SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Supporters of Longmont's fracking ban hold signs ahead of the 2012 vote. (Photo: FreeRangeLongmont.com)
Colorado Judge Lets Fracking Trump Public Health
Boulder County district court judge strikes down city of Longmont's fracking ban
Jul 25, 2014
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.
On January 20th, it begins...
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.