officials recently ordered Suncor to install emission controls, including charcoal filters, to minimize air pollution. They’ve directed Suncor to apply for an air pollution permit.

The CDPHE team also is demanding documentation of when and how broken pipes near storage tanks were repaired, including work orders. And CDPHE has ordered Suncor to hire an independent auditor to review its system for maintaining and inspecting storage tanks.

Suncor “continues to work with CDPHE concerning additional requests, and we anticipate a mutually satisfactory conclusion to ongoing discussions,” vice president Gallagher said.

The overall approach to the Suncor spill now is being applied near Parachute, where a spill made public on March 16 has oozed benzene along and into Parachute Creek. None has been detected in the Colorado River.

The Williams energy company runs a natural gas-processing plant along the creek. A broken pipe spilled more than 10,000 gallons of natural gas liquids that contaminated groundwater with super-concentrated benzene …

**********

Bob Arrington* questions CDPHE decision not to fine Williams

Gas company won’t be fined in liquids leak [subscriber only]

… Bob Arrington, a retired engineer living in Battlement Mesa and a member of Garfield County’s Energy Advisory Board, questioned the idea of Williams facing no financial penalty for its actions.

“There was a lot of negligence involved and that’s what you fine for,” to deter against similar actions in the future, he said.

Williams spokesman Tom Droege said Wednesday about the lack of a penalty, “Those decisions are entirely up to the regulatory agencies. Our focus is on protecting the creek and the public as we clean up the contamination under the direction of those agencies.”

“They are cleaning it up … but basically they put a lot of poisons out there,” Arrington said.

Arrington — who has done pipeline work and had argued the gauge was the likely source of the entire leak even when Williams was publicly doubting it could be — said company personnel should have been able to recognize the leak source immediately and their inability to do so merits “a pretty big fine.”

“Basically what does it take to wake them up and put a person on that who knows what they’re doing?” he said.

Perhaps it would take a $100,000 fine, he said, answering his own question, and noting that Bargath was fined $275,000 last year for stormwater management violations that threatened the Parachute Creek watershed.

Bob continues:

I find it unreal that they could have a spill go on from Decemeber 17- 18 to January 3, and not notice tanks weren’t filling and then coming out there and seeing a burst gauge and not “know” the spill was big.

Even though it has been years since I worked on piping systems, I knew immediately what the problem was at EAB when I heard about the gauge. That means Williams did not have enough people monitoring flow transfer and/or they didn’t know what they were doing. Or they had maintenance people, or whoever, that didn’t know, or weren’t trained to realize such serious problems.

No, it was incompetence, untrained people, and/or lack of monitoring and system planning. The underestimation of the initial spill was because incompetent people were doing the job without the skill or experience to make a call like that.

I could do it with limited, spoon fed information and a casual remark. Those guys had to know this was a major problem and did not ever respond to such until March. That, my friends, is human failure from inadequate skill and knowledge and/or from deliberately downplaying and minimizing the scope until they could jump into or marshal reaction people and equipment. The way the original story broke indicates both.

I think a $100,000 fine would be in order just to make sure their operations and people are brought up levels for such an operation.

On a personal note, that would have been my minimum bill for the professional work I did in “solving their problem” so they wouldn’t have had to spend so much time and manpower chasing phantoms guessing scope. They could have intercepted the water spill earlier just from the prediction I gave them that their hydrologists failed to point out to them — and for pointing out the wrong agency on the job.

*Bob Arrington is a retired engineer and the Battlement Mesa citizen representative on Garfield County’s Energy Advisory Board (EAB). He also represents the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance and the Battlement Concerned Citizens.

**********

Click here to read the CDPHE Update May 15 – Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Compliance Order on Consent

Water sampling test results at Williams Answers for Parachute website:  Testing Results & Other Info
Note: No test results are being shown for sampling sites upstream closer to the Williams gas processing plant.

**********

CDPHE is accepting questions and comments from the public. Call or send your questions to:

David Walker, Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Project Manager
(303) 692-3354
Or toll free 1(888) 569-1831, Ext 3354
david.walker@state.co.us

Hazardous Materials and Waste Mgmt Division
Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S.
Denver, CO 80246

[Photos of the Parachute Creek cleanup courtesy of Bruce Gordon, Ecoflight]

Breaking news – Williams won’t be fined in liquids leak

**********

CDPHE Update May 15 – Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Compliance Order on Consent

Personnel from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (HMWMD) met with representatives of Bargath, LLC and Williams Company regarding the Hazardous Waste Compliance Advisory issued to Bargath, LLC on April 30. Bargath is a wholly owned subsidiary of Williams.

Bargath and Williams agreed to work under this department’s hazardous waste corrective action authority. As such, the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division and Bargath will enter into a Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Compliance Order on Consent (Consent Order). The Consent Order, likely negotiated and signed by both parties within a month, will provide the framework for the investigation of the extent of soil, groundwater and surface water contamination that occurred as a result of the release, and for the interim and final remediation measures that will be conducted to thoroughly cleanup the release.

No penalty is being assessed as part of the Consent Order, as the release was not due to negligence but to accidental equipment failure. The division retains the ability to fine Bargath in the event the company does not comply with the clean-up/remediation requirements of the Consent Order.

The Consent Order will be drafted by HMWMD and the draft is expected to be provided to Bargath within two weeks. The order will outline remedial activities from this point forward, including the development of contingency plans in the event hydrocarbon appears in the creek; implementing measures to begin the process of recovering the hydrocarbon floating on the ground water table; taking actions to reduce the concentration of dissolved benzene in ground water; and developing a long-term strategy to eliminate the source of contamination impacting ground water and surface water with the goal of meeting state environmental standards.

Please note that clean-up efforts will continue without pause during the time the Consent Order is being drafted and signed. Bargath will continue to take direction from CDPHE, while COGCC and U.S. EPA continue to remain up-to-date and involved in the project. The effort to upgrade the groundwater aeration trench to reduce levels of benzene in Parachute Creek surface water appears to be working. Current data show levels of benzene in groundwater are slowly reducing downgradient of the aeration trench and there have been no further surface water samples from any site exceeding 5.0 ppb.
[end of update]

**********

CDPHE is accepting questions and comments from the public. Call or send your questions to:

David Walker, Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Project Manager
(303) 692-3354
Or toll free 1(888) 569-1831, Ext 3354
david.walker@state.co.us

Hazardous Materials and Waste Mgmt Division
Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S.
Denver, CO 80246

Lower Valley trail group wants county funding reinstated

Watch the video here. Under the video screen on the left side of the page, scroll down to “iv. Lower Valley Trails Group (LoVa) – Larry Dragon” and click on it. This section lasts about 40 minutes – well worth watching.

**********

In the following guest post, Tod Tibbetts is writing as a long-time volunteer and Garfield County taxpayer, and not as a board member of LoVa Trails.

I am a founding member and have been on the board since 1999, when LoVa Trails group was formed. Since then I have been actively working to build non-motorized trails in Garfield County for everyone to enjoy – residents as well as visitors. I recognize that LoVa’s efforts seem like a slow-moving process and the work is not glamorous, but when I look at the progress made it has certainly been worth it. The reason I have kept at this monumental vision of a public trail from Glenwood Springs to Parachute was because of the partnership LoVa forged with Garfield County and their financial support over the years. The one thing the LoVa volunteer board members could always count on was the commitment of the Board of County Commissioners to LoVa’s mission. They took that commitment and built trails with it.

In August 2012, the BOCC made a commitment to fund LoVa Trails through 2013, and financially partner in building an additional trail section in South Canyon. On Monday, May 13, they publicly rescinded that commitment. I appreciate Commissioner Martin reminding Commissioners Jankovsky and Samson about their commitment. But it became clear to me at the meeting that the majority of the BOCC and Administrator Gorgey have adopted a more frivolous view and can no longer be taken at their word.

On the one hand the Commissioners say “We are not in the trails business.” With the other hand they fund the Red Hill trail in Carbondale – for safety reasons. And to date they have invested close to $2 million dollars on the South Canyon trail.

While they pull the plug on LoVa’s 14 years of progress on trails, they plan to start all over again with what they’re calling a “regional trails group,” which amounts to paid employees from Garfield and Pitkin counties working on a non-existent trails plan with no vision or mission statement from which to proceed into what I can assure you are very murky waters indeed.

The strength of LoVa Trails has always been the group’s ability to organize volunteer dedication and expertise toward the goal of a major project like South Canyon. Without that organization, Garfield County has no foundation on which to continue the mission that LoVa has carried on with true leadership and fierce determination for more than a decade. And thus the BOCC has relegated the status of the Mitchell Creek bridge to the “bridge to nowhere.”

Mitchell Creek bridge in west Glenwood Springs completed in 2009

Parachute Creek       Readings        Readings       Readings        Readings
Surface Water              (5/9/13)        (5/10/13)       (5/11/13)     (5/12/13)
Sample Location
CS6                                 4.4 ppb          3.5 ppb           3.7 ppb           2.6 ppb
CS7                                 1.4 ppb          1.5 ppb           1.3 ppb           1.0 ppb
CS8                                  .1 ppb          Non-detect    Non-detect   Non-detect
CS9                               Non-detect    Non-detect    Non-detect   Non-detect
CS10                            Non-detect    Non-detect    Non-detect   Non-detect
CS11                             Non-detect    Non-detect   Non-detect    Non-detect
Town of
Parachute                  Non-detect   Non-detect    Non-detect    Non-detect

For the first time, on Friday, May 10, a surface water sample from location CS8 came up as non-detect for benzene levels. It has remained non-detect since Friday, May 10.

As of Friday, May 10, all pumps were recovering hydrocarbons from all wells. This should result in an overall increase in hydrocarbon recovery.

The domestic well of rancher Howard Orona was tested last week and the benzene levels were non-detect. Water quality in his well has not been affected by the natural gas liquids leak at Williams.

Piping for vertical air sparge wells was completed late last week and with an adjustment to the blowers as well, the vertical air sparge wells were operational as of Friday, May 10.

Williams has ordered an on-site water treatment system that will be used to treat groundwater that already has been extracted from the site as part of investigation and remediation, and that currently is stored in tanks. The on-site groundwater treatment system also will be used to treat groundwater extracted from a series of new recovery wells designed to remove floating hydrocarbon from the groundwater surface. The goal is to have the new treatment system running by the end of May.
[end of update]

**********

Water sampling test results at Williams Answers for Parachute website:  Testing Results & Other Info

Williams Update — May 10:  Company Deploys Additional Resources to Continue its Focus on Protecting Parachute Creek

**********

CDPHE is accepting questions and comments from the public. Call or send your questions to:

David Walker, Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Project Manager
(303) 692-3354
Or toll free 1(888) 569-1831, Ext 3354
david.walker@state.co.us

Hazardous Materials and Waste Mgmt Division
Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S.
Denver, CO 80246

Head on over to the Radio Ecoshock Show and listen to their one-hour special Fracking: Sacrifice Zones of the American West featuring our good friend Bob Arrington, retired engineer, Battlement Mesa resident, and Chair of the Energy Committee of the Western Colorado Congress.

Plus –

Robert LeResche of Powder River Resource Council and the Western Organization of Resource Councils

Pat Wilson, 4 generation rancher and member of the Northern Plains Resource Council in Montana

Theodora Bird Bear, Fort Berthold Reservation & Dakota Resource Council

You can download each interview or listen to all four interviews.

Absorbent booms on Parachute Creek [COGCC photo]

Pipelines are a big problem:  Authority over faulty pipeline remains mystery

Williams to install system to clean groundwater

Williams Update — May 10: Company Deploys Additional Resources to Continue its Focus on Protecting Parachute Creek

Water sampling test results at Williams Answers for Parachute website:  Testing Results & Other Info

**********

CDPHE is accepting questions and comments from the public. Call or send your questions to:

David Walker, Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Project Manager
(303) 692-3354
Or toll free 1(888) 569-1831, Ext 3354
david.walker@state.co.us

Hazardous Materials and Waste Mgmt Division
Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S.
Denver, CO 80246

Parachute Creek industrial zone

Ever since this whole Parachute Creek spill situation unfolded, the one thing that has never ceased to amaze me is the arrogance of the industry. In this case – Williams – and by association WPX Energy. The article in today’s Daily Sentinel really shows you who they are.

Williams delays gas plant expansion
Sluggish market stalls $200 million project, firm says

Williams has suspended construction on a $200 million addition to its natural gas processing facility outside Parachute, in a move it says has nothing to do with a leak from a pipeline there and everything to do with sluggish local drilling levels …

Yes, people, Williams thinks we’re all deaf, dumb, and blind. The gas plant expansion wasn’t delayed because of the Parachute Creek spill because they were pretty sure they could find 80 desperate, temporary construction workers who would risk their lives to dig into the ground and lay pipeline in a contamination zone. Be sure to note this line: “The company didn’t plan to increase plant employment due to the expansion.”

So it wasn’t 80 permanent new jobs. Just 80 temporary, exposure-to-toxic-contaminants-on-a-daily-basis jobs.

And don’t let the numbers in the article fool you. Smoke and mirrors. All they’re saying is that new drilling permits are down from the previous 2 years and so are new well starts.

Here are some numbers that really matter. In 2004, there were 1,669 active wells in Garfield County. In 2009, that number more than doubled to about 4,000 active wells. As of last count in March 2013, there are 10,167 active wells in Garfield County.  In the past 4 years the number of active wells has more than doubled. And production is way, way up.

So the market is sluggish? Whatever. Then stop drilling. We are inundated with gas wells – and toxins.

Take a look at the numbers for yourself:  The Energy Industry and the Garfield County Economy – March 2013

Want to know who tops the chart of GarCo’s Top Taxpayers? That’s right. WPX Energy [in 2012 WPX was also Williams] weighs in at a whopping $894,786,370 in 2012 assessed value [page 27]. Check out the revenues for the county’s 2013 budget [page 34]. Revenues from property taxes on oil & gas industry and production together total $66,608,615 of the county’s $107,938,349 budget for 2013.

No wonder John Martin, Tom Jankovsky, Mike Samson, Kirby Wynn and Drew Gorgey practically genuflect in the presence of Williams. And they think we should, too. ¿Que bono? Who benefits?

But I digress. Let’s go back to the $200 million gas plant expansion that has not been delayed because of the Parachute Creek spill. I wonder when they really decided to delay the project. In 2012, when the gas plant expansion was initially planned, Williams Midstream and WPX Energy were one company.

Here’s an interesting timeline:

• December 20, 2012 – According to Williams the faulty pressure gauge began leaking
• December 31, 2012 – WPX Energy divests itself of Williams Midstream
• January 3, 2013 – The leak on the faulty pressure gauge is stopped
• January 3, 2013 — WPX Energy begins trading as independent company

Go ahead, click on the link. Read the press releases from both companies. Can you find any mention at all of any gas plant expansion anywhere, from either company? If you do, call me. And now you know what they knew at the time.

So who’s zooming who?

**********

Water sampling test results at Williams Answers for Parachute website:  Testing Results & Other Info

CDPHE Update — May 9, 2013

The Work Plan for Interim Remedy Response Actions document, describing proposed upgrades to the existing groundwater treatment system in the vicinity of sample point CS-6, was submitted by Williams to EPA and CDPHE for review and approval.

Creek surface water samples / benzene levels:

Parachute Creek Surface Water Samples
Location                    Monday Readings (5/7/13)     Tuesday Readings (5/8/13)
CS6                                          4.7 ppb                                              4.5 ppb
CS7                                          1.4 ppb                                               1.4 ppb
CS8                                          1.1 ppb                                                1.0 ppb
CS9                                       Non-detect                                       Non-detect
CS10                                    Non-detect                                       Non-detect
CS11                                     Non-detect                                       Non-detect
Town of Parachute       Non-detect                                        Non-detect

One new recovery well – 2A – was installed on Tuesday to recover hydrocarbons from the soil.

Installation of vertical air sparge wells intended to enhance treatment of benzene in groundwater has been completed. Work is in progress to now connect the vertical sparge wells to the blower motor. The groundwater aeration/sparge trench remains in operation after installation of a larger capacity blower intended to enhance groundwater treatment.

On Tuesday, May 7, all of the creek containment booms were replaced with fresh ones.

Sampling began this week of the contaminated groundwater that has been stored since being extracted as part of hydrocarbon recovery operations. This “waste characterization” sampling will provide the information needed to properly treat and dispose of the accumulated ground water.
[end of update]

**********

CDPHE is accepting questions and comments from the public. Call or send your questions to:

David Walker, Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Project Manager
(303) 692-3354
Or toll free 1(888) 569-1831, Ext 3354
david.walker@state.co.us

Hazardous Materials and Waste Mgmt Division
Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S.
Denver, CO 80246

The demise of HB 1267 marked the end of oil and gas legislation this year. The session was disappointing for the many Coloradans who called for increased protections for our environment and public health from the impacts of heavy industrial oil and gas development.

“Today, Coloradans rightfully concerned about the increasing impacts of drilling and fracking on our children, communities, public health and environment were pushed aside by an aggressive lobbying effort from the multibillion dollar oil and gas industry. At times working in concert with the Hickenlooper Administration, the industry was able to defeat, or significantly weaken, measures that would have brought greater transparency and accountability to their operations and given equal weight to protection of environment, public health, and communities,” said Pete Maysmith, Executive Director, Conservation Colorado. “Even with the defeat of these common sense bills, Coloradans will continue our work to make sure the oil and gas industry takes responsibility for its actions, just like the rest of us do, and is held accountable for its impacts on our state and our neighborhoods.”

Conservation Colorado sincerely thanks our legislative champions who have been responsive to constituent concerns about drilling and fracking. Champions have included: House Majority Leader Dickey Lee Hullinghorst (DBoulder), Rep. Mike Foote (DLafayette), Rep. Jonathan Singer (DLongmont), Rep. Joe Salazar (DThornton), Rep. Diane MitschBush (DSteamboat Springs), Senator Matt Jones (DLouisville), Sen Jessie Ulibarri (DCommerce City) and many others.

Below are quotes from a number of Coloradans as they testified and commented on legislation to set mandatory minimum fines for polluters, close loopholes omitting the largest oil and gas field in the state from groundwater testing and eliminate conflicts of interest on the Oil and Gas Commission.

Eva Henry, Adams County Commissioner, on closing Greater Wattenberg Area Loophole (HB 1316):

“In recent months, Adams County has seen increasing public concern about oil and gas development happening close to homes and neighborhoods. In our community, we see areas with very tight development across our entire county, yet the Greater Wattenberg Area is exempt from this rule. Why should the wells be treated differently when it comes to monitoring groundwater just because they are on the wrong side of our county? We are relying on the state to create baseline monitoring, which is not possible with two different standards all of Adams County deserves the same level of protection.”

Peg Perl, Staff Counsel, Colorado Ethics Watch, on reducing conflicts of interest on the Oil and Gas Commission (HB 1269):

“This measure will increase transparency of the Commission, bolster accountability and strengthen public confidence in oversight of the oil and gas industry in Colorado.

Members of the Commission currently are forced to choose between what is best for the health of the public and what is best for their employer.

Having commissioners who are on the payroll of the regulated companies erodes the public’s trust in this public governing body.

The public expects unbiased public officials to hold the oil and gas industry accountable – this legislation provides the accountability and transparency the public deserves.”

Bruce Baizel, Executive Director, of Durango, CO based Oil and Gas Accountability Project, stated on increasing fines and inspectors (HB 1267):

“Compared to other major oil and gas producing states, Colorado’s fines for oil and gas violations are weak and as a consequence public health and the environment in Colorado are not being adequately protected.

Setting the minimum fines will begin to change both the perception that violations of regulations have no monetary consequence and how companies operate in Colorado.”

Elena Nunez, Executive Director, Colorado Common Cause, on reducing conflicts of interest on the Oil and Gas Commission (HB 1269):

“Asking members of the Commission to regulate the industry that employs them creates an inherent conflict of interest. When considering regulations, Commissioners must be able to prioritize the protection of public health and environment without the burden of balancing financial interests of their employers.

The adoption of strong conflict of interest policies is not an indication of corruption, but is meant to prevent a situation where competing interests could influence decision making. Good conflict of interest provisions promote public trust in an institution’s governance and enhances public confidence in the decision making process.”