U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 22, 2009 07:17 PM UTC
7 Comments
One thing the Durango Herald story does not mention is that energy companies own tens of thousands of acres of surface rights in the heart of Colorado’s best wildlife habitat, which is located on the West Slope.
Mineral rights, like surface rights, are private property. But wildlife is a public trust. It belongs to all Coloradans, no matter whose land it happens to be on.
How difficult would it be, do you think, for the mineral owner to persuade the surface owner to veto sensible protections for the people’s wildlife when the surface owner and the mineral owner are in fact one and the same – an out-of-state corporate entity whose primary interest is maximizing shareholder value?
Of course, none of the big energy companies who would primarily have benefited from Rep. Gardner’s bill showed up to testify on the record. (Don’t expect them to testify on behalf of Sen. Isgar’s next attack, either.)
Instead, we were treated to a parade of Eastern Plains property-rights ideologues – none of whom would be affected by the wildlife rules – egged on by a small cadre of Grand Oil Party lawmakers intoning: “The landowner knows what’s best for wildlife.”
Grand Junction Daily Sentinel columnist Dave Buchanan gets it right:
He goes on:
http://www.gjsentinel.com/rec/…
Isgar’s main concern is with the ranching and ag community, otherwise known as the good old boys. I think the point of his bill is to allow large acreage owners to overrule the wildlife rules. He’s been searching for ways to water down the new gas rules all session. I don’t know that this is a bad bill, it seems like a fairly reasonable idea on the surface, but I suspect it won’t work that way. I haven’t seen any report or critique that analyzes how this will work in practice. Until I do, I am skeptical about this bill.
The important group in this bill, the one that I think it directly addresses, is those land owners who also own their mineral rights. This tends to be longtime families in the San Juan basin. I assume it’s true, too, up in Garfield County. ClubTwitty might have some knowledge about that. Although this is a very small group, they have time and money to pursue their concerns. Meanwhile, BP is looking to lower its costs in the fields. BP Moves to Cut Subcontractor Costs. They don’t come right out and say it, but it’s clear that there has been overdrilling the last few years. Prices for field services went up because the demand by the gas companies was so high. They had an opportunity / window to drill and took it. Now they have to pull back on costs, especially since the recession has hurt demand. Expect the gas companies to exert even more pressure on the Leg in the next year to lift or reduce any reporting / drilling rules & regs because of some threat to pull out of the state. Politically, I think most people won’t buy it, but it could still work – that’s what they get paid to do.
The Isgar-Curry bill (SB-229) is redundant.
After all, HB-1298, from the 2007 session, makes it clear that surface owner consent must be granted before any wildlife stipulations are promulagated by the COGCC.
Here’s the language from HB07-1298:
And, the final draft of the new rules makes it clear that surface owner consent must be granted.
Here’s COGCC Wildlife Rule 1202.e.:
But, if Isgar & Curry think SB229 is necessary in order to circumvent the Party of No’s impotent attempts to eviscerate all the wildlife rules, maybe such redundancy is necessary.
It’s a good point made above about some landowners who also own mineral rights, but we’d assert that’s a minority of real-world cases–and Isgar’s bill would still leave a requirement for mitigation and DOW involvement in place.
That said, generally speaking landowners will want the DOW making energy companies do right by their land. So giving them “veto power” isn’t really an issue–let them restate it all they want. Much more important to deny Gardner, Penry and company a vehicle for subverting the larger rulemaking process.
Not who’s.
Interesting, isn’t it, that at the end of this long, tortuous process it comes down to a pissing match between Big Ag and the DOW? The oil and gas lobby and the aforementioned GOP industry toads have done all they can to reestablish all the old hatred and bitterness between those two groups.
The Republican Caucus is trying to find a way to get this thing to the House or Senate floor where they can stall long enough force the legislature to put this off til’ next year. I don’t think the Dems are going to let that happen…at least, that is my hope.
Other landowners will “enjoy” the benefits of this fight.
http://chieftain.com/articles/…