COURTOFAPPEALS,STATEOFCOLORADO2East14thAvenueDenver,CO80203

COURTUSEONLY

DISTRICTCOURT,BOULDERCOUNTY,COLORADODistrictCourtJudgeD.D.Mallard17776thStreetBoulder,CO80302CaseNo.:2013CV63Appellant: CITYOFLONGMONT,COLORADOCitizenIntervenors: OURHEALTH,OURFUTURE,OUR

LONGMONT;SIERRACLUB;FOODANDWATERWATCH;andEARTHWORKS

v.Appellees: COLORADOOILANDGASASSOCIATION

andCOLORADOOILANDGASCONSERVATIONCOMMISSION

AppelleeIntervenor: TOPOPERATINGCO.

CaseNumber:2014CA1759

AttorneyforCitizenIntervenorsOurHealth,OurFuture,OurLongmont;SierraClub;FoodandWaterWatch;andEarthworksName: KevinLynch(Atty.Reg.#39873) BradBartlett(Atty.Reg.#32816) LaRonaMondt,ChristopherBrummitt, andNicholasRising(StudentAttorneys)Address: 2255EastEvansAvenue,Suite33 Denver,CO80208Phone: 303.871.6140FAX: 303.871.6847Email: klynch@law.du.eduAttorneyforSierraClubandEarthworksName: EricHuber(Atty.Reg.#40664)Address: 165038thStreet,Suite102 Boulder,CO80301Phone: 303.449.4494,ext.101Email: eric.huber@sierraclub.org

CITIZENINTERVENORSOPENINGBRIEF

DATE FILED: January 15, 2015 6:24 PM

i

CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCEIherebycertifythatthisbriefcomplieswithallrequirementsofC.A.R.28andC.A.R. 32, including all formatting requirements set forth in these rules.Specifically,theundersignedcertifiesthat:ThebriefcomplieswithC.A.R.28(g).

Chooseone:Itcontains9,462words.Itdoesnotexceed30pages.

ThebriefcomplieswithC.A.R.28(k). Forthepartyraisingtheissue:

It contains under a separate heading (1) a concise statement of theapplicablestandardofappellatereviewwithcitationtoauthority;and(2)acitationtothepreciselocationintherecord(R. ,p. ), not to anentiredocument,wheretheissuewasraisedandruledon.

Forthepartyrespondingtotheissue:

Itcontains,underaseparateheading,astatementofwhethersuchpartyagreeswiththeopponentsstatementsconcerningthestandardofreviewandpreservationforappeal,andifnot,whynot.

IacknowledgethatmybriefmaybestrickenifitfailstocomplywithanyoftherequirementsofC.A.R.28andC.A.R.32.

/s/KevinJ.Lynch KevinJ.Lynch

ii

TABLEOFCONTENTS

STATEMENTOFTHEISSUES...................................................................................................1

STATEMENTOFTHECASE.......................................................................................................2

I.NATUREOFTHECASE........................................................................................................2

II.COURSEOFPROCEEDINGS..............................................................................................3

III.DISPOSITIONOFTHETRIALCOURT.........................................................................4

IV.STATEMENTOFTHEFACTS.........................................................................................4

STANDARDOFREVIEW...........................................................................................................11

I.INABLIENABLERIGHTS..................................................................................................11

II.DISPUTEDMATERIALFACTS,INCORRECTLAW,INCORRECTANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................................12

LEGALBACKGROUND...............................................................................................................13

I.CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS............................................................................................13

II.PREEMPTION.....................................................................................................................13

SUMMARYOFTHEARGUMENT...........................................................................................14

ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................16

iii

I.STATELAWCANNOTPREEMPTARTICLEXVIBECAUEITISNECESSARYTOPROTECTTHEINALIENABLERIGHTSOFLONGMONTSCITIZENS.........16

A.CitizensHaveCertainInalienableRights,ProtectedbytheColoradoConstitution..........................................................................................................................16

B.FrackingHarmsCitizensInalienableRights.....................................................20

C.ArticleXVIAddressestheHarmsofFracking...................................................21

II.DISPUTESOFMATERIALFACTPRECLUDESUMMARYJUDGMENT..........22

A.ArticleXVIIsNotaDeFactoBanonDrillingBecauseEconomic,EfficientAlternativestoFrackingExist.......................................................................................22

B.ArticleXVIDidNotHaltProductioninLongmontBecauseWellsAreCurrentlyProducing..........................................................................................................24

C.FrackingCannotbeDoneSafelyinLongmontBecauseItIsaHarmful,DangerousProcessandStateRegulationsDoNotAdequatelyProtectLocalHarms......................................................................................................................................25

III.THETRIALCOURTDIDNOTCORRECTLYSTATETHESTANDARDSFORPREEMPTIONINTHISCASE.............................................................................................26

iv

A.WhetheraMatterIsOneofState,Local,orMixedConcernRequiresComparingtheStateandLocalInterests.................................................................26

B.TheTrialCourtIgnoredChangestotheStateInterestRequiringProtectionofHealth,Safety,andWelfare................................................................29

C.TheCorrectGoverningLawforDeterminingifThereIsOperationalConflictIsWhethertheRegulationMateriallyImpedesorDestroystheStateInterest........................................................................................................................31

1.TheCourtMustDetermineWhethertheLocalRegulationMateriallyImpedesorDestroystheStateInterest....................................................................32

2.TheTrialCourtAppliedtheWrongStandardforDeterminingOperationalConflict..........................................................................................................32

D.TheLegalStandardforaFacialChallengeofaHomeRuleMunicipalitysRegulationIsBeyondaReasonableDoubt..............................................................34

1.APlaintiffMustProveBeyondaReasonableDoubtThatNoSetofCircumstancesorNoPossibleConstructionExistsWheretheRegulationIsValid.........................................................................................................................................35

2.TheTrialCourtErredbyNotApplyingThisStandard..................................36

v

IV.THETRIALCOURTINCORRECTLYFOUNDPREEMPTIONINTHISCASE........................................................................................................................................................37

A. RegulatingFrackinginLongmontIsaMatterofLocalConcern..............37

1.ThereIsaStrongLocalInterestintheRegulationofFrackingWithintheCityofLongmont................................................................................................................38

2.TheEffectofArticleXVIontheStateInterestIsMinimal............................39

3.WeighingtheSignificantLocalImpactsAgainsttheMinimalStateInterestResultsinaDeterminationThatLongmontsRegulationsAreaMatterofLocalConcern..................................................................................................44

B.EveniftheMatterIsOneofMixedLocalandStateConcern,ThereIsNoOperationalConflict..........................................................................................................45

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................48

vi

TABLEOFAUTHORITIES

Cases

Bd.OfCnty.CommrsofLaPlatav.Colo.Oil&GasConservationCommn,81P.3d1119(Colo.App.2003).............................................................................................32

Bd.ofCnty.Comm'rs,LaPlataCnty.v.Bowen/EdwardsAssocs.,Inc.,830P.2d1045(Colo.1992).........................................................................................................passim

City&Cnty.ofDenverv.State,788P.2d764(Colo.1990)...............................passimCityofCommerceCityv.State,40P.3d1273(Colo.2002).......................................13ColoradoMin.Ass'nv.BoardofCountyCom'rsofSummitCounty,199P.3d718(Colo.2009).......................................................................................................................33,34

CungLav.StateFarmAuto.Ins.Co.,830P.2d1007(Colo.1992).........................12Drostev.Bd.ofCnty.CommrsofPitkinCnty.,159P.3d601(Colo.2007)..........32Evansv.Romer,882P.2d1335(Colo.1994)..................................................................17Gesslerv.ColoradoCommonCause,327P.3d232(Colo.2014).............................11IndependenceInst.v.Coffman,209P.3d1130(Colo.Ct.App.2008)...................35KaiserFound.HealthPlanofColoradov.Sharp,741P.2d714(Colo.1987).....12Mt.EmmonsMiningCo.v.TownofCrestedButte,690P.2d231(Colo.1984).13,36

vii

Peoplev.Vasquez,84P.3d1019(Colo.2004)................................................................35RobinsonTwp.,WashingtonCnty.v.Commonwealth,83A.3d901(Pa.2013)18,19

RockyMt.Festivals,Inc.v.ParsonsCorp.,242P.3d1067(Colo.2010)................12Sangerv.Dennis,148P.3d404(Colo.Ct.App.2006)..........................................34,35Vossv.LundvallBros.,Inc.,830P.2d1061(Colo.1992)...................................passimWebbv.CityofBlackhawk,295P.3d480(Colo.2013).......................................14,33

Statutes

OilandGasConservationAct,C.R.S.3460101to130(2014).................passim

OtherAuthorities1994Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.317,1.....................................................................................311996Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.88,1........................................................................................312007Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.320,1.....................................................................................312007Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.320,2.....................................................................................312007Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.320,3.....................................................................................31COLO.CONST.art.II,3.......................................................................................................13,17COLO.CONST.art.XX,6............................................................................................................34LONGMONT,COLO.,art.XVI(2012)................................................................................passim

viii

LONGMONT,COLO.,CODEOFORDINANCES.15.04.020(2013)...........................................40MemorandumfromtheOfficeofAttorneyGeneral,JakeMatter,toCOGCC,DirectorMatthewLepore,Re:PetitionforRulemakingfromMartinez(April11,2014)...................................................................................................................................43

1

CitizenIntervenorsOurHealth,OurFuture,OurLongmont;SierraClub;FoodandWaterWatch;andEarthworks(collectivelyCitizenIntervenors)respectfullysubmitthisOpeningBriefinsupportoftheirappeal,requestingreversalofthelowercourtdecisiongrantingsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheappellees.

STATEMENTOFTHEISSUES1.Facedwithaboominhydraulicfracturing(fracking)acrosstheFrontRangeandalackofstateregulationadequatetoprotectpublichealth,safety,andwelfare,thecitizensofLongmontenactedtheLongmontPublicHealth,SafetyandWellnessAct,LONGMONT,COLO.,art.XVI(2012)(ArticleXVI),aprohibitiononfrackingintheircommunityinordertoprotectcertaininalienablerightsguaranteedundertheColoradoconstitution.ThetrialcourterredbyfailingtoevenconsidertheapplicabilityoftheinalienablerightsprovisionintheColoradoConstitutionandbymakingafindingofpreemptionthattookawaycitizenssupposedlyinalienablerights.2.Thetrialcourterredbygrantingsummaryjudgmentwhengenuinedisputesofmaterialfactexistregardingwhetherabanonfrackingisadefactobanonalloilandgasdevelopment,whetherproductionhasbeenhalted

2

inLongmont,andwhetherfrackingposesathreattopublichealth,safety,andwelfareinLongmont.3.Thetrialcourterredbyrefusingtoconsiderthelocalinterestintheregulationoffrackingandbyapplyingstandardsotherthanthecorrectstandardforoperationalconflictpreemption:whetherthelocallawmateriallyimpedesordestroysthestateinterest.4.ThetrialcourterredindeterminingfrackinginLongmontisanareaofmixedstateandlocalconcernwhenlocalinterestsdominatetheminimalstateinterest,andbyfindingoperationalconflictbetweenArticleXVIandtheColoradoOilandGasConservationAct,C.R.S.3460101(2014)(theAct),eventhoughArticleXVIdoesnotmateriallyimpedethestateinterest,doesnotcreatewaste,doesnotaffectcorrelativerights,butdoesprotectpublichealth,safety,andwelfare.

STATEMENTOFTHECASEI.NATUREOFTHECASE

TherecentboominoilandgasproductionhastransformedLongmontintoahubofdangerousindustrialactivity,fueledbyfracking.Theindustryhasencroacheduponresidentialareas,park,schools,andchurches,andagrowingbodyofresearchhasdocumentedtheharmsthatfrackinghasonthe

3

healthandenvironmentofnearbycommunities.Understandably,peopledonotwanttolivenearfrackingoperationsandasaresult,nearbypropertyvaluesdrop.

Whilefrackinghasignitedconflictsinurbancommunities,thestategovernmenthasfailedtoprotectcommunitiesfromtheseindustrialimpacts.Instead,citizenshavehadtorelyontheirdemocraticauthority;inLongmont,thecitizensbecamethefirstcityinColoradotobanfrackingthroughavoteofthepeople.

InNovember2012,theCitizensofLongmontpassedArticleXVI,acitizeninitiatedamendmenttotheCityCharterthatprohibitsthepracticeoffrackingorthestorageoffrackingfluidwithincitylimits.R.CF,p.2039.ThiscaseinvolvesapreemptionchallengetoArticleXVI.II.COURSEOFPROCEEDINGS

PlaintiffstheColoradoOilandGasAssociation(COGA)filedsuitagainsttheCityofLongmont(theCity)seekingtoinvalidateArticleXVI.TheColoradoOilandGasConservationCommission(COGCC)wasjoinedasanecessarypartyandTOPOperatingCompany(TOP)intervened.CitizenIntervenorsintervenedasDefendants.R.CF,p.2038.

4

Plaintiffssoughtsummaryjudgmentbeforethediscoveryperiod.R.CF,pp.450,547,655.CitizenIntervenorsrequestedacontinuancetoenablediscoverytoproceed.R.CF,pp.77278.However,thetrialcourtgrantedonlyalimitedextensionthatdidnotallowformuchdiscoverytooccur.R.CF,p.964.Ultimately,thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthePlaintiffsbeforeconductinganevidentiaryhearing.R.CF,p.2054.III.DISPOSITIONOFTHETRIALCOURT

OnJuly24,2014,thetrialcourtgrantedPlaintiffsmotionsforsummaryjudgment,findingArticleXVIinvalidaspreemptedbytheAct.R.CF,pp.203854.Specifically,thetrialcourtgranteddeclaratoryjudgmentinfavorofthePlaintiffsasaresultofoperationalconflictpreemption.R.CF,p.2054.CitizenIntervenorsnowappealthefindingofpreemption.IV.STATEMENTOFTHEFACTS

Frackingisacompletionprocess,employedafterdrillingawellborebutbeforeproducing,thatoilandgasoperatorshaveusedinsomeColoradowellssincethe1970s.R.CF,pp.19,3132,1767,1765.Frackinginvolvespumpingwater,sand,and(typically)hazardouschemicalsdownawellbore,underpressure,withtheintentofwideningundergroundfissurestoallowmoreoilandgastotraveltothesurface.R.CF,pp.127275,142627,1579.

5

ThefollowingfactswerepresentedbytheCityandCitizenIntervenors.Tobegin,frackingisadangerousmethodofoilandgasproductionthatendangersthehealthandsafetyofCitizenIntervenors.

Endocrinedisruptingchemicalsareassociatedwithnaturalgasoperationsandparticularlymodernfrackingtechniques.R.CF,pp.127173.Thesechemicalsareassociatedwithadversehealtheffectsatverylowconcentrations.Id.

Over353chemicalsusedduringthedrillingorfrackingprocessinnaturalgasoperationshavebeenreviewedfortheirhealtheffects,includingeffectsonskin,sensoryorgans,therespiratorysystem,thegastrointestinalsystem,andthebrainandnervoussystem.Id.Manyofthechemicalsarealsoknowncarcinogens.Id.

Manyofthechemicalsreviewedaredispersedthroughtheair,causingairpollutioninsurroundingcommunities.Id.

AirsamplingresearchinGarfieldCounty,Coloradoexaminedsixtyonechemicalsassociatedwithnaturalgasdevelopment.Id.Methane,ethane,propane,toluene,formaldehyde,acetaldehyde,andnaphthaleneweredetectedineverysample,andmanyotherchemicalswereidentifiedinatleasthalfofthesamples.Id.These

6

samplesweretracedbacktonaturalgasoperations,notroadbasedairpollution.Id.

Thesechemicalshavenumerousadversehealtheffectstothebrainandcentralnervoussystem,causingheadaches,dizziness,confusion,memoryloss,tinglinginextremities,andnumbnessinarmsandlegs.Id.Othermoreunnoticeableeffectsaredamagetotheliverandthemetabolicsystem,damagetotheendocrinesystem,negativeeffectsonreproductivehealth,developmentinthewomb,theimmunesystem,therespiratorysystem,andtheheart.Id.

Watercontaminationisalsoaconcernduetospillsandotherchemicalreleasesthatenterimportantwaterbodies.AstudybyUniversityofColoradoSchoolofPublicHealthresearchersshowedwatersamplesfromsitesinGarfieldCountynearwellswithspillsorareasofintensenaturalgasdrillinghadmorehormoneactivitythancontrolsites.R.CF,p.1274.Specificchemicalsknowntobeusedduringnaturalgasoperationswerefoundinthewater.Id.

Localcitizenssufferingfromchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease,thyroidconditions,andasthmafearthatfrackingwillharmtheirhealth.R.CF,pp.22,24,27.

7

Frackingoperationsemitsmoginducingcompoundswhicheffectthelocalandregionalenvironment.R.CF,pp.10,22.

Localresidentsfearexplosionsatfrackingsites,whichhavehappenedinotherplacesinthestate,wouldendangertheirsafety.R.CF,pp.22,24.

Use,storage,andtransportationoffrackingfluidscreatesariskofspillsandleaksinthelocalcommunity.R.CF,pp.10,24,30.NumerousspillshaveoccurredacrossColorado,contaminatingwaterandsoilwithoilandtoxicchemicalssuchasbenzene,toluene,andxylene.R.CF,p.10.

SomeLongmontresidentsmovedtotheCitytoescapetheboomingoilandgasdevelopmenthappeningelsewhereintheregion,suchasinWeldCountyorthecityofFirestone.R.CF,p.10.Oneresidentsufferedhealthproblemsthatheattributestotheoilandgasactivitiessurroundinghishome.Id.Movingawayfromareasofintensedrillingandfrackinghaveallowedthisresidenttorecoverfromhisprevioushealthproblems.Id.

Next,frackingcausesphysicalandeconomicharmtothepropertyofCitizenIntervenors:

8

Frackingcausesadecreaseinpropertyvalues,whichisattributedbothtoproximitytowellsitesandviewsofthesitesfromhomes.R.CF,pp.13,22,24,27,30,109596,1206.

Nearbyfrackingoperationsreducethewillingnessofprospectivehomebuyerstosubmitabidonahome.R.CF,pp.1096,1206.Forthosebuyerswhowouldsubmitabiddespiteproximitytofrackingoperations,theoffersaregreatlydiscounted.Id.

Nearbyfrackingsitescancausepropertiestoremainonthemarketforextendedperiodsoftimeortheultimatefailureofsales.R.CF,p.1095.Extendedsalesperiodsincurcostsforpropertyownersintermsofmaintenance,mortgagepayments,propertytaxes,insurance,andHOAfees.Id.

Realestateagentsadviseclientstoconsiderexistingandproposedfrackingsitesascomparabletoindustrialzonedareas,airports,orrailroadtracks.R.CF,p.1205.

FrackinginLongmontwouldhavenegativeimpactsonsmallbusinesses.R.CF,p.19.

9

FrackingoperationsinLongmontmaycausesomeresidentstomoveawayoutoffearoftheriskstotheirhealthandsafety.R.CF,p.27;R.CF,p.19.

Inaddition,frackingnegativelyaffectsthelibertyandhappinessofCitizenIntervenors:

Thenoiseanddisruptioncausedbytheheavyindustrialactivityoffrackingandassociatedactivityreducelocalcitizensuseandenjoymentoftheirhomesandproperty.R.CF,pp.13,22,24.

Frackingutilizeshugevolumesofwaterthatcouldotherwisebeusedforlessharmfulorevenbeneficialpurposes.R.CF,p.13,24.

ManyresidentsmovedtoLongmonttoenjoyaquiet,healthy,beautiful,andsafeenvironment.R.CF,pp.2223.Frackingthreatenstounderminethisexpectation.R.CF,p.15.

FrackingoperationsnearUnionReservoirandotheropenspacesinLongmontwouldinterferewithrecreationaluseofthoseplaces,endangerthehealthofpeopleusingthearea,andthreatenwildlifeandtheirhabitats.R.CF,pp.15,24,15,18,27.

Therearegenuineissuesofmaterialfactregardingalternativestofracking:

10

Frackingismoredangeroustolocalresidentshealth,safety,andwelfarethanothermethodsforextractingoilandgas.R.CF,pp.15,21.

JimHughesdiscussedaprocesscalledunderbalanceddrillingthatisawellcompletiontechniquethatdoesnotrequirefracking.R.CF,pp.44,1428.Evidencewaspresentedthatunderbalanceddrillingcanbemoreeconomicthanfracking.R.CF,pp.44,1429.

Inhisdeposition,MurrayHerringstatedthattherearewellsthatarecompletedwithoutfracking.R.CF,pp.90506.Likewise,plaintiffappelleesaffiantagreedthatfrackinghasbeenaroundsincethe1970sandbetween2004and2014nearly20%ofwellswerecompletedwithoutfracking.R.CF,pp.4,1747.

MaryEllenDenomypresentedevidencethatnonfrackedwellsinWeldCountyactuallyexceededincomeoffrackedwellsinLongmont.R.CF,p.1213.

OilandgasproductioninLongmonthasonlyademinimisimpactonthestateinterest.

Longmontoccupiesabout27.6outof104,000squaremilesinColorado.R.CF,p.1212.

11

Tento12wellsarecurrentlyproducinginLongmont,outofover50,000drilledinColoradoinrecentyears.R.CF,pp.1212,1215,1765.

TheCityofLongmonthascollectedanannualaverageof$132,000intaxesfromthewellslocatedwithinthecitylimits.Withanannualbudgetin2013of$228,600,000,thisamountsto.0006or.06%ofthetotalbudget.R.CF,p.1214.

Otheralternativesexistincludingpropellantwellsimulation,withmorealternativesbeingdeveloped.R.CF,p.1317.

STANDARDOFREVIEWI.INABLIENABLERIGHTS

Interpretingconstitutionallanguageonappeal,courtsreviewthisquestionoflawdenovo.Gesslerv.ColoradoCommonCause,327P.3d232,235(Colo.2014).ThisissuewasraisedatR.CF,pp.102931andthetrialcourtdismisseditatR.CF,p.2040.

12

II.DISPUTEDMATERIALFACTS,INCORRECTLAW,INCORRECTANALYSIS Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,themovingpartyhastheburdenofestablishingtheabsenceofdisputedmaterialfacts,andalldoubtsastotheexistenceofsuchfactsmustberesolvedagainstthemovingparty.CungLav.StateFarmAuto.Ins.Co.,830P.2d1007,1019(Colo.1992).Additionally,apartyagainstwhomsummaryjudgmentissoughtisentitledtothebenefitofallfavorableinferencesthatmaybedrawnfromtheundisputedfacts.KaiserFound.HealthPlanofColoradov.Sharp,741P.2d714,718(Colo.1987)(enbanc).

Reviewofthetrialcourt'sordergrantingappelleesmotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldberevieweddenovo,keepinginmindthatsummaryjudgmentisappropriateonlywhenthepleadingsandsupportingdocumentsshowthereisnogenuineissuesofanymaterialfact.RockyMt.Festivals,Inc.v.ParsonsCorp.,242P.3d1067,1074(Colo.2010).TheissueofdisputedmaterialfactswereraisedatR.CF,pp.102022andruleduponatR.CF,p.2054.TheissueofthecorrectpreemptionlawtoapplywasraisedatR.CF,pp.101115andruleduponatR.CF,pp.204045,54.TheapplicationofthelawtothefactsofthiscasewasraisedatR.CF,pp.102337andruleduponatR.CF,pp.204854.

13

LEGALBACKGROUNDI.CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS

TheColoradoConstitutionprotectscitizensinalienablerightsuponwhichstatelawcannotinfringe.Specifically,theBillofRightstotheColoradoConstitutionstates[a]llpersonshavecertainnatural,essentialandinalienablerights,amongwhichmaybereckonedtherightofenjoyinganddefendingtheirlivesandliberties;ofacquiring,possessingandprotectingproperty;andofseekingandobtainingtheirsafetyandhappiness.COLO.CONST.art.II,3.Thestatelegislaturecannotpreemptcitizensinalienablerights.II.PREEMPTION Preemptionpresentsmixedquestionsoflawandfact.SeeMt.EmmonsMiningCo.v.TownofCrestedButte,690P.2d231,23839(Colo.1984).Courtshaverejectedacategoricalapproachtothepreemptionanalysis.CityofCommerceCityv.State,40P.3d1273,1282(Colo.2002).Todetermineifastatestatutepreemptsahomerulecityslocallaw,thecourtmustfirstdetermineifthematterisoflocal,state,ormixedconcern.SeeVossv.LundvallBros.,Inc.,830P.2d1061,1066(Colo.1992).Ifitisamatteroflocalconcern,

14

alocalregulationsupersedesthestatestatute.Id.Tomakethisdetermination,acourtmustdrawalegalconclusionbasedonallthefactsandcircumstancespresentedbyacase.Id.(emphasisadded).Ifdeemedtobeamixedlocalandstateissue,alocalregulationmaycoexistwithastatestatuteaslongasthereisnoconflictbetweenthetwo.Id.UnderBowen/Edwards,operationalconflictoccurswheneffectuationofthestateinterestmateriallyimpedesordestroysthestateinterest.Bd.ofCnty.Comm'rs,LaPlataCnty.v.Bowen/EdwardsAssocs.,Inc.,830P.2d1045,1059(Colo.1992).Thisdeterminationcanonlybedoneonafullydevelopedfactualrecord.Id.at1060;seealsoCity&Cnty.ofDenverv.State,788P.2d764,76768(Colo.1990);Webbv.CityofBlackhawk,295P.3d480,486(Colo.2013).

SUMMARYOFTHEARGUMENTTheColoradoConstitutionunambiguouslyprotectscitizensrights

totheirhealth,safety,property,liberty,andhappiness.NeitherthestatelegislaturenortheActmaypreempttheinalienablerightsthatArticleXVIprotects.Therefore,theinalienablerightsthatcitizensenjoyprecludeanypreemptionanalysisbetweenArticleXVIandtheAct,

15

becauseArticleXVIisnecessarytoprotectcitizensfromharmduetofrackingintheircommunity.

Inaddition,thetrialcourterredinitspreemptionanalysis.Forone,genuineissuesofmaterialfactexistthatprecludesummaryjudgment.Theseissuesinclude:whetherArticleXVIisadefactobanondrilling,whetherArticleXVIhaltedproductioninLongmont,andwhetherfrackingcanbedonesafelyinLongmont.Further,thetrialcourtincorrectlyframedtheColoradoSupremeCourtspreemptionstandardsasstatedininVoss,Bowen/Edwards,andCityofDenver,failingtoassessthelocalinterestinregulatingfrackingandoverlookingthestateinterestinprotectionofpublichealth,safety,andwelfare.Finally,thetrialcourtincorrectlyfoundanoperationalconflictbetweenArticleXVIandtheAct,eventhoughtheevidencebeforethecourtshowsthatArticleXVIcanbeharmonizedwiththeAct.

Asaresultoftheseerrors,thisCourtshouldvacatethetrialcourtsdecisionandremandwithinstructionsforthecourttoconsidertheapplicationofCitizenIntervenorsinalienablerightstothiscase,toapplythecorrectpreemptionstandards,andtoconductanevidentiary

16

hearinginordertomakethefactualfindingsnecessarytoruleonthepreemptionclaims.

ARGUMENTI.STATELAWCANNOTPREEMPTARTICLEXVIBECAUEITISNECESSARYTOPROTECTTHEINALIENABLERIGHTSOFLONGMONTSCITIZENS.

Citizenshavecertainnatural,essentialandinalienablerights.FrackinginLongmontendangerstheserights,andthecitizensofLongmontreasonablydeterminedthataprohibitiononfrackingisnecessarytoprotecttheirrights.Therefore,neitherthestatelegislaturenortheActmaypreemptArticleXVI.

A.CitizensHaveCertainInalienableRights,ProtectedbytheColoradoConstitution.

TheColoradoConstitutionunambiguouslyprotectscitizensrightstotheirhealth,safety,property,liberty,andhappinessandallowscitizenstoprotecttheserights.TheInalienableRightsprovisionoftheColoradoConstitutionstates:

Allpersonshavecertainnatural,essentialandinalienablerights,amongwhichmaybereckonedtherightofenjoyinganddefendingtheirlivesandliberties;ofacquiring,possessingandprotectingproperty;andofseekingandobtainingtheirsafetyandhappiness.

17

COLO.CONST.art.II, 3(emphasisadded).Thus,theColoradoConstitutionallowscitizenstoprotectthemselvesandtheirpropertyfromactivitiesthatthreatentheirinalienablerights.Infact,ArticleXVIisacitizeninitiatedcharteramendmentpassedbythecitizensofLongmont,whoreasonablydeterminedfrackingtobeharmfultotheirproperty,propertyvalues,publichealth,safetyandwelfare,andtheenvironmentofLongmontscitizens.R.CF,p.263;LONGMONT,COLO.,art.XVI,16.1(2012).Further,Coloradocourtsaffordcitizenpassedinitiatives,suchasArticleXVI,deferenceinfavoroftheirconstitutionality.SeeEvansv.Romer,882P.2d1335,1361(Colo.1994)(EricksonJ.,concurring). TheinalienablerightsthecitizensofLongmontseektoprotectareinherentandnatural.ThetrialcourtmisrepresentedCitizenIntervenorsargumentthatArticleXVIprotectsinalienablerightsbyconflatingtheColoradoConstitutionwiththepublictrustdoctrine.R.CF,p.2040n.2.Infact,CitizenIntervenorslooktotheColoradoConstitutionasthebasisforthisargument,whichtheConstitutionitselfnotesexistnaturally.COLO.CONST.art.II, 3.

18

NeitherthestatelegislaturenortheActcantakeawaycitizensinalienablerights.Citizensinalienablerightsreignsupremeoveranystatestatute.Ifacourtfindsanactionprotectinginalienablerightsispreemptedbyastatestatute,thecourtiseffectivelydenyingcitizenstheseinalienablerights.OnlybyignoringtheinalienablerightsofcitizenscouldthetrialcourtfindthattheActpreemptsArticleXVI.ThetrialcourtsinterpretationoftheActwouldallowthestatelegislatureandtheoilandgasindustrytoinfringeupontheinalienablerightsofcitizens.Onthecontrary,theColoradoConstitutionguaranteescitizenstheabilitytoprotecttheirinalienablerightsincludingprotectingthemselvesfromthedangersoffracking.

Thecourtmustconsiderconstitutionalrightsbeforeengaginginapreemptionanalysis.WhileColoradocourtshavefocusedlittleattentiontotheinalienablerightsprovisionpreviously,thatdoesnotmeanitisahollowpromise.DuetothelackofcaselawonpointinColorado,considerationofhowotherstateshavetreatedcomparableprovisionsishelpful.InPennsylvania,thestateSupremeCourtfoundasimilarlybroadconstitutionalprovision,whichhadnotpreviouslybeenappliedbythecourts,prohibitedthestatelegislaturefrompreemptinglocalregulationsonfracking.RobinsonTwp.,WashingtonCnty.v.Commonwealth,83A.3d901,94650(Pa.2013)

19

(discussingenvironmentalrightsasanindefeasiblerightguaranteedtoallcitizensofPennsylvania).There,thePennsylvaniastatelegislatureattemptedtoexpresslyprohibitlocalregulationoffracking,butthePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtgavemeaningtotheEnvironmentalRightsAmendmentandlimitedthestatelegislaturesabilitytotakeawaycitizensconstitutionalrights.Id.at94950(discussingthedifficultyofthetaskofconstitutionalinterpretation,alongwithitsnecessity);seealsoid.at96364(discussinghowpreviouslythisprevisionhadberealizedbylegislativeenactmentsandexecutiveagencyaction,butnowthecourtwascalledupontoaddresstheunderlyingunderstandingoftheprovision).Thecourtheldthatthestatecouldnotprohibitlocalgovernmentsfromregulatingindustrytoprotecttheircommunities.Id.at978,982,985.

Althoughapplicationoftheinalienablerightsprovisiontothiscontextisnovel,thecourtshaveanobligationtostatewhatthelawisandhowitappliestothefactsofthiscase.Previouspreemptioncasesrelieduponbythetrialcourt,includingVoss,SummitCounty,andBowen/Edwards,didnotaddresstheinalienablerightsprovision.Thereasonforthisissimple:theargumentwasneverpresentedinthosecases.However,nowthattheargumenthasbeenraisedinthiscase,thecourtshaveadutytodeclarewhatthelawisandto

20

decideifLongmontscitizensreasonablydeterminedthataprohibitiononfrackingwasnecessarytoprotecttheirinalienablerights.

B.FrackingHarmsCitizensInalienableRightsFrackingendangersthehealthandsafetyofcitizens,causeseconomic

andphysicalharmtoproperty,andnegativelyaffectsthelibertyandhappinessofcitizenswholiveandrecreateinLongmont.CitizenIntervenorsproducedampleevidenceoftheharmscausedbyfrackingthatthetrialcourtdidnotaddress.

Forone,frackingisadangerousmethodofoilandgasproductionthatendangersthehealthandsafetyofcitizens.Frackingintroducesendocrinedisruptingchemicals,aswellashundredsofotherchemicalsthathavenumeroushealtheffectsonskin,breathing,andthebrain.Frackingalsocausesairpollution,watercontamination,andismoredangeroustolocalresidentsthanconventionaloilandgasproductionmethods.Use,storage,andtransportationoffrackingfluidscreatesariskofspillsandleaksinthelocalcommunity.Theemissions,noise,andtrafficcreatedbyfrackingoperationsnegativelyimpactthelocalcommunityshealthandsafety.

Second,frackingcausesphysicalandeconomicharmtothepropertyofcitizensbydecreasingpropertyvalues,reducingchancesofsellingproperty,

21

affectingviewsfromhomes,negativelyimpactingsmallbusinesses,andcausingsomeresidentstomoveawayoutoffearoftheriskstotheirhealthandsafety. Additionally,frackingnegativelyaffectsthelibertyandhappinessofcitizensbecauseitincreasesnoiseanddisruptioncausedbytheheavyindustrialactivity,interfereswithoutdoorrecreation,negativelyimpactsairquality,ecosystems,wildlife,andcandecreasequalityoflife.Additionally,thattheriskofexplosionsatfrackingsitesendangerstheirsafety.

C.ArticleXVIAddressestheHarmsofFrackingAbanonfrackingisreasonablynecessarytoprotectLongmonts

Citizensinalienablerights.Infact,Longmontisnotaloneintakingactiontoprotectthemselvesfromtheharmsoffracking.OtherColoradolocalitieshavealsoplacedmoratoriaonfracking(Broomfield,FortCollins,Boulder,BoulderCounty)orbannedfracking(Lafayette).Additionally,thestateofNewYorkplacedamoratoriumonfrackingacrosstheentirestatebecauseofconcernsregardingthehealthandsafetyoftheactivity.R.CF,p.1122.Recently,NewYorkbannedfrackingoutrightovertheseconcerns.http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/100055.html.

22

BecausethecitizensofLongmontenactedArticleXVItoprotecttheirinalienablerights,neitherthestatelegislaturenortheActmaypreemptit.LongmontcitizensreasonablydeterminedthatArticleXVIwasnecessarytoprotecttheirinalienablerights.Therefore,thisCourtshouldremandtothetrialcourtwithinstructionsonhowtoapplytheinalienablerightsprovisiontothiscase.II.DISPUTESOFMATERIALFACTPRECLUDESUMMARYJUDGMENT Thetrialcourtrushedtojudgmentinthiscase,rulingonsummaryjudgmentwithoutallowingdiscoverytoproceedandmakingfactualfindingsdespitedisputesoffact.Thesedisputesofmaterialfactinclude:(1)whetherArticleXVIisadefactobanondrilling;(2)whetherArticleXVIhaltedproductioninLongmont;and(3)whetherfrackingcanbedonesafelyinLongmont.ThisCourtshouldreversesummaryjudgmentbecausedisputedfactsexist.

A.ArticleXVIIsNotaDeFactoBanonDrillingBecauseEconomic,EfficientAlternativestoFrackingExist.

Evidencebeforethetrialcourtshowsthatalternativestofrackingexist,meaningthatArticleXVIisnotadefactobanondrilling.TheCitypresentedevidenceofunderbalanceddrilling,analternativethatallowsforrecoveryof

23

theresourcewithlessimpactsonthelocalcommunity.R.CF,p.1316.Otheralternativesexist,includingpropellantwellstimulation,withmorealternativesbeingdeveloped.Id.

EventhoughthePlaintiffsabandonedtheircontentionthatArticleXVIwasadefactobanonalloilandgasdevelopment,thetrialcourtneverthelessreliedupontheirconclusoryassertionsratherthanacknowledgingthecontradictoryevidencepresentedbyCitizenIntervenorsandtheCity.R.CF,p.2052.Thetrialcourtstated,TOPwillnotandcannoteconomicallydrillandcompletethesewellswithout...[fracking].R.CF,p.2052.CitizenIntervenorsdepositionofMurrayHerringprovesthisismerelyaconclusorystatementwithnofactualbasis.First,Mr.Herringsprocessfordeterminingeconomicdrillingwasnothingmorethanspeculation.R.CF,p.916.Moreover,inhisdepositionMr.HerringconcedestheonlyoptionTOPhaseverconsideredisfracking.Id.Thus,thisconclusiondoesnotsupportthejudgesfinding.Statingthatfrackingistheonlyprocessusedorexaminedisnotthesameasprovingitistheonlypossiblemeanstoeconomicallydrillwells.

Thetrialcourtalsomadeasimplelogicalerrorindismissingtheevidenceofalternativestofracking.Thecourtstated[w]hiledefendantswereabletoidentifysomewellsinColoradothatproducedoilandgas

24

withoutfracking,itisundisputedthatfrackingresultsinefficientproductionofoilandgas.R.CF,p.2052.Eveniffrackingdoesresultinefficientproduction,thatconclusionislogicallyirrelevanttothequestionofwhetherabanonfrackingpreventstheefficientdevelopmentandproductionofoilandgasresources,id.,ifothermethodsalsoallowforefficientproduction.Bythetrialcourtslogic,becauseincandescentlightbulbsproducelight,abanonsuchbulbswouldbeadefactobanonalllighting,eventhoughalternativeslightbulbsexist.

Eventhetrialcourtagreedthiswasamaterialfact,andsoiterredwhenitresolvedthefactualdisputeagainstthenonmovingparties.

B.ArticleXVIDidNotHaltProductioninLongmontBecauseWellsAreCurrentlyProducing.

ThetrialcourterredwhenitconcludedthatproductionhadendedinLongmontandthereforeArticleXVInecessarilyconflictswiththestateinterestinproduction.CitizenIntervenorspresentedevidencethatoilandgasproductionhasnotendedinLongmont.Atleast10wellsareproducinginLongmontcurrently.R.CF,p.1648.ThetrialcourtstatedthatArticleXVIendedproductioninLongmont,therebyvirtuallydestroyingthestateinterestinproduction.R.CF,p.2052.Thetrialcourtsfindingissimplywrong.The

25

statesinterestinproductioncannotbedestroyedifproductionisstilloccurring.ThisincorrectconclusionwasdisputedbyCitizenIntervenorsandismaterialtothecorrectanalysisofthestatesinterestinoperationalconflict.

C.FrackingCannotbeDoneSafelyinLongmontBecauseItIsaHarmful,DangerousProcessandStateRegulationsDoNotAdequatelyProtectLocalHarms.

CitizenIntervenorspresentedevidenceoftheharmsoffrackinganddisputedtheadequacyofexistingstateregulations.Frackingisaninherentlydangerousprocessthatbringsabouthealthandsafetyconcerns.R.CF,p.1005.Chemicalsfromexploration,extraction,andtransportationareharmfultotheair,ground,andwaternearfrackingsites.R.CF,pp.1000,1003.Frackingismoredangeroustolocalresidentsthanotherextractionmethods.R.CF,p.1004.Additionalharmsfromfrackingwerepresentedtothetrialcourt,aslaidoutinthefactualbackground.

Thesafetyoffrackingisrelevantinanalyzingthelegalissues.ThesafetyoffrackingismaterialindeterminingwhetherthesubjectmatterofArticleXVIisamatteroflocal,state,ormixedconcernbecauseitdescribeslocalimpacts.Furthermore,itismaterialinexaminingthestatesinterestinpromotinghealth,safety,andwelfareunderanoperationalconflictanalysis.Finally,thesafetyoffrackingisalsomaterialindeterminingthatArticleXVIwasa

26

reasonableexerciseofcitizensinalienablerights.Thetrialcourtincorrectlystateditwasnotinapositiontoagreeordisagreewiththisevidence.R.CF,p.2050.Quitethecontrary,atsummaryjudgmentthetrialcourtisrequiredtotaketheevidenceofthedangersoffrackingastrue,whichprecludesafindingofpreemption.III.THETRIALCOURTDIDNOTCORRECTLYSTATETHESTANDARDSFORPREEMPTIONINTHISCASE

Thetrialcourtusedincorrectlegalstandardsinitspreemptionanalysis.Specifically,thecourtdidnot(1)weighthelocalinterestsagainstthestateinterests,(2)acknowledgechangestothestateinterest,(3)usethemateriallyimpedesordestroysstandardtodetermineoperationalconflict,or(4)requirePlaintiffstomeettheirburdenforafacialchallenge.CitizenIntervenorsurgethisCourttoreversesummaryjudgmentandremandwithinstructionsoncorrectstandardsforthetrialcourttouse.

A.WhetheraMatterIsOneofState,Local,orMixedConcernRequiresComparingtheStateandLocalInterests

Theinitialinquiryforpreemptioniswhetherthematterisoneoflocal,mixed,orstateconcern.Whilesomecourtshaveconsideredonlythestateinterestwherenoevidencewaspresentedonthelocalinterest,nocourthas

27

everbeforeheldthatlocalinterestsareirrelevant.Remarkably,thetrialcourtinthiscaserefusedtoconsiderevidenceofthelocalinterest.

TheColoradoSupremeCourthasmadeclearthatinordertodetermineifamatterisofstate,mixed,orlocalconcern,thecourtsmustweightherelativeinterestsofthestateandthehomerulemunicipalityinregulatingthematteratissue.Denverv.State,788P.2dat768.Thecourtlaidoutfourfactorsthathadbeenusedpreviouslytoassessthestateinterest:uniformity,extraterritorialimpacts,traditionalgovernance,andspecificcommitmentintheConstitution.Id.at768.YettheCourtalsoexplicitlywentontoweighthestateinterestagainstthelocalinterestinthematter.Id.at77072.

Theconfusioninthiscaseapparentlyarisesfromthesimplefactthattwoyearslater,theColoradoSupremeCourtevaluatedonlythestateinterestfactorsinVoss.Inthatcase,thecourtcitedthesamefourfactorsfromDenverv.Stateasbeingusefulinthepreemptionanalysis.Voss,830P.2dat1067.ButthecourtinVossneversaidthatlocalinterestswerenowirrelevanttothepreemptionanalysis.Ifsuchadramaticchangeinpreemptionlawhadbeenintended,thecourtwouldhaveexplicitlysaidso.WhileitistruethattheVosscourtdidnotweighthelocalinterestagainstthestateinterestinthatcase,thereasonisthatnoevidencewasbeforethecourtregardingthelocalinterest.

28

Localinterestsvarybasedonthecaseandmatterathand.TheDenverv.StatecourtfoundtheHomeRuleAmendmenttotheColoradoConstitutionaswellastestimonybythemayortoberelevantforestablishingthelocalinterestinamunicipalemployeeresidencyrestriction.Denverv.State,788P.2dat771.Specifically,thecourthighlightedlanguageinArticleXXdiscussingcontrolofmunicipaloffices.Id.Thecourtalsoweighedtestimonyfromthemayordiscussinglocalinterestsinincreasingtheinvestmentofcitytaxdollars,inhavingemployeesreadilyavailableintheeventofanemergency,andinpromotingmoreattentive,compassionate,anddiligentemployeework.Id.Thecourtespeciallyfavoredthelastargumentasitgaveemployeesastakeinthecommonenterpriseofmunicipalgovernment.Id.Thecourtfoundalloftheseargumentstobevalidevidenceofthelocalinterest.Id. ByrelyingonlyonthefactorsappliedinVoss,thetrialcourtfailedtoweighthestateinterestagainstthelocalinterestandfailedtoconsiderotherrelevantfactorsindeterminingwhetherLongmontsregulationsareoflocal,mixed,orstateconcern.AlthoughCitizenIntervenorspresentedampleevidenceofthelocalinterest,thetrialcourtstateditisnotinapositiontoagreeordisagreewithanyoftheseexhibitsthatsupporttheDefendants

29

positionthathydraulicfracturingcausesserioushealth,safety,andenvironmentalrisks.R.CF,p.2050.However,aproperanalysisrequirescontrastingthestateinterestwiththelocalinterest.

B.TheTrialCourtIgnoredChangestotheStateInterestRequiringProtectionofHealth,Safety,andWelfare.

ThestateinterestinthiscaseissetforthbytheLegislatureintheapplicablestatestatute.ThetrialcourtincorrectlystatedtherelevantprovisionsfromtheActbyleavingoutcriticallanguagethatrequiresconsiderationofhealthandtheenvironmentintheoperationalconflictanalysis.Asaresult,thetrialcourtessentiallyappliedthe1992stateinterest,whichwaslaterchangedbytheColoradoLegislature.Applyingthecurrent,correctstandardrequiresadifferentresult. Thetrialcourtstated:

TheGeneralAssemblydeclaredthatitisinthepublicinterestto:(I)Fostertheresponsible,balanceddevelopment,production,andutilizationofnaturalresourcesofoilandgasinthestateofColorado...(II)Protectagainstwaste...(III)Safeguard,protectandenforcethecoequalandcorrelativerightsofownersandproducersinacommonsourceorpoolofoilandgas...C.R.S.3460102(1)(a)(I),(II),and(III).FurtheritistheintentandpurposeofthisarticletopermiteachoilandgaspoolinColoradotoproduceuptoitsmaximumefficientrateofproduction,subjecttothepreventionofwaste...C.R.S.3460102(1)(b).

R.CF,p.2051.

30

Thecorrectstatementofthestateinterestwithomittedportionsemphasizedis:(1)(a)Itisdeclaredtobeinthepublicinterestto:

(I)Fostertheresponsible,balanceddevelopment,production,andutilizationofthenaturalresourcesofoilandgasinthestateofColoradoinamannerconsistentwithprotectionofpublichealth,safety,andwelfare,includingprotectionoftheenvironmentandwildliferesources;...(emphasisadded)

C.R.S.3460102(1)(a)(I)(2014).

(b)...ItistheintentandpurposeofthisarticletopermiteachoilandgaspoolinColoradotoproduceuptoitsmaximumefficientrateofproduction,subjecttothepreventionofwaste,consistentwiththeprotectionofpublichealth,safety,andwelfare,includingprotectionoftheenvironmentandwildliferesources,andsubjectfurthertotheenforcementandprotectionofthecoequalandcorrelativerightsoftheownersandproducersofacommonsourceofoilandgas,sothateachcommonownerandproducermayobtainajustandequitableshareofproductiontherefrom(emphasisadded).

C.R.S.3460102(1)(b)(2014).

Byomittingtheoperativelanguageonhealthandtheenvironmentfrom

thestatute,thetrialcourtwasabletoapplybyroteVossandBowen/Edwardstoreachherconclusions.Butsincethese1992opinions,theColoradoLegislaturehaspassednumerousamendmentstotheActexplicitlyfavoringlocalcontrolandunderscoringtheneedforgreaterhealthandsafetyprotections.TheLegislaturesamendmentsin1994,1996,and2007

31

mandatedprovisionsthatemphasizedtheprotectionofhealth,safety,andwelfare,andunderscoreandprotectlocalgovernmentslanduseauthority.1994Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.317,1;1996Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.88,1;2007Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.320,1.

TheLegislatures2007amendmentsalsoplacedemphasisonpromotinghealth,welfareandsafetybychangingthe(1)publicinteresttofostertheresponsible,balanceddevelopmentofoilandgasand(2)developmentbeperformedinamannerconsistentwiththeprotectionofpublichealth,safety,andwelfare,includingprotectionoftheenvironmentandwildliferesources.2007Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.320,2and3.

C.TheCorrectGoverningLawforDeterminingifThereIsOperationalConflictIsWhethertheRegulationMateriallyImpedesorDestroystheStateInterest.

Ifacourtdeterminesanissuetobeamatterofmixedconcern,alocalregulationisonlypreemptedifitsoperationaleffectwouldconflictwithstatestatute.Bowen/Edwards,830P.2dat1056.Thedeterminationofwhetheraconflictexistsmustberesolvedonanadhocbasisunderafullydevelopedevidentiaryrecord.Id.at1060.////

32

1.TheCourtMustDetermineWhethertheLocalRegulationMateriallyImpedesorDestroystheStateInterest.

Operationalconflictpreemptionoccurswheneffectuationofthelocalinterestwouldmateriallyimpedeordestroythestateinterest.Bowen/Edwards,830P.2dat1059.Intheoilandgascontext,ifahomerulemunicipalityenactsregulationsthatdonotfrustrateandcanbeharmonizedwiththestatedgoalsoftheAct,thecitysregulationsshouldbegiveneffect.Voss,830P.2dat1068.Absentadirectconflictwiththestatestatute,courtsmustattempttoharmonizethestateandlocallawtotheextentpossible.Drostev.Bd.ofCnty.CommrsofPitkinCnty.,159P.3d601,607(Colo.2007).Assuch,theActdoesnotpreempteveryconflictinglocalregulation,butonlyoneswhichmateriallyimpedeordestroythestateinterest.Bd.OfCnty.CommrsofLaPlatav.Colo.Oil&GasConservationCommn,81P.3d1119,1123(Colo.App.2003).

2.TheTrialCourtAppliedtheWrongStandardforDeterminingOperationalConflict.

Althoughsomecases,applyingstatutessignificantlydifferentfromtheAct,havestatedtheoperationalconflicttestdifferently,thetrialcourterredbydeviatingfromthestandardlaidoutinBowen/Edwards.Thelegalstandardforoperationalconflictisnotprohibitingwhatthestateallows.The

33

trialcourtstated,Theoperationalconflictinthiscaseisobvious.TheCommissionpermitshydraulicfracturingandLongmontprohibitsit.R.CF,p.2051.Thisanalysispresumablycomesfromtwocasescitedinthetrialcourtsdecision:WebbandSummitCounty.Inordertofitourcase,thetrialcourtstretcheslanguagefromthesecasesandsuggestsalocalgovernmentcannotforbidwhatastatestatutefailstomentionandastateregulationdoesnotprohibit.Thisgoestoofar.ThecourtshouldinsteadhaveappliedthefamiliartestforoperationalconflictfoundinBowen/Edwards.

Thecannotprohibitwhatstatestatuteauthorizestestisinappropriateinthefrackingcontextbecausethestatestatutedoesevenmentionfracking,letaloneexplicitlyauthorizeit.ThusthiscaseisreadilydistinguishedfromWebbandSummitCounty,wheretherelevantstatestatutedidexpresslyaddresstheactivitiesinquestion.InWebb,thestatestatuteauthorizedmunicipalitiestoprohibitbicyclesfromtravelingoncityroadsonlyifanalternateroutewasprovided,andthecitydidnotcomplywiththisexplicitrequirement.Webb,295P.3dat485.Inthiscase,theActdoesnotevenmentionfrackingletalonelimitthecircumstancesunderwhichitmaybeprohibited.Likewise,inSummitCounty,theCourtfoundthelocalordinancetobeareclamationstandard.Colo.MiningAssnv.Bd.ofCnty.CommrsofSummit

34

Cnty.,199P.3d718,734(Colo.2009).Inthatcase,theMinedLandReclamationBoardwasgivenexplicitauthoritytoregulatereclamationstandards.Id.Here,theActgivesnoexplicitauthoritytoanyonetoregulatefracking.

Inordertoapplythisstandardinthiscase,thetrialcourthadtocontortthewordauthorizebeyondallrecognizablemeaning.TheActdoesnotauthorizefrackingbyfailingtomentionit.Furthermore,althoughstateregulationsundertheActhavenotyetprohibitedfracking,thatisnotthesameasauthorizingfracking.

D.TheLegalStandardforaFacialChallengeofaHomeRuleMunicipalitysRegulationIsBeyondaReasonableDoubt.ThehomeruleAmendmentgrantshomerulecitiesarightofself

governmentinbothlocalandmunicipalmatters,andfurtherprovidestheselocalordinancesshallsupersedewithintheterritoriallimits...anylawofthestateinconflicttherewith.COLO.CONST.art.XX,6.Whetherahomerulecitysregulationispreemptedisaconstitutionalquestion.SeeVoss,830P.2dat1061;seealsoSummitCounty,199P.3dat723.Inassessingtheconstitutionalityofastatutetherearetwokindsofchallenges,facialandasapplied.Sangerv.Dennis,148P.3d404,41011(Colo.App.2006).

35

1.APlaintiffMustProveBeyondaReasonableDoubtThatNoSetofCircumstancesorNoPossibleConstructionExistsWheretheRegulationIsValid.

Aplaintiffmustestablishthattheregulationisimpermissible.Afacialchallengeisonethatseekstorenderaregulationutterlyinoperativebyrequiringtheplaintifftoestablishbeyondareasonabledoubtthatnosetofcircumstancesexistsinwhichtheregulationcanbeappliedinapermissiblemanner.Sanger,148P.3dat411(emphasisadded);seealsoPeoplev.Vasquez,84P.3d1019,1021(Colo.2004)(enbanc).Thisisahighbarandcourtstraditionallydisfavorfacialchallenges.IndependenceInst.v.Coffman,209P.3d1130,1136(Colo.App.2008).PlaintiffssoughttoinvalidateArticleXVIonthebasisofafacialchallengeonly.R.CF,p.2040.

Intheoilandgascontext,thelegalstandardforpreemptionis:Wherenopossibleconstructionofthe[local][r]egulationsmaybeharmonizedwiththestateregulatoryschemetheregulationisinvalid.Bd.ofCnty.Comm'rsofGunnisonCnty.v.BDSInt'l,LLC.,159P.3d773,779(Colo.2006)(emphasisadded).InBDS,thecourtfurtherstated:wewillconstruetheCountyRegulations,ifpossible,soastoharmonizethemwiththeapplicablestatestatuteorregulations.Id.TherethecourtreliedonBowen/EdwardsandFrederickinrejectingplaintiffspropositionthatifastateregulation

36

concernsaparticularaspectofoilandgasoperations,thenanycountyregulationsinthatareaareautomaticallyinvalid.Id.

2.TheTrialCourtErredbyNotApplyingThisStandard.Thetrialcourtdidnotmentionorapplythereasonabledoubtstandard

thatwouldhaverequiredPlaintiffstomeettheiraffirmativeburdenbyshowingnosetofcircumstancesunderwhichArticleXVIcanbeharmonizedwiththestateinterest.

ThetrialcourtassumedthestateinterestinuniformregulationandthatthemereexistenceofArticleXVIharmsthestateinterestsetforthintheAct.Thatisnotsufficientforsummaryjudgment.SeeMt.EmmonsMiningCo.at241.There,thecourtwasdealingwithalocalordinancerequiringminingcompaniestogetwaterpermitsfromthetown.Id.at234.TheColoradoSupremeCourtrecognizedthisinvolvedmixedquestionsoflawandfact,andreversedthecourtofappealsjudgmentfortheminingcompanyandremandedforfindingsoffact.Id.at234.Thereareunresolvedfactualquestionsrelatingtotheexistence,nature,andextentofanyinjurythat[theplaintiffs]mightconceivablysustainunder[the]permit.Id.at241.AstheMt.Emmonscourtheld,themereexistenceoftheordinancewasnotenoughonwhichtobasesummaryjudgment.Id.(emphasisadded).

37

Moreover,thePlaintiffsandthetrialcourtsrelianceondictainBowen/Edwardsdiscussingpossibleoperationalconflictoftechnicalaspectsismisplaced.SeeR.CF,pp.204142.Immediatelyfollowingdiscussionoftechnicalaspectsthecourtstatesthatforoperationalconflict,[a]nydetermination...mustberesolvedonanadhocbasisunderafullydevelopedevidentiaryrecord.Id.IV.THETRIALCOURTINCORRECTLYFOUNDPREEMPTIONINTHISCASE Asidefromrelyingontheincorrectlawinmakingapreemptiondetermination,thetrialcourtalsoerredinapplyingthelawtothefactsofthiscase.First,theregulationoffrackingisamatteroflocalconcern.Asaresult,ArticleXVIsupersedestheAct.Second,ifthisCourtdeterminesittobeamatterofmixedconcern,thisCourtshouldfindthatArticleXVIandtheActdonotconflictinoperationandcanbeharmonized.Therefore,thisCourtshouldreversethetrialcourtonthemeritsofitsdecisionandremandthiscaseforafullevidentiaryhearing.

A. RegulatingFrackinginLongmontIsaMatterofLocalConcernWeighingthesignificantlocalimpactsagainstthenegligiblestate

interest,thisCourtshouldfindthatLongmontsregulationsareamatteroflocalconcern.Asamatteroflocalconcern,thelocalregulationsupersedesthe

38

stateregulation.AnyevaluationofthestatesinterestsmustkeepinmindthedeminimisimpactLongmontsoilandgasreserveswouldcontributetothestate.Longmontcurrentlyhasonly1012oftheover50,000wellsproducingoilwithinthestate.R.CF,pp.1215,1765.

1.ThereIsaStrongLocalInterestintheRegulationofFrackingWithintheCityofLongmont.

CitizenIntervenorshavepresentedampleevidencedemonstratingthesignificantlocalimpactsoffracking.Theseincludeharmtocitizenshealth;concernsaboutsafetyregardingadangerous,industrialprocess;concernsaboutthewelfareandqualityoflifeofcitizenslivingnearfrackingsites;economicconcernsregardingdiminishedpropertyvalues;andvariousenvironmentalandecologicalharmsrelatedtofracking.AlloftheseleadtoadecreasedqualityoflifeformanycitizensinLongmont.

Itisthelocalcitizenswhobearthehealthandsafetyrisksassociatedwithfracking;whowillsufferthedecreasedvalueofpropertylocatednearfrackingsites;andwhosegeneralwelfareandqualityoflifeareimpededbytheheavyindustrialactivity,includingincreasedlight,noise,andotherpollutionassociatedwithfracking.TheCityhasasignificantinterestinensuringthehealthandsafetyofitscitizens,maintainingthevalueof

39

propertyinthecityandprotectingtheenvironmentinLongmont.LikeinDenverv.State,whereevidenceofthelocalimpactswasconsideredtodeterminethelocalinterests,thisCourtshouldexaminetheevidencepresentedbyCitizenIntervenorsthatdemonstratesthesignificantlocalinterestsinregulatingfracking.

2.TheEffectofArticleXVIontheStateInterestIsMinimal. ThestatesinterestinregulatingfrackinginLongmontisminimal.EvenlookingonlyatthefactorsenumeratedinVossandcitedbythetrialcourt,thestateinterestisminimalatbest.StatewideUniformity Changesintechnologyandthetypeofresourcebeingextractedhavelessened,perhapsevenremoved,anystateinterestinuniformspacingofwellstofacilitateproductionthatwastheoverridingconcerninVoss.830P.2dat1067.TheVossCourtwasconcernedthatbecausetheresourcebeingextractedinthe1990swasfoundinsubterraneanpools,thereforeoilandgasproductioniscloselytiedtowelllocation.Id.Theseconcernsnolongerapplytotheindustryduetothedevelopmentofhorizontaldrillingandthenatureofthereservoirs,whicharenotpoolsbutrathertightformationsthroughwhichtheoilandgasdoesnoteasilymove.R.CF,pp.56,172324,

40

1746,180203.Thus,uniformityasconceivedofbytheVosscourtisnolongermuchofaconcerninthemodernoilandgasindustry.

Ratherthanacknowledgingtheseindustrychanges,thetrialcourtinsteadturnedtoadifferentargumentinfavorofuniformity:patchworkregulation.R.CF,p.204849.Yetthecourtsanalysisignoredseveralimportantpointsandneverexplainedhowpatchworkregulationwouldresultinunevenproductionandwaste(thewasteissueisfurtheraddressedbelow).Asaninitialmatter,apatchworkofregulationsalreadyexists,apparentlywithouttheadverseconsequencesenvisionedbythetrialcourt.LongmonthasregulationsontheoilandgasindustryinadditiontoArticleXVI.LONGMONT,COLO.,CODEOFORDINANCES.15.04.020(2013).Thoseregulationsaremuchmoredetailedthanthesimpleandstraightforwardprohibitiononfracking.Additionally,theonlyoperatorsinLongmonthavedemonstratedthattheyunderstandandcancomplywiththefrackingban,thusconcernovertheburdensofapatchworkofregulationscarrylittleweight.Forexample,bothTOPandSynergyResources(Synergy)havebeenabletocomplywiththeprohibitiononfracking.R.CF,pp.1718,19802021.Thus,thisfactorprovidesonlyminimal,ifany,supportinfavorofstateregulation.//

41

ExtraterritorialImpactsTheonlyexampleofextraterritorialimpactsrelieduponbythetrial

courtfallsapartuponcloserexamination,afactthetrialcourtoverlooked.ThetrialcourtfoundextraterritorialimpactsinthiscasebecauseSynergyhadawellpadoutsidecitylimitswhichfrackedonlytheportionsofthewellthatdidnotunderlieLongmont.R.CF,p.2049.However,thedepositionofEdHolloway,theCEOofSynergyResources,makesclearthatSynergysdecisiontoextendthewellintoLongmontsborderswasabusinessdecision.SynergychosetodrillunderLongmontandenteredintoanagreementnottofrackinconsiderationforuseofanaccessroad.RCF,p.2023.SynergycouldhavechosentodrillentirelyoutsideLongmontsboundaries,thusresultinginnoextraterritorialimpacts.Moreover,SynergywouldnotbeabletofrackevenifArticleXVIisfoundinvalid,becauseSynergyagreedcontractuallynottofrackwithinthecityofLongmont.R.CF,p.1719.Thefactorsthusdonotfavorstateregulation,asnoextraterritorialimpactshavebeendemonstrated.TraditionalGovernance

Thetrialcourtfoundthatoilandgashastraditionallybeengovernedbythestate.R.CF,p.2049.Thisfindingignoresthefacthomerulemunicipalitieshavesignificantcontroloverzoningactivitiesandlanduseregulationwithin

42

itsboundaries.Infact,thelegislatureroutinelyprotectedthesepowerswhenamendingtheAct.TheVosscourtstatedthatregulationofoilandgasdevelopmenthadtraditionallybeenamatterofstatecontrol.Voss,830P.2dat1068.ButkeepinmindtheVosscourtwasexaminingatotalban.TheVosscourtalsostated:

Ifahomerulecity,insteadofimposingatotalbanonalldrillingwithinthecity,enactslanduseregulationsapplicabletovariousaspectsofoilandgasdevelopmentandoperationswithinthecity,andifsuchregulationsdonotfrustrateandcanbeharmonizedwiththedevelopmentandproductionofoilandgasinamannerconsistentwiththestatedgoalsoftheOilandGasConservationAct,thecity'sregulationsshouldbegiveneffect.

Id.at10681069. Moreover,frackingtodayisusedinconjunctionwithhorizontaldrilling,arelativelynewtechniqueonlydevelopedinthepastdecadeorso.R.CF,p.1472.Assuch,anytraditionthestatemayhaveinregulatingthistechniqueisminimalwhencomparedtothehistoryofgovernancehomerulemunicipalitieshaveoverzoningwithintheirboundaries.R.CF,p.1552.ThetraditionalgovernanceofthestateoveroilandgasproductionsetforthbytheActissilentwithregardtofracking. Furthermore,thestatehasassertedinotherproceedingsthatitdoesnothavetheauthoritytolimitfrackingbasedonhealthconcerns.Arecent

43

petitiontotheCOGCCrequestedthatithaltissuingpermitsforfrackinguntilitcanbeproventobesafe.MemorandumfromtheOfficeofAttorneyGeneral,JakeMatter,toCOGCC,DirectorMatthewLepore,Re:PetitionforRulemakingfromMartinez(April11,2014),(availableathttp://cogcc.state.co.us/Announcements/Rulemaking/EarthGuard/AG_Memo_to_Commission_20140411.pdf).TheAGsofficesuggestedthathaltingdrillinguntilfrackingcanbeproventobesafeisnotwithintheauthoritygrantedtotheCOGCCbytheAct,whichunderitsinterpretationrequireshealthtobebalancedwithproduction.Id.at45.IftheCOGCCdoesnotevenhavetheauthoritytoprohibitfracking,thenitdoesnothavealongertraditionofregulatingthetopicthanLongmontdoes.Thus,thisfactorisneutralatbest.Constitution

TheColoradoConstitutiondoesnotexpresslygiveauthorityoveroilandgasproductiontothestate.However,theColoradoConstitutionprotectscitizensinalienablerightsandprovidesauthorityoverlocalissuestolocalgovernments.Localresidentshavetheauthoritytoprotectthoseinalienablerightsthroughreasonableregulations.ArticleXVIisareasonableexerciseofLongmontscitizensrightstoprotectthemselvesagainsttheharmsof

44

frackingaswellasaproperexerciseofhomeruleauthority.Thus,thisfactoriseitherneutraloractuallyfavorslocalregulationinthiscase.

3.WeighingtheSignificantLocalImpactsAgainsttheMinimalStateInterestResultsinaDeterminationThatLongmontsRegulationsAreaMatterofLocalConcern.

Properlytakingintoaccountallrelevantfactors,thisCourtshouldfindArticleXVItobeamatteroflocalconcern.ThestateinterestinnonlocalimpactsofArticleXVIisnegligibleatbest.Aminorstateinterestdoesnotprecludeafindingoflocalconcern.SeeDenverv.State,788P.2dat769(findingtheeconomicimpactoftheDenverresidencyrequirementthathad.014%ofanimpactonthestateinteresttobedeminimisandupholdingthelocalregulation). Thesignificantlocalinterestsgreatlyoutweightheminimalstateinterestinthiscase.Ontheonehand,localinterestsincluderiskstohealthandsafetyincludingincreasedriskofcancerandotherdiseases,increasedindustrialtraffic,andincreasedriskofexplosions,spills,andotheraccidents.Therearealsodetrimentalimpactstothelocaleconomyincludingdevaluedproperty,expendingprivateincometoensuresafesoilandwater,anddecreasingthelikelihoodofpeoplelivingandworkingnearfrackingsites.Citizensqualityoflifeisdecreasedastheyfearthesedangers;theymustlive

45

withincreasednoise,lighting,traffic,andsmells;andtheecologicalhabitatsandenvironmenttheyonceenjoyedaredamagedordiminished.

Ontheotherhand,thereisthestateinterestinafractionofapercentageofstatewideoilandgasproduction.NoextraterritorialimpactscanbeattributedtoArticleXVI.EventhestatesinterestinuniformregulationsfallsshortinlightofthedifferentregulationsthatcurrentlyexistinLongmont,irrespectiveofArticleXVI,thatbothoperatorsagreedtocomplywith.Thus,thestateinterestsaregreatlyoutweighedbythelocalinterestsinregulatingfracking.

B.EveniftheMatterIsOneofMixedLocalandStateConcern,ThereIsNoOperationalConflict.

NooperationalconflictexistsbetweenArticleXVIandtheAct.ArticleXVI(1)doesnotimpedenordestroythestatesinterestinoilandgasproduction;(2)doesnotcausewaste;(3)doesnotaffectthecorrelativerightsofowners;and(4)protectspublichealth,safetyandwelfare,consistentwiththepurposeoftheAct.Infact,ArticleXVIisconsistentwiththestatesinterestinoilandgasproduction,andcanbeharmonizedwiththeAct.

First,ArticleXVIdoesnotpreventalloilandgasdevelopmentinLongmont.Frackingisbutonemethodofextraction,alternativesexistthat

46

fosterefficientdevelopmentandproduction.Forexample,atechniqueknownasunderbalanceddrillingcanbemoreefficientandeconomicthanfracking.R.CF,p.1428.Also,wellsdonothavetobefrackedinordertoproduceoilandgas.TOPsvicepresident,MurrayHerring,admittedthatnonfrackedwellsarenonethelessabletoproduce.SeeR.CF,pp.178990.Further,operatorsproducedover15,000,000barrelsofoilintheFlorenceField,ashaleformation,beforetheadventoffracking.R.CF,pp.142728.Initially,thePlaintiffsclaimedArticleXVIwasadefactobanondrilling.Onthecontrary,CitizenIntervenorspresentedevidenceshowingArticleXVIdoesnotpreventoilandgasdevelopmentinLongmont.

CurrentoilandgasproductioninLongmontisalsoongoing,evenwithoutfracking.YetthetrialcourtreliedonPlaintiffsaffidavitstoconcludethatbanningfrackinghasvirtuallydestroyedthestateinterestinproduction.R.CF,p.2052.However,therearebetween10and12wellscurrentlyproducinginLongmont.R.CF,pp.1211,1648.Thus,ArticleXVIhasnotendedproductioninLongmont,asthetrialcourterroneouslyconcluded.

Second,ArticleXVIdoesnotcausewaste.Thetrialcourtcorrectlynotedthatoneofthepurposesoftheactisto[p]rotectagainstwaste.R.CF,p.2051.Thestatutorydefinitionofwasteisanactionthatreducesthe

47

amountofoilandgasultimatelyrecoverablefromapool.C.R.S.3460103(13)(b).Wasteisnottheamountimmediatelyrecoverable.Therefore,justbecausemineraldepositswereleftinthegroundthatotherwisecouldhavebeenextracted,asthetrialcourtnoted,itdoesnotfollowthatArticleXVIcauseswastebecausetheresourcecanultimatelybeaccessedbymeansotherthanfrackingnoworinthefuture.SeeR.CF,p.2052.

Third,ArticleXVIdoesnotaffectthecorrelativerightsofowners.Asexplainedpreviously,theonlyexamplethePlaintiffscouldproduceshowinganyeffecttothecorrelativerightsofowners,andwhichthecourtreliedupon,turnedouttobeincorrectaftertheconclusoryassertionsbySynergysCEOweretestedatadeposition.SeegenerallyR.CF,p.171017;supraSect.IV.A.2.

Fourth,ArticleXVIisconsistentwiththelocalandstateinterestsinthehealth,safety,andwelfareofLongmontscitizens.ThestatedpurposeoftheActistopermiteachoilandgaspoolinColoradotoproduceuptoitsmaximumefficientrateofproduction,subjecttothepreventionofwaste,consistentwiththeprotectionofpublichealth,safety,andwelfare,includingprotectionoftheenvironment.C.R.S.3460102(emphasisadded).Thetrialcourtincorrectlyomittedthepublichealth,safety,andwelfareportionoftheAct,andruled[t]hereisnowaytoharmonize[Article

48

XVI]withthestatedgoalsofthe[Act].R.CF.p.2053.Thatisonlytrueifpartofthestateinterestisignored.BecauseArticleXVIaddressesthedangersfrackingposestopublichealth,safety,welfare,andtheenvironment,itisactuallyconsistentwiththestateinterestandharmoniouswiththeAct.Responsible,balancedproductionconsistentwiththeprotectionofhealth,safety,andtheenvironmentmeansthatproductioncanbeallowedinmostplaces,butnotinLongmontwhereitposesunacceptableriskstothecommunity.

CONCLUSIONCitizenIntervenorsrequestthisCourttovacatethetrialcourts

decisionandremandwithinstructionsforthecourttoconsidertheapplicationofCitizenIntervenorsinalienablerightstothiscase,toapplythecorrectpreemptionstandards,andtoconductanevidentiaryhearinginordertomakethefactualfindingsnecessarytoruleonthepreemptionclaims.////////

49

DATEDthis15thdayofJanuary,2015.Respectfullysubmitted,

/s/KevinJ.Lynch KevinJ.Lynch(COBarNo.39873)

BradBartlett(COBarNo.32816)LaRonaMondt(StudentAttorney)

ChristopherBrummitt(StudentAttorney)NicholasRising(StudentAttorney)

EnvironmentalLawClinicUniversityofDenver

CounselforCitizenIntervenors

/s/EricHuber EricHuber(COBarNo.40664)

CounselforSierraClubandEarthworksThisdocumentwasfiledelectronicallypursuanttoC.A.R.25(e).TheoriginalsigneddocumentisonfilewiththeUniversityofDenverEnvironmentalLawClinic.

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE Theundersignedherebycertifiesthatonthis15thdayofJanuary,2015,a trueandcorrectcopyof the foregoingCITIZEN INTERVENORSOPENINGBRIEFwasservedviatheIntegratedColoradoCourtsEFilingSystem(ICCES),on:KarenL.Spaulding,Esq.Beatty&Wozniak,P.C.21616thStreet,Suite1100Denver,CO80202PhillipD.Barber,Esq.1675LarimerStreet,Suite620Denver,CO80202EugeneMei,Esq.DanielE.Kramer,Esq.CityAttorneysCityofLongmont4083rdAvenueLongmont,CO80501ThomasJ.Kimmell,Esq.Zarlengo&Kimmell,PC700NorthColoradoBoulevard,Suite598Denver,CO80206

JohnE.JakeMatter,Esq.JulieM.Murphy,Esq.AsstAttorneyGenerals1300Broadway,10thFloorDenver,CO80203MarkMathews,Esq.WayneF.Forman,Esq.MichaelD.Hoke,Esq.BrownsteinHyattFarberSchreck,LLP41017thStreet,Ste.2200Denver,CO80202

s/KevinLynch_______ KevinLynch