Several contentious issues were on the ballot here in Colorado, including a few tax proposals to fund transportation and education, some minor updates to modernize language in the state constitution, new redistricting processes, and a proposition (112) initiated by a group called Colorado Rising for Health and Safety. This was to require that any new oil and gas fracking rigs be required to set back at least 2500 feet from any homes, schools, hospitals, and waterways.
Weld County, just east of us, has an invasive network of infrastructure related to fracking operations, and there have been issues with water quality getting worse going back at least five years - including one neighborhood showing that they could light the tap water coming out of their kitchen sink on fire! Respiratory health issues have been on the rise in the area, which have been tied to the chemicals and debris related to the fracking, and there have also been more than 15 unfortunate explosions in the past year that have injured citizens and workers, and taken out homes that exist above this network of underground pipes transporting pressure and water and oil back and forth.
Overall, I understand that oil and gas operations account for nearly 7% of the state economy. But the impact I see it having on my community is very negative, and this measure would have imposed some limitations on that potential danger. I don't know if this is the best solution to the problem - if such a thing is possible, but of all the options on the table at the moment, I think this could make a tangible difference.
The measure failed, 43% in favor versus 57% against.
The current regulation is 500 ft, and existing rigs would have been allowed to continue operation as they are. However, the Oil and Gas Commission did everything in their power to halt this progress. The first step was to post a companion ballot issue that would compensate them for any losses that might be incurred should Prop 112 pass. This amendment (74) would add vague language requiring the state government to compensate anyone who owned property that was reduced in value by any government decision or action. For example, say a corporation owned an acre of land that would potentially provide access to an oil field, then the government enacted the regulation requiring a 2,500 ft setback, which meant that the company would no longer be able to use that acre of land to access potentially millions of dollars of oil. The state would then owe the company for all of the potential oil they no longer had viable access to.
Once 112 was approved and on the ballot, the fossil fuel industry pumped almost $32 million into campaigns driving opposition to Proposition 112. Another $12 million was spent promoting Amendment 74. That's $44 million just invested in two state-wide issues. What else could have been done with that money if it had been invested in state infrastructure, supporting education initiatives, or improving the environment. Really, anything other than manipulative television and radio spots would have been much more productive.
The main investor in these endeavors was Protect Colorado, a state issue committee registered for the sole purpose of opposing the "safer setbacks measure." Over half of their funding came from just four organizations - Anadarko Petroleum(Texas-based), Noble Energy(Texas-based), PDC Energy(Colorado-based), and Extraction Oil & Gas(Colorado-based). Beyond their direct contributions, Noble produced television commercials throughout October urging voters to reject the amendment which they then paid to air directly, but claimed to the FCC that they were not political in nature, and withheld them from campaign finance disclosure filings. Most of the propaganda opposing the measure was produced by coalitions with intentionally misleading names, like Colorado Rising Action and Coloradoans for Responsible Energy Development. Their ads and billboards falsely claimed that 112 would remove millions of jobs from the state, or somehow cripple rural communities spread throughout the scenic mountains we so adore. In line with our national information distribution, these misleading soundbites easily manipulated the uninformed population.
To compare, barely $3 million was raised to support Prop 112, most of which was donated by grass roots efforts garnering $50-$500 donations from private citizens. The largest contribution provided less than a quarter of the fund, coming from the non-profit Food & Water Watch.
These numbers don't even account for donations to candidates who support the oil and gas agenda. More than $1 in $5 of DISCLOSED donations to all statewide campaigns and political groups this year came directly from a fossil fuel corporation. But what about the undisclosed contributions that happen - both under the table, and on the air right in front of us? The impact private financial influence has over our 'democratic' society is mind-boggling.
When will any of the elected leaders who claim that campaign finance reform is a necessary priority take action? I fear that because we have allowed the system to open itself up to the 'voices' of corporations and billionaires, we will never be able to combat the dark money that has our system tied and bound. To be re-elected, they rely on the existing system - should they make any efforts to adjust it, they will not have another term to impact any other changes.
When my angst gets to a certain boiling point, which it has been simmering at for a while now, I start looking for something I could personally do that would impact any of the things that make me angry. Aside from running for office and beating my own head against that brick wall - which I definitely do not have the spine for - the next thing that makes sense is to throw up my hands and invest in a lovely piece of property in France or maybe in Costa Rica, where I could dial back the pressure, find a hospitality job, and focus on other more important aspects of being human like seeking the perfect red blend or educating ecotourists about reducing our footprints on this planet. Doesn't that sound delightful?
But where would that really get me? Perhaps my blood pressure would go down in the short term, but it would not impact the negative trends seem to be happening all around us. And my tax money would still be contributing to the bottom line of already wealthy individuals manipulating the government, unless I were to completely renounce.
At the moment, no options feel like a positive change. Any advice? Any wisdom out there about how to continue working to build the kind of world I want to live in, when everything around me seems to find value in things I can't personally support?
