SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A Colorado district court judge on Thursday invalidated the city of Longmont's fracking ban, a decision celebrated by oil and gas industry and denounced by critics who say it prioritizes the extractive process over public health and the environment.
Longmont made a landmark move in 2012 when voters approved with strong support an amendment to the city's charter to ban fracking.
The vote was promptly followed by a lawsuit by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) challenging the ban. State regulatory body Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and locally-operating oil and gas company TOP Operating later joined the suit.
In his ruling, Judge Mallard stated, "The Court is not in a position to agree or disagree with any of these exhibits that support the Defendants' position that hydraulic fracturing causes serious health, safety, and environmental risks."
"While the Court appreciates the Longmont citizens' sincerely-held beliefs about risks to their health and safety, the Court does not find this is sufficient to completely devalue the State's interest, thereby making the matter one of purely local interest."
There is "an irreconcilable conflict" between the city's interest in banning fracking and the state's interest in extraction," Mallard found.
Longmont's fracking ban "impedes the orderly development of Colorado's mineral resources," and is invalid, the ruling states.
The judge also ordered the fracking ban to hold during the time allotted for appeals.
Tisha Schuller, head of COGA, said the decision was "something to celebrate for the industry."
But supporters of the fracking ban have vowed to continue their fight.
"While we respectfully disagree with the Court's final decision, she was correct that we were asking this Court, in part, to place protection from the health, safety, and environmental risks from fracking over the development of mineral resources," stated Kaye Fissinger, President of Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont, one of the intervenors for the city in the lawsuit.
"It's tragic that the judge views the current law in Colorado is one in which fracking is more important than public health; reversing that backwards priority is a long-term battle that we're determined to continue," Fissinger stated.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
A Colorado district court judge on Thursday invalidated the city of Longmont's fracking ban, a decision celebrated by oil and gas industry and denounced by critics who say it prioritizes the extractive process over public health and the environment.
Longmont made a landmark move in 2012 when voters approved with strong support an amendment to the city's charter to ban fracking.
The vote was promptly followed by a lawsuit by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) challenging the ban. State regulatory body Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and locally-operating oil and gas company TOP Operating later joined the suit.
In his ruling, Judge Mallard stated, "The Court is not in a position to agree or disagree with any of these exhibits that support the Defendants' position that hydraulic fracturing causes serious health, safety, and environmental risks."
"While the Court appreciates the Longmont citizens' sincerely-held beliefs about risks to their health and safety, the Court does not find this is sufficient to completely devalue the State's interest, thereby making the matter one of purely local interest."
There is "an irreconcilable conflict" between the city's interest in banning fracking and the state's interest in extraction," Mallard found.
Longmont's fracking ban "impedes the orderly development of Colorado's mineral resources," and is invalid, the ruling states.
The judge also ordered the fracking ban to hold during the time allotted for appeals.
Tisha Schuller, head of COGA, said the decision was "something to celebrate for the industry."
But supporters of the fracking ban have vowed to continue their fight.
"While we respectfully disagree with the Court's final decision, she was correct that we were asking this Court, in part, to place protection from the health, safety, and environmental risks from fracking over the development of mineral resources," stated Kaye Fissinger, President of Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont, one of the intervenors for the city in the lawsuit.
"It's tragic that the judge views the current law in Colorado is one in which fracking is more important than public health; reversing that backwards priority is a long-term battle that we're determined to continue," Fissinger stated.
A Colorado district court judge on Thursday invalidated the city of Longmont's fracking ban, a decision celebrated by oil and gas industry and denounced by critics who say it prioritizes the extractive process over public health and the environment.
Longmont made a landmark move in 2012 when voters approved with strong support an amendment to the city's charter to ban fracking.
The vote was promptly followed by a lawsuit by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) challenging the ban. State regulatory body Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and locally-operating oil and gas company TOP Operating later joined the suit.
In his ruling, Judge Mallard stated, "The Court is not in a position to agree or disagree with any of these exhibits that support the Defendants' position that hydraulic fracturing causes serious health, safety, and environmental risks."
"While the Court appreciates the Longmont citizens' sincerely-held beliefs about risks to their health and safety, the Court does not find this is sufficient to completely devalue the State's interest, thereby making the matter one of purely local interest."
There is "an irreconcilable conflict" between the city's interest in banning fracking and the state's interest in extraction," Mallard found.
Longmont's fracking ban "impedes the orderly development of Colorado's mineral resources," and is invalid, the ruling states.
The judge also ordered the fracking ban to hold during the time allotted for appeals.
Tisha Schuller, head of COGA, said the decision was "something to celebrate for the industry."
But supporters of the fracking ban have vowed to continue their fight.
"While we respectfully disagree with the Court's final decision, she was correct that we were asking this Court, in part, to place protection from the health, safety, and environmental risks from fracking over the development of mineral resources," stated Kaye Fissinger, President of Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont, one of the intervenors for the city in the lawsuit.
"It's tragic that the judge views the current law in Colorado is one in which fracking is more important than public health; reversing that backwards priority is a long-term battle that we're determined to continue," Fissinger stated.