Oil and Gas Surface Owners Protection Bill Killed -- Again
By Ken Wright, 4-09-06
Legislative sponsors have withdrawn a controversial "Surface Owners
Protection Act" bill for Colorado, again sinking legislation that
legislators have tried to enact for more than two years. The present
form of the bill initially had been supported by environmentalists,
property owners, and the real estate industry for strengthening rights
of "split estate" landowners -- those who own the property but not the
mineral rights under the property.
In its initial form, the legislation would have required energy
companies to work with landowners on the placement of facilities, use
the best practices available to minimize impacts, and to fairly
compensate surface owners for use and damage of the property.
Supporters, though, turned against the bill after they claim it was
re-written by the oil-and-gas industry to the point where it actually
undercut existing property-owner rights. Supporters then turned
critics, urging the bill's defeat, after it passed the Colorado House
last week and was set for a vote before the full senate on Friday.
Sponsors Sen. Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, and Rep. Kathleen Curry,
D-Gunnison, pulled the bill before it could be voted upon.
"Both sides dug their heels in to the point that negotiation wasn't
going to get us there and the rhetoric got so heated," Isgar explained
to the the Associated Press. "It's unfortunate because the people I was
really trying to protect -- the surface owners, the farmers, the
ranchers -- they needed a bill and they needed some negotiating party.
They didn't see that in the bill."
Curry expressed similar frustration. "We had to convince oil and gas
companies that responsible legislation would allow them to conduct
their business in a predictable way," she told the Herald. "while
assuring that surface owners are given a fair shake and a level playing
field in negotiating with oil and gas companies."
Death of the bill may mean the battle will only heat up --
surface-owner rights advocates have threatened to next push for a
ballot initiative on the issue.
.
|
