Residents outraged after state's new rules enable industry to wield more power with no accountability: 'We asked for strict setback requirements'

Residents across the U.S. rely on state and federal agencies to protect them from toxic pollution that industries would otherwise be free to release into our air, water, and soil. In the past, many of these agencies have made great strides — for example, clearing away the dense smog that used to plague our largest cities. But one agency in Colorado has recently failed to adopt a set of rules to protect its residents from the dangerous side effects of fracking, according to a Yellow Scene Magazine report.

What's happening?

Fracking — pumping water into oil wells to fracture the stone and extract more oil — has a dramatic impact on the environment. When oil companies want to frack, it's the role of government agencies to step in and protect the interests of the average person, keeping soil and water clean and safe for all. In Colorado, this task falls to the Energy and Carbon Management Commission under the direction of the governor.

However, Yellow Scene reported that in October, the ECMC declined to institute rules to limit fracking or its poisonous side effects. The rules it did pass maintained a dangerous status quo.

Stakeholders prompted the agency to take over analyzing the expected impact of a project and set specific guidelines about when a permit would be denied.

Instead, the ECMC left impact assessments in the hands of the oil companies themselves — which are biased and lack expertise in the area — and declined to outline any circumstances in which it would be required to deny a fracking project.

Why is out-of-control fracking a problem?

Fracking generates solid and liquid waste that contains oil, other toxic elements, and even radioactive material. It can also push toxic materials into groundwater, where it may end up in drinking water.

Watch now: AITA for refusing to pay my HOA for destroying my garden?

Without a regulatory agency safeguarding the people of Colorado, they have to rely on the goodwill of oil companies to protect them. Such goodwill frequently vanishes in the face of potential profits.

"We asked for strict setback requirements based on population studies … We requested that community health assessments and oil and gas complaint records be included in the cumulative impacts analysis," said Lauren Swain, Coordinator for Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado, per Yellow Scene. "But the ECMC rejected these basic requests. … The rules adopted will do little, if anything, to reduce asthma and cardiovascular hospitalizations, cancers, and premature deaths associated with oil and gas emissions, especially in disproportionately impacted communities."

What's being done about the ECMC's stance?

According to Yellow Scene, legislators pushed the ECMC to adopt stronger protections in 2024 with SB19-181. Critics argue that the ECMC's efforts thus far do not fulfill the intent of the law, which means it may be compelled to do more in the near future — but that's up to the state government to decide.