COURTOFAPPEALS,STATEOFCOLORADO
2East14thAvenue
Denver,CO80203
DistrictCourt,LarimerCounty,Colorado
TheHonorableGregoryM.Lammons
201LaPorteAvenue,Suite100
FortCollins,Colorado80521
CaseNumber:2013CV31385
Appellant:CITYOFFORTCOLLINS,COLORADO
v.
Appellee:COLORADOOIL&GASASSOCIATION
AttorneysforCitizensforaHealthyFortCollins,
SierraClub,andEarthworks(“Measure
Proponents”)
Name:
KevinLynch(Atty.Reg.#39873)
BradBartlett(Atty.Reg.#32816)
ChristopherBrummitt
LaRonaMondt
NicholasRising
(StudentAttorneys)
Address:2255E.EvansAvenue,Suite335
Denver,CO80208
Phone:303.871.6140
FAX:303.871.6847
E‐mail:[email protected]
DATE FILED: February 6, 2015 7:34 PM
FILING ID: 2EC843461E00B
CASE NUMBER: 2014CA1991
▲COURTUSEONLY▲
CaseNumber:
2014CA1991
BRIEFOFCITIZENSFORAHEALTHYFORTCOLLINS,SIERRACLUB,AND
EARTHWORKSASAMICUSCURIAEINSUPPORTOFTHEAPPELLANTCITY
OFFORTCOLLINS
CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE
IherebycertifythatthisbriefcomplieswithallrequirementsofC.A.R.28and
C.A.R. 32, including all formatting requirements set forth in these rules.
Specifically,theundersignedcertifiesthat:
ThebriefcomplieswithC.A.R.28(g).
Chooseone:
Itcontains9,474words.
Itdoesnotexceed30pages.
ThebriefcomplieswithC.A.R.28(k).
Forthepartyraisingtheissue:
It contains under a separate heading (1) a concise statement of the
applicablestandardofappellatereviewwithcitationtoauthority;and(2)
acitationtothepreciselocationintherecord(R.
,p. ), not to an
entiredocument,wheretheissuewasraisedandruledon.
Forthepartyrespondingtotheissue:
Itcontains,underaseparateheading,astatementofwhethersuchparty
agreeswiththeopponent’sstatementsconcerningthestandardofreview
andpreservationforappeal,andifnot,whynot.
Iacknowledgethatmybriefmaybestrickenifitfailstocomplywithanyof
therequirementsofC.A.R.28andC.A.R.32.
/s/KevinJ.Lynch
KevinJ.Lynch
ii
TABLEOFCONTENTS
STATEMENTOFTHEISSUES...................................................................................................1 STATEMENTOFTHECASE.......................................................................................................2 I.NATUREOFTHECASE........................................................................................................2 II.COURSEOFPROCEEDINGS..............................................................................................4 III.DISPOSITIONOFTHEDISTRICTCOURT..................................................................6 IV.STATEMENTOFTHEFACTS.........................................................................................6 STANDARDOFREVIEW...........................................................................................................10 LEGALBACKGROUND...............................................................................................................11 SUMMARYOFTHEARGUMENT...........................................................................................12 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................14 I.THEMORATORIUMISNOTATOTALBANANDTHEREFOREISNOT
PREEMPTED.............................................................................................................................14 A. AMoratoriumonOneCompletionMethodIsNottheSameasa
PermanentBanonAllOilandGasProduction......................................................14 i. TheMoratoriumConcernsOnlyFracking,NotAllOilandGas
Development........................................................................................................................15 ii. Moratoria,WhichAreTemporaryInEffect,AreTraditionallyAccepted
LandUseTechniques........................................................................................................16 B.TheMoratoriumWasanIntentional,GoodFaithEfforttoProtect
Citizens’Health,Safety,andWelfare.........................................................................19 C.TheDistrictCourtIgnoredtheLanguageinVossLimitingItsDecisionto
CompleteBansonAllOilandGasActivity..............................................................20 iii
II.THELOCALINTERESTINALLOWINGSUFFICIENTTIMETODEVELOP
FRACKINGREGULATIONSOUTWEIGHSANYSTATEINTERESTIN
FRACKINGIMMEDIATELYOCCURINGINFORTCOLLINS...................................21 A.TheDistrictCourtFailedtoWeightheStateInterestAgainsttheLocal
IntereststoDetermineiftheMatterWasofLocal,Mixed,orState
Concern…...............................................................................................................................22 B.ThereAreInsufficientFactstoDetermineThatTheMoratoriumon
FrackingIsNotaMatterofLocalConcern..............................................................24 i.TheDistrictCourtFailedtoConsiderEvidenceoftheStateInterest.......25 ii.TheDistrictCourtFailedtoConsidertheLocalInterestintheFracking
Moratorium...........................................................................................................................27 C.TheMoratoriumProtectsCitizens’InalienableRights.................................29 III.THEMORATORIUM’SOPERATIONALEFFECTDOESNOTCONFLICT
WITHTHEACT........................................................................................................................32 A.TheCourtMustDetermineiftheLocalRegulationMateriallyImpedesor
DestroystheStateInterest.............................................................................................32 i.Bowen/EdwardsSettheStandardforOperationalConflictAnalysis.......32 ii.TheMoratoriumImposesNoTechnicalConditionsonFracking.............36 iii.COGAHasFailedtoProveOperationalConflictBeyondaReasonable
Doubt.......................................................................................................................................36 B. TheStateInterestIncludestheProtectionofPublicHealth,Safety,and
Welfare...................................................................................................................................38 C.ExaminingtheCorrectStateInterest,ThereIsNoOperationalConflict
BecausetheMoratoriumandtheActCanBeHarmonized..............................40 iv
IV.IMPLIEDPREEMPTIONCANNOTBEFOUNDBECAUSETHEIRISNO
EVIDENCEOFALEGISLATIVEINTENTTOOCCUPYTHEENTIREFIELD.....44 A.TheColoradoSupremeCourtHasConsistentlyHeldthattheActDoes
NotImpliedlyPreemptLocalRegulationofOilandGas...................................45 B.SubsequentLegislativeEnactmentsMakeItCleartheStateDoesNot
OccupytheFieldofOilandGas,ThustheMoratoriumIsNotImpliedly
PreemptedbytheAct.......................................................................................................47 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................48 v
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES
Cases Bd.ofCnty.Comm’rsofLaPlataCnty.v.Colo.Oil&GasConservationComm’n,
81P.3d1119(Colo.App.2003).......................................................................................33
Bd.ofCnty.Comm'rsofGunnisonCnty.v.BDSInt'l,159P.3d773(Colo.2006)34
Bd.ofCnty.Comm'rsofLaPlataCnty.v.Bowen/EdwardsAssocs.,Inc.,830P.2d
1045(Colo.1992)............................................................................................12,21,32,45
City&Cnty.ofDenverv.State,788P.2d764(Colo.1990)...............................passim
CityofCommerceCityv.State,40P.3d1273(Colo.2002)................................11,22
CityofNorthglennv.Ibarra,62P.3d151(Colo.2003)..............................................22
ColoradoMin.Ass'nv.BoardofCountyCom'rsofSummitCnty.,199P.3d718
(Colo.2009).......................................................................................................................34,37
CungLav.StateFarmAuto.Ins.Co.,830P.2d1007(Colo.1992).........................10
Deightonv.CityCouncil,902P.2d426(Colo.App.1994).........................................16
Drostev.Bd.ofCnty.Comm’rsofPitkinCnty.,159P.3d601(Colo.2007)..11,16,
33
IndependenceInst.v.Coffman,209P.3d1130(Colo.Ct.App.2008)...................37
KaiserFound.HealthPlanofColoradov.Sharp,741P.2d714(Colo.1987).....10
vi
Mt.EmmonsMiningCo.v.TownofCrestedButte,690P.2d231(Colo.1984).11,
38
Peoplev.Vasquez,84P.3d1019(Colo.2004)................................................................37
RobinsonTwp.,WashingtonCnty.v.Commonwealth,83A.3d901(Pa.2013).31
RockyMt.Festivals,Inc.v.ParsonsCorp.,242P.3d1067(Colo.2010)................10
Sangerv.Dennis,148P.3d404(Colo.App.2006).......................................................37
Tahoe‐SierraPreservationCouncil,Inc.v.TahoeReg’lPlanningAgency,535U.S.
302(2002).........................................................................................................................18,19
TownofFrederickv.NorthAmericanResourcesCo.,60P.3d758(Colo.App.
2002).............................................................................................................................17,46,47
Vossv.LundvallBros.Inc.,830P.2d1061(Colo.1992)....................................passim
Webbv.CityofBlackhawk,295P.3d480(Colo.2013)................................12,21,34
Statutes LandUseAct,C.R.S.§§29‐20‐101to107(2014)........................................................19
OilandGasConservationAct,C.R.S.§§34‐60‐101to130(2014)..............passim
OtherAuthorities 1994Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.317,§1.....................................................................................45
1996Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.88,§1........................................................................................45
vii
2007Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.320,§1.....................................................................................46
2007Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.320,§2.....................................................................................46
2007Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.320,§3.....................................................................................46
COLO.CONST.art.II,§3..............................................................................................................34
COLO.CONST.art.XX,§6............................................................................................................42
FORTCOLLINS,COLO.,PublicHealth,SafetyandWellnessAct(2013)............passim
Garvin&Leitner,DraftingInterimDevelopmentOrdinances:CreatingTimeto
Plan,48LandUseLaw&ZoningDigest(June1996).............................................21
TheDictionaryfortheOilandGasIndustry(Univ.ofTexasExt.,1sted.2005)7
viii
CitizensforaHealthyFortCollins,SierraClub,andEarthworks
(collectively“MeasureProponents”)respectfullysubmitthisbriefasamicus
curiaeinsupportoftheAppellant,theCityofFortCollins(“theCity”),request
reversalofthelowercourtdecisiongrantingsummaryjudgmentinfavorof
theAppellee,theColoradoOilandGasAssociation(“COGA”).
STATEMENTOFTHEISSUES
1. ThedistrictcourterredinconflatingBallotMeasure2A,theFortCollins
PublicHealth,SafetyandWellnessAct(“theMoratorium”),witha
completebanonalloilandgasactivitiesinFortCollinsandfindingit
preemptedonthatbasis.
2. Thedistrictcourterredindetermininghydraulicfracturing(“fracking”)
inFortCollinswasanareaofmixedstateandlocalconcern,whenCOGA
failedtopresentenoughevidencetomakesuchadetermination
possible.
3. Thedistrictcourterredbyfailingtoapplythecorrectstandardfor
operationalconflictpreemption:whetherthelocallawmaterially
impedesordestroysthestateinterest.
1
4. ThedistrictcourterredwhenitfoundtheMoratoriumtobeimpliedly
preemptedbytheColoradoOilandGasConservationAct,C.R.S.§34‐60‐
101etseq.(2014)(“theAct”),ignoringlegislativeenactmentsandcase
lawmakingcleartheStatedoesnotintendtooccupythefieldofoiland
gasproduction.
STATEMENTOFTHECASE
I.NATUREOFTHECASE
Oilandgasproductionis,bynature,aboomandbustindustry.
ThroughouttherecentboominColorado,whichhasbeendrivenbyanew
techniquecommonlyreferredtoas“fracking,”industrialscaleoilandgas
operationshaveencroachedheavilyonresidential,urban,andsuburban
areas.Asaresult,andlikeneverbefore,largepopulationsofColoradoans
havebeencompelledtodealwiththeimmediateandseeminglyirreparable
impactsassociatedwithadramaticincreaseinindustrialtraffic,pollution,and
safetyrisks.Further,citizensareincreasinglyconcernedaboutotherharms
associatedwithfrackingincludingimpactstohealth,safety,and
2
welfare,aswellasasubstantialdecreaseinpropertyvaluesandtheir
standardofliving.Unabletokeepupwiththeboomcycleandhamstrung
withconflictingdirectives,stategovernmenthassimplyfailedtoprotect
communitiesfromtheseindustrialprocesses.Inresponse,thecitizensofFort
Collinshaveturnedtolocaldemocraticprocessestoaddressandmitigate
theirlegitimateconcerns.
CitizensforaHealthyFortCollins,thelocalgroupthatformedto
advocateforgreaterprotectionsfromfracking,initiatedaballotmeasure
callingforatemporarytime‐outonfrackinginhopesofmaintainingthestatus
quowhilemuchneededstudiesarecompletedaddressingboththeknown
andperceivedharmsfrackingposestothehealthandenvironment.
R.CF,p.120.Oncethesestudiesarecompleted,theCitywillbeabletodevelop
andimplementlocalregulationsnecessarytoprotectthehealth,safety,and
welfareofitsresidents.InNovember2013,thecitizensofFortCollins
approvedtheMoratoriumbypopularvotedemonstratingacity‐wideconcern
overtheseissues.R.CF,p.182.
3
UnhappywiththelawfulassertionbyFortCollinsresidentsoftheir
righttoprotecttheircommunity,COGAchallengedFortCollins’Moratorium,
alongwiththreeothersimilarcitizen‐initiatedactionslikeitinLongmont,
BroomfieldandLafayette.ThisCourtmustnowdecidewhetherthecitizensof
FortCollinshavetherighttoinsistonacautiousanddeliberateapproachto
oilandgasdevelopmentwithintheircommunity,orwhetherindustrymustbe
allowedtorushaheadwithindustrialdevelopment,regardlessoftheimpacts.
II.COURSEOFPROCEEDINGS
OnDecember3,2013COGAbroughtsuitagainsttheCityintheLarimer
CountydistrictcourtseekingadeclaratoryjudgmentthattheMoratoriumwas
preemptedbytheActandapermanentinjunctioninvalidatingthe
Moratorium.R.CF,pp.3‐9.COGAandtheCityfiledcross‐motionsforsummary
judgment.R.CF,pp.108‐09;267‐68.Ultimately,thedistrictcourtgranted
summaryjudgmentinfavorofCOGA,withoutconductinganyevidentiary
proceedings(includingdiscovery)oratrial.R.CF,p.503.
4
MeasureProponentsmovedtointerveneonbehalfoftheCityon
February13,2014,beforeeitherpartyhadmovedforsummaryjudgment.
R.CF,pp.38‐48.ThemotionwasdeniedonMarch27,2014.R.CF,pp.212‐13.
MeasureProponentsappealedthedenialofintervention.R.CF,p.202‐07.The
interventionappealisstillongoinginthiscourtatcasenumber2014CA780.
Judgeshavebeenassignedandanopinionispending.COGAhas
acknowledgedthatifMeasureProponentsaregrantedintervention,“thecase
wouldberemandedtothedistrictcourtforfurtherproceedings,inwhich
[MeasureProponents],COGA,andtheCitywouldallparticipate.”COGA
ResponsetoMotiontoIntervene,CaseNo.2014CA1991filedDecember5,
2014.MeasureProponentshavefiledthisamicusbriefinordertoensurethat
thevoiceofthecitizenswhoinitiatedandpassedtheMoratoriumwouldbe
heardinthisimportantappeal.
//
//
//
//
5
III.DISPOSITIONOFTHEDISTRICTCOURT
OnAugust7,2014,thedistrictcourtgrantedCOGA’smotionfor
summaryjudgmentfordeclaratoryreliefonthebasisthattheMoratoriumis
preemptedbytheActand,insodoing,deniedtheCityofFortCollins’cross‐
motionforsummaryjudgment.R.CF,pp.495‐503.Thisdecisionwas
determinedtobeafinal,appealableorder.R.CF,p.595.
IV.STATEMENTOFTHEFACTS
Frackingisawellcompletiontechniqueusedafterdrillingawell,and
beforeoilandgasflowsupthewellforproduction.R.CF,pp.159,180.Fracking
isnotrequiredtocompleteawell,butratherisonewaytoprepareawellfor
production.Addendum371(TheDictionaryfortheOilandGasIndustry
(Univ.ofTexasExt.,1sted.2005)).COGAneverpresentedevidencethat
frackingwastheonlycompletionmethodavailableinFortCollins.
Frackingisanindustrialprocess.R.CF,p.244,292.Thepotentialharms
associatedwithfrackinginclude:




Increasedhealthrisks,R.CF,p.64;
Decreasedpropertyvalues,R.CF,p.51;
Damagetotheenvironment,R.CF,p.51;and
Increasedsafetyhazardsandnuisances,R.CF,p.160.
6
Additionally,frackingcreatesplanningandzoningissuesbecauseofthe
potentialimpactstoadjacentproperties.R.CF,p.244.
COGApresentedverylittleevidenceuponwhichthedistrictcourtcould
decidethepreemptionissue,onlylistingfivefactsasundisputed.R.CF.,p.180‐
83.Afterprovidingabriefdescriptionoffracking,COGAassertedthat
frackinghadbeenusedonmanywellsinColorado.Id.COGAfurther
describedtheprocessthroughwhichthecitizensofFortCollinsadoptedthe
Moratorium,overtheobjectionsoftheCityCouncil.Id.COGAdidnotpresent
anyevidencedemonstratingwhatthestateinterestisinthecase.Nordid
COGApresentanyevidenceregardingthelocalinterest.COGAdidnotpresent
anyevidencethatitoroneofitsmembershadappliedforapermittodrillin
FortCollinsorhadanyconcreteplanstoconductfrackingoperationsduring
theperiodoftheMoratorium.R.CF,p.245.
TheCitydidintroduceevidenceonseveralkeyfactualissues.TheCity
authorizedretentionofaconsultanttoidentifywhatfurtherstudiesare
necessarytodeterminetheimpactsoffrackingonpropertyvaluesandhuman
health.R.CF.,pp.243‐44.TheCitysubmittedalistofon‐goingstudies
regardingfracking’simpacts.R.CF.,pp.244,296‐97.TheCityintroduced
evidenceregardinglocalzoningandplanningissuesthatneedtobeaddressed
7
inthefutureregardingoilandgasdevelopment.R.CF.,pp.245‐46.TheCity
introducedevidencethatnoentityhasinformedtheCityofplanstouse
frackingwithintheCitylimits.R.CF.,p.246.Finally,theCityintroduced
evidenceregardingtheuniquequalityoflifethatisprovidedinFortCollinsas
aresultofcarefulplanninganddevelopment.R.CF.,pp.246‐47.
Thefollowingfactualissuesarerelevanttotheissuespresentedinthis
case,yetthedistrictcourtfailedtoreceiveevidenceonanyofthem:1
1. HowmuchoilandgascouldbeproducedinFortCollins,comparedto
statewideproduction?
2. Isthereanyurgentneedforoilandgastobeproducedusingfracking
withinFortCollins,particularlywithinthenextfiveyears?
3. WhatistheexpectedcostofproductioninFortCollinsusingfracking,
whatpriceforoilandgaswouldberequiredtosupportthatproduction,
andcanoilandgasbeprofitablyproducedinFortCollinsduringthe
periodoftheMoratorium?
1MeasureProponentshaveattachedasampleofevidencepresentedina
similarcaseastheaddendumtothiscase,inorderthatthisCourtmay
understandthetypesofevidencethatwasprecludedbytherushtosummary
judgmentinthiscase,particularlyevidenceregardingthelocalimpactsto
frackingandalternativestofracking.
8
4. WhatalternativemethodsmightbeusedinFortCollinsinorderto
enableproductionofoilandgaswithoutusingfrackingtocompletethe
wells?Addendum159‐78.
5. Whathaveotherjurisdictionsdonetoregulatefracking?Howlonghave
otherjurisdictions,suchasNewYork,spentconsideringwhether
frackingcanbedonesafely?Addendum192‐93.[NewYorkState
DepartmentofHealthCompletesReviewofHigh‐volumeHydraulic
Fracturing,http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/100055.html,ForRelease:
Wednesday,December17,2014.]
6. HowhastheoilandgasindustrychangedsincetheColoradoSupreme
Courtlastconsideredpreemptionintheoilandgascontext?Doesthe
industrystillrequireevenspacingofwellstoaccessapooledresource,
orhasthedevelopmentofhorizontaldrilling,multiplewellpads,and
high‐volumefrackingmadesuchconsiderationsobsolete?
7. Whatdoexistingstudiesshowabouttheimpactsthatfrackinghason
health,safety,theenvironment,andpropertyvalues,eveniffurther
studyisneededtobetterunderstandthoseissues?Addendum181‐364.
9
8. IsProspectEnergyamemberofCOGA?2
STANDARDOFREVIEW
Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,themovingpartyhastheburdenof
establishingtheabsenceofdisputedmaterialfacts;anydoubtsastothe
existenceofsuchfactsmustberesolvedagainstthemovingparty.CungLav.
StateFarmAuto.Ins.Co.,830P.2d1007,1019(Colo.1992).Apartyagainst
whomsummaryjudgmentissoughtisentitledtothebenefitofallfavorable
inferencesthatmaybedrawnfromtheundisputedfacts.KaiserFound.Health
PlanofColoradov.Sharp,741P.2d714,718(Colo.1987).
Reviewofanordergrantingsummaryjudgmentisrevieweddenovo.
RockyMt.Festivals,Inc.v.ParsonsCorp.,242P.3d1067,1074(Colo.2010).The
issueofwhethertheMoratoriumisacompletebanonalloilandgas
developmentwasraisedatR.CF,p.247,andruledonatR.CF,p.501.Theissueof
whetherthismatterisoflocal,state,ormixedconcernwasraisedat
R.CF,p.262andruledonatR.CF,pp.500‐01.Theissueofwhetherthe
2COGAdidnotpresentanaffidavitfromitselforfromProspectEnergyto
provethatProspectisaCOGAmember,nordidCOGAassertthisasafactinits
StatementofUndisputedFacts.TheonlymentionofProspectbeingaCOGA
membercameinCOGA’sreplybriefwhenitsimplyassertedso,withoutany
evidence.R.CF,p.444.Thus,COGAhasnotprovenstanding.
10
Moratoriumoperationallyconflictswiththestateinterestwasraisedat
R.CF,p.260andruledonatR.CF,p.502.TheissueofwhethertheActimpliedly
preemptstheMoratoriumwasraisedatR.CF,p.254andruledonatR.CF,p.501.
LEGALBACKGROUND
Preemptionpresentsmixedquestionsoflawandfact.Mt.Emmons
MiningCo.v.TownofCrestedButte,690P.2d231,238‐39(Colo.1984).As
such,apreemptionquestionshouldbeanalyzedonacase‐by‐casebasis,
takingintoaccountthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.CityofCommerce
Cityv.State,40P.3d1273,1282(Colo.2002).
Moratoriaarevitallandusetoolsforlocalgovernments.Drostev.Board
ofCountyComm'rsoftheCnty.ofPitkin,159P.3d601,606(Colo.2007).
Indeed,Coloradocourtshaveupheldmoratoriaagainstapreemption
challenge.Id.
Tobeginapreemptionanalysis,thecourtmustfirstdetermineifthe
matterisoflocal,state,ormixedconcern.City&Cnty.ofDenverv.State,788
P.2d764,764(Colo.1990).Ifitisamatteroflocalconcern,alocalregulation
supersedesthestatestatute.Id.Ifthematterisofmixedconcern,thelocal
regulationisonlypreemptedif,inoperation,it“materiallyimpedesor
destroys”thestateinterest.Bd.ofCnty.Comm'rs,LaPlataCnty.v.
11
Bowen/EdwardsAssocs.,Inc.,830P.2d1045,1059(Colo.1992).This
determinationcanonlybemadeonafullydevelopedfactualrecord.Id.at
1060;Denverv.State,788P.2dat764,767‐68;Webbv.CityofBlackhawk,295
P.3d480,486(Colo.2013).
Impliedpreemptiononlyoccurswhenthereisademonstrated
“legislativeintenttocompletelyoccupyagivenfieldbyreasonofadominant
stateinterest.”Bowen/Edwards,830P.2dat1048.TheColoradoSupreme
Courthasrepeatedlyfoundnoimpliedpreemptioninoilandgascases.Id.;
Vossv.LundvallBros.Inc.,830P.2d1061,1068(Colo.1992).
SUMMARYOFTHEARGUMENT
Amoratoriumononecompletionprocess,fracking,isfundamentally
differentfromabanonalloilandgasdevelopment.Amoratoriumisa
temporarytime‐outratherthanapermanentban.TheMoratoriumwas
enactedtoevaluatetheeffectsoffrackingandgivetheCityanopportunityto
passanynecessaryregulationsprotectiveofhumanhealthandthe
environment.Furthermore,themoratoriumdoesnotprohibitalloilandgas
development,butratheronlyonecompletionprocess.Thedistrictcourt’s
relianceonVosstodeterminethattheMoratoriumispreemptedbytheAct
12
wasinappropriatebecauseVossexpresslyappliesonlytototalbansonalloil
andgasdevelopment.
Thelocalinterestsinallowingsufficienttimetostudytheissueand
developmeaningfulregulationsoutweighanystateinterestinensuring
frackingoccursimmediatelyinFortCollins.Here,thedistrictcourtfailedto
weighthestateinterestagainstthelocalinterestsindeterminingwhetherthe
matterwasoneofstate,local,ormixedconcern.COGAfailedtopresent,and
thecourtdidnotconsider,sufficientevidencetofullyassessthescopeofthe
stateandlocalinterestsinthismatter.Withoutthisevidence,thedistrict
courtwasunabletoweighthestateandlocalintereststodeterminewhich
shouldbegiveneffect,asrequiredbyColoradopreemptionprecedent.
Evenifthecourthadproperlydeterminedthatthecasepresenteda
mixedstate/localissue,theoperationaleffectoftheMoratoriumcanbe
harmonizedwiththeAct.Thepropertestforoperationalconflictiswhether
thelocalregulation“materiallyimpedesordestroys”thestateinterest.The
localregulationandthestateinterestmustbeharmonizedifpossible.When
thestateinterestisproperlyconstrued,asreflectedinrecentamendmentsto
theAct,tobebalancedproductionthatprotectshealth,safety,andwelfare,
13
thentheMoratoriumactuallysupportsthatinterest,ratherthanmaterially
impedingordestroyingit.
Finally,thereisnoimpliedpreemptioninthiscaseasthereisno
evidenceofalegislativeintenttooccupytheentirefieldofoilandgas.The
ColoradoSupremeCourthasconsistentlyhattheActdoesnotimpliedly
preempttheentirefieldofoilandgas.Thesubsequentlegislativeenactments
totheActmakeitcleartheStatedoesnotwhollyoccupythefieldofoiland
gas.
ARGUMENT
I.THEMORATORIUMISNOTATOTALBANANDTHEREFOREISNOT
PREEMPTED
TheMoratoriumisatemporarylandusetechniquedesignedto
maintainthestatusquountilconclusivestudiesaddressingthepotential
harmsofoneoilandgascompletiontechniquecanbecompleted.The
Moratoriumisfundamentallydifferentfromthepermanenttotalbanonalloil
andgasproductioninVoss.
A. AMoratoriumonOneCompletionMethodIsNottheSameasa
PermanentBanonAllOilandGasProduction.
TheMoratoriuminvolvesonlyonecompletionmethod,andisa
temporary,traditionallandusetechnique.First,theMoratoriumprohibits
14
fracking—asinglemethodofcompletion.Second,moratoriaareavalid
exerciseofalocalgovernment’slanduseauthority,usedtopreservethe
statusquowhiledevelopingappropriateregulationstoaddressemerging
issues.
i.
TheMoratoriumConcernsOnlyFracking,NotAllOilandGas
Development
Frackingisnottheonlywaythatoilandgascanberecovered.The
districtcourtconflatedtheMoratoriumwithabanonalloilandgasactivities
withoutconsideringevidencedifferentiatingthetwo.
ThedistrictcourtandCOGAtreattheMoratoriumasabanonalloil
andgasproductionbecauseitallegedly“impedesthestate’sinterestinoiland
gasdevelopmentandproduction.”R.CF,p.501.Thisconclusionisbasedonthe
erroneousassumptionthatfrackingisnecessarytoproduceoilandgas.The
districtcourtfoundthattheMoratorium“effectivelyeliminatesthepossibility
ofoilandgasdevelopment”becausefracking“isusedin‘virtuallyalloiland
gaswells’inColorado.”Id.Bythedistrictcourt’slogic,atatimewhenmost
lightingusedincandescentlightbulbs,abanonsuchbulbswouldbeadefacto
banonalllighting,evenifalternativeslightbulbsexisted.
15
Ifthedistrictcourthadconductedanevidentiaryhearing,Measure
Proponentswouldhavepresentedevidenceofalternativemethodstotakethe
placeoffracking.Addendum175‐177,183‐91.
ii.
Moratoria,WhichAreTemporaryInEffect,AreTraditionally
AcceptedLandUseTechniques
Thedistrictcourtfurthererredbyconflatingatemporarymoratorium
withapermanentban.Thisfalseequivalencyledthedistrictcourttoignore
Coloradoandfederalcaselawrecognizingthedistinctionbetweena
permanentbanandamoratorium.
Moratoriaareavalidexerciseofalocalgovernment’slanduse
authority,providingatemporarytimeouttodiscoverallrelevantfactsand
concerns.Coloradocourtsrecognizethedifferencebetweenamoratorium
andaban.Namely,amoratoriumisnotpermanent,buta“suspensionof
activity;atemporarybanontheuseorproductionofsomething.”Deightonv.
CityCouncil,902P.2d426,427(Colo.App.1994).Forexample,amoratorium
of10monthsondevelopmentbasedontheLandUseAct,C.R.S.§§29‐20‐101
to107,wasupheldasavaliduseofthecounties’authorityinDroste.Droste,
159P.3dat606.Drosteheldthatthecountyhadtheauthoritytoadoptan
ordinancepreventingthecountyfromprocessinglanduseapplications
16
pendingadoptionofamasterplan.TheMoratoriumisanalogousbecausethe
Cityhastheauthoritytoregulateoilandgasoperationsinthecity.
Bowen/Edwards,830P.2dat1059‐60.Further,ittookthestateofNewYork
sixyearstoexaminetheenvironmentalimpactsoffrackingbeforeultimately
decidingtobanthepractice,eventhoughtheevidencewasinconclusive.
Addendum192‐93.IfNewYorkneededsixyearstostudytheissueandstill
couldnotdeterminewhetherfrackingcouldbeconductedsafelyanywherein
thestate,thenitisreasonableforthecitizensofFortCollinstoadoptashorter
moratoriumtoawaitfurtherstudyandaddresstheissueintheircommunity.
TheColoradoLegislatureincludedastatementthatnothingintheAct
affectsexistinglanduseauthorityoflocalgovernmentalentities,andit
anticipatedthatlocalgovernmentscouldissuelandusepermitsthatincluded
conditionsaffectingoilandgasoperations.TownofFrederickv.North
AmericanResourcesCo.,60P.3d758,763(Colo.App.2002);C.R.S.§34‐60‐106
(2014).Entirepermittingprocesses,aswellasinjunctivereliefauthorizedby
ordinancethatprohibiteddrillingofoilandgaswellswithinmunicipallimits,
arenotpreemptedbecauseofoperationalconflictswiththeActalthoughthe
town'sprocessmaydelaydrilling.Frederick,60P.3dat766(emphasis
added).TheMoratoriumrepresentsthecitizens’votetotemporarilyholdthe
17
issuanceofsuchCitypermits,untiltheCitycandetermineifitneedstomodify
itsregulationsbasedontheresultsofongoingstudiesontheimpactstohealth
andpropertyfromthehighlycontroversialpracticeoffracking.
Thepurposeofamoratorium,unlikeaban,istoprovidetimetoallow
theplanningandimplementationprocess,includingcitizeninput,public
debateandconsiderationofallissuesandpointsofview.Garvin&Leitner,
DraftingInterimDevelopmentOrdinances:CreatingTimetoPlan,48LandUse
Law&ZoningDigest3(June1996).Thefundamentalpurposeofa
moratoriumandabanaredifferent.Amoratoriumallowsthecurrentstatus
tobepreserved,placingnopartyorinterestatadisadvantagewhile
evaluatingalltheissuesandfacts.Conversely,abanpermanentlyprohibitsan
activity,withnofurtherconsiderationofanyfactsorissues.
TheU.S.SupremeCourthasalsorecognizedthatmoratoriaarenot
completebans,e.g.theyarenotnecessarilythecompletelossofeconomic
valuethatwouldworka“taking.”Tahoe‐SierraPreservationCouncil,Inc.v.
TahoeReg’lPlanningAgency,535U.S.302,337‐38(2002).Tahoe‐Sierraheld
thata32‐monthmoratoriumonalldevelopmentpendingdevelopmentofa
regionalplanwasnotatakingperse.Id.at341‐43.TheCourtexplainedthat
“moratoria…arewidelyusedamongland‐useplannerstopreservethestatus
18
quowhileformulatingamorepermanentdevelopmentstrategy.”Id.at337.
Treatingamoratoriumastheequivalentofabanwouldignorekeyissues
suchas“thegoodfaithoftheplanners,thereasonableexpectationsof
landowners,ortheactualimpactofthemoratoriumonpropertyvalues.”Id.at
338.Thesamereasoningappliestothiscaseinthepreemptioncontext.A
moratoriumshouldnotbepreemptedwhereitisbasedonagoodfaitheffort
bytheCityanditscitizenstoaddressacontroversialissueencroachingon
theircommunity,particularlywherethemoratoriumhasnotbeenshownto
haveanyconcreteeffectsonthestateinterest.
B.TheMoratoriumWasanIntentional,GoodFaithEfforttoProtect
Citizens’Health,Safety,andWelfare.
ThecitizensofFortCollinschosetoputthisMoratoriuminplaceto
allowtheCitytoevaluatetheeffectsoffrackingontheirhealth,safety,
welfare,andproperty.Infact,thestatedpurposeoftheMoratoriumwasto
“protectproperty,propertyvalues,publichealth,safetyandwelfare[by
allowingtime]tostudytheimpactsoftheprocessonthecitizensoftheCityof
FortCollins.”R.CF,p.340.
TheCitypresentedevidenceofstudiesbytheNationalScience
Foundation,theEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,andtheColorado
19
DepartmentofPublicHealthandEnvironmentontheeffectsoffracking,
whichwillbeavailablebetween2016and2019.R.CF,p.296;R.CF,p.63.
Becausetheagencieshavenotyetcompletedthesestudies,thelong‐term
effectsoffrackingareuncertain.ThedrafterofBallotMeasure2Aexplained
thatCitizensforaHealthyFortCollinsreliedonthesestudiesinchoosingthe
lengthof5yearsfortheMoratorium.R.CF,p.63.Thecitizens’intentwasnotto
banoilandgasproductionwithintheCity,nortoprohibitfracking
indefinitely.Instead,theMoratoriumpreservesthestatusquowhilestudies
areconductedandanalyzed,andallowstheCitytimetodeterminehowto
regulateanindustrialactivity.
C.TheDistrictCourtIgnoredtheLanguageinVossLimitingIts
DecisiontoCompleteBansonAllOilandGasActivity.
TheapplicationofVosstothiscaseiserrorbecausethedifference
betweenthescopeoftheMoratoriumandthetotalbaninVossissignificant.
TheColoradoSupremeCourtlimiteditsdecisioninVosstoaconsiderationof
atotalbanbecausethatcaseinvolvedanordinancethatprohibitedany
drillingforoilandgaswithinthecitylimits.Voss,830P.2dat1062.Voss
expresslyrestrictedthescopeofthedecisionto“whetherGreeley’stotalban
waspreempted.”Id.at1063n.2.TheVosscourtnotedthatitdidnotconsider
20
anamendmenttothemunicipalcodelimitingthebantoindustrialzones
becausethepartiesdidnotraisetheissue,norwastheissuedecidedattrial.
Id.Thecourtwentontonotethatanydeterminationoftheeffectofaless‐
than‐totalbanwould“require[]anadequatelydevelopedfactualrecord.”Id.
BecausetheMoratoriumisnotabanonalloilandgasdevelopment,thisCourt
mustconsidertheuniquefactsandcircumstancessurroundingthiscase.
Bowen/Edwards,830P.2dat1059‐60;Denverv.State,788P.2dat767‐68;
Webb,295P.3dat486.
II.THELOCALINTERESTINALLOWINGSUFFICIENTTIMETODEVELOP
FRACKINGREGULATIONSOUTWEIGHSANYSTATEINTERESTIN
FRACKINGIMMEDIATELYOCCURINGINFORTCOLLINS.
Thedistrictcourtmadethreecriticalerrorsindecidingwhetherthis
casepresentsamatterofstate,mixed,orlocalconcern.First,thecourtfailed
toweighthestateinterestagainstthelocalinterest,insteadfocusingonlyon
thestateinterest.Second,thecourtdidnotconsidersufficientevidenceto
determinewhatthestateandlocalinterestswereinthiscase,becauseCOGA
failedtointroduceit.Finally,thedistrictcourtfailedtoconsiderwhetherthe
citizens’constitutionalinalienablerightstoprotecttheirhealth,safety,and
welfaremeanthatstatelawcannotpreemptamoratoriumdesignedto
protectthoseinterests.
21
A.TheDistrictCourtFailedtoWeightheStateInterestAgainstthe
LocalIntereststoDetermineiftheMatterWasofLocal,Mixed,or
StateConcern.
Apreemptionanalysisbeginswithdeterminingwhetherthematteris
oneoflocal,mixed,orstateconcern.Denverv.State,788P.2dat767.Ifthe
matterisoneoflocalconcern,then“thehomeruleprovisionsupersedesthe
conflictingstateprovision.”Id.InDenverv.State,thecourtspecificallynoted
thatithas“notdevelopedaparticulartestwhichcouldresolveineverycase
theissueofwhetheraparticularmatteris‘local,’‘state,’or‘mixed.’”Id.
Instead,acourtmakes“thesedeterminationsonanadhocbasis,takinginto
considerationthefactsofeachcase”and“therelativeinterestsofthestate
andthehomerulemunicipalityinregulatingthematteratissue.”Id.at767‐
68;CityofNorthglennv.Ibarra,62P.3d151,155(Colo.2003).Thisanalysis
mustbeconductedanewastime,circumstances,andtechnologychange,even
iftheissuehasbeendecidedpreviouslyinanothercase.CommerceCity,40
P.3dat1282.
TheDenverv.Statedecisionoutlinedfourfactorsthatareuseful,butnot
exclusive,indeterminingthestateinterest.Thecourtassessedthestate
interestinuniformity,extraterritorialimpacts,traditionalgovernance,and
specificcommitmentintheConstitution.Denverv.State,788P.2dat768.
22
Importantly,thecourtwentontoweighthestateinterestagainstthelocal
interest.Forexample,thecourtfoundtheHomeRuleAmendmenttothe
ColoradoConstitutionandtestimonybythemayorwererelevantfor
establishingthelocalinterestinamunicipalemployeeresidencyrestriction.
Id.at771.Thecourtalsoweighedtestimonyfromthemayordiscussinglocal
interestsinincreasingtheinvestmentofcitytaxdollars,inhavingemployees
readilyavailableintheeventofanemergency,andinpromotingmore
attentive,compassionate,anddiligentemployeework.Id.
InVoss,theColoradoSupremeCourtevaluatedonlythestateinterest
factorswithoutaddressinglocalinterestinthematter.Voss,830P.2dat1066.
However,theVosscourtneversaidcourtsshouldlookonlyatthestate
interestorthatlocalinterestswereirrelevant.Thus,thebalancingofstateand
localinterestsdonebythecourtinDenverv.Stateshouldbeappliedtothis
case.
Inthiscase,thedistrictcourtneverweighedthestateandlocalinterests
againsteachother,andnevermadeadeterminationofwhetherthematter
wasoneofstate,local,ormixedconcern.Instead,thecourtsimplyasserted
thatthefourfactoranalysisfromVossremainsapplicable.R.CF.,p501.The
courtgavenoconsiderationtodramaticchangesintechnologyand
23
circumstancessinceVosswasdecidedin1992,andalsofailedtoweighthe
stateinterestagainstthelocalinterestinthiscase.Becausethecourtdidnot
conductanadhocassessmentbasedonthefactsofthiscase,summary
judgmentwasinappropriate.
B.ThereAreInsufficientFactstoDetermineThatTheMoratoriumon
FrackingIsNotaMatterofLocalConcern.
Thelackofevidenceregardingboththestateandlocalinterestinthe
Moratoriumpreventedthedistrictcourtfromproperlyconductinga
preemptionanalysis.COGAfailedtointroduceanyevidenceshowingthatthe
statehasaninterestinensuringthatfrackingoccursinFortCollinsduringthe
periodofthemoratorium.TheCitypresentedevidenceontheneedfor
furtherstudy,R.CF.,pp.244,296‐97,yetthedistrictcourtfailedtoeven
acknowledgethatevidence.R.CF.,pp.495‐96.MeasureProponentswere
precludedfromintroducingtheirownevidenceonthestateandlocal
interests,eventhoughtheywereallowedtodosoinaseparatecase.
Addendum1‐9,55‐69,159‐178.Consequently,thedistrictcourt’sgrantof
summaryjudgmentwasprematurebecauseitdidnotconsideradequate
evidence.
//
24
i.TheDistrictCourtFailedtoConsiderEvidenceoftheState
Interest.
Courtsshoulddeterminethestateinterestonanadhocbasis
consideringthetotalityofthecircumstancesofeachcase.Denverv.State,788
P.2dat767‐68.Here,thedistrictcourtdeterminedthestateinterestby
examiningthecircumstancesastheyexistedin1992inVoss.R.CF,p.501.The
districtcourtcouldnothaveexaminedthecircumstancesastheyexisted
2014,however,becauseCOGApresentednoevidenceofthestateinterestin
thiscase.
Circumstancessurroundingoilandgasproductionhavechanged
dramaticallysince1992.Forexample,thecourtinVossreliedonthefactthat
oilandgasproductioniscloselytiedtowelllocationforthefindingofwaste
andunevenproduction.Voss,830P.2dat1067.However,thedistrictcourtin
bothtwosimilarfrackingpreemptioncasesnoted,“[w]ithtoday’stechnology,
whichmakeshorizontaldrillingpossible,welllocationandspacingareno
longerasimportantastheywerein1992.”R.CF,p.477,554.Additionally,oil
andgasproductionin1992didnotinvolvehorizontaldrillingcombinedwith
fracking.Thiscombinationhassignificantlyincreasedlocalimpacts.
25
Second,thedistrictcourtfailedtoconsiderevidenceoftheminimal
impacttheMoratoriumhasonthestateinterest.Noevidencewaspresented
ontheamountoftheamountofoilandgasultimatelyrecoverablefromFort
Collins.Ifthecourtdeterminedtheamountrecoverabletobeinsignificant,
especiallyincomparisontothetotalrecoverableamountinColorado,the
impactonthestateinterestwouldbedemininmis.Denverv.State,788P.2dat
769(findingthatDenveremploying0.7%ofthetotalworkforceinthestateto
bedeminimis).Thisminimalimpactisevensmallerwhenexaminingthe
effectofamoratoriumratherthanaban.Anylimitationcausedbythe
Moratoriumisonlytemporary.
Further,COGApresentednoevidenceofanyplansorintenttofrackin
FortCollinswithinthefive‐yeardurationoftheMoratorium.Tothecontrary,
theCitypresentedevidencethatnopermitshavebeenappliedforwiththe
COGCC.R.CF,p.245.Thus,thereisnoevidenceofanystateinterestin
productioninFortCollinssinceCOGAneverprovedproductionwouldoccur
absenttheMoratorium.
//
//
26
ii.TheDistrictCourtFailedtoConsidertheLocalInterestinthe
FrackingMoratorium.
Moretroublingthattheinadequateevidenceregardingthestate
interest,thecourtfailedentirelytoconsiderevidenceofthelocalinterestin
thiscase.Withoutthisevidence,itwasimpossibleforthecourttoweigheven
theminimalstateinterestagainsttheunknownlocalinterest.
ThemoratoriumaffordstheCityachancetoevaluatetheharms
frackingposestoitscitizens.Importantly,thedraftersoftheMoratorium
determinedthelengthoftheMoratoriumbasedontheavailabilityoffuture
informationregardingtheimpactsfrackinghasoncommunities.The
Moratoriumstates,“[R]epresentativesfromtheStateofColoradohave
publicallystatedthattheywillbeconductingahealthimpactassessmentto
assesstherisksposedbyhydraulicfracturingandunconventionaloilandgas
development.”R.CF,p.120.TheCityprovidedevidenceofthoseongoing
studies,R.CF.,p.296,butthedistrictcourtneverevenmentionedsuch
evidence.
Potentialimpactsoffrackingvarywidely.Evidenceofpotentialharms
fromfrackingincludewatercontaminationandeconomicimpactscausedby
baselinewatertesting,lostpropertyvalue,andchemicalcleanup.R.CF,p.51.
27
Frackingmayalsoincreaseproblemsassociatedwithnoise,light,pollution,
traffic,roads,infrastructure,andemergencyresponsecoststolocal
governments.R.CF,p.412‐19.Tofullyunderstandthepotentiallocalimpactsof
fracking,thedistrictcourtneedstoconsider:
 HealthRisks:increasedchemicalexposurethroughairandwater
pollutioncausingserioushealthconsequences;
 SafetyHazards:trafficinvolvedinincreaseduse,storageand
transportationoffrackingfluidsandrisksofexplosions;
 EconomicConsiderations:decreasedmarketvalueofproperty
nearfrackingsitesandnegativeimpactsonlocaleconomies;and
 EnvironmentalDamage:destructionofnaturalareasandwildlife
habitat.
Addendum1‐9,55‐69,159‐178,181‐364.Inlightofthepotentiallocalimpacts,
thedistrictcourt’sfindingthatthismatterwasmixedconcernwaserror.Ata
minimumthecourtshouldhaveweighedthelocalandstateinterestsinthis
case.Weighingthesignificantlocalinterestagainsttheminimalstateinterest,
thedistrictcourtshouldhavedeterminedthatregulatingfrackinginFort
Collinswasamatteroflocalconcern.
28
C.TheMoratoriumProtectsCitizens’InalienableRights.
Citizenshavecertainnatural,essentialandinalienablerights.Fort
CollinsdeterminedthattheMoratoriumwasnecessarytoprotectagainstthe
potentialdangersoffracking.BecausetheMoratoriumisanexerciseof
citizens’inalienablerights,neitherthestatelegislaturenortheActmay
preempttheMoratorium.
TheColoradoConstitutionunambiguouslyprotectscitizens’inherent
andnaturalrightstotheirlives,safety,property,liberty,andhappinessand
allowscitizenstoprotecttheserights.TheInalienableRightsprovisionofthe
ColoradoConstitutionstates:
“Allpersonshavecertainnatural,essentialandinalienablerights,
amongwhichmaybereckonedtherightofenjoyingand
defendingtheirlivesandliberties;ofacquiring,possessingand
protectingproperty;andofseekingandobtainingtheirsafety
andhappiness.”
COLO.CONST.art.II,§3(emphasisadded).Thus,theColorado
Constitutionallowscitizenstoprotectthemselvesandtheirproperty
fromactivitiesthatthreatentheirinalienablerights.Infact,the
Moratoriumisacitizen‐initiatedmeasurepassedbythecitizensofFort
Collins,whoreasonablyactedto“protectproperty,propertyvalues,
publichealth,safetyandwelfarebyplacingafiveyearmoratoriumon
29
theuseofhydraulicfracturing...inordertostudytheimpactsofthe
process.”R.CF,p.120.
NeitherthestatelegislaturenortheActcantakeawaycitizens’
inalienablerights.Iffrackingisdeterminedtoendangercitizens’inalienable
rights,notonlywoulditfavorlocalcontrol,citizens’inalienablerightswould
supersedeanystatestatute,includingtheAct.Ifacourtfindsastatestatute
preemptsanactionprotectinginalienablerights,thecourtiseffectively
denyingcitizenstheseinalienablerights.Onlybyignoringtheinalienable
rightsofcitizenscouldthedistrictcourtfindthattheActpreemptsthe
Moratorium.
Amoratoriumonfrackingisreasonablynecessarytoprotectcitizens’
inalienablerights.Infact,FortCollinsisnotaloneintakingactiontoprotect
themselvesfromthepotentialharmsoffracking.OtherColoradolocalities
havealsoplacedbansormoratoriaonfracking(Boulder,BoulderCounty,
Broomfield,Lafayette,andFortCollins).Additionally,thestateofNewYork
placedamoratoriumonfrackingacrosstheentirestatebecauseofconcerns
regardingthehealthandsafetyoftheactivityandrecently,NewYorkbanned
fracking.Appendicies192‐93.
30
Althoughapplicationoftheinalienablerightsprovisiontothiscontextis
novel,thecourtshaveanobligationtostatewhatthelawisandhowitapplies
tothefactsofthiscase.Previouspreemptioncasesrelieduponbythedistrict
court,includingVoss,SummitCounty,andBowen/Edwards,didnotaddressthe
inalienablerightsprovision.Thereasonforthisissimple:thepartiesthere
didnotpresenttheargument.However,theMoratoriumspecificallycitesthe
inalienablerightsprovisionoftheColoradoConstitutionasauthority,
R.CF.p.120,andthisCourtshoulddeclarewhattheprovisionmeansinthis
case.Essentially,wasitreasonableforthecitizensofFortCollinstoconclude
thatamoratoriumonfrackingisnecessarytoprotecttheirinalienablerights?
InPennsylvania,thestateSupremeCourtfoundthatasimilarlybroad
constitutionalprovision,whichhadnotpreviouslybeenappliedbythecourts,
prohibitedthestatelegislaturefrompreemptinglocalregulationsonfracking.
RobinsonTwp.,WashingtonCnty.v.Commonwealth,83A.3d901,946‐50(Pa.
2013).
BecausethecitizensofFortCollinsenactedtheMoratoriumtoprotect
theirinalienablerights,neitherthestatelegislaturenortheActmaypreempt
it.ThecitizensofFortCollinsreasonablydeterminedthattheMoratoriumwas
necessarytoprotecttheirinalienablerights.Therefore,thisCourtshould
31
remandtothedistrictcourtwithinstructionsonhowtoapplytheinalienable
rightsprovisiontothiscase.
III.THEMORATORIUM’SOPERATIONALEFFECTDOESNOTCONFLICT
WITHTHEACT
TheMoratoriumcanbereadinharmonywiththeAct.Inoperation,the
Moratoriumdoesnotmateriallyimpedeordestroythestateinterest.
Therefore,thisCourtshouldreversethedistrictcourt’sfindingofoperational
conflict.
A.TheCourtMustDetermineiftheLocalRegulationMaterially
ImpedesorDestroystheStateInterest.
Ifacourtdeterminesanissuetobeamatterofmixedconcern,thestate
statutepreemptsalocalregulationonlyifitsoperationaleffectwouldconflict
withstatestatute.Bowen/Edwards,830P.2dat1056.Thisdetermination
“mustberesolvedonanad‐hocbasisunderafullydevelopedevidentiary
record.”Id.at1060.
i.Bowen/EdwardsSettheStandardforOperationalConflict
Analysis.
Thestandardfordeterminingoperationalconflictiswhen“effectuation
ofthelocalinterestwouldmateriallyimpedeordestroythestateinterest.”
Id.at1059.Intheoilandgascontext,ifahomerulemunicipalityenacts
32
regulationsthatdonotfrustrate–andcanbeharmonizedwith–thestated
goalsoftheAct,“thecity’sregulationsshouldbegiveneffect.”Voss,830P.2d
at1068.Absentadirectconflictwiththestatestatute,courtsmustattemptto
harmonizethestateandlocallawtotheextentpossible.Droste,159P.3dat
607.Assuch,everyconflictinglocalregulationisnotpreempted,onlythose
materiallyimpedingordestroyingthestateinterest.Bd.ofCnty.Comm’rsof
LaPlataCnty.v.Colo.Oil&GasConservationComm’n,81P.3d1119,1123
(Colo.2003).
Inthiscase,thedistrictcourterredbydeviatingfromthe
Bowen/Edwardsstandard.ThedistrictcourtstatedtheMoratorium“conflicts
withthe[Act]becauseitprohibitswhattheActexpresslyauthorizesthe
Commissiontopermit.”R.CF,p.502.Thedistrictcourtstretcheslanguagefrom
WebbandSummitCountytosuggestalocalgovernmentcannotforbidwhata
statestatutefailstomention.The“cannotprohibitwhatstatestatute
authorizes”testisinappropriateinthefrackingcontextbecausethestate
statutedoesnotmentionfracking,norexplicitlyauthorizeit.Thiscaseis
distinguishablefromWebbandSummitCounty,wheretherelevantstate
statuteexpresslyaddressedtheactivitiesinquestion.InWebb,thestate
statuteauthorizedmunicipalitiestoprohibitbicyclesfromtravelingoncity
33
roadsifthecityprovidedanalternateroute.Webb,295P.3dat485.There,the
citydidnotcomplywiththisexplicitrequirement.Id.Here,theActdoesnot
evenmentionfracking,letalonelimitthecircumstancesofitsprohibition.
Likewise,SummitCountyfoundthelocalordinancetobeareclamation
standardwherethestategavetheMinedLandReclamationBoardexplicit
authoritytoregulatereclamationstandards.Colo.MiningAss’nv.Bd.ofCnty.
Comm’rsofSummitCnty.,199P.3d718,734(Colo.2009).Here,theActgives
noexplicitauthoritytotheCOGCCtoregulatefracking.
Intheoilandgascontext,theburdenlieswiththeplaintifftoshowthat
“nopossibleconstruction”wherethelocalregulationsmaybeharmonized
withthestateregulatoryscheme.Bd.ofCnty.Comm'rsofGunnisonCnty.v.BDS
Int'l,159P.3d773,779(Colo.2006)(emphasisadded).InBDS,thecourt
furtherstated,“wewillconstruetheCountyRegulations,ifpossible,soasto
harmonizethemwiththeapplicablestatestatuteorregulations.”Id.There,
thecourtreliedonBowen/EdwardsandFrederickinrejectingplaintiff’s
propositionthatifastateregulationconcernsaparticularaspectofoilandgas
operations,thenanycountyregulationsinthatareaareautomaticallyinvalid.
Id.
34
Inordertodemonstrateanoperationalconflict,COGAwouldhaveto
presentevidenceshowingthestatehasaninterestinproducingoilandgas
fromFortCollinswithinthenextfiveyears.However,COGAdidnotpresent
anyevidenceofsuchstateinterest.Thereisnothingtosupporttheargument
thattheMoratorium’soperationaleffect—afive‐yeartimeoutonfrackingto
allowtheCityofFortCollinstodeterminethebestwaytoensurethehealth,
safety,andwelfareofitscitizensthroughregulation—couldconflictwiththe
stateinterest.
Anysuggestionthatthestateinterestisintheimmediateproductionof
themaximumpossibleamountofoilandgasrunscontrarytotheinterests
outlinedintheAct.Specifically,theActrequiresresponsibleandbalanced
productionconsistentwiththeprotectionofpublichealth,safety,welfare,and
environmentalandwildliferesources.C.R.S.§34‐60‐102(1)(A)(I)(2014).
Additionally,theMoratoriumdoesnoteliminate“thepossibilityofoilandgas
developmentwithinthecity,”asthedistrictcourtconcluded.R.CR,p.501.To
thecontrary,theActisconcernedabouttheamountofoilandgasultimately
recoverable,nottheamountimmediatelyrecoverable.C.R.S.§34‐60‐
103(13)(b).ItdoesnotfollowthattheMoratoriumsubstantiallyimpedesoil
andgasproductionbecausethoseresourcesarestillultimatelyaccessible.
35
ii.TheMoratoriumImposesNoTechnicalConditionsonFracking.
TheMoratoriumdoesnotimposeanytechnicalconditionspreempted
bytheAct.COGA’sargumentthatBowen/Edwards“explicitlyrecognizedthat
theimpositionoftechnicalconditionsonthedrillingandpumpingofwells...
necessarilyconflictswiththestatestatutoryandregulatoryscheme”goestoo
farandmisstatesthelaw.R.CF,p.187.Bowen/Edwardsdoesnotstandforthe
propositionthatalltechnicalregulationsarepersepreempted.Infact,
Bowen/Edwardsclarifiedthattotheextentthattheoperationalconflictof
technicalconditions“mightexist,”“[a]nydeterminationthatthereexistsan
operationalconflictbetweenthecountyregulationsandthestatestatute...
mustberesolvedonanad‐hocbasisunderafullydevelopedevidentiary
record.”Bowen/Edwards,830P.2dat1060(emphasisadded).
iii.COGAHasFailedtoProveOperationalConflictBeyonda
ReasonableDoubt.
COGAfailedtoshow,beyondareasonabledoubt,nocircumstances
wheretheMoratoriumcanbeappliedinapermissiblemanner,thereforetheir
facialchallengemustfail.ThehomeruleAmendmentgrantshomerulecities
the“rightofself‐governmentinbothlocalandmunicipalmatters,”andsuch
localordinances“shallsupersedewithintheterritoriallimits...anylawofthe
36
stateinconflicttherewith.”COLO.CONST.art.XX,§6.Whetherastatestatute
preemptsahomerulecity’sregulationisaconstitutionalquestion.Voss,830
P.2dat1061;SummitCounty,199P.3dat723.Inassessingthe
constitutionalityofastatutetherearetwokindsofchallenges,“facial”and“as
applied.”Sangerv.Dennis,148P.3d404,410‐11(Colo.App.2006).
Aplaintiffmustestablishthattheregulationisimpermissible.A“facial”
challengeisonethatseekstorenderaregulation“utterlyinoperative”by
requiringtheplaintifftoestablishbeyondareasonabledoubtthat“nosetof
circumstances”existsinwhichtheregulationcanbeappliedinapermissible
manner.Sanger,148P.3dat411(emphasisadded);Peoplev.Vasquez,84P.3d
1019,1021(Colo.2004).Thisisahighbarandcourtstraditionallydisfavor
facialchallenges.IndependenceInst.v.Coffman,209P.3d1130,1136(Colo.
App.2008).COGAsoughttoinvalidatetheMoratoriumasa“facial”challenge
only.R.CF,p.179.
Thedistrictcourtdidnotmentionorapplythereasonabledoubt
standardrequiringCOGAtomeettheirburdenbyshowingnosetof
circumstanceswheretheMoratoriumcouldbeharmonizedwiththeAct.The
districtcourtassumedthestateinterestinuniformregulationandthatthe
mereexistenceoftheMoratoriumharmsthestateinterestsetbytheAct.
37
R.CF,p.498‐503.Thatisnotsufficientforsummaryjudgment.Mt.Emmons
MiningCo.,690P.2dat241.There,thecourtwasdealingwithalocal
ordinancerequiringminingcompaniestogetwaterpermitsfromthetown.Id.
at234.TheColoradoSupremeCourtrecognizedthisinvolved“mixed
questionsoflawandfact,”andreversedthecourtofappeals’judgmentforthe
miningcompanyandremandedforfindingsoffact.Id.at234.“Thereare
unresolvedfactualquestionsrelatingtotheexistence,nature,andextentof
anyinjurythat[theplaintiffs]mightconceivablysustainunder[the]permit.”
Id.at241.AstheMt.Emmonscourtheld,the“mereexistenceofthe
ordinance”wasnotenoughonwhichtobasesummaryjudgment.Id.
(emphasisadded).
B. TheStateInterestIncludestheProtectionofPublicHealth,Safety,
andWelfare.
TheStateLegislaturesetthestateinterestinoilandgasproduction
throughtheAct,yetthedistrictcourtdisregardedsignificantportionsofthe
Act.Toclarify,theAct’spurposeis:
(1)(a)Itisdeclaredtobeinthepublicinterestto:
(I)Fostertheresponsible,balanceddevelopment,production,and
utilizationofthenaturalresourcesofoilandgasinthestateof
Coloradoinamannerconsistentwithprotectionofpublichealth,
safety,andwelfare,includingprotectionoftheenvironmentand
wildliferesources;.....
38
C.R.S.§34‐60‐102(1)(a)(I)(2014)(emphasisadded).
(b)...Itistheintentandpurposeofthisarticletopermiteachoilandgas
poolinColoradotoproduceuptoitsmaximumefficientrateof
production,subjecttothepreventionofwaste,consistentwiththe
protectionofpublichealth,safety,andwelfare,includingprotection
oftheenvironmentandwildliferesources,.....
C.R.S.§34‐60‐102(1)(b)(2014)(emphasisadded).
TheLegislature’samendmentsin1994,1996,and2007mandated
provisionsthatemphasizedtheprotectionofhealth,safety,andwelfare,and
underscoreandprotectlocalgovernments’landuseauthority.1994Colo.
Sess.Laws,ch.317,§1;1996Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.88,§1;2007Colo.Sess.
Laws,ch.320,§1.Specifically,the2007amendmentsplacedemphasison
promotinghealth,welfareandsafetybychangingthe(1)publicinterestto
fosterthe“responsible,balanceddevelopment”ofoilandgasand(2)
developmentbeperformedinamanner“consistentwiththeprotectionof
publichealth,safety,andwelfare,includingprotectionoftheenvironmentand
wildliferesources.”2007Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.320,§2and3.
39
ThedistrictcourtlargelyignoredthesecriticalamendmentstotheAct.3
Thecourtnevermentionedthestateinterestinprotectinghealth,safety,and
welfareduringitsoperationalconflictanalysis.R.CF.,p.502‐03.Instead,the
onlyoperationalconflictthatthecourtcitedwaswithProspectEnergy’s
interestinfracking,id.,whichsurelycannotbeequatedwiththestateinterest
inthiscase.
C.ExaminingtheCorrectStateInterest,ThereIsNoOperational
ConflictBecausetheMoratoriumandtheActCanBeHarmonized.
TheMoratoriumdoesnot(1)impedenordestroythestate’sinterestin
oilandgasproduction;(2)causewaste;(3)affectthecorrelativerightsof
owners;anddoes(4)protectpublichealth,safetyandwelfare,consistentwith
thepurposeoftheAct.BecausetheMoratoriumisconsistentwiththestate’s
interestssetforthbytheAct,harmonizationispossiblebetweenthe
MoratoriumandtheAct.
First,theMoratoriumdoesnotimpedenordestroythestate’sinterest
inoilandgasproduction.Thestateinterestisinoilandgasproduction,not
onespecificmethodofproduction.C.R.S.§34‐60‐102(1)(a)(I).Frackingisa
3Thecourtonlymentionedprotectingwildlifebutnothealth,safety,orthe
environment.R.CF,p.499.
40
wellcompletiontechniquethatoccursafterdrillingawell,andbeforeoiland
gasflowsupthewellforcapture.R.CF,pp.159,180.TheMoratoriumdoesnot
preventalloilandgasproductionwithintheCity,butonlyprohibitsfracking
forafive‐yearperiodtodeterminethebestwaytoprotectthehealth,safety,
andwelfareofcitizens.R.CF,p.81.HadthedistrictcourtgrantedtheMeasure
Proponents’intervention,MeasureProponentswouldhaveintroduced
evidenceshowing,butnotlimitedto:(1)theuncertaintyregardingthesafety
offracking;(2)theeffectfrackingoperationshaveonpropertyvalues;(3)the
burdenfrackingplacesonmunicipalresources;(4)negativeeffectsfracking
hasonrecreation;(5)effectivealternativestofrackingthathavegreatly
reducedhealthandsafetyrisks;and(6)thedeminimisamountofoilandgas
beneathFortCollins.However,thedistrictcourtreliedonCOGA’sassertion
thatfrackingisusedin“virtuallyall”oilandgaswellsinColoradoto
erroneouslyconcludethatthestateinterestisinfracking,notproduction,
healthorsafety.R.CF,p.502.
Thedistrictcourtimproperlyconcludedthathydraulicfracturingisa
chemicaltreatmentprocess,eventhoughtheyaredistinctprocesses.
R.CF,p.502.Fracking,isnotsynonymouswith“chemicaltreatment”norwith
“shooting.”Rather,frackingis“anoperationinwhichaspeciallyblended
41
liquidispumpeddownawellandintoaformationunderpressurehigh
enoughtocausetheformationtocrackopen,formingpassagesthroughwhich
oilcanflowintothewellbore.”Addendum371.Incontrast,“chemical
treatment”includesavarietyofprocesseswherethechemicalcausesthe
action,butitdoesnotincludefracking.Addendum367.Also,“shooting”is
theprocessofexplodingnitroglycerineorotherhighexplosivesinaholeto
shattertherockandincreasetheflowofoil.Addendum367.Thedistrict
courtoverlookedthesesimpledistinctionswhenitattemptedtodescribea
complicatedindustrywithouttakingevidencefromanyexpertsinthefield.
Second,theMoratoriumdoesnotcausewaste.Thestatutorydefinition
of“waste”isanactionthatreducestheamountofoilandgasultimately
recoverablefromapool,nottheamountimmediatelyrecoverable.C.R.S.§34‐
60‐103(13)(b).Afive‐yeartimeoutonfrackingwithinFortCollinsdoesnot
affecttheamountofoilandgasthatisultimatelyrecoverablefrombeneath
theCity.Further,changesintechnologyandthesourceofoilandgashave
lessened,perhapsevenremoved,anystateinterestinuniformspacingof
wellstofacilitateproductionthatwastheoverridingconcerninVoss.The
1992Vosscourtwasconcernedwithresourcesfrom“subterraneanpools,”
finding“oilandgasproductioniscloselytiedtowelllocation.”Voss,830P.2d
42
at1067.Thedistrictcourtheredidnotconsiderevidenceshowingthese
concernsnolongerapplyduetothedevelopmentofhorizontaldrillingand
thenatureofthereservoirsbeneathFortCollins,whicharenot“pools”but
rathertightformations.R.CF,pp.477,554.Thus,uniformityasconceivedofby
theVosscourtisnolongeraconcerninthemodernoilandgasindustry.
Third,theMoratoriumdoesnotaffectthecorrelativerightsofowners
andproducers.COGAdidnotpresentanycurrentevidencethatthe
Moratoriumaffectscorrelativerights.Consideringthenatureoftheresources
availabletooilandgasproducers,intightformationsasopposedtopools,itis
clearthecircumstancessurroundingoilandgasproductionhavechanged
since1992.Voss,830P.2dat1067(discussinghow“anirregulardrilling
patterncanimpactonthecorrelativerights”ofownersandproducers).
Fourth,theMoratoriumservestoprotectthepublichealth,safety,and
welfareofcitizens.Thestateinterest,statedintheAct,isto“permiteachoil
andgaspoolinColoradotoproduceuptoitsmaximumefficientrateof
production,subjecttothepreventionofwaste,consistentwiththe
protectionofpublichealth,safety,andwelfare,includingprotectionof
theenvironment.”C.R.S.§34‐60‐102(emphasisadded).
43
TheMoratoriumaffordstheCitytimetoaddresstheuncertaindangers
thatfrackingposestopublichealth,safety,welfare,andtheenvironment.
Specifically,scientificevidenceshowssignificantthreatsposedbyfracking,
demonstratingthatwedonotyetknowthefullextentoffracking’simpact.
Addendum183.Forone,frackingposesthreatstogroundwater,surface
water,andairquality.Id.at190‐92.Two,disposaloffrackingwaterhas
inducedearthquakes.Id.at192.Three,agencieshavenotcompletedlong‐
termhealthstudiesregardingfracking’seffectsonhumanhealthoutcomes.Id.
at206.Finally,thenegativeimpactsoftheboom‐bustcycleoftheoilandgas
industryonlocalmunicipalresourceshaveaneffectonthecitizensandlocal
communities.Id.at205‐06.Certainly,boththestateandlocalgovernments
shouldbeconcernedwiththepotentialsignificantimpactsfrackinghasonits
citizens.TheMoratoriumcanthusbeharmonizedwiththestateinterestin
thiscase.
IV.IMPLIEDPREEMPTIONCANNOTBEFOUNDBECAUSETHEIRISNO
EVIDENCEOFALEGISLATIVEINTENTTOOCCUPYTHEENTIREFIELD.
Thestateinterestinoilandgasproductiondoesnotoutweighthelocal
interestinregulatingfracking.NothingintheActdemonstratesalegislative
intenttooccupytheentirefieldofoilandgasdevelopment,andColorado
44
courtshaveconsistentlyheldthattheActdoesnotoccupytheentirefieldof
oilandgasregulation.Assuch,thedistrictcourterredinfindingthattheAct
impliedlypreemptstheMoratorium.ThisCourtshouldreversethatruling.
A.TheColoradoSupremeCourtHasConsistentlyHeldthattheAct
DoesNotImpliedlyPreemptLocalRegulationofOilandGas.
TheActdoesnotimpliedlypreemptlocalregulationoftheentirefieldof
oilandgasregulation.Bowen/Edwardsoutlinedthelegalstandardforan
impliedpreemptionanalysisbystating,“preemptionmaybeinferredifthe
statestatuteimpliedlyevincesalegislativeintenttocompletelyoccupya
givenfieldbyreasonofadominantstateinterest.”Bowen/Edwards,830P.2d
at1048(emphasisadded).Thecourtexplaineditcouldonlyinferalegislative
intenttopreemptlocalcontrolfromlanguageusedandthewholepurpose
andscopeofthelegislativescheme.Id.at1057.Bowen/Edwardsreverseda
lowercourtfindingthatlanguageintheAct—authorizingtheCOGCCto
promulgaterulesandregulations—establishedimpliedpreemption.Id.at
1058.Instead,thecourtheldthatlanguageintheActdidnotestablishimplied
preemptionofalocalgovernment’sauthoritytoenactlocalland‐use
regulationsforoilandgasoperations.Id.
45
Thedistrictcourterredinusinga“substantiallyimpedes”test,
supposedlyderivedfromVoss,todetermineimpliedpreemption.R.CF,p.501.
TheVosscourtdidnotrelyuponimpliedpreemption,butratherdetermined
whetherthelocalordinanceconflictedwiththestateinterest.Voss,830P.2d
at1065.TheVosscourtexplicitlyfoundtherewasnothingintheActthat
establishedalegislativeintentto“impliedlypreemptallaspectsofalocal
government'sland‐useauthorityoverlandthatmightbesubjecttooilandgas
developmentandoperationswithintheboundariesofalocalgovernment.”Id.
at1065.Thus,althoughtheVosscourtdidstatethatGreeley’stotalbanon
drilling“substantiallyimpedes”thestateinterest,thiswasfordetermining
operationalconflictandnotimpliedpreemption.Id.at1068.Therefore,the
districtcourt’srelianceonVossforderivinga“substantiallyimpedes”testfor
impliedpreemptionwasinerror.
SubsequentpreemptioncaseshaveonlyconfirmedthattheActdoesnot
impliedpreemptalllocalregulationofoilandgas.InFrederick,thecourtheld
thesavingslanguageinthe1996amendmentssupporttheconclusionthatthe
legislaturedidnotintendtopreemptalllocalregulationofoilandgas
operations.Frederick,60P.3dat763.Frederickfurtherdeterminedthat
46
amendmentstotheActplainlyavoidedgivinganypreemptiveeffect.Id.at
758.
B.SubsequentLegislativeEnactmentsMakeItCleartheStateDoesNot
OccupytheFieldofOilandGas,ThustheMoratoriumIsNotImpliedly
PreemptedbytheAct.
NoneoftheamendmentstotheActsincethe1992Bowen/Edwardsand
Vossdecisionsdemonstratelegislativeintenttopreemptalllocalregulationof
oilandgasactivities.Infact,legislativeamendmentscontainspecific
provisionsthatprotectlocallanduseauthority.The1994amendments
explicitlypreservedtheexistinglanduseauthorityoflocalgovernments.1994
Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.317,§1.In1996,furtheramendmentsunderscoredthe
poweroflocalgovernmentstorequireandensurecompliancewithlanduse
permitconditions.1996Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.88,§1.In2007,amendments
enlargedthelocalgovernmentauthoritysavingsprovisionstating:“nothingin
thisactshallestablish,alter,impair,ornegatetheauthorityoflocal
governmentstoregulatelanduserelatedtooilandgasoperations.”2007
Colo.Sess.Laws,ch.320,§1. COGAarguesthatimpliedpreemptionofalllocalregulationofoiland
gasisreflectedintheCOGCC’s“comprehensiveregulatorystructure.”
R.CF,p.188.JustasinBowen/Edwards,wheretheStateenactedregulationin
47
thesameareaastheAct,thisCourtcannotinferimpliedpreemption.Instead,
lookingatthelanguageofActandthe“wholepurposeandscopeofthe
legislativescheme”showsthereisnolegislativeintenttoimpliedlypreempt
theentirefieldofoilandgas.Bowen/Edwards,830P.2dat1058.Infact,the
specificlanguageoftheActitselfexpresslyemphasizesnolegislativeintentto
“negatetheauthorityoflocalgovernmentstoregulatelanduserelatedtooil
andgasproduction.”C.R.S.§34‐60‐102.
Absentalegislativeintenttopreemptlocalcontrol,theCourtcannot
findimpliedpreemption.Here,thereisnolanguageintheActnor
amendmentstheretosupportingthedistrictcourt’sfindingofimplied
preemption.
CONCLUSION
MeasureProponentsrequestthisCourttovacatethedistrict
court’sdecisionandremandwithinstructionstoeitherdismissCOGA’s
caseentirely,becauseamoratoriumisnotthesameasatotalban,orat
minimumtoconductanevidentiaryhearingnecessarytodecidethe
preemptionissuesinthiscase.
//
//
48
DATEDthis6thdayofFebruary,2015.
Respectfullysubmitted,
/s/KevinJ.Lynch
KevinJ.Lynch(COBarNo.39873)
BradBartlett(COBarNo.32816)
LaRonaMondt(StudentAttorney)
ChristopherBrummitt(StudentAttorney)
NicholasRising(StudentAttorney)
EnvironmentalLawClinic
UniversityofDenver
CounselforMeasureProponents
ThisdocumentwasfiledelectronicallypursuanttoC.A.R.25(e).Theoriginal
signeddocumentisonfilewiththeUniversityofDenverEnvironmentalLaw
Clinic.
49
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
IherebycertifythatonthisFebruary6,2015atrueandcorrectcopyof
theaboveandforegoingBRIEFOFCITIZENSFORAHEALTHYFORT
COLLINS,SIERRACLUB,ANDEARTHWORKSASAMICUSCURIAEIN
SUPPORTOFTHEAPPELLANTCITYOFFORTCOLLINSwasservedviathe
IntegratedColoradoCourtsE‐FilingSystem(ICCES),on:
MarkJ.Matthews
JohnV.McDermott
WayneF.Forman
MichaelD.Hoke
BrownsteinHyattFarberSchreck,LLP
410SeventeenthStreet,Suite2200
Denver,CO80202
CarrieDaggett
JohnR.Duval
CityHallWest
300LaPorteAvenue
P.O.Box580
FortCollins,CO80521
BarbaraJ.B.Green
JohnT.Sullivan
SullivanGreenSeavyLLC
3223ArapahoeAvenue,Suite300
Boulder,CO80303
/s/KevinJ.Lynch
KevinJ.Lynch