A few days later, Dr. Roxana Witter publicly asked the BOCC to take action on the Battlement Mesa/HIA study recommendations. Dr. Witter authored that study.

The silence from the BOCC is deafening.

For years, industry and government claimed that the environmental impacts were “minimal” and the public health impacts were “anecdotal”. They insisted there were no studies to prove fracking contaminates groundwater. They said any adverse health effects were “isolated incidents”. No research had been done to compile those isolated reports of adverse health effects into a public health impacts study. I remember when industry reps insisted our air pollution was from diesel trucks idling in the Walmart parking lot. After lo these many years, we finally have the localized studies we need to show the adverse impacts on public health and the environment – and the BOCC is sitting on them.

But the genie is already out of the bottle. Study after study reveals the dangers to public health and the environment from not only fracking, but almost all aspects of natural gas drilling operations. As the studies stack up, the BOCC’s silence looks like a cover up in favor of the gas & oil industry.

The studies –

Judy Jordan pointed out the East Mamm Creek Project Drilling and Cementing Study of June 20, 2011, showing gas wells have leaked into the aquifer. (This is a 90-page study and loads very slowly, so be patient.)

The EPA Pavillion Wyoming Study found fracking chemicals in drinking water wells.

The Texas Oil & Gas Accountability Project investigated case studies of communities and families in the Barnett Shale region titled:  Natural Gas Flowback – How the Texas Natural Gas Boom Affects Health and Safety. Their investigation determined that the state of Texas is currently not doing enough to adequately protect its citizens and its resources.

Human Health Impacts Associated with Chemicals and Pathways of Exposure from the Development of Shale Gas Plays  was presented by Dr. Wilma Subra at the conference on Epidemiologic & Public Considerations of Shale Gas Production, presented by Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy and the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health & the Environment, on January 9, 2012, at the Waterview Conference Center in Arlington, VA.

Who is Dr. Wilma Subra?

Subra is an environmental scientist from Louisiana who has taken industry to task. CNN dubbed her “another Erin Brockovich” and The Guardian called her BP’s “worst nightmare”.

Read an interview with Dr. Wilma Subra.

From the “Isn’t it Ironic” file –

No energy industry backing for the word “fracking”

I have a better title:  PSYOPs boomerangs and bites oil & gas industry in the ass

They invented the word and now they say environmentalists co-opted it to make it “look offensive”. Oh hahahahaha. It is offensive.

Get Frank Luntz on the phone! The oil & gas industry needs a new talking point.

This past week saw the introduction of the first of at least two bills aimed at radically limiting or completely extinguishing local government authority over one class of industrial land use: oil and gas operations. SB 12-088, which is sponsored by Douglas County Sen. Ted Harvey, R- Highlands Ranch, declares oil and gas regulation a matter of statewide concern and expressly preempts all local regulation of “oil and gas operations.” Colorado statutes give the latter term an exceedingly broad scope, so too would be the preemptive scope of this bill should it be enacted. The bill reverses longstanding Colorado law recognizing a local role in dealing with the land use impacts of this industry. CML will oppose this unfortunate legislation.

Still to come, we are told, is a preemption bill sponsored by House Speaker Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, which will also preempt some or all of municipal and county authority. We have not seen a copy of this bill yet.

Legislators are responding to complaints from industry and the director of the state Oil & Gas Conservation Commission about consideration, and enactment in a few cases, of local moratoria on drilling. These moratoria have been adopted while a local government updates its regulations or responds to citizen alarm and requests for more information about hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.” Those who have always sought preemption of our authority have opportunistically seized upon the latest controversy to once again push this agenda.

Despite the complaints from some in the industry, we are unaware of any actual adoption of any major new oil and gas regulations in any of our member municipalities – anywhere in Colorado – over the past year. Instead, we hear a lot about what somebody proposed somewhere, or what somebody is talking about somewhere else. If your municipality has adopted anything lately, please let us know so we can answer these concerns with specificity.

We expect an active election year session on this issue.

Bill: SB 12-088, Extinguish all local authority over oil and gas operations
Sponsor: Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch
Status: S. Local Government
Position: Oppose
Lobbyist: Geoff Wilson

Garfield County pledges $1M for Silt infrastructure
Grant to help finance town’s urban renewal program

No doubt the commissioners were impressed with the way the SiltBOTs rammed through their URA resolutions. The BOCC are not big fans of the democratic process either.

But I’m glad Silt got the funding for infrastructure because the bulk of the traffic related to gas drilling runs through this town and the streets and roads are a mess. (See Blight Study) Potholes-r-us. I have an old, 20th century Jeep. The satellite radio is hooked up to the cigarette lighter and the connector thingie falls out every time I hit a pothole. It is so annoying.

Supporters, detractors weigh in on Silt urban renewal plans
Only one property owner pulled out of the deal

Let’s get one thing straight – that was no “debate” on Monday night. At the outset, members of the public were admonished that they had 3 minutes each to speak and if they spoke up outside those parameters Chief Burris would eject them from the meeting. I wasn’t exactly sure what they meant by “eject” and I didn’t really want to find out. Board members were always allowed to respond to the individuals who commented. However in several instances, individuals were not allowed to respond to board members’ comments to them. That’s not a debate.

But it wasn’t really a public hearing either. They just called it that. The SiltBOTs didn’t care what people said. They had already made up their minds.

OBTW, I’m on the town email list. We’re supposed to receive important announcements, information, and agendas from the town staff. It’s kind of hit and miss thing. I rarely get emails and when I do they are kind of happy, clappy cheerleading stuff or PSAs. They only email the meeting agendas if you email the town and ask. Anyhoo, I got no email – nada – zippo – prior to the joint meeting and the public hearing on January 23. In fact, I found out about the public hearing when I read my own blog. I didn’t know about the joint meeting with the BOCC until we arrived – at the end of it. For a few minutes I thought we had missed the public hearing. I guess I should have occupied the town hall so I could have figured out what the hell was going on. I’m just sayin – yeah, they met the state requirements for notifying the public and/or property owners — but no more than that.

I need to correct something from Colson’s article:

But some local residents and property owners were skeptical about the plan, and one asked that his property be withdrawn from the blight area in which the authority is to operate.

“I just don’t like that term, blight,” said Keith Gilstrap.

He told the trustees he has no objection to the use of the authority to frame the economic development effort, but is worried that classifying his property as blighted could hurt its value.

Actually, Mr. Gilstrap said that his attorney advised him to remove his property from the blighted area because it would negatively affect his property value. Several other property owners voiced the same concern. I call that a “downside”.

I’m glad Colson explained that whole revolving loan fund and tax increment financing (TIF) stuff in his article. If I tried it would be the blond leading the blind. Tod understands it thoroughly, but when he explains it to me my eyes roll back in my head and I lapse into a coma. So I’m a lost cause.

Here’s what I understand about the revolving loan fund:  You can use shells to illustrate it in a demonstration speech.

Here’s what I understand about TIF:  The excess tax revenue that comes from increased property values goes to pay off the loans that funded the economic development that increased the property value. The fire department and the school district don’t get a dime of incremental tax funds. Aluise told the firefighter who pointed it out that the fire department should see it as a partnership with the town. I see it as vampire economics.

In the article’s last segment “Trustees to govern urban renewal authority”, Colson made Resolution No. 10 sound pretty cut and dried. Mayor Dave wants to handpick the URA commissioners but he got shot down. Not so fast …

In Resolution No. 10, Section 4 was written this way:

The Board of Trustees declares that the members of the Board of Trustees, including the Mayor, as such Trustees and Mayor from time to time are in office, shall constitute and be the Silt Urban Renewal Authority Board of Commissioners. The Mayor is designated as the Chair of the Urban Renewal Authority Board. Such Trustees and Mayor shall only serve on the Board of Commissioners during their term in office as Trustees or Mayor and, upon leaving the position as a Trustee or Mayor, the position of the Board of Commissioners shall automatically terminate. New elected or appointed Trustees or a new elected or appointed Mayor shall automatically become a member of the Silt Urban Renewal Authority Board of Commissioners. Nothing herein shall prevent the governing body of the Town of Silt acting as the Board of Trustees and the Board of Commissioners from converting in the future to a Board of Commissioners elected by the Mayor and approved by the Board of Trustees as provided for in CRS Section 31-25-104(2)(a). Such conversion shall occur no later than ____ months from the effective date of this Resolution.

Instead of inserting a set date to prohibit a mayor from ever choosing the commissioners, the SiltBOTs struck that last line from the Resolution:  Such conversion shall occur no later than ____ months from the effective date of this Resolution.

But they left in this line:  Nothing herein shall prevent the governing body of the Town of Silt acting as the Board of Trustees and the Board of Commissioners from converting in the future to a Board of Commissioners elected by the Mayor and approved by the Board of Trustees …

Therefore, at any time in the future, the mayor can create a separate, hand-picked URA Board. All he needs are 3 more votes on the Board of Trustees. Obviously Mayor Dave doesn’t have those 3 votes at the moment. But there’s a town election coming up in April with 3 vacant trustee seats up for grabs. I bet he has some “particular names” for candidates in mind.

At the public hearing, the SiltBOTs declined to say whether they had a specific project in the wings for the URA. Mayor Pro-Tem Aluise said that while they don’t have a specific planned project to tie into the URA, the town hopes to use it as a tool to attract commercial development to the town. “Sort of pie in the sky, if you will,” Aluise said.

To me it sounds more like a high stakes fishing expedition. From my own research I had learned that URAs were more successful if they were tied to a planned project already in negotiation, as an incentive. That, in turn, limits the blighted area, and gives the public something tangible to support – as opposed to just pie in the sky. So, imagine my surprise Monday night when I heard “pie in the sky” being tossed around by the SiltBOTs.

Trustee Breslin did mention the Dollar General Store in a sort of ambiguous way. She is really excited about it and plans to shop there! (BTW, before the hearing began Mayor Dave asked Breslin if she had read the Blight Study and she said she hadn’t read the whole thing – so who’s not paying attention?) It was unclear – to me anyway – whether that project would benefit from the URA. I don’t know much about the Dollar General Store project. I haven’t been paying attention. I’m an ignorant little fear muffin. So I did some research, which I will share with my readers because I don’t think you all have been paying attention either.

Resolution No. 8, 2012 to approve the commercial site plan for the Dollar General retail commercial building was introduced, read, passed and adopted by the SiltBOTs at the board meeting on January 9, 2012. The site is the vacant lot at the corner of 4th and Main., where the Farmers Market was held last summer.  I can’t find any language in the resolution about the URA or infrastructure funding so I guess not. Though I’m not really sure …

My point is, it doesn’t really matter how much I pay attention to what’s going on in this town, information is not easily available on any given topic like, say, the URA. Obviously the SiltBOTs wanted to keep the whole thing from the public for as long as possible. The way they handled the formation of the URA shows me they don’t have enough confidence in the program to persuade the public – they didn’t even try. Or maybe they don’t have confidence in the public.

None of this bodes well for the future. The only “pie in the sky” I see on the horizon is Antero’s plan for 850 gas wells on the southern border of Silt. When I consider how the town staff and the SiltBOTs have handled the formation of the Urban Renewal Authority, I have absolutely no confidence that they will be open with the public, include the public, or look out for the public’s best interests as that whole process moves forward.

And neither should you …

A resolution of the Board of Trustees making legislative findings determining an area within the Town of Silt  to be a blighted area and appropriate for inclusion in an urban renewal project and further adopting the Blight Study prepared by THK Associates, Inc in December 2011.

And they voted 5 to 1 in favor of Resolution No. 10, Series 2012:

A resolution of the Board of Trustees creating the Silt Urban Renewal Authority and designating the Board of Trustees as the Board of Commissioners of the Authority.

Mayor Dave voted against Resolution 10 because he wants a separate board of commissioners, appointed by him of course.

Well over 50 people packed the town hall and stood in the hallway outside the chambers.

Based on the information provided at the board meeting, I might have been inclined to vote for the Urban Renewal Authority. But I won’t be allowed the opportunity to vote for or against it, nor will any other Silt resident.

I still have many concerns about the Blight Study and the URA, but what disturbs me the most was the process with which the town staff and the SiltBOTs rammed it through.

By framing these issues as resolutions and not ordinances, the SiltBOTS were not required to hold a public meeting. We were lucky they even allowed members of the public three minutes to speak. If the two resolutions had been presented as ordinances, there would have been two public hearings, and the people would have had the option to petition the board to put the ordinances on the ballot.

I asked, “Why isn’t this a ballot resolution?”

Mayor Pro-Tem Aluise said, “Because we don’t have to.”

Mayor Dave mentioned that Silt voters had rejected the Columbine Market. That is so 20th century. I can’t even remember what year it was, maybe 1998. But since he brought it up, yeah, I voted against the 1.5% city sales tax on food, which had been proposed as an incentive to finance a Columbine Market. I’m not a fan of public financing for commercial development, or sales tax on food. At the time, I also thought the town staff and board did a poor job of presenting the whole proposition to the public.

Likewise the current staff and board did a poor job of presenting the Urban Renewal Authority. Board members admitted the issues of URA and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) are complicated and they have had months to study them. Trustees Taylor and Fleming even said they were against it at the start, but changed their minds because they understand it better after many months of study. When I challenged board members about that, they indicated an unwillingness to allow the public even a fraction of the time they allowed themselves.

Aluise responded by chastising the public for not showing up at board meetings. Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it. Voters elect trustees to represent them. Once elected it is their duty and responsibility to inform the public about important issues. It’s a moot point anyway. We could have gone to all the board meetings and workshops and we still would not have been given the chance to vote on the resolutions. How ironic that he criticized the public for not getting involved in a process that, as evidenced by the board’s actions, was never intended to allow public participation. Evidently they know what’s best for the town and the public suffers from fear and ignorance.

The Blight Study was just released last month, December 2011. Notices were sent out to property owners in the blighted areas the second week of January 2012. The resolutions were passed on January 23. One public hearing was not enough to cover these complicated and confusing resolutions.

Most of the questions came from confused property owners in the blighted areas. It came to light during the hearing that if property owners wanted to opt out of the blight study they had to do so prior to the board’s vote on the resolution that night, or wait until another blight study is done in a year or two. This opt-out clause was not adequately explained to property owners prior to the public hearing. Several property owners expressed concerns and confusion about the short and long-term implications.

Local developer and Silt resident Les Simms, who owns properties in the blighted area, expressed frustration at the lack of information and short notice to property owners. Like many others, he wasn’t necessarily for or against the URA, he just wanted more time and more information. The board members simply reassured him there was no cause for concern because the URA is a good thing, and “blight study” is just an unfortunate term.

Aluise and Town Attorney Lee Leavenworth assured everyone the town had met state requirements for notifying the public and/or property owners. I don’t doubt that. But how do they expect the public to digest, in two weeks or less, what they claim to have been working on for two years? What was the rush?

It’s funny how candidates embrace the democratic process to get elected then circumvent it to fulfill their agendas. “You elected me, therefore I can do anything I want” is not exactly how democracy works. I had hoped for much more accountability from this particular board.

Silt Board of Trustees Meeting on January 23, 2012
(The video is broken up into sections, according the Agenda, which makes it easier to watch)

Garfield County should pursue health impact studies as designed

All this time I thought the gas companies were drilling for natural gas. Recently I met a guy – I’ll call him “Bob”. He drives truck in the gas fields. What does he haul? Crude oil — to a refinery in Denver and pipeline injection points in Rangely and southeastern Utah. And, according to Bob, LOTS of crude oil. They’re pulling out so much crude oil, he claims the truckers could haul 24/7. “People don’t realize just how much crude oil they’re getting out of these wells,” he said.

Call me clueless. I didn’t know crude oil was a by-product of natural gas drilling. Makes sense when you think H2S is a by-product, too. I just never thought about it. Then there was that crude oil dumping (or spill?) near Webster Hill. OBTW, I didn’t notice anything in the Post Independent about the incident. Weird.

I was talking about it to a woman whose husband works in the gas fields. I’ll call her “Jane”. “I feel kind of silly,” I said. “You know, I have not been able to figure out why, when the price of natural gas keeps falling and the demand for natural gas keeps declining, why do they keep drilling? I had no clue the gas companies were getting so much crude oil out of the wells around here.”

“They aren’t taking crude oil out of these wells,” Jane insisted.

So I told her about Bob the crude oil trucker.

She scoffed. “That’s not true. I think he was pulling your leg.”

I don’t think so. But I will admit to some confusion. The thing is, I don’t know Jane well enough to know whether she’s clueless like me and just doesn’t know about the crude oil, or whether she was covering up.

In his recent article, 2012 Natural Gas Price Forecast: Why to Avoid the “Widow Maker”, Jack Barnes (Global Macro Trends Specialist!) explains that the Texas Eagle Ford shale wells “are being drilled for their crude oil-like liquids rather than their gas, at close to $100 a barrel for crude versus about $2.65 for natural gas.”

Okay, so that’s Texas, but it is shale formation. Huh. Maybe the same thing is going on in the Piceance Basin. Maybe Bob wasn’t pulling my leg after all.

Then I got to wondering, what if Jane was covering up?

Are they also covering up the crude oil spill?

Why would the gas companies want to keep it a secret that they’re really drilling for gas just to get at the crude oil?

Are the rules different for gas wells vs oil wells?

Are the gas companies paying taxes on that crude oil?

In 2010, I designed and received support from the Garfield Board of County Commissioners to continue studying groundwater in the gas patch south of Silt.

Phase III of the Mamm Creek study was the first in the nation to utilize monitoring wells drilled specifically to provide piezometric and water quality data in the gas patch. (Thanks to the public-minded generosity of the Protzes and Pepi Langegger, who allowed the wells to be placed on their properties).

A report was to be presented at the June 2011 Energy Advisory Board meeting, which I scheduled because the consultant and I had reviewed two rounds of data and I felt the public was entitled to learn the results.

The data showed that hydrocarbons were present in all six monitoring wells that we drilled. Not only was there thermogenic methane, but compounds known as homologs of methane also appeared, suggesting one of the following:

• The drinking water aquifer (the Wasatch Formation) contained native hydrocarbons.

• The Wasatch received hydrocarbons that naturally migrated from commercial gas targets below, such as the Williams Fork Formation.

• Gas wells induced migration of hydrocarbons up into the drinking water aquifer.

Analysis of the piezometric data from the monitoring wells would help answer the question as to which of these processes was responsible for the presence of hydrocarbons in the monitoring wells and possibly some of the drinking water wells found to contain methane in Phase II of the study.

The consultants asked me for another month to review data and develop their conclusions. That would have concluded the study by July, or August.

Now it appears the BOCC may have extended the study, but it is not clear why or even that they have. Meanwhile, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission did its own study showing that gas wells have leaked into the aquifer. See East Mamm Creek Project Drilling and Cementing Study of June 20, 2011.

Garfield County residents deserve to know what happened with the approximately $300,000 that was spent on Phase III, and why the report is being delayed.

Judy Jordan

Thanks to Community Development Director Janet Aluise for sending this to me.

SOPA, PIPA: What you need to know

I am against this legislation and I support everyone’s right to protest. However I will not shut up or go dark. Today, I exercise my freedom to blog and I will not monitor my content. Instead of going dark, I use this opportunity to shine the spotlight on SOPA/PIPA, plus spread more news –

Breaking: Obama is expected to announce tar sands pipeline rejection

Bulgaria says “NO” to fracking

Silt Public Hearing
Monday, January 23, 2012
Silt Town Hall
7:00 P.M.

The Board of Trustees will hold a public hearing to determine the need for an Urban Renewal Authority.

Related articles –

Public asked to weigh in on Silt ‘urban renewal’ strategy
Mayor remains hopeful about Garfield County grant

An Urban Renewal Authority could improve Silt’s economy
By Rick Aluise, Mayor Pro-Tem

A public hearing is not enough. An Urban Renewal Authority ordinance should be put before the voters as a ballot issue in a town election. In 2010, voters in Castle Pines, Colorado, voted 2 to 1 to abolish the town’s Urban Renewal Authority ordinance.

Urban Renewal Authority Voted Down, But Why

I have many concerns about the Urban Renewal Authority in Silt. Truth is, I know very little about it, and even less about Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Common sense tells me that TIF would work best if it is used as a tool to advance an ongoing process with a committed developer, and it would be less effective as a speculative tool to attract development, which appears to be the case in Silt. I am not aware of any commercial development currently asking for incentives.

As for the whole “blight” thing – designating 32 blocks as blighted and in need of redevelopment – naturally I am concerned. In his Op-Ed piece, Aluise said, “The URA can also buy, sell and lease property. In addition, it even has the power to condemn property. The Silt Board of Trustees have indicated no desire to condemn property.”

What a loaded statement! I won’t even go into the problem I have with the town acting as a realtor, I’m more concerned about the “power to condemn”.

Urban Renewal Authority grants extreme powers to the town. According to Aluise the current board “has no desire to condemn property”.  He is implying that the current board will pick and choose among the provisions set forth under Colorado’s urban renewal laws (31-25-101 C.R.S.), and will apply only those they think are best for the town. By adopting that smorgasbord approach – which seems reasonable assuming we trust the current board to act in the town’s best interests – they will set a precedent. Call me paranoid, but I can see how a less civic-minded future town board could abuse the power to condemn property. We once had a mayor who wanted to require front porches on all houses. The history of Silt has been a long, strange trip.

Silt River Preserve Annexation

Another big deal agenda item on January 23, will be the first public hearing in the annexation process for the 132-acre Silt River Preserve. Antero has plans to drill in the area where the Silt River Preserve is located. When the property is annexed, the town will have more say in any gas drilling activity in the area. Thanks to Community Development Director Janet Aluise for moving this process forward as quickly as possible. I expect the annexation will pass unanimously. I assume the mayor and trustees understand the high stakes.