Denton Fracking Ban Passes, But for How Long?

Categories: Environment

HydraulicFracturing.jpg
U.S .Geological Survey
The Texas Oil and Gas Association and General Land Office are the first, so far, to file lawsuits against the city of Denton.

By the time Denton's city offices opened this morning, officials already had two brand new lawsuits waiting for them. As Denton's attorneys begin the weary post-election process of sorting through a legal defense against this inevitable barrage of suits, it's clear the battle over the ban on fracking voters approved Tuesday has just begun.

Denton's proposed fracking ban, which had gained national attention in the last few weeks, passed Tuesday night in a landslide: 59 percent of voters favored the ban, while just 41 percent voted against. This is despite ban opponents far out-spending and out-advertising anti-frackers. Frack Free Denton raised just $75,000 for its campaign, compared with $700,000 spent by pro-fracking groups.

See also: Frackers Have Launched an Aggressive Campaign to Kill Denton's Drilling Ban

But now that the morning-after glow of victory has subsided, the City of Denton must face the mighty backlash of the oil and gas industry. City spokesperson Lindsey Baker confirms that the Texas Oil and Gas Association and the General Land Office are the first so far, though most decidedly not the last, to lash out against the ban.

Cathy McMullen, the president of Frack Free Denton, says that the city had been prepping for a legal fight should the ban pass. Now that it has, she expects a good fight. Although city attorney Anita Burgess has previously expressed her opposition to the ban, the city will likely include outside counsel as, in accordance with Denton voters' wishes, it fights now to keep the ban.

"I believe that with the margin of the voters who approve this, all we've been threatened with is lawsuits. And the consensus is that the fight is worth it," says McMullen. "It's a legally defensible ordinance. If there was any way it wasn't, it would never have gotten to the voters. So we know it's defensible and we know its constitutional."

See also: Nonstop Electioneering Could Sway Last-Minute Decisions on Denton Fracking Ban

McMullen says the city has only about $4 million in its legal budget. And with the vast majority of residents in favor of the ban, and Mayor Chris Watts' outspoken support, the city will defend the ban to the end.

"We have to work together to protect ourselves," McMullen says. "We've struggled for the last five years to protect ourselves, and I think people should know that this was the epitome of a true grassroots effort."

On the opposite side of the table, opponents are just rolling up their sleeves to begin the fight. "The ban is legally vulnerable," says Tom Giovanetti, president of the Lewisville-based think tank Institute for Policy Innovation, who has been an outspoken opponent to the ban. "If you take away the drilling you take out all the value from the property, there's nothing left. So I think the ban is extremely precarious from a legal standpoint."

It's a legal argument, Giovanetti says, that Denton should expect from every major oil and gas company in the state, plus the state of Texas itself. "This election was decided on junk science and baseless fear," he says. "This was Act 1 last night. And the next few acts are going to take place in the courts."


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
29 comments
buckbucky
buckbucky

I liked the part of the ordinance that redefines what a fluid is. Its like it was written by a Clinton staffer.

Lorlee
Lorlee

So you are saying "widows and orphans (nice touch)" money trumps some other widows and orphan's health.  And is there an absolute right to remove minerals no matter who is harmed in the process?


RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

The people have spoken, they have a vested interest, they live there. The fracking companies, the courts or the State should not be able to overturn the voice of the people.  They are not trampling the individual human rights of fracking companies.  They are asserting their own right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

I'm still wondering why no one is planning to sue for this being a taking without compensation by the city.


Put Denton on the line for paying fair market value for all the mineral rights they are taking.  That would end this ordinance quick and in a hurry.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

That says something when the GLO weighs in against the ban.


One thing that I wish that the anti - fraccing fracktivists would admit to is that they just want to stop oil and gas drilling.


I am tempted to file for a well permit within the city limits of Denton just to see what will happen.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

It will be litigated for years, only the attorneys will win

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

That pic looks like a still-shot from the filming of "Mad Max".

dingo
dingo

@cereboso 

'The ban is very defensible. But imagine the worst case scenario where it is overturned by a judge. All the minerals will still be there. That’s how this is different than surface takings cases where the state, say, paves over your yard, fences it in, and calls it State Highway 57. In that case, you have been clearly deprived of your property. But even in the unlikely case of a ruling against the ban, no one will have taken any minerals or rendered them unusable.'


So the logic is that no asset is being taken by the ban because without the ban the asset is not being taken.

Who wrote this? Jay Carney?

dingo
dingo

@Lorlee 

It is rarely an absolute v absolute argument.

The court will probably determine if reasonable measures are available to ensure reasonable safety and still allow for retainment of some if not all mineral rights instead of a blanket stripping of those rights. I do not have a clue as far as precedent in this area but that is the way things usually go as far as the law goes.

There is somewhere a list of guidelines that have evolved through the case law that the court would utilize in attempting to reach an equitable adjudication.

roo_ster
roo_ster

@RTGolden1 

They are trampling the rights of the mineral rights owners, "widows and orphans, many of them."

City of Denton needs to provide compensation for the taking or find some way to balance the exploitation of mineral rights with those of folks nearby.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps 

The City isn't "taking" any mineral rights. The property owner still owns the minerals within their property. The property owner if free to sell its mineral rights.

The Ordinance prohibits a specific form of extraction. This prohibition on an activity is not uncommon in existing land use and city codes everywhere.

schermbeck
schermbeck

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul That just isn't true. Many of us grew up in the oil patch when the rigs were in pastures and open country. Then the industry got itself exempted from a bunch of environmental laws and started putting them up next to homes, schools and parks. In Denton they were as close as 180 feet from a kid's bedroom. That's the objection. Unfortunately, instead of "responsible drilling" the industry opted for an all or nothing response. Denton residents had no choice.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul 

Do you disagree that the Citizens of Denton have the right to determine proper and acceptable land uses/activities within their City limits?

BTW Land Commissioner Patterson filed the lawsuit in Travis County, not Denton County, and he filed saying the ban restricts the TLO from leasing its land that is within the City limits for drilling, which he claims is unconstituional.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@cereboso @everlastingphelps It doesn't say it isn't a taking, it says that it is an allowed taking.  A couple of problems with the opinion --


1) It looks at the effects as if it the whole of denton was one property with surface and mineral rights confused.  It's not.  There's going to be people who have only mineral rights, so the fact that the land can be used for economic purposes on the surface doesn't matter. The same way, that there are producing wells that are allowed to stay doesn't matter to someone who has no wells in their plot/lease, who now isn't allowed to get the production that was only available via fracking. 


2) Whether or not the economic value has been destroyed depends on what the land was suited for in the first place.  If the land wasn't suitable for conventional drilling and could only be put to economic use by fracking, then the rights have been destroyed.  To go with the argument here, the state could simply say, "well, there is land on earth where you can walk out and pick up diamonds on the surface, you still have economic mineral rights because we would let you do that" while ignoring that there aren't any damned diamonds anywhere near the plot.


3) This isn't a "reasonable" restriction, in that that particular risks have been identified and a solution was narrowly tailored.  This is a blanket ban, and I don't think they've identified a particular risk that meets that burden, when we are talking about completely eradicating economic value..  (Remember, 'reasonable' means "rational" in the law more than it means "what I feel is best."


In any event, I wouldn't be surprised to see preemption by the state pretty soon anyways.  A legislative solution would be far better than a judicial one.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog @everlastingphelps Here we go, Mavdog spouting about things he has no understanding of.


The case law is rock solid that if the state regulates away all economic benefit for a piece of property, then that is a taking of the property.  The end.


Look at the Maguire case.


http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=14-09-00701-CV&s=TX&d=47467


For people that hold the mineral rights but not the surface rights, the mineral rights are the entire property.  If the only way to economically exercise those rights are through fracking, then Denton just executed a taking of those rights.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@schermbeck @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul 

I don't know what environmental laws that you are referring to that allowed drillers to have locations located where you describe.

So, under what circumstances can a well be drilled inside the City Limits of Denton?

Are the restrictions such that no well can be drilled?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps 

That case is not a simple mineral rights inverse condemnation claim, from the summary:
The City of Houston appeals from a judgment in favor of Maguire Oil Company and others[1] arising from an inverse condemnation claim predicated on the erroneous invocation of an inapplicable city ordinance to revoke Maguire’s natural gas drilling permit.

The City issued a permit to Maguire and then shut the drilling down after the fact.

schermbeck
schermbeck

@everlastingphelps Not on point. The Houston permit was issued by mistake, involved ETJ vs city limits and lots of vague language. This ordinance was written with the Constitution in mind. Conventional drilling is still allowed. No one knows the real value of any gas left in Denton and because they're so old, existing wells have more than paid back the leases on future ones at the same pad, i,e, in the Vintage neighborhood that started it all. This isn't a right of way that can be surveyed. It's a guesstimate on what could or could not be down there, and there's still a way for mineral owners to access whatever they think is there - if the price is right. Just like the market works now.

schermbeck
schermbeck

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul @schermbeck Restrictions: As I understand the current language - after the vote -  any conventional well can be drilled either 1200 feet from protected uses such as homes, parks, schools, or in any pad where the SUP has already been granted. They just can't use fracking technology.

Laws: It wasn't locations, it was liability. The 2005 Energy Act exempted fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act and other laws, opening the door to urban fracking. The technology had been around since the 80's. It took these exemptions for the technology to be introduced into densely populated areas without the associated liability. Before the Act/exemptions - no urban drilling. After the Act/exemptions - lots of urban drilling. That's a pretty huge red flag.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul @mavdog 

come on, it was nowhere near that type of question.

if you don't wish to answer, sobeit.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog @everlastingphelps Jesus, are you guys actually interested in truth or just "winning?"  Read the damned article:


Maguire pleaded four separate taking theories in the trial court. In a single trial, the City and Maguire presented evidence relating to (1) the legal question concerning whether there had been a taking of Maguire’s mineral property interests; and (2) the fact question concerning damages for such a taking. At the conclusion of the evidence, the City and Maguire agreed that Maguire’s inverse condemnation claim presented a question of law for the trial court to decide. The trial court heard arguments from both sides on the takings claim and ruled as a matter of law that Maguire suffered a compensable regulatory taking “[b]ased on the City of Houston’s unreasonable interference with the landowner’s right to use and enjoy its property and on that theory of law.” 



everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@schermbeck @everlastingphelps The issue of a mistaken permit was a defense by the city which was rejected by the court.  The central issue to the case was that completely banning drilling is a regulatory taking.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps 

and the jury instructions dealt with the denial of the drilling permit....

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog @everlastingphelps Where do you get that from?  The only question sent to the jury was damages.  There's no reason for them to be instructed on the permitting issue.  The court decided the liability issue on summary judgment.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...