Posted on 04/21/2015 5:05:57 AM PDT by thackney
A bill being debated in the Texas Legislature that would severely limit local municipalities' power to regulate oil and natural gas drilling moved one step closer to becoming law Monday.
In a 125-20 vote, the Republican-dominated Texas House of Representatives approved on third reading H.B. 40. The legislation would "expressly pre-empt local ordinances that ban or limit oil and gas operations," including hydraulic fracturing.
The bill will now move to the state Senate, which, like the House, is Republican-controlled. If passed by both houses of the legislature it will move to the desk of Republican Governor Greg Abbott, who has expressed his preference for limiting local control on a wide variety of issues.
The legislation, written largely in response to a November 2014 vote by the north Texas city of Denton to prohibit fracking within its borders, has been cheered by the oil and gas industry and its allies in the legislature and condemned as a state government power grab by environmental groups and some local officials.
Debate on the bill followed the forging in committee of compromise language that addressed some of the concerns raised about the proposed legislation by the Texas Municipal League, which represents municipal governments in the state.
Following the compromise, the TML withdraw its opposition to the bill.
In an interview Monday, Jason Modglin, chief of staff for bill author Republican Representative Drew Darby, said the compromise addressed three issues concerning existing municipal ordinances to regulate some aspect of oil and gas operations that have been on the books for five years or longer.
The TML wanted to see a tighter definition of the phrase "commercially reasonable," as it applied to the existing ordinances, in the bill, he said. "They wanted it to be an objective standard that did not reflect one particular operator's position, but a standard that applied to the industry as a whole," Modglin said.
The second change to the bill was to spell out what categories of above-ground activities the cities could regulate under the bill.
"It put into place a number of categories that dealt with most of the complaints that cities said they frequently dealt with: noise, light, traffic, fire and emergency response, notice requirements and reasonable setbacks," he said.
Finally the compromise introduces "a safe harbor provision" into the legislation, which instructs a court to presume that an existing ordinance is commercially reasonable if has been in place for more than five years and has allowed for oil and gas operations to take place during that time.
A TML spokesman did not reply to a request for a comment.
The compromise did not satisfy all opponents of the proposed legislation.
"We think it's a dangerous power grab by big oil to stomp out local community rights to try to limit the worst impacts of drilling, despite the so-called compromise with the Municipal League and the Texas Oil and Gas Association," Luke Metzger, the founder and director of Environment Texas, said in an interview on Monday.
"The bill still threatens to undermine municipal ordinances in over 300 cities and will likely lead to a lot of litigation and overturning things like setback requirements that limit drilling near schools and homes in certain cities," Metzger said.
H.B. 40 also potentially could result in the overturning of "bans on wastewater injection wells in places like Dallas and Fort Worth," he said.
Metzger added that under the legislation it is unclear as to whether cities would still be able to send staff to inspect oil and gas facilities, as is currently the case in cities that already have public safety ordinances.
"Based on the debate on Friday, it sounds like no," he said.
The lack of local oversight is particularly troubling in light of a well control incident in Arlington, Texas, earlier in April, in which more than 100 people were evacuated from their homes, Metzger said.
"This is why this bill is so threatening," Metzger said.
However, advocates for the state's powerful energy industry praised the passage of the legislation.
In a statement, Ed Longanecker, president of the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association, said the bill's passage would help prevent the creation of "a patchwork effect of local ordinances creating inconsistent regulations across the state."
Longanecker added that the legislation would help check the power of "anti-oil and gas organizations seeking to influence local ordinances to slow or stop the development of hydrocarbons in our state and country."
Why does Texas stay part of this country? They have nothing in common with it, in a good way!! I think if it seceded its population would double and it would be a MAJOR country on the world scene.
The “Royal” Saudis approve.
Why do you think they approve of a bill that limits local municipalities' power to ban or limit oil and gas operations, including hydraulic fracturing?
Eliminates competition.
This helps prevent local municipalities’ from shutting down drilling and hydro frac operations.
How does that eliminate competition?
You have things backwards.
I think you’re right! No coffee.
“Why does Texas stay part of this country? They have nothing in common with it, in a good way!! I think if it seceded its population would double and it would be a MAJOR country on the world scene.”
A question any native-born Texan asks himself.
We have acreage, resources, harbors, and a unique spirit and history that cannot be found elsewhere.
As in 1845, this country needs Texas more than Texas needs this country.
I side with the cities on this one. Just as the states should have the rights guaranteed them in the constitution, cities should also have the right to govern themselves to a degree. If the people of a city (Denton, in this case) vote against frac’ing, then so be it.
I VOW to move there and bring my presentation Center skills with me, as well as my love of country and bear the terrible HEAT if they secede :)
I should not have the ability to sell my mineral rights taken by a local liberal dictator.
Do you think the local municipality should be allowed to ban SUV or electrical power not generated by solar and wind?
Hadn't thought of that angle.
Do you think the local municipality should be allowed to ban SUV or electrical power not generated by solar and wind?
I've seen stranger city ordinances than that. If they want people to live there, they wouldn't do something so stupid. But should they have the right? Depends. Do they generate their own electricity, or is it provided by a state or federally funded source? If a city has the capacity to fully provide its citizens from a locally owned source, then sure ... I don't have a problem with them regulating such a thing. It could actually be a lot less expensive. Here in McKinney, we've got Franconia Brewing Company. They're completely off the grid. In fact, TXU buys back electricity from them.
We can go through many different possibilities, but a change in local politics should not have the ability to take away the rights of property owners to lease that property.
If a city has the capacity to fully provide its citizens from a locally owned source, then sure ...
How about just forcing the population to go buy it regardless of cost?
Should the urban voters of a county be able to take control of the less populated rural voters property? Since there may be more folks in the city, they should be able to control the country folks property?
Quite apart from the issue of oil and gas extraction, this is a dangerous precedent to set going forward. Separate the two issues. It’s not about oil and gas it’s about losing more and more local control. The same logic can be applied to Federal laws limiting State or local control.
A vote would be in order. Denton voted ... the citizens decided this, not city council.
Should the urban voters of a county be able to take control of the less populated rural voters property? Since there may be more folks in the city, they should be able to control the country folks property?
A very involved topic, that's for sure. A slippery slope. Not living in Denton, I don't know all the details involved in this case. I would think that council would weigh all the aspects of each particular case and grant permits on a case by case basis involving rural drilling possibilities.
I see it as important for protecting property rights of the rural community. City voters trying to control the rural property owners.
I’d rather local control than county, state or Federal control. It’s the theory of subsidiarity. Government, if we have it at all, should be formed at the lowest most local level possible. Sometimes that level has to be larger than a city, such as for defense. Sometimes not.
Zoning laws already limit what you can do and not do with your property. As onerous as that can be (and I’m no fan of zoning), imagine if it were the State making those decision about what size your house has to be etc.?
I can tell you from personal experience that many people who don’t want government infringing on their property have no qualms whatsoever about using government to control what their neighbor can and can’t do with their property. None whatsoever. So there has to be some kind of compromise or balance in the equation ... and at the lowest governmental level possible.
What would you think about a state law that limited a municipality from banning guns?
Yes, that too. County government in that case may be the lowest level of government needed. The problem is that some counties are so large they encompass both rural and large urban areas. Perhaps there should be a split there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.