Question 301 puts Colorado fracking on ballot again

BROOMFIELD, Colorado — Like Bill Murray in the movie “Groundhog Day,” residents of this leafy Denver-Boulder suburb wake up each day to find themselves locked in an eerily familiar fight over hydraulic fracturing.

Four years ago, Broomfield voters narrowly approved a fracking moratorium that was subsequently overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court, which ruled that the state, not localities, had authority over energy policy.

Case closed? Hardly. On Tuesday, voters will go to the ballot box to decide on Question 301, a measure that would give the city “plenary authority” over all aspects of oil and gas development within its boundaries, which would run counter to the high court’s ruling.

For Colorado’s anti-fracking movement, the idea is to leapfrog the courts by putting pressure on state regulators to enact rule changes that give more control to suburban communities as they spill into the Denver-Julesburg basin.

“I have been involved in many efforts at the state level to update the state’s antiquated laws written for drilling vertical wells in rural areas,” Broomfield resident Jean Lim said in a Yes on 301 video. “We need local and regional efforts to push for state rule-making.”

That’s an expensive way to make a point, say foes, especially since Broomfield has already spent heavily on court fees stemming from the 2013 measure, not to mention the anti-fracking campaign’s failed effort in July to recall Mayor Pro Tem Greg Stokes.

“It’s like, here we go again,” said former state Rep. Don Beezley, a Republican and spokesman for the No on 301 camp.

While other towns north of Denver have also voted to curb or halt fracking, Broomfield has emerged at the center of a seemingly never-ending proxy war between the oil and gas industry and national environmental interests juicing the fractivism.

“The vast majority of people in general are tired of Broomfield being targeted by these radical environmental groups who are trying to turn Broomfield into a national test case,” Mr. Beezley said. “But the anti-energy side doesn’t care. They’re just lobbing whatever political grenades they can.”

At the same time, the suburban growth in Boulder, Broomfield and Weld counties — Broomfield’s population of 65,000 has nearly doubled since 2000 — in the shadow of the state’s active energy sphere has created tensions over health and safety.

“I believe that all Broomfield residents deserve to live free of large-scale industrial residential fracking,” 20-year resident Lanae Davis said in a video. “Vote yes on 301.”

Certainly the anti-fracking campaign has the intensity edge. Recent city council meetings have been deluged by angry residents decrying an agreement with Extraction Oil & Gas, which plans to drill 99 wells in northern Broomfield.

A woman said during public comment session last week that one council member’s comments were “racist and smack of behavior of a white supremacist” after he challenged those equating oil and gas development to slavery and segregation.

At the Oct. 10 meeting, a man told the council, “I hate your damn guts,” prompting several council members to decry the vitriol and lack of civility surrounding the debate.

“What we’ve turned into now is not ’I disagree with you,’ but, ’I disagree and hate you, and now I’m going to somehow prove you’re corrupt by searching through your text messages and emails,’” said Mr. Stokes.

Council members said a citizen-led task force was able to secure tighter restrictions than required by the state, including the removal of dozens of old wells, and pointed out that the company didn’t need Broomfield’s permission to move ahead with the project.

Industry and business groups have outspent the Yes on 301 camp, pouring more than $344,000 into defeating the ballot measure versus about $7,000 raised by supporters, prompting accusations that oil and gas companies are trying to buy the election.

“Don’t let outside oil & gas interest money drown out Broomfield residents,” said a post on Broomfield Health & Safety First.

Less obvious has been the role of groups like the Sierra Club. The pro-business group Vital for Colorado reported that the environmental giant shares an office address with one of the pro-301 groups, Citizens for a Safe and Healthy Broomfield.

Another group, Broomfield Health and Safety First, is listed on election forms as a project of the League of Oil and Gas Impacted Coloradans, a Boulder-based outfit headed by former staffers from Clean Water Action and The Wilderness Society.

There’s also a bit of a Tom Steyer connection. Among those who worked on the Question 301 signature-gathering effort was New Era Colorado Chairman Robert DuRay, whose group has received more than $580,000 from the San Francisco billionaire’s NextGen Climate for “field organizing.”

“National outside groups are trying to turn Broomfield into a political battleground over oil and gas development,” former Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican, said in a television ad. “Don’t let out-of-state interests divide Broomfield. Vote no on 301.”

The major Front Range newspapers have split on the issue, with The Denver Post urging a no vote and the Boulder Daily Camera coming out in favor.

“Massive new drilling in heavily populated areas as the world works to wean itself from fossil fuels does not make sense,” said the Daily Camera editorial. “We support the Broomfield residents attempting to defend themselves with issue 301.”

Meanwhile, Vital for Colorado Chairman Peter Moore said that business leaders “will always welcome debate and discussion on energy issues, but anti-oil and gas ballot measures at the local and state level have simply gone too far in recent years.”

“We stand with citizens, public officials, employers and working families who believe enough is enough,” he said in a statement.