DISTRICTCOURT,LARIMERCOUNTY,COLORADO
Address:201LaPorteAvenue,Suite100
FortCollins,CO80521
Phone:(970)494‐3500
PLAINTIFF
COLORADOOIL&GASASSOCIATION
v.
DEFENDANT
CITYOFFORTCOLLINS,COLORADO
and
PROPOSEDINTERVENORS
CITIZENSFORAHEALTHYFORTCOLLINS,SIERRA
CLUB,ANDEARTHWORKS(“MEASURE
PROPONENTS”)
AttorneyforMeasureProponents
KevinJ.Lynch(CO#39873)
EnvironmentalLawClinic
UniversityofDenverSturmCollegeofLaw
2255E.EvansAve,Suite335
Denver,CO80208
Phone:(303)871‐6140
E‐mail:[email protected]
DATE FILED: May 21, 2014 5:10 PM
FILING ID: 42C1819D62BC9
CASE NUMBER: 2013CV31385
▲COURTUSEONLY▲
CaseNumber:2013CV31385
Div.:5B
MEASUREPROPONENTS’REPLYINSUPPORTOF
MOTIONTOSTAYPROCEEDINGS
INTRODUCTION
TheMeasureProponentshaverequestedastayofthiscaseuntiltheCourtof
AppealscanresolvetheirappealofthisCourt’sdenialofMeasureProponents’requestto
intervene.TheMeasureProponentsintendtoseekanexpeditedappealofthisissue;hence
thestaytheyareseekingfromthisCourtwouldbelimitedtothetimeittakestoresolvethe
appeal.
However,iftheproceedingsinthetrialcourtcontinueapace,afinaljudgment
invalidatingthefrackingmoratoriumchampionedbytheMeasureProponents—whichwas
activelyopposedbyboththeCityandCOGA—mightbeenteredbythisCourt,beforethe
interventionissueisresolvedintheCourtofAppeals.Suchajudgmentwouldsubstantially
impairtherightsandinterestsoftheMeasureProponents,whoseektoprotectthemselves
fromtheirreparableharmthatwouldresultiffrackingweretooccurintheirdenseurban
community.ThisharmsubstantiallyoutweighsanyallegedburdenonCOGA,whichhas
comeforwardwithnospecificevidenceofanyplanstoconductfrackingoperationswithin
FortCollinsduringthedurationofthemoratorium,muchlessduringthelimitedstayof
theseproceedingssoughtbyMeasureProponents.Furthermore,iftheCity’sinterestreally
isinupholdingthemoratorium,thenastayoftheproceedingssupportsthatinterest.And,
iftheMeasureProponents’appealissuccessful,itwouldputthisCourtinthepositionof
havingtovacateanysummaryjudgmententeredforCOGAduringtheappealandto
reconsiderandrepeatthoseproceedings,resultinginwasteofjudicialresources.
MeasureProponents’participationinthislitigationisnecessaryforafulland
vigorousdefenseofthefrackingmoratorium.TheCity’srecentresponsetoCOGA’sMotion
forSummaryJudgmentshowsthattheCityisnotadequatelyrepresentingMeasure
Proponents’interest,aswasreasonablypredictedintheMotiontoIntervene.TheCityhas
failedtoraisemanyfactualissuesthatwouldprecludesummaryjudgment,eventhough
ColoradoSupremeCourtprecedentonpreemptionmakesclearthatwhetheranissueisof
local,state,ormixedconcerninvolvesissuesoffactandrequiresandadhocdetermination
basedonthetotalityofthecircumstances.Thosefactualissuestobeconsideredincludethe
extensivelocalimpactsoffrackingthatisconductedindenselypopulatedurban
2
communities,aswellastheminimalinteresttheStatehasinensuringthatfrackingoccurs
inFortCollinsevenovertheobjectionsofitscitizens.
ThisCourtwillrecallthat,withtheirMotiontoIntervene,theMeasureProponents
filedaMotiontoDismissCOGA’slawsuitbasedonitslackofstanding.Onereasonthis
CourtgaveindenyingtheMotiontoIntervenewasthattheCityhadraisedthedefenseof
standinginitsAnswer.However,initsresponsetoCOGA’sMotionforSummaryJudgment,
theCityhasnowfailedtoasserttheobviousdefenseofstanding,eventhoughCOGAhas
comeforwardwithnoevidenceofharmtoitselforitsmembers.Thus,theCityisnot
adequatelydefendingthiscaseorrepresentingtheMeasureProponents’interest.
TheCity’sdecisiontoavoidengagingindiscoveryandinsteadtoseekresolutionof
thiscaseonsummaryjudgmentonlyhighlightsthattheCity’sinterest,asstatedpubliclyby
theCityCouncil,istoavoidspendingmoneyonlitigationdefendingthemoratoriumor
facinghypotheticaltakingschallenges.Infact,theCity’sinterestismuchbroaderthanthe
MeasureProponents’,andincludesrepresentingoilandgasinterests,mineralrights
holders,businesses,andtaxpayerswhoseinterestsdivergesignificantlyfromtheMeasure
Proponents’interestinprotectingtheirhealth,safety,andpropertyfromtheimpactsof
fracking.GiventheCity’slackofanadequatedefense,itsdecisiontoforegobasicdiscovery,
anditsdivergenceofinterestwithMeasureProponents,MeasureProponentshaveraised
seriousquestionsforappeal,andastayofthiscasependingthatappealisintheinterestof
justiceandjudicialeconomy.
ARGUMENT
AsCOGAhasstated,Coloradostatecourtshavenotarticulatedadefinitestandard
fordecidingamotiontostay.However,evenunderthestandardCOGAputsforward,astay
iswarrantedinthiscasebecauseastaywouldpreservethestatusquowhileallowing
3
MeasureProponents’appealtobedecided.COGAsuggeststhatthisCourtshouldconsider:
“(1)potentialprejudicetothenonmovingparty;(2)hardshipandinequitytothemoving
partyiftheactionisnotstayed;and(3)thejudicialresourcesthatwouldbesavedby
avoidingduplicativelitigation.”COGA’sResp.inOpp’ntoMot.toStayProceedings(“COGA
Response”)at3.YetCOGAhasnotcomeforwardwithanyconcreteharmthatwouldresult
fromareasonableandnecessarystayofthiscase,insteadpointingsimplytoitsdesirefor
“legalguidance”and“promptresolutionofprecedent‐settinglitigation.”Id.at4.Incontrast,
MeasureProponentsfacegreathardshipandinequityifastayisnotgranted,particularlyif
theappealissuccessful.AsuccessfulappealwouldmeanthattheCourtofAppealsfound
thattheCitydoesnotadequatelyrepresenttheMeasureProponents’interest.COGA’s
entireargumentappearstorestontheincorrectassumptionthattheCityactuallydoesand
willadequatelyrepresenttheMeasureProponents’interest.Finally,ifthisCourtproceeds
toruleonthependingsummaryjudgmentmotions,thetimeandresourcesspentbythe
CourtandthepartieswillhavebeenwastediftheappealissuccessfulandtheCourtof
AppealsordersthatMeasureProponentswereimproperlyexcludedfromthelitigation.If
insteadtheCourtstaysthislitigation,thennofurtherjudicialresourceswillbeused,and
thecasecanproceedoncetheappealisresolved.Therefore,astaywillminimizetheriskof
harmtoalltheparties,mostofwhichisbornebyMeasureProponents,whilealsoavoiding
thepotentialofduplicativelitigation.
I.
ANYHARMFROMASTAYISMINIMAL.
Atmost,astaywouldmeanthatthiscasecouldnotberesolvedonsummary
judgmentduringthependencyofMeasureProponents’appeal.Whilethismaybeadelayof
thecase,itwouldnotbean“undue”delaybecauseitislimitedtothetimenecessaryforan
appeal(whichcouldbeexpedited),andisnomoredelaythanneededtopreserveMeasure
4
Proponents’rights.COGAdoesnothavearighttohavethisCourtrushtojudgmentwithout
presentationofafullandvigorousdefenseofthefrackingmoratoriumthatwaspassedby
MeasureProponentsovertheCity’sopposition.
AllthatCOGAhasidentifiedisanunsubstantiated,vague,andnebulousharmdueto
lackof“legalguidancewithrespecttotheirabilitytoconductoilandgasoperationsinand
aroundFortCollinsduringtheentireappealperiod”andadesirefor“apromptresolution
ofthisprecedent‐settinglitigation.”SeeCOGAResponseat4.However,theprecedential
natureofthislitigationonlyhighlightstheneedfortheCourttoavoidrushingtojudgment
andincludeinterestedpartieswhoarenotadequatelyrepresented.Furthermore,as
explainedinthenextparagraph,COGAhasnotexplainedwhyitneeds“guidance”fromthe
Courtinsuchahurry,asithascomeforwardwithnoevidenceofanyplanstofrackthat
arepreventedbythemoratorium.Ifthisistheonly“harm”thatCOGAcouldidentify,itis
notnearlyenoughtooutweighthepotentialharmtoMeasureProponentsshouldthis
litigationproceedapaceandMeasureProponentsprevailontheirappealandareallowed
tointervene.
MorestrikingiswhatCOGAdidnotsay.JustasitdidinitsMotionforSummary
Judgment,COGAhasfailedtocomeforwardwithanyevidencethatoneofitsmembershas
concreteplanstoconductfrackingoperationsduringastay.Norhasitcomeforwardwith
anyevidencethatoneofitsmembershasconcreteplanstoconductfrackingoperations
withintheCityofFortCollinsduringthefiveyearsofthemoratorium.COGA’sfailureto
comeforwardwithanyevidenceofactualharmnotonlymeansthatastayshouldbe
granted,italsoshowsthatCOGAhasnotprovenithasstandingtobringthiscurrent
lawsuit(asMeasureProponentsarguedintheproposedMotiontoDismissfiledalongwith
theirMotiontoIntervene).
5
TheCitywouldnotbeharmedbyastay.IftheCity’sinteresttrulyisindefendingthe
moratoriumsothatitcanremaininplace,thenastayonlysupportsthatinterest.The
moratoriumwillremainonthebooksaslongasthislitigationisstayed,andtheCitycan
stopexpendingresourcestodefendthemoratorium,atleasttemporarily.
AlthoughCOGApointstopotentialtakingsclaimsasaharmtotheCityfromastay,
thatishypotheticalatbest.MeasureProponentsbelievethat,giventhenatureofthis
moratorium,thosetakingsclaimswouldnotnecessarilybebrought.Andiftheywere
brought,theywouldnotbesuccessful.TheU.S.SupremeCourtandtheColoradoSupreme
Courtbothrecognizethattemporarymoratoriaofreasonabledurationarelegitimate
exercisesoflocalgovernments’authoritytopreservethestatusquo,andprotectthepublic
health,safety,andwelfare,whiledevelopingalong‐termplanfordevelopment.Tahoe‐
SierraPres.Council,Inc.v.TahoeReg’lPlanningAgency,535U.S.302,337‐38(2002)
(upholding“rollingmoratoria”totaling32monthsagainsttakingsclaim);1Drostev.Bd.of
Cnty.Comm’rsofCnty.ofPitkin,159P.3d601,606(Colo.2007)(countyhadauthorityto
adoptordinanceimposingten‐monthmoratoriumoncountyprocessingofland‐use
applications).Mineral‐rightsownerscannotestablishatakingsclaimsimplybyshowing
thattheyhavebeendeniedtheabilitytouseacertainpractice(fracking)toexploita
propertyinterest.Rather,acompanywouldhavetoshowthatits“reasonableinvestment‐
backedexpectations”wereadverselyimpacted.AnimasValleySand&Gravel,Inc.v.Bd.of
Cnty.Comm’rsofCnty.ofLaPlata,38P.3d59,67(Colo.2001)(enbanc).Theleaseholdersof
subsurfacemineralrightsinFortCollinsshouldbeespeciallysusceptibletothisdefenseto
theextentthattheirleasesincludeforcemajeurelanguageorotherlanguagethatindicates
1Tahoe‐Sierraistheleadingfederalcaseonmoratoriaandtakings,andColoradolawtracks
federallawwhenitcomestotakings.VanSicklev.Boyes,797P.2d1267,1271(Colo.1990);
Williamsv.CentralCity,907P.2d701,707(Colo.App.1995);Dillv.Bd.ofCty.Comm’rsof
LincolnCnty.,928P.2d809,813.
6
knowingtheyaresubjecttoCityregulation,orthattheirleasesmightbetemporarily
suspendedduetoregulation.
Inanyevent,amerehypotheticalfuturelawsuitagainsttheCitybasedon
questionableclaimsbynon‐partiesisnotgroundstodenythelimitedstaythatMeasure
Proponentsseek.ThespecteroftakingsclaimsactuallyreinforcesMeasureProponents’
position—giventheCityCouncil’sfearoftakingsclaims,itismotivatedtoavoidthese
claimsandnotdefendthemoratoriumasfullyasitmight.Simplyput,itcannotadequately
representtheinterestofMeasureProponents.
II.
DENIALOFASTAYWOULDPREJUDICEMEASUREPROPONENTSBECAUSETHE
CITYISNOTADEQUATELYREPRESENTINGTHEIRINTERESTS.
AsopposedtoanyharmtoCOGA,whichmustbeassessedintheeventthatthe
appealisdenied,theharmtoMeasureProponentsmustbeassessedintheeventthatthe
appealisgranted.Inthatcase,theCourtofAppealswillhavedeterminedthatMeasure
Proponents’interestisnotadequatelyrepresentedbytheCity.Thus,thecontinued
inadequaterepresentationofMeasureProponents’interestwillcauseseriousharm.This
harmismuchgreaterthananysupposedharmtoCOGAbecauseitisanxioustohavethe
caseresolved.TheresourcesexpendedbytheCourtandthepartieswillhavebeenwasted,
asMeasureProponentswillnothavebeenaffordedanopportunitytoparticipateinany
dispositivebriefing,discovery,orhearings.Further,summaryjudgmentproceedingswould
beinappropriatewheredisputesovergenuineissuesofmaterialfacthavenotbeen
identifiedthroughdiscoveryorraisedbytheCity.Finally,anyjudgmentbytheCourtthat
impairsMeasureProponents’interestswouldhavetobevacated.Anyotherresultwould
meanthatMeasureProponentswereimproperlydeniedtheopportunitytodefendthose
interestsincourt.
7
Additionally,theCity’sdefenseofthiscasethusfaronlyhighlightstheinadequacyof
itsrepresentationofMeasureProponents’interest.Thisisnotasurprise,sincetheCityhas
neverindicatedthatitwouldrepresentthoseinterests.Instead,COGAsimplyasserted,and
theCourtassumed,thattheCitywouldadequatelyrepresenttheMeasureProponents’
interest.ButtheCity’sResponsetoCOGA’sMotionforSummaryJudgmentshows
otherwise.TheCityfailedtoassertstandingasanaffirmativedefenseinitsResponse,even
thoughCOGAdidnotcomeforwardwithascintillaofevidencethatwouldsupportits
conclusoryallegationsofharminitscomplaint.2
TheCityalsofailedtopresentanyevidenceofwhyfrackingisamatteroflocaland
notstatewideconcern,eventhoughampleevidenceexistsregardingharmtowaterquality,
increasedcancerrisk,increasedsmog,inducedearthquakes,decreasedpropertyvalues,
noise,lightpollution,trafficproblems,roadandotherinfrastructureimpacts,emergency
responsecoststolocalgovernments,etc.SeeStudiesandReportsontheDangersof
FrackingandtheNeedforMoreHealthDataThatSupporta5YearMoratorium,Ex.1.Nor
hastheCityaddressedthelimitedStateinterestthatfrackingoccurbeneathFortCollins,
giventherelativelysmallamountofoilandgasbeneaththeCityandtheavailabilityofsafer
alternativestofracking.TheseissuesareallbeingadvancedtheCityofLongmontandthe
citizenswhohaveintervenedincomparablelitigationregardingafrackingbanin
Longmont.IftheCityreallybelievesthatthiscaseshouldberesolvedonsummary
judgment,nowisthetimetoraiseallthedefenses.TheCity’sfailuretopresentafulland
vigorousdefensehasprovenMeasureProponents’fearofinadequaterepresentationtobe
correct.
2TheCitydidallegeundisputedfactsthatmightsupportadefensebasedonstanding
grounds,butdidnotmentionstandinganywhereinitsargument.SeeCity’sCombined
Briefat8‐9.
8
OnlytheCitycanexplainwhyitishasnotdevelopedthefactsandpresentedthese
defenses.ButtheCityCouncil,atleast,hasmadeclearthatitopposesthemoratorium.
Therefore,itisreasonablefortheCourttoconcludethattheCitywishestoavoidspending
theresourcesnecessarytoproperlydefendthemoratorium,andthattheCityCouncil
wouldbepleasedifthemoratoriumwereoverturnedbythisCourt.TheCityCouncil
explicitlystateditsoppositiontothemoratorium.SeeCityRes.2013‐085.Furthermore,
eventhoughtheCityCouncilhadpreviouslyenactedamoratorium,itdemonstratedthatit
wouldactonbehalfofoilandgasintereststoavoidthemoratoriumbycreatingagiant
loopholeallowingProspectEnergytofrackwithincitylimitsnotwithstandingthe
moratorium.SeeMotiontoStay,Ex.A,B.Inlightofallthis,theCourtofAppealswilllikely
concludethatthepeoplewhopushedforthemoratoriumovertheoppositionofCity
Council—theMeasureProponents—aretheonlyoneswhocanadequatelyrepresenttheir
interestinprotectingtheirhealth,safety,andpropertyvaluesfromtheharmoffracking
operations.
III.
JUDICIALRESOURCESARECONSERVEDBYASTAY.
Ifastayisgranted,thisCourtwillnotexpendresourcesreviewinganddecidingthe
pendingmotionsforsummaryjudgmentuntilafterresolutionoftheappeal.Thus,ifthe
CourtofAppealsdecidesthatMeasureProponentsshouldhavebeenallowedtointervene,
thepartiescanmodifytheirbriefingtoaccommodateMeasureProponents’participation.If
theCourtofAppealsaffirmsthedenialofintervention,thenthecasemayproceed.
Therefore,astaypromotesfairnessandefficiencywhileconservingjudicialresources.
Incontrast,ifastayisnotgranted,thenjudicialresourcesmaybewastedby
unnecessarilyduplicativelitigation.IftheCourtofAppealsdecidesinfavorofintervention
byMeasureProponents,thenanyjudicialresourcesspentduringtheappealwillhavebeen
9
wasted,particularlyiftheCourtrulesinfavorofCOGAonsummaryjudgment.That
judgmentwouldhavetobevacatedsothatitcouldbere‐litigated,wastingtheresources
notjustofthecourtbutofCOGAandtheCityaswell.Theonlywaythatjudicialresources
wouldnotbewastedisiftheCourtofAppealsaffirmsthedenialofintervention.However,
asexplainedpreviously,thatisanunlikelyoutcome,andanyharmcausedbythedelay
wouldbejustifiedbyeliminatingtheriskofharmtoMeasureProponents.
IV. STATEPREEMPTIONLAWREQUIRESANADHOCCOMPARISONOFSTATE
VERSUSLOCALINTERESTSBASEDONFACTS.
AlonglineofprecedentfromtheColoradoSupremeCourtmakesclearthatin
preemptioncases,firstacourtmustdetermineifamatterisoneoflocal,state,ormixed
concern.Thislegalconclusionismadeafterconsideringthetotalityofthecircumstancesof
theparticularcase,includingbothfactsandpolicy.Ifthematterisdeemedtobeof“local
concern,”thenthelocallawisnotpreemptedandthematterendsthere.Ifinsteadthe
matterisdeterminedtobeofmixedorstatewideconcern,thenthecourtwilllookto
whetherthereisaconflictbetweenthelocallawandstatelaw.
COGA’sResponseskipstheentirefirstpartoftheanalysis,andinsteadjumps
directlytothetestforwhetheraconflictexists.However,inthesamecasereliedonby
COGA,theSupremeCourtstatedthatitwasrequiredto“weightherelativeinterestsofthe
stateandthemunicipalityinregulatingtheparticularissueinthecase.”Webbv.Cityof
Blackhawk,295P.3d480,486(Colo.2013).Inweighingthisinterest,thecourtisrequired
“toconsiderthetotalityofthecircumstances,”tomakealegalconclusion“involving
considerationsofbothfactandpolicy,”andtomakeitsdetermination“onacase‐by‐case
basis.”Id.at486‐87.Inthiscase,therefore,thethresholdissueinvolvesaweighingofthe
stateandlocalinterests.Thatdeterminationnecessarilyinvolvesconsiderationofthelocal
impactsoffrackingonhealth,safety,andpropertyvalues,onwhichtheMeasure
10
Proponentsintendtopresentevidence.Thedeterminationalsoinvolvesquestionsabout
theneedforuniformityandtheextraterritorialimpactsofafrackingmoratorium,which
haschangeddramaticallysincetheearly1990sduetothedevelopmentofhorizontal
drilling.
ThecasesCOGAreliesontoassertthatthecaseathandcanberesolvedasa“matter
oflaw”withlittleornofacts,muchlessanevidentiaryhearing,donotreflectthecurrent
applicablelaw.Thereisno“fieldpreemption”ofstatelawoverlocalregulationofoiland
gas.Bd.ofCnty.Comm’rs,LaPlataCnty.v.Bowen/EdwardsAssoc.,Inc.,830P.2d1045,1057‐
1058(Colo.1992);Vossv.LundvallBros.,Inc.,830P.2d1061,1066(Colo.1992).The
validityofalocalland‐useregulationisaquestionofoperationalconflictpreemption;such
aconflictariseswhere“theeffectuationofalocalinterestwouldmateriallyimpedeor
destroythestateinterest.”Bowen/Edwards,830P.2dat1059.Thatdetermination“mustbe
resolvedonanad‐hocbasisunderafullydevelopedevidentiaryrecord.”Id.at1060.
SincetheColoradoSupremeCourtdecidedVossandBowen/Edwardsin1992,the
ColoradoLegislaturehaspassednumerousamendmentstotheColoradoOilandGas
ConservationAct(“COGCA”)explicitlyfavoringlocalcontrolandunderscoringtheneedfor
greaterhealthandsafetyprotections.1994Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.317,§1.In1996,further
amendmentsaddedlanguageemphasizingthepoweroflocalgovernmentstorequireand
ensurecompliancewithland‐usepermitconditions.1996Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.88,§1.The
COGCAwasamendedagainin2007,enlargingthelocalgovernmentauthority‐savings
provision:“nothinginthisactshallestablish,alter,impair,ornegatetheauthorityoflocal
governmentstoregulatelanduserelatedtooilandgasoperations.”2007Colo.Sess.Laws,
ch.320,§1.The2007amendmentsfurtherchangedthepublicinterestfromencouraging
andpromotingdevelopmenttofostering“responsible,balanceddevelopment.”Theyalso
11
eliminatedthedirectivetoprohibitwastefromtheColoradoOilandGasConservation
Commission’smissionstatementandreplaceditwithadirectiveto“prevent”waste,
“consistentwiththeprotectionofpublichealth,safety,andwelfare,includingprotectionof
theenvironmentandwildliferesources.”2007Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.320,§§2and3.The
considerationscitedintheCOGCAraiseissuesoffactthatshouldbedevelopedonafull
evidentiaryrecordandprecludethehastysummaryjudgmentsoughtbyCOGAhere.
EvenifCOGAcanprovethatthiscaseinvolvesamatterofmixedorstatewide
concern,factsarestillneededtodecideifthereisaconflict.Thiscaseisnotassimpleasthe
Webbcase,wherethelocalordinanceprohibitedsomethingthatthelegislaturehad
explicitlyauthorized.InWebb,thestatelegislaturehadenactedastatuterequiringcitiesto
provideanalternatebikepathiftheywantedtoprohibitbiketrafficonroadways.See
Webb,295P.3dat483(citingC.R.S.§42‐4‐109whichrequiredmunicipalitiesto
accommodatebicycletraffic).Incontrast,theCOGCAdoesnotexplicitlyrequirelocal
governmentstoallowfrackingwithintheircommunities,norisfrackingevenmentioned.
Further,theColoradoOilandGasConservationCommissiondoesnotactuallyregulate
fracking—itsimplyrequiresnoticebeprovidedbeforefrackingoccursanddisclosureof
frackingchemicalsinanonlineregistry.TheCommissiondoesnotissueapermittofrack.It
doesnotputanylimitsonwhenorwherefrackingmayoccur.Itdoesnotplaceanylimits
onwhatchemicalsmaybeusedinfrackingfluids.Instead,thedecisionofwhether,when,
where,andhowtofrackisentirelyuptoindustry.Allofthesefactswillbeestablished
throughdiscoveryinthiscasewhenMeasureProponentsareallowedtointervene.
COGAalsomisleadsinarguingthatthemoratoriumpassedbythecitizensofFort
Collins(overtheobjectionofCityCouncil)isan“outrightban.”Amoratoriumisnotaban.
SeeTahoe‐SierraandDroste,supra.Furthermore,thefactsinthiscasewillshowthateven
12
abanonfrackingisnotabanonalloilandgasdevelopment.Alternativestofrackingexist
thatcanbeandsometimesareusedinColoradotoextractoilandgaswithoutcausingas
muchharmindenseurbancommunities.
AlthoughCOGAandtheCitymightprefertohavethisCourtresolvetheissue
withoutthefacts,MeasureProponentsinsistthatthosefactsareneededinorderforafair
decisionandanadequateandvigorousdefenseofthiscase.Thepartiescannotsimply
makeupfactsfortheirconveniencetosupporttheirdesiredoutcome,andtheCourtcannot
assumesuchfacts.TheCity’sfailuretopresstheseissuesonlystrengthenstheargument
thatitdoesnotadequatelyrepresentMeasureProponents’interest.
CONCLUSION
Forthereasonssetforthabove,MeasureProponentsrespectfullyrequestthisCourt
toenterastayofthelitigationpendingtheresolutionofMeasureProponents’appeal.
Respectfullysubmittedthis21stdayofMay,2014.
/sKevinLynch____________________________
KevinLynch
CounselforIntervenors:CitizensforaHealthy
FortCollins,SierraClub,andEarthworks
ThisdocumentwasfiledelectronicallypursuanttoC.R.C.P.121§1‐26.Theoriginalsigned
documentisonfilewiththeUniversityofDenverEnvironmentalLawClinic.
13
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
Iherebycertifythatonthis21stdayofMay,2014,atrueandcorrectcopyofthe
aboveandforegoingMEASUREPROPONENTS’REPLYINSUPPORTOFMOTIONTO
STAYPROCEEDINGSwasservedviatheIntegratedColoradoCourtsE‐FilingSystem
(ICCES),on:
MarkJ.Matthews
JohnV.McDermott
WayneF.Forman
MichaelD.Hoke
BrownsteinHyattFarberSchreck,LLP
410SeventeenthStreet,Suite2200
Denver,CO80202
AttorneysforthePlaintiff,ColoradoOilandGasAssociation
StephenJ.Roy
FortCollinsCityAttorney
CityHallWest
300LaPorteAvenue
P.O.Box580
FortCollins,CO80521
BarbaraJ.B.Green
JohnT.Sullivan
SullivanGreenSeavyLLC
3223ArapahoeAvenue,Suite300
Boulder,CO80303
AttorneysfortheDefendant,CityofFortCollins
_/s/KevinLynch________________________________
KevinLynch,AttorneyforMeasureProponents
ThisdocumentwasfiledelectronicallypursuanttoC.R.C.P.121§1‐26.Theoriginalsigned
documentisonfilewiththeUniversityofDenverEnvironmentalLawClinic.
14