Martinez v. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

Citations

• 2017 COA 37
• 434 P.3d 689

Syllabus

Oil and Gas Conservation Act—Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission—Public Health and Safety. Petitioners filed a petition for rulemaking pursuant to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's Rule 529(b). Petitioners proposed a rule requesting that the Commission not issue permits for drilling oil and gas wells unless certain conditions were met to demonstrate that the drilling would not have specified adverse effects. The Commission ultimately denied the petition, concluding that (1) the proposed rule mandated action that exceeded the Commission's statutory authority (2) the requested third-party review contradicted the Commission's nondelegable duty to promulgate rules and (3) the public trust doctrine, which petitioners relied on to support their request, has been expressly rejected in Colorado. The district court affirmed the Commission's order after concluding that the Commission rationally decided to deny the petition after considering input from stakeholders on both sides of the fracking issue in accordance with the Oil and Gas Conservation Act's requirement of a balance between the development of oil and gas resources and the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. On appeal, petitioners contended that the district court and the Commission erred in interpreting the Act. The Court of Appeals determined that the plain meaning of the statutory language indicates that fostering balanced development, production, and use of natural resources is in the public interest when that development is completed subject to the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, the Commission erred in interpreting CRS § 34-60-102(1)(a)(I) as requiring a balance between development and public health, safety, and welfare. The district court's and Commission's orders were reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.