Proposition 112 would mandate that all new oil and gas development must be 2,500 feet from any occupied building. This includes but is not limited to homes, schools, and hospitals. Also, “vulnerable” areas such as playgrounds, public parks and lakes will be included in the mandate. The current restrictions state that wells must be 1,000 feet from high-occupancy buildings, 500 feet from occupied buildings and 350 feet from outdoor areas. Denver Post Voter Guide Read all of The Denver Post’s election coverage — including stories, endorsements and candidate Q&As — in our 2018 Voter Guide. Ballot question: “Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a statewide minimum distance requirement for new oil and gas development, and, in connection therewith, changing existing distance requirements to require that any new oil and gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from any structure intended for human occupancy and any other area designated by the measure, the state, or a local government and authorizing the state or a local government to increase the minimum distance requirement?” The case in favor: Proponents say the measure would address health and environmental concerns about oil and gas development activity, citing studies showing a health impact on people living within a mile of fracking operations. They say increased setbacks would reduce residents’ exposure to air pollutants and protect water and recreational resources. They note that it wouldn’t affect existing oil and gas operations across Colorado. The case against: The measure would significantly reduce the amount of new oil and natural gas activity permitted on most nonfederal land in Colorado, and oil and gas proponents say it would be devastating to the state’s economy. One study estimates it would cost Colorado $26 billion annually in state GDP, more than $1 billion in tax revenue, and as many as 147,800 jobs by 2030. It would also reduce some owners’ property values. For a breakdown of the health claims, here’s a look at the science behind the oil and gas setbacks initiative.<doc-sep>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 from the Coloradoan 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, sign up today with this introductory offer. The 2018 election gives Coloradans their first chance to vote on increasing setbacks from new oil and gas development. The issue has made it close to the ballot a few times but never quite gotten there. The iteration you'll see on your ballot this year proposes increasing oil and gas setbacks on new development from 500 feet to 2,500 feet, or roughly half a mile. If approved by 50 percent of voters, oil and gas developers will need to stay 2,500 feet away from homes, schools, hospitals and vulnerable areas like parks, open spaces and waterways. Supporters of the proposal say it will protect Colorado's natural resources as well as the health and safety of residents who sometimes feel overlooked by the industry and its regulators. Opponents say the setback increase will devastate the future of the oil and gas industry, resulting in big tax revenue and job losses. More:Expanding buffers between existing oil and gas wells, new homes gets City Council OK Here are answers to frequently asked questions about Proposition 112. Why 2,500 feet? Setback proponents say the 2,500-foot buffer is necessary to prevent adverse health impacts for people who live near oil and gas operations, citing a Colorado School of Public Health study. Lisa McKenzie of the Colorado School of Public Health led the study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Boulder County Public Health Department. The researchers found that people who live within 500 feet of oil and gas operations face the highest health risks, but residents in a larger radius of 2,000 feet face increased lifetime cancer risk. The Colorado Oil and Gas Association has questioned the validity of the study, which departs from some previous findings on air pollution. COGA representatives didn't respond to a Coloradoan request for an interview. Karen Crummy of Protect Colorado, the industry-funded issue committee fighting Proposition 112, said there’s “no credible evidence” that 2,500-foot setbacks would be more protective than current setbacks. She referenced CDPHE analysis that indicated residents of Weld County, the state's top oil and gas producer, didn't have more health issues than residents of other counties. “There’s this myth out there that 2,500 feet is some magical number of health and safety,” she said. "In fact, the Colorado health department has repeatedly found that there's no evidence of that." McKenzie’s study references a “shortcoming of previous health risk assessments” that didn’t address short-term, repeated nighttime peaks in air pollution, when levels can be higher because of temperature changes. They also didn’t address childhood exposure to air pollution or incorporate the most recent findings on benzene, a carcinogenic component of oil and gas. What are the economic impacts? The increased setbacks would apply only to new facilities, so thousands of wells in Colorado could continue producing as usual. But drilling new wells would be extremely difficult, Crummy said. About 94 percent of nonfederal lands in Colorado’s top-5-producing oil and gas counties would be unavailable for development, according to COGCC analysis. Those limits would devastate the economy and wipe out billions of dollars in tax revenue for state and local governments, Crummy said. Big oil and gas counties such as Weld County rely partially on oil and gas tax revenues to support government services. A Common Sense Policy Roundtable study estimates the increased setbacks would result in over 147,000 lost jobs in the next 12 years, using an economic model that assumes the market impacts of decreased development would hurt employment in the industry as well as construction, government, education and other fields. CSPR is a right-leaning free-market think tank with ties to the oil and gas industry and Republican lawmakers. Setback proponents argue those numbers are overstated. Developers could still access underground resources on federal lands and through horizontal fracking, which allows operators to drill miles away from the resource, said Anne Lee Foster, a spokeswoman for issue committee Colorado Rising. Authors of the CSPR study argued that it would be challenging and expensive to access oil and gas through horizontal drilling outside of the setbacks. More:Fort Collins backs environmental interests in lawsuit to restrict oil, gas drilling Do Colorado's oil and gas regulations already protect the health and safety of residents? Both sides agree that Colorado has some of the most stringent oil and gas regulations in the country. Colorado was the first state to adopt standards for methane emissions, require public disclosure on fracking fluid contents, and require water testing before and after drilling, Crummy said. Other regulations include mandatory well inspections, well integrity standards, emissions standards and COGCC review of drilling permit applications. Operators have to work with local governments and people who live near proposed locations and consider their concerns. Colorado government regularly initiates new rulemaking. COGCC also requires an increased setback of 1,000 feet from high-occupancy buildings like schools and hospitals unless the developer gets permission from COGCC. Those who support increased setbacks point out that current setbacks were designed to address nuisance issues like noise and smell, not public health. They argue Colorado's relatively stringent regulations aren’t enough, especially considering incidents like the fatal Firestone home explosion in 2017. Representatives of Earthworks, an organization that works with communities to address their concerns about local energy development, said increased setbacks would protect residents from shortcomings in regulatory enforcement. They cited a recent example in Erie, where residents noticed an oil and gas site emitting smoke. Earthworks sent a certified thermographer to the area with a special camera designed to capture images of normally invisible air pollution. The image showed a large plume of methane and volatile organic compounds traveling over 1,000 feet from the site, Earthworks organizer Nathalie Eddy said.<doc-sep>Up to 147,800 jobs lost over the next 12 years. Up to $1.1 billion in forfeited tax revenue for state and local governments in that time. In all, up to $141 billion in lost oil and gas production in Colorado by 2030. That is the dire economic forecast often touted by opponents of Proposition 112 — the ballot issue that calls for increasing the minimum distance for new oil and gas wells from homes, schools, rivers and lakes to 2,500 feet — should the measure pass on Nov. 6. More than four out of every five non-federal acres in Colorado would be off-limits to new drilling under the stricter setback, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission estimates. The economic numbers come from a report issued earlier this year from a consortium of business groups led by the Common Sense Policy Roundtable, with numbers checked by faculty at the Colorado School of Mines. Colorado Rising, the group behind Proposition 112, calls the job loss claims a “scare tactic” and the economic impacts of reduced drilling “greatly overstated” on its campaign website. It is pushing the measure because it believes the current setback of 500 feet from homes exposes too many Coloradans to unhealthy, and even deadly, emissions from well sites. But Gary Arnold, business manager of the Denver Pipefitters Local 208, said the projected economic devastation of Proposition 112 is all too real. “We’re not going to say our jobs are more important than somebody’s health, but we do think workers should be part of the conversation as we move forward,” he said. “We can’t leave the middle-class and blue-collar workers out.” Arnold said the impacts of an expanded no-drilling zone go far beyond the front-line oil and gas workers running the well site day to day. “There’s also the whole level of workers who are doing custom fabrication and manufacturing of equipment — just because they are not on site doesn’t mean they won’t be affected,” he said. And the multiplier effect of boxing out new rigs will also affect ancillary jobs like truck drivers, hotel owners and 7-Eleven clerks, the industry says. Anne Lee Foster, a lead organizer with Colorado Rising, said the state has a diverse economy that doesn’t need to rely on fossil fuel extraction as its primary economic driver. Colorado’s economy grew stronger over the last few years, she said, even as oil prices sank and cuts were made to oil patch payrolls. “It’s a boom-and-bust industry, and they’re trying to boom next to our homes,” she said. Foster said with more than 50,000 wells already in operation in Colorado — all of which would be grandfathered in if Proposition 112 passes — the claim that a bigger setback would cripple the industry rings false. But Dan Haley, president and CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said the contention that existing wells are enough to keep the industry healthy in Colorado is a phony premise. The bulk of the manpower is required during the drilling and hydraulic fracturing phase of a well, with just a skeleton crew needed once the well pad has been completed. “Rigs are jobs,” Haley said. “That’s when the people are working.” Also, he said, oil and gas plays become less productive as they age — another reason why the need for labor is greater at the front end of well’s life cycle. Jack Strauss, a professor of economics at the University of Denver, said the Proposition 112 economic impact study uses sound methodology in coming up with its numbers, though he said it may be somewhat “overplaying” the impacts. “It’s very likely there will be tens of thousands of jobs lost — whether there will be 147,000 jobs lost by 2030, I’m not sure,” he said.<doc-sep>We wouldn’t want heavy industrial activities in our backyards and we think Colorado oil and gas operators need to do a better job of putting a buffer between their wells and residential areas. However, that is not what Proposition 112 is about. The proposition, put on the ballot by more than 120,000 concerned Coloradans who signed petitions, is written in such a way as to effectively ban oil and gas operations in a state with rich reserves waiting to be developed. If voters were truly being asked to impose reasonable setbacks from houses, schools, and playgrounds, opposing 112 would have been a much more difficult decision for this editorial board. And voters probably wouldn’t be seeing opposition from candidates and politicians who have historically been advocates for more local control over oil and gas operations, like gubernatorial candidate Jared Polis. But Proposition 112 requires that oil and gas operations be 2,500 feet from “occupied structures, water sources and areas designated as vulnerable.” Public open spaces, irrigation canals, perennial or intermittent streams are defined as “vulnerable areas” in the ballot language, meaning that a dry creek bed that flows only during a heavy rain would suddenly have a 450 acre no-drill zone around it. The effect of that would be a ban on oil and gas exploration of Colorado’s Denver-Julesburg Basin. That’s the area in northeast Colorado where most of the state’s drilling activity is occurring. With such a ban would come an exodus of oil and gas companies from the state, the high-paying jobs they create directly and indirectly, and the taxes they pay to state and local governments. Even if lawmakers were to walk the language of the statute back in 2019, it’s a risk. And we’re simply not willing to risk losing such a big part of Colorado’s economy. Proponents of Proposition 112 counter that we shouldn’t be willing to trade the health of our children, our safety or our environment for economic gains. We agree. But we haven’t seen evidence that oil and gas activity is the kind of unmitigated threat to health and safety that would merit a ban. Last year the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment set out to answer that very question: “Do substances emitted into the air from oil and gas operations result in exposures to Coloradans living near oil and gas operations at levels that may be harmful to their health?” The study found that within 500 feet of some wells there were increased air concentrations of benzene, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. Those concentrations increased cancer risks to just below the “elevated” designation adopted by the EPA. Those risks for long-term exposure were still within the “acceptable risk range” however, and CDPHE said there was no immediate need for a public health response, but urged further study. All of Colorado was shaken by the explosion in Firestone that destroyed a family home and killed two men. That fluke explosion was caused by an abandoned gas line from a well pad, and following the tragedy, the state has tightened down flow line regulations. Setbacks wouldn’t have prevented the accident. Likely neither the CDPHE study or the Firestone response are completely reassuring to Coloradans living roughly 500 feet from wells (that is the current setback requirement but some homes are closer to older wells). That’s why Colorado lawmakers should look again at whether new oil and gas operations should be required to be further than 500 feet from occupied buildings, schools, and playgrounds. And CDPHE should make further study a top priority. But without hesitation, we can say that Proposition 112 is not the best way to address those reasonable concerns. It is an overreaction and we hope Coloradans reject it. To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.<doc-sep>
DENVER — The future of oil and gas development in our state is on the line, and it will be up to voters to decide its fate this November. Proposition 112, formally Initiative 97, would force new drill rigs father away from backyards and schools. Environmental groups argue the ballot measure would protect the health and safety of communities, while industry insiders maintain the setbacks would cost the state jobs and revenue. But what’s true and what’s overhyped? If passed, Prop 112 would require new oil and gas development to be at least 2,500 feet from occupied buildings and “vulnerable” areas like parks and creeks. Analysis from state regulators said about 85 percent of the state’s non-federal land would be off-limits to new development if Prop 112 passes and could cost the state millions in tax money paid by the industry. A “no” vote would keep the regulations the same, which means new wells would have to be 500 feet from homes and 1,000 feet from schools. What sparked the ballot measure? The measure was born through a grassroots effort. People living in Erie, Broomfield, Boulder and other northeastern Colorado towns grew frustrated with increased drilling and what they see as lax regulations. Anne Lee Foster with Colorado Rising, the group behind the measure, sees the setbacks as common sense buffer zones between fracking and communities. “We are protecting homes, schools, playgrounds and water sources from industrial oil and gas development,” Foster said. Supporters also point to mega well pads, like one located near Bella Romero Elementary School in Greely. They argue it’s a clear example that the state agency in charge of regulating the industry is not doing a good job. “Being this close to a site you’re breathing in volatile organic compounds like benzene, which is known to be cancer causing,” Foster said. Foster is citing an April 2018 study led by the Colorado School of Public Health at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus that shows people living near oil and gas facilities may be exposed to hazardous air pollutants, including carcinogens like benzene. However, the study acknowledged substantial uncertainties and the need for more research. Opponents believe this is not about health and safety. From their perspective, Prop 112 is a job killer that would result in a ban on oil and gas in the state and have devastating impacts on Colorado’s economy. “It would put up to 147,000 people out of work over the next 11 years, 43,000 people out of work next year and 77 percent of those jobs are not even in our industry,” said Dan Haley, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. Haley said the numbers he cites are from an independent study done by the Common Sense Policy Roundtable. The study also claims Colorado will lose $230 million in state and local tax revenue. The group behind the measure, however, believes the impact would be far less. They stressed that more than 50,000 existing oil and gas sites can still operate under the measure — meaning jobs would still be needed to run these sites. Supporters also point out to a Department of Energy study showing there are only 23,000 oil and gas jobs in Colorado, not 147,000. The industry is spending big money to go to battle against the measure, inundating the airwaves with ads. A political group called Protect Colorado has already raised more than $30 million. At the same time, Prop 112 supporters don’t have near that much. They’ve raised just over $700,000 to get their message out. With a lot at stake, the side with the most money could mark a turning point in the fight over drilling along the Front Range. Table7 To help bring the conversation on one of the most polarizing and explosive debates in recent memory to center, Denver7 brought two landowners, an activist, a labor union organizer, an oil and gas entrepreneur and a professor to weigh the proposal -- and the response -- in an exclusive Table7 round table discussion. To view the whole segment, click here.