Font Size

Colorado & Denver News

E-mail

Close Window E-mail This Page

Landowner Veto Of Wildlife Rules Could Be Changed

Required fields are marked with an asterisk(*)

Recipient E-mail:*
- Your Name:*
- Your E-mail:*
Add a Message:
Send me a copy of this e-mail.

Type the characters in this picture:*

Click here to refresh with new letters

The information you provide will be used only to send the requested e-mail and will not be used to send any other e-mail communications. Read more in our Privacy Policy

Send E-mail

Print Share + Comments

Jan 10, 2009 3:51 pm US/Mountain

Landowner Veto Of Wildlife Rules Could Be Changed

By Colleen Selvin, AP Writer
DENVER (AP) ―

Click to enlarge 1 of 1: Gunnison Democrat Kathleen Curry (File)
CBS

Close

numSlides of totalImages

Two Western Slope lawmakers are trying to negotiate a change to new oil and gas regulations that could reopen the debate over drilling on "split estate" properties.

A law that overhauls the way the state regulates energy development requires that a surface owner consent to any wildlife protections on the property recommended by state officials. That requirement was incorporated into new drilling regulations that the legislature must approve before they can take effect this spring.

Sen. Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, thinks it's possible that some surface owners could use their power to reject wildlife restrictions as a backdoor way to shut down drilling on their property. He said that would unfairly deprive the property rights of people who own the rights to the minerals beneath the surface.

Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, also thinks that permits could be blocked by surface owners under the new rules. But she said she wants to give surface owners a say in what happens on their land while also protecting wildlife. Curry sees both surface owners and mineral rights owners as equals, while Isgar takes the more traditional view that mineral rights trump surface rights.

"We've got an entanglement that we need to work out," Curry said.

Both said they're talking with agricultural groups that represent rural landowners as well as environmentalists to see if they can agree on some changes.

Dave Neslin, acting director of the state's oil and gas commission, said the rules already allow some leeway if a surface owner rejects all protections and alternatives proposed by the state. In those cases, Neslin said the state can require the oil and gas operator to preserve wildlife habitat somewhere else or give the state money instead of performing the mitigation themselves on the property.

He said the commission will be watching to see if the consent power is misused and will ask lawmakers for changes if that turns out to be a problem.