Colorado Proposition 112, Minimum Distance Requirements For New Oil, Gas, And Fracking Projects Initiative (2018)

Colorado Proposition 112
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Fracking
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Colorado measuresColorado Amendment AColorado Amendment VColorado Amendment WColorado Amendment XColorado Amendment YColorado Amendment ZColorado Amendment 73Colorado Amendment 74Colorado Amendment 75Colorado Proposition 109Colorado Proposition 110Colorado Proposition 111Colorado Proposition 112Submit

Colorado Proposition 112, the Minimum Distance Requirements for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative was on the ballot in Colorado as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018. It was defeated.

A yes vote supported the initiative to mandate that new oil and gas development projects, including fracking, be a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupied buildings and other areas designated as vulnerable.

A no vote opposed the initiative to mandate that new oil and gas development be a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupied buildings and other areas.

Aftermath[edit]

On December 18, 2018, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission voted unanimously to adopt a rule to measure the current 1,000-foot drilling setback from property lines rather than buildings, effectively increasing the setback requirements from schools. The rule includes childcare facilities. It was set to take effect at the end of January 2019.^[3][4]

Election results[edit]

Colorado Proposition 112
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,116,738	44.88%
No		1,371,284	55.12%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview[edit]

Measure design[edit]

This initiative was designed to mandate that new oil and gas development, including fracking, be a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupied buildings such as homes, schools, hospitals, and other areas designated as vulnerable. Vulnerable areas would have been defined by the initiative as "playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, public and community drinking water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, and creeks, and any additional vulnerable areas designated by the state or a local government."^[5]

The setback requirements would not have applied to oil and gas development on federal lands. The setback requirements would have applied to any new oil and gas development permitted on or after the effective date of the measure. Reentering old oil and gas wells that were abandoned would have been considered new development under the measure and the setback requirements would have still applied. The measure was designed to take effect upon the declaration of the governor.

The current restrictions going into the election specified that wells must be 1,000 feet from high-occupancy buildings such as schools and hospitals, 500 feet from occupied buildings such as homes, and 350 feet from outdoor areas like playgrounds.^[6][7]

What did supporters and opponents say?[edit]

Colorado Rising led the campaign in support of this initiative. Colorado Rising argued, "Currently, fracking operations are allowed to take place just 500 feet from a home and 1,000 feet from a school building (and right by school playgrounds). The industry has shown blatant disregard for public health and safety, and the current state regulatory body – the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) – has not provided responsible protective regulatory oversight to prevent inappropriate siting of toxic fracking operations adjacent to homes, schools and water sources."^[8]

Protect Colorado led the campaign in opposition to the measure. Protect Colorado argued that the measure would "devastate our economy, wipe out thousands of jobs, and endanger our environment. [It] would threaten private property rights and could even cost Colorado residents hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits."^[9] Karen Crummy, a spokeswoman of Protect Colorado, said, "This initiative is economically devastating to the state of Colorado. Not only would it cost thousands of jobs, but it would cost billions in actual economic impact."^[6]

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 112?[edit]

• Two committees were registered to support the measure. Together, the committees had raised $1.67 million and had spent $1.87 million^[10]

• Six committees were registered in opposition to the measure. Together, they had raised $31.87 million and had spent $31.35 million

What was the relationship between Proposition 112 and Amendment 74?[edit]

Proposition 112 would have mandated that new oil and gas development, including fracking, be a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupied buildings such as homes, schools, hospitals, and other areas designated as vulnerable. Amendment 74 would have required that property owners be compensated for any reduction in property value caused by state laws or regulations.

Amendment 74 sponsor and executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, Chad Vorthmann, said Amendment 74 was "about protecting Colorado's farmers and ranchers from extremist attempts to enforce random setback requirements for oil and natural gas development. While these setbacks may on their face sound reasonable, they would essentially eliminate oil and natural gas development in Colorado and strip away Colorado landowners' right to use their land the way they wish." Protect Colorado, the committee opposed to Proposition 112, provided contributions to the Committee for Colorado's Shared Heritage, a committee that supported Amendment 74.^[11]

In its article opposing Amendment 74, the Daily Camera editorial board wrote, "If both the setback measure [Proposition 112] and Amendment 74 pass, oil and gas companies could make legal claims that the new setbacks decreased the value of the minerals they own."^[12]

Colorado Rising Board Member Micah Parkin said that, before the deadline in September to withdraw citizen initiatives, she was approached about abandoning Proposition 112 in exchange for the withdrawal of Amendment 74. Parkin said, “[The Colorado Farm Bureau] ballot initiative [Amendment 74] would have way further reaching effects than just dealing with oil and gas. We are not going to betray [those] whose health and lives are on the line by dropping our safer setbacks proposition [Proposition 112].”^[13]

Text of measure[edit]

Ballot title[edit]

The ballot title for the initiative was as follows:^[14]

“

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a statewide minimum distance requirement for new oil and gas development, and, in connection therewith, changing existing distance requirements to require that any new oil and gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from any structure intended for human occupancy and any other area designated by the measure, the state, or a local government and authorizing the state or a local government to increase the minimum distance requirement?[15]

”

Summary and analysis[edit]

The summary and analysis provided for this measure in the Colorado 2018 State Ballot Information Booklet (also known as the Blue Book) was as follows:^[16]

Proposition 112 requires that any new oil and natural gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from occupied structures and other areas designated as vulnerable. This type of requirement is commonly known as a setback. Entering a previously plugged or abandoned oil or natural gas well is held to this same setback requirement. The measure also allows the state or a local government to require a setback distance greater than 2,500 feet. If two or more local governments with overlapping boundaries establish different setbacks, Proposition 112 requires that the greater distance be used. The measure does not apply to federal land, which includes national forests and parks and comprises about 36 percent of the land in Colorado. Under the measure, oil and natural gas development includes the exploration for, and the drilling, production, and processing of oil or natural gas. Oil and natural gas development also includes hydraulic fracturing, flowlines between oil and natural gas facilities, and the treatment of associated waste. Occupied structures include buildings where people live or work. Proposition 112 designates certain areas as vulnerable, including certain recreation areas and water sources, such as public and community drinking water sources, canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers and streams (whether continuously flowing or not), and any other area designated by the state or a local government as vulnerable. State regulation of oil and natural gas. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) in the Colorado Department of Natural Resources establishes and enforces regulations on oil and natural gas operations in the state. The COGCC is charged with fostering the responsible development, production, and use of oil and natural gas resources in a manner that protects public health, safety, welfare, and the environment. The COGCC consults with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to consider the health and safety of the public when regulating oil and natural gas operations. The CDPHE regulates air pollution, the discharge of water to surface water bodies, and the disposal of hazardous waste related to industrial activities, including oil and natural gas operations. Existing setback requirements. Current COGCC regulations, approved in 2013, prohibit oil and natural gas wells and production facilities from being located closer than: 500 feet from a home or other occupied building; and 1,000 feet from high-occupancy buildings such as schools, health care institutions, correctional facilities, and child care centers, as well as neighborhoods with at least 22 buildings. The surrounding area encompassed by the current 500-foot setback includes about 18 acres, and the 1,000-foot setback area includes about 72 acres. Proposition 112 increases the setback to a minimum of 2,500 feet, or about 450 surrounding acres. The current setback requirement may be waived in certain instances by the COGCC and a building owner. Proposition 112 does not include a waiver provision Oil and natural gas resources in Colorado. Geologic formations containing oil and natural gas are found in many areas of Colorado, with some formations underlying multiple local communities. Recent development of these resources has been concentrated in Weld, Garfield, La Plata, Rio Blanco, and Las Animas Counties, as well as portions of surrounding counties. Most of the state's oil production occurs in the Denver-Julesburg Basin, primarily in Weld County and other nearby counties. A COGCC map of current oil and natural gas activity can be found online at: this link. Oil and natural gas resources are owned or leased by many different private companies, governments, financial institutions, nonprofits, and private individuals. Oil production in Colorado doubled between 2013 and 2017. Natural gas production in Colorado has been stable over the past ten years. In 2016, Colorado ranked seventh among the states in domestic oil production and fifth in natural gas production. In 2017, there were about 54,000 producing wells in Colorado, a 48 percent increase since 2007. Oil and natural gas extraction technologies. Changes in industry technologies, such as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," and horizontal drilling, have led to substantial oil and natural gas production increases in Colorado and nationally, as well as an increase in the number of wells and related facilities. Hydraulic fracturing is used for most new wells and involves pumping a mixture of mostly water and sand, and small amounts of chemicals and other additives, into underground rock layers where oil or natural gas is located. The pressure of the water creates small fractures in the rock. The sand keeps the fractures open, allowing the oil or natural gas to escape and flow up the well. Hydraulic fracturing enables access to oil and natural gas formations that were previously inaccessible. Horizontal drilling enables oil and natural gas operators to drill multiple wells from a single location to improve their efficiency and minimize surface disturbances. With current technologies, oil and natural gas wells have the greatest production in their first year of operation and decrease in production each successive year until the wells are depleted. State and local revenue from oil and natural gas. Companies that extract mineral resources, including oil and natural gas, coal, and metallic minerals, pay severance taxes to the state. Oil and natural gas tax collections fluctuate annually. From budget years 2012-13 to 2016-17, state severance tax collections from oil and natural gas producers ranged from $4.0 million to $264.7 million per year. Under current law, Colorado severance tax revenue is split between state programs and local governments. The state also collects some revenue from royalty and lease payments. Oil and natural gas producers also pay income taxes, sales taxes, and local property taxes. In 2017, Colorado oil and natural gas producers paid an estimated $496.7 million in property taxes to impacted local governments, school districts, and special districts.

Full text[edit]

The measure would have added a new section 34-60-131 to the Colorado Revised Statutes. The full text of the measure is as follows:

34-60-131. Mitigation of adverse oil and gas impacts to health and safety — buffer zones — legislative declaration - definitions. (1) The people of the state of Colorado find and declare that: (a) Proximity to oil and gas development, including the use of hydraulic fracturing, has detrimental impacts on public health, safety, welfare, and the environment; (b) Such impacts are reduced by locating oil and gas operations away from occupied structures and vulnerable areas; and (c) To preserve public health, safety, welfare, and the environment, the people desire to establish a buffer zone requiring all new oil and gas development in the state of Colorado to be located an increased distance away from occupied structures, including homes, schools and hospitals, as well as vulnerable areas. (2) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) “Occupied structure” means any building or structure that requires a certificate of occupancy or building or structure intended for human occupancy, including homes, schools, and hospitals. (b) “Oil and gas development” means exploration for, and drilling, production, and processing of, oil, gas, or other gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons, and flowlines and the treatment of waste associated with such exploration, drilling, production and processing. “Oil and gas development” includes hydraulic fracturing. (c) “Vulnerable areas” means playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, public and community drinking water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, and creeks, and any additional vulnerable areas designated by the state or a local government. (d) “Local government” means any statutory or home rule county, city and county, city, or town located in the state of Colorado. (3) The people of the state of Colorado hereby establish that all new oil and gas development not on federal land must be located at least two thousand five hundred feet from an occupied structure or vulnerable area. For purposes of this section, the reentry of an oil or gas well previously plugged or abandoned is considered new oil and gas development. (4) The state or a local government may require that new oil and gas development be located a larger distance away from occupied structures or vulnerable areas than required by subsection (3) of this section. In the event that two or more local governments with jurisdiction over the same geographic area establish different buffer zone distances, the larger buffer zone governs. (5) This section takes effect upon official declaration of the governor and is self-executing. (6) this section applies to oil and gas development permitted on or after the effective date.

Readability score[edit]

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Colorado Title BoardThe Colorado Title Board includes the secretary of state, the Colorado attorney general, and the director of the Office of Legislative Legal Services or the director's designee. The board is responsible for drafting and approving the ballot title use for citizen initiatives during circulation and on the ballot. The board's titles can be challenged to the supreme court, which either affirms the board's title or orders changes. wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 37, and the FRE is -27. The word count for the ballot title is 79, and the estimated reading time is 21 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support[edit]

Colorado Rising led the campaign in support of this initiative.^[17]

Supporters[edit]

Following is a list of organizations and officials that had endorsed Colorado Rising or otherwise indicated their support for the measure:^[18]

Party endorsements Colorado Democratic Party[19] The Democratic Party for the City and County of Broomfield, Colorado[20] Organizations 350.org 350Colorado.org ACCDAN American Friends Service Committee Arise Music Festival Arvadans for Progressive Action Backpacker’s Pantry Be The Change USA Blue Wave Political Action Boulder City Council Boulder County Commissioners Boulder Ecodharma Sangha Boulder Luxury Group Boundless In Motion Broomfield Moms Active Community Broomfield Clean Air & Water Broomfield CAN, Colorado Action Network C3 Boulder, Climate Culture Collaborative Catholic Network US Center for Biological Diversity Clean Energy Action Climate Reality Project Colorado American Indian Movement Colorado Carbon Fund Colorado Coalition Colorado Coalition for a Livable Climate Colorado State Democratic Party Colorado Interfaith Power and Light Colorado Ocean Coalition Colorado People’s Alliance Colorado Renewable Energy Society Colorado Youth Climate Council Community for Sustainable Energy Conejos Clean Water CRES, Colorado Renewable Energy Society Denver Catholic Network Direct Colorado Earth Guardians Earth Vision Institute Earthworks East Boulder County United Eco-Justice Ministries Ecotech Institute Embodied Heart Wellness Empower Our Future Erie Protectors Food & Water Watch FCCAN, Fort Collins Community Action Network for Justice Peace & Environment Fort Collins Sustainability Group Four Winds American Indian Council Frack Free Colorado FRRESH (Front Range Residents for Environment Health Safety Golden Club, Sustainable Museum of Sustainable Transportation Great Old Broads Green Faith Greenpeace Grow Local Colorado Independent Power Systems Indivisible Denver Kids Against Fracking Liaison Learning Lizzy’s Market LOGIC, League of Oil and Gas Impacted Coloradans Mo’Betta Green Marketplace Mobilize US Moms Clean Air Force NVCRA, North Fork Valley Community Rights Advocates North Metro Neighbors for Safe Energy Ollin Farms Our Revolution, Denver Our Revolution, Boulder Physicians for Social Responsibility Rainforest Action Network Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center Save EPA Slow Food Western Slope Sierra Club Spirit Horse Nation Spirit of the Sun Sustainable Resilient Longmont Sustainability Forum Tadpole Press Telluride Institute Thistle Whistle Farms Together Against Neighborhood Drilling Town of Mountain View Colorado UNC Earth Guardians Valley Organic Growers Association Veterans for Peace Wall of Women Weld Air and Water Western Colorado Alliance for Community Action WILPF Earth Democracy What the Frack?! Arapahoe Wild Earth Guardians Wild Foundation Zeal, Food for Enthusiasts Officials U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)[21] Rep. Joseph Salazar (D-31) Sen. Matt Jones (D-17) Rep. Mike Foote (D-12) Rep. Jonathan Singer (D-11) Sen. Lucia Guzman (D-34) Sen. Stephen Fenberg (D-18) Elise Jones (Boulder County Commissioner) Deb Gardner (Boulder County Commissioner) Christiaan van Woudenberg (Erie Trustee) Chelsea Behana (Lafayette City Councilor) Jamie Harkins (Lafayette City Councilor) Merrily Mazza (Lafayette City Councilor) Christine Berg (Lafayette City Mayor) Lisa Morzel (Boulder City Councilwoman) Bernie Douthit (CO State Treasurer candidate) Mark Williams (Colorado) (Democratic candidate for CD2, US House Representatives) Nick Thomas (Colorado) (Independent candidate for CD2, US House Representatives) Levi Tillemann (Democratic candidate for CD6, US House Representatives) Arn Menconi (Green party candidate for CD3, US House Representatives) Michael Kiley (candidate for Colorado House District 4) Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez (Democratic candidate for Colorado House District 4) Amy Beatie (Democratic candidate for Colorado House District 4) Theresa Stets (candidate for Colorado House District 12) Sonya Jaquez Lewis (Democratic candidate for Colorado House District 12) Emily Sirota (Democratic candidate for Colorado House District 9) Cliff Willing (candidate for Boulder County Commissioner) Eric Rutherford (candidate for Colorado House District 33) Josh Zygielbaum (Thornton City Councilman and candidate for Adams County Clerk) Colleen Zahradnicek (candidate for Denver City Council) Nicole Johnston (Aurora City Councilwoman) Julie Gonzales (candidate for CO State Senate) Joyann Ruscha (candidate for RTD B) Lisa Culpepper (candidate for Adams County Treasurer) Peg Perl (candidate for Denver County Clerk) Bill McKibben (Author and Founder of 350.org) Health professionals Dr. Larry Moore – Emergency Medicine Physician, Manitou Springs, CO Registered nurse Suzanne Cabral from Thornton, CO Barbara Donachy, MPH – Physicians for Social Responsibility, Denver, CO Catherine Thomasson, MD – Former president of Physicians for Social Responsibility

Arguments[edit]

• Colorado Rising argued, "Currently, fracking operations are allowed to take place just 500 feet from a home and 1,000 feet from a school building (and right by school playgrounds). The industry has shown blatant disregard for public health and safety, and the current state regulatory body – the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) – has not provided responsible protective regulatory oversight to prevent inappropriate siting of toxic fracking operations adjacent to homes, schools and water sources."^[22]

• Micah Parkin of Colorado Rising said, “Toxic, industrial and dangerous activity like fracking doesn’t belong in our neighborhoods, near our kids’ schools or near our water supplies. These are really common-sense regulations.”^[23]

• Carl Erickson, chairman of Weld Air and Water and Democratic candidate for Board of Weld County Commissioners said, "We have large areas in Weld County and elsewhere in Colorado that they can easily put drilling pads without encroaching on a 2,500-foot setback. What it does is cut down on the amount of close-in drilling to residential areas. We want to keep oil and gas drilling away from populations." Erickson also said that the initiative would not stop agreements with individual property owners who would allow oil and gas companies to drill closer.^[17]

• Suzanne Spiegel, an organizer for Initiative 97, said, "The reason we're doing this as communities is we're our own last line of defense."^[6]

• The Colorado Sierra Club chairperson of the chapter's executive committee, Will Walters, stated that "Initiative 97 would move [oil and gas operations] a safer distance from playgrounds and rivers, while still allowing modern horizontal drills to extract shale oil and methane. The Sierra Club supports this win-win science-based solution to protect health, safety and the environment without harming the economy.”^[24]

• Heidi Henkel, founder of Broomfield Moms Active Community, said, "With nine out of eleven bills killed in our legislature and hundreds of heartbreaking testimonies given to the COGCC with no action, it’s time our citizens are heard with this ballot measure. It is long overdue, and I am pleased with the outpouring of support from so many statewide. The state has failed to protect us, so we’ve taken it into our own hands."^[25]

• Therese Gilbert, a schoolteacher from Greeley, said, "Oil and gas development has exploded over the last seven years in Weld County, and I have witnessed a change in the way people view the issue. As more people experience what it is like to have fracking happen so close to where they live — the explosions, weekly spill reports, their children getting asthma, they are now saying ‘enough is enough.’ When the frack wells started going in right behind schools, a line was crossed. The industry cannot be allowed to take risks with our children.”^[25]

• Responding to other op-eds, Greg Dobbs wrote, Ritter’s reasoning is, if this new setback proposition becomes law, oil and gas producers will flee the state. True, some might, but do you know how big oil and gas already is in Colorado? According to the American Petroleum Institute, there are roughly 50,000 active wells in the state, which ultimately contribute more than $30 billion to Colorado’s economy. Remember, Prop 112 would only create a bigger setback for new projects (and for the reactivation of previously abandoned ones); there’s nothing in the proposal that would force anyone to walk away from what they already have."^[26]

Official arguments[edit]

The supporting arguments provided for this measure in the Colorado 2018 Blue Book were as follows:^[16]

1) Oil and natural gas operations may adversely impact public health, safety, and the environment. Some people living near these operations have reported negative health effects to the CDPHE, including sinus and respiratory conditions, as well as other symptoms such as headaches and nausea. Such development increases noise, traffic, dust, light, and odors. Proposition 112 requires that new oil and natural gas development be located farther away from homes, schools, businesses, and other occupied buildings, thereby reducing nuisance impacts and potential exposure to air pollutants. Proposition 112 also establishes a required setback from water sources and recreation areas to help protect those resources. 2) Over the past several years, Colorado's northern Front Range has seen both substantial urban development and increased oil and natural gas activity. Proposition 112 provides property owners with greater certainty about the location of new oil and natural gas development in their communities. Keeping oil and natural gas development farther away from occupied structures reduces resident exposure to industrial activity and the potential hazards related to such activity. It may also improve the quality of life for nearby residents. Some people are reluctant to purchase or rent a home or visit a business or recreation area located near oil or natural gas development.

Campaign advertisements[edit]

The following videos were released by Colorado Rising:^[27]

Title: "Brett Irwin - Yes on 112"

Title: "YES on 112 to Protect Colorado Neighborhoods"

Title: "Stand for Colorado with Mark Ruffalo: Yes on 112"

Opposition[edit]

Protect Colorado led the campaign in opposition to the measure. Protect Colorado describes its mission as to "support state and local ballot initiatives promoting responsible oil and natural gas development, and oppose state and local ballot initiatives attempting to limit or ban oil and natural gas development, including any ban or restriction on hydraulic fracturing."^[28]

Opponents[edit]

The following officials, individuals, organizations, and regions were opposed to Proposition 112:^[29][30]

Education entities Aims Community College Colorado Mesa University Colorado River District Colorado Rural Schools Alliance Greeley-Evans School District 6 Board of Education High Plains Library District University of Northern Colorado Officials Democratic U.S. Representative of Colorado's 2nd Congressional District and candidate for Governor of Colorado Jared Polis State Rep. Lois Landgraf (R-21) State Rep. Dave Williams (R-15) State Rep. Larry Liston (R-16) State Rep. Shane Sandridge (R-14) State Rep. Paul Lundeen (R-19) State Rep. Susan Beckman (R-38) State Rep. Terri Carver (R-20) State Rep. Paul Rosenthal (D-9) State Rep. Perry Buck (R-49) State Sen. Bob Gardner (R-12) State Sen. Jack Tate (R-27) State Sen. Owen Hill (R-10) State Sen. Kevin Priola (R-25) State Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg (R-1) State Sen. Larry Crowder (R-35) State Sen. Kent Lambert (R-9) Former Governor Bill Owens (R) Former State Sen. Bernie Herpin (R-11) Former State Sen. Andy McElhany Former State Sen. Nancy Spence (R-27) Former State Rep. Kit Roupe (R-17) Former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar[31] Former House Majority Leader Amy Stephens Former State Rep. Rob Fairbank (R) Former State Rep. Spencer Swalm (R-37) Former State Rep. Frank Defillipo Arapahoe County Commissioner Jeff Baker El Paso County Commissioner Longinus Gonzalez El Paso County Commissioner Mark Waller El Paso County Commissioner Peggy Littleton El Paso County Commissioner Stan VanderWerf El Paso County Commissioner Dennis Hisey Weld County Commissioner Sean Conway Weld County Commissioner Julie Cozad Weld County Commissioner Mike Freeman Weld County Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer Weld County Commissioner Steve Moreno Powers Commissioner Wendy Buxton-Andrade Mesa County Commissioner Rose Pugliese Former Douglas County Commissioner Mary Michael Cooke Colorado Springs City Councilman Andy Pico Colorado Springs City Councilman Tom Strand Colorado Springs City Councilman Don Knight Colorado Springs City Councilman Merv Bennett Colorado Springs City Councilwoman Jill Gaebler Former Douglas County School Board President Kevin Larsen Garfield Commissioner John Martin Garfield Commissioner Mike Samson Garfield Commissioner Tom Jankovsky Greenwood Village Mayor Ron Rakowsky Jefferson County Commissioner Libby Szabo Jefferson County Commissioner Tina Francone Mayors Mayors Against Proposition 112[32] Denver Mayor Michael Hancock Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers Aurora Mayor Bob Legare Will Toor, former Boulder mayor and Boulder County commissioner[33] Former Greeley Mayor Tom Norton Ault Mayor Rob Piotrowski Dacono Mayor Joe Baker Eaton Mayor Kevin Ross Evans Mayor Brian Rudy Fort Lupton Mayor Zo Stieber Greeley Mayor John Gates Hudson Mayor Dwayne Haynes Johnstown Mayor Scott James LaSalle Mayor Andy Martinez Milliken Mayor Beau Woodcock Platteville Mayor Adrienne Brossman Sandoval Severance Mayor Don McCleod Thornton Mayor Heidi Schoenenberger Williams Windsor Mayor Kristie Melendez Former Centennial Mayor Cathy Noon Glendale Mayor Mike Dunafon Lakewood Mayor Adam Paul Arvada Mayor Marc Williams Federal Heights Mayor Daniel Dick Broomfield Mayor Randy Ahrens Counties, municipalities City of Evans City of Thornton City of Centennial City of Craig City of Dacono Garfield County Weld County Cheyenne County Rio Blanco County Jefferson County Town of Parachute Town of Rangely Town of Montezuma Town of LaSalle Individuals Jeff Cummings, CEO of Duffy Crane and Hauling and board director of Colorado Motor Carriers Association Organizations The Colorado Association of Mineral and Royalty Owners Colorado Oil and Gas Association Colorado Petroleum Council[31] American Petroleum Institute[31] Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce[34] Pro 15[35] Colorado Issues Coalition[36] 13 Issues, also known as the State Ballot Issue Committee[37] Denver Metro Commercial Association of REALTORS Colorado Association of Homebuilders Colorado Bankers Association Colorado Association of REALTORS Colorado Association of Mechanical and Plumbing Contractors Colorado Women’s Chamber of Commerce Colorado Women’s Alliance Mechanical Contractors Association of Colorado Mechanical Service Contractors Association of Colorado National Certified Pipe Welding Bureau, Colorado Chapter Colorado Farm Bureau Northwest Douglas County Economic Development Corp. Housing & Building Association of Colorado Springs Colorado Cattlemen’s Association American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) of Colorado South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce Metro North Chamber of Commerce Highlands Ranch Chamber of Commerce Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce Evans Area Chamber of Commerce Fort Lupton Chamber of Commerce Mead Chamber of Commerce Colorado Business Roundtable Colorado Apartment Association Pikes Peak Association of REALTORS Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance Economic Development Council of Colorado Colorado Contractors Association Colorado Springs Chamber and EDC Associated General Contractors of Colorado Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce National Federation of Independent Business, Colorado Colorado Pipefitters Local 208 Castle Rock Chamber of Commerce Club 20 Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry Jefferson County Economic Development Corp. Aurora Chamber of Commerce Colorado Association of Wheat Growers GPA Midstream and GPA Midstream Rocky Mountain Chapter Colorado Motor Carriers Association Colorado Construction & Building Trades Council Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado Action 22 Greeley Chamber of Commerce Rifle Area Chamber of Commerce American Petroleum Institute Colorado Alliance of Mineral and Royalty Owners (CAMRO) Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) Colorado Petroleum Council Colorado Automobile Dealers Association Colorado Concern Colorado Municipal League Carbon Valley Chamber of Commerce Colorado Water Congress Greater Brighton Chamber of Commerce Colorado Counties, Inc.

Arguments[edit]

• U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D) said, "Initiative 97 would all but ban fracking in Colorado — a position I have never supported. Let me be very clear where I stand on this: As I said during the Democratic primary, I oppose Initiative 97."^[38]

• Protect Colorado said the following about Proposition 112 on its website: "If passed, [the measure] would devastate our economy, wipe out thousands of jobs, and endanger our environment. [It] would threaten private property rights and could even cost Colorado residents hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits."^[39] Karen Crummy, a spokeswoman of Protect Colorado, said, "This initiative is economically devastating to the state of Colorado. Not only would it cost thousands of jobs, but it would cost billions in actual economic impact."^[6]

• Regina Thomson, president of the Colorado Issues Coalition, said, "Oil and gas firms in our state already abide by stringent safety regulations and keep their distance from homes and schools. Extending buffer zones would cost the state dearly while providing virtually no additional benefits. By 2030, [Proposition 112] would likely cost the state more than 140,000 jobs and up to $1 billion in tax revenue. Within the first five years, the expanded buffer zone could cost the state 54,000 jobs and $7 billion in lost GDP."^[36]

• The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce argued, "This initiative threatens to cripple the energy sector of the state’s economy by in-effect banning almost all oil and gas development in our state. In Colorado, we know we can produce energy AND protect our environment. We have some of the most stringent oil and gas regulations in the country, including setbacks that have recently been increased. Colorado is home to some of the lowest energy costs in the country, helping make Colorado more affordable for all our working families; this ban of new development will impact those prices. We support efforts to work together to ensure we continue to provide leadership in energy production that is safe and reliable while protecting our lands.^[34]

• President of The Colorado Association of Mineral and Royalty Owners, Neil Ray, said the measure would negatively impact Colorado's 600,000 mineral rights owners. In a report, the association found that a Weld County field with untapped minerals could have a value of $180 billion, with royalties for owners amounting to more than $25 billion. "Not only do these estimates represent a staggering value that could be taken without compensation from mineral owners by proposed ballot initiatives, but they represent funds taken from tax coffers that fund schools, roads, and other community services that we all value," said Ray, who also holds a leadership position with Vital for Colorado, an industry-funded, dark-money organization out of Denver. "Even a section with low-producing wells still would generate over $200 million in royalties alone. Our cities, counties, and state simply cannot afford to compensate mineral owners for their property."^[17]

• Colorado Oil and Gas Association spokesman Scott Prestidge said, “A 2,500-foot setback would shut down Colorado’s oil and natural gas industry and lead to a massive layoff of over 100,000 local jobs. We hope Coloradans read before they sign any petition that would place this dangerous measure on the ballot.”^[23]

• Tracee Bentley, the executive director of the Colorado Petroleum Council, said, "I definitely think it's misguided and shortsighted. [The measure would be a] huge hit to our economy, and certainly to consumers, so we're taking it very seriously."^[31]

Official arguments[edit]

The opposing arguments provided for this measure in the Colorado 2018 Blue Book were as follows:^[16]

1) Proposition 112 eliminates new oil and natural gas activity on most non-federal land in Colorado. According to the COGCC, about 85 percent of Colorado's non-federal land would be excluded from development with the required 2,500-foot setback. Oil and natural gas development is important to Colorado’s economy, generating an estimated $10.9 billion in production value in 2017 and supporting many other industries and jobs. Proposition 112 will reduce the economic benefits the oil and natural gas industry provides for the state and may result in the loss of jobs, lower payments to mineral owners, and reduced tax revenue that is used for local schools and other governmental services and programs. 2) Proposition 112 is unnecessary because the existing COGCC setback requirements provide a balanced approach to protecting public health, safety, and the environment. The state’s existing setback requirements were developed through a collaborative rule-making process and guided by technical expertise. When adopting its setback rules, the COGCC considered the concerns of mineral owners, residents, schools, businesses, and others. Under current law, the COGCC has the authority to modify setback requirements in the future, if necessary.

Campaign advertisements[edit]

The following videos were released by Protect Colorado:^[40]

Title: "Devastating"

Title: "Bipartisan"

Title: "Lots to Lose"

Media editorials[edit]

Support[edit]

• The Daily Camera wrote, "In the bigger picture, Proposition 112 comes before voters amid ubiquitous signs of a climate change emergency. The last four years saw the hottest January-June periods ever recorded on Earth. Detractors label the setback measure as extreme. But what is more extreme, expanded setbacks or neighborhoods infested with heavy industry? Proposition 112 is the people's response to an unresponsive government. As a grassroots initiative it's imperfect. But it's a statutory measure, so that if in practice it proves unexpectedly onerous or unintended consequences arise, the Colorado legislature can make adjustments as deemed appropriate. Weighed against years of official deference to industry, Proposition 112 deserves voter approval."^[41]

• The Aspen Times wrote: "We feel that it is time for the state to take control of these setback issues. The oil and gas industry has been adjusting to rules and crying wolf whenever groups try to push back, and we think now is the time for people to have their say as a state and look to public health first. While we agree that some of the language in the question could be overreaching, we'd rather we jump into this now and work a bit back on the language through the Legislature. It's a better scenario than continuing to talk about oil and gas issues and getting nothing accomplished. The claims of tens of thousands of lost jobs and millions in lost revenue continues to be the drumbeat of the opposition. We feel those jobs and revenue will come back, or find other ways to pull oil and gas from underneath Colorado's soil. As a statutory measure, our elected officials can take a look and examine what doesn't work in the coming years. It's time to be bold as a state."^[42]

Opposition[edit]

• The Durango Herald wrote, "In effect, [Proposition 112] would ban new drilling on 85 percent of Colorado’s non-federal land. We simply do not see the need for a top-down approach to what is a real problem for some people in Colorado, in at least some places – a problem that will only grow as more people come to the state and oil and gas production increases. In the governor’s race, both Stapleton, the industry-friendly conservative, and Polis, the green liberal, think 2,500 feet is too far. If it’s outside the gulf between these two candidates, it is certainly too far for us. We are a NO vote on [Proposition 112]."^[43]

• The Aurora Sentinel wrote, "Colorado has a serious problem balancing public safety and regulating the gas and oil industry across the state. Proposition 112 is the wrong answer. Increasing an arbitrary, universal setback would punish an industry that carries a great deal of public risk, but it wouldn’t ensure everyone living or working near a drilling site would be any safer than they are now. Only additional reputable research and flexible set-back regulations, allowing for local control, can keep state residents and the petroleum industry healthy. Vote no on Prop 112 and elect state lawmakers willing to pass flexible regulations."^[44]

• The Pueblo Chieftain wrote, "If oil and gas companies start abandoning Colorado for other states, that could drive up energy costs. Also, placing draconian restrictions on the domestic oil and gas industry doesn’t support our country’s goal of becoming less dependent on energy from foreign sources. Regulating businesses sometimes requires a balancing act between public safety and free enterprise. However, this ballot initiative seems like overkill. The Pueblo Chieftain recommends a ‘no’ vote on Proposition 112."^[45]

• The Craig Daily Press wrote, "The measure would essentially ban new oil and gas developments in Colorado, a move that would be disastrous for the state's economy, particularly the energy-dependent economies of its northern regions. Second, we're tremendously concerned by the language used in the definition of "vulnerable" areas, particularly the phrase, "… and any additional vulnerable areas designated by the state or a local government." This language is far too vague and suggests that any outdoor area could be subject to a subsequent declaration of vulnerability. All in all, this is not a balanced approach. We agree that areas intended for human habitation and recreation should be protected from pollution, but Proposition 112 is akin to using a sledgehammer to swat a fly."^[46]

• The Fort Morgan Times said: "The 2,500-foot proposal is too extreme. Don't assume what you might find to be good for Boulder or Denver is good enough for the rest of the state. Say yes to jobs, yes to thriving economies, and say a resounding 'no' to Proposition 112."^[47]

• The Colorado Springs Gazette wrote: "Along with Amendments 73 and 74, Prop 112 completes a trifecta of ballot measures that threaten catastrophic results for our state. Prop 112 would impose a 2,500-foot setback on all oil and gas operations in Colorado. Both gubernatorial candidates and nearly all responsible political leaders on the right, left and all points between agree this measure would kill hundreds of thousands of Colorado jobs and throw our state into recession for years. Schools will lose funding and small businesses will close. Vote no on Prop 112."^[48]

Other opposing media editorial endorsements[edit]

Aside from the above media editorials endorsing a no vote on Proposition 112, the following editorial boards have also endorsed a no vote on the measure:^[49]

Polls[edit]

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls

• An online poll from the University of Colorado’s American Politics Research Lab and conducted by YouGov from October 12 to October 17 asked registered voters how they would vote on Proposition 112 if they had to choose "yes" or "no." Overall, it showed 52 percent in support, and 48 percent opposed. Among Democrats, there was 73 percent and 27 percent opposition. Among Republicans, there was 25 percent support and 75 percent opposition. Among independents, there was 51 percent support and 49 percent opposition.

Colorado Proposition 112 (2018)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
University of Colorado’s American Political Research Lab (Conducted by YouGov) 10/12/2018 - 10/17/2018	52%	48%	0%	+/-3.5	800
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Campaign finance[edit]

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$1,685,374.63
Opposition:	$31,873,580.51

The following two committees were registered to support Proposition 112:

• Colorado Rising
• Earthworks Action Fund Issue Committee

Together, the committees had raised $1.67 million and had spent $1.87 million

The following six committees were registered to oppose Proposition 112:

• Protect Colorado
• Fix Our Damn Roads
• Spirit of Colorado
• State Ballot Issue Committee
• Americans for Prosperity Colorado Issue Committee AFP-CO-IC
• ExxonMobil Colorado Issue Committee

Together, they had raised $31.87 million and had spent $31.35 million.

Support[edit]

Committees in support of Colorado Proposition 112 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Colorado Rising for Health and Safety $1,266,959.42 $368,289.21 $1,449,768.06[50] Earthworks Action Fund Issue Committee $50,126.00[51] $0.00 $50,109.85[52] Total $1,317,085.42 $368,289.21 $1,499,877.91

Totals in support Total raised: $1,685,374.63 Total spent: $1,868,167.12

Donors[edit]

According to the most current reports available, the top five donors in support of this measure were as follows:^[53]

Donor	Amount
Food and Water Watch Action Fund	$445,984.00
Sergey Brin Family Foundation	$170,000.00
Progress Now	$170,000.00
Jay Hormel	$115,077.85
Patricia Olson	$80,129.70
Nicholas Wilder	$70,077.85

Opposition[edit]

Note: Protect Colorado registered to oppose Proposition 112 in January 2017, so Ballotpedia only tracked campaign finance activity occurring after that date. Protect Colorado had also given more than $10 million to other committees (Committee for Colorado's Shared Heritage and Coloradans for Coloradans), so that amount was subtracted from Protect Colorado's contributions and expenditures so as not to double count the money, which is accounted for in the receiving committees' contributions.

Committees in opposition to Colorado Proposition 112 Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Protect Colorado $26,847,114.98 $3,818,158.95 $26,383,379.49 State Ballot Issue Committee (13 Issues) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Fix Our Damn Roads $499,876.60 $248,718.70 $451,699.69 Spirit of Colorado $400,100.00 $6,900.00 $383,587.40 Americans for Prosperity- Colorado Issue Committee (AFP-CO IC) $0.00 $10,242.77 $0.00 ExxonMobil Colorado Issue Committee $0.00 $42,468.51 $0.00 Total $27,747,091.58 $4,084,020.42 $27,218,666.58

Totals in opposition Total raised: $31,873,580.51 Total spent: $31,345,155.51

Donors[edit]

According to the most current reports available, the top five donors in opposition to this measure were as follows:^[53]

Donor	Amount
Anadarko Petroleum Corp.	$6,941,000.00
Noble Engery Inc.	$6,210,069.19
PDC Energy	$5,558,532.99
Colorado Petroleum Council	$4,267,254.16
Extraction Oil & Gas	$3,499,090.50

Methodology[edit]

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Reports and analyses[edit]

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here.

Colorado Health Institute[edit]

The Colorado Health Institute released an analysis of Proposition 112 on October 22, 2018, titled "Is 2,500 the Magic Number to Protect Public Health?"^[54]

Key summary points highlighted by the analysis can be expanded here

“ Proposition 112 would increase the minimum distance required between new oil and gas wells and homes, schools, and other designated areas to 2,500 feet — more than twice the current required distance — in an effort to protect public health. Coloradans are reporting health concerns such as headaches and respiratory problems in areas with high oil and gas activity. The evidence that a 2,500-foot setback will protect health is currently limited, and further research is needed.[15] ”

The full report can be read here.

EnerCom Analytics[edit]

On October 26, 2018, EnerCom Analytics released an analysis of Proposition 112 titled Colorado Oil and Gas Faces a Major Setback which includes information on "locations that would be affected, the impact on anticipated development plans, company response options, and current investor sentiment."^[55]

Key summary points highlighted by the analysis can be expanded here

“ Proposition 112 bans drilling on vast majority of non-federal land Key activity centers would be heavily impacted by the measure E&P companies are attempting to secure continued drilling opportunities by getting as many permits as possible Approved permits will be grandfathered in, permits awaiting approval may or may not Permit inventories give public DJ companies 1.5- 5 years of drilling inventory at current rates Oil and gas companies in Colorado have hard choices to make if 112 passes Equity markets are cautious, and are pricing in significant risk Political risk makes investors reluctant to put capital into Colorado Amendment 74 may provide payday for impacted companies [15] ”

The full report can be read here.

S&P Global Platts Analytics[edit]

On October 22, 2018, S&P Global Platts Analytics released a study of the impact of Proposition 112 on oil and gas production.^[56]

The report's conclusion can be expanded here
“ Proposition 112 would curtail gas production by 45% and oil production by 54% within five years. It would render 78% of Weld County, Colorado's surface land off-limits to new oil and gas development. The county currently accounts for more than 95% of all Denver-Julesburg Basin production. [15] ”

The full report can be read here.

Common Sense Policy Roundtable report[edit]

On July 27, 2018, the Common Sense Policy Roundtable released a study of the economic impact of the initiative.^[57]

The report's conclusion can be expanded here

“ Colorado’s oil and gas industry supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in the state across nearly all sectors of the economy. In addition, the industry operates within some of the nation’s strictest regulations regarding safety, water monitoring and air quality. A change from the existing 500-foot setback requirement to a 2,500-foot requirement would eliminate between 62% and 80% of annual new oil and gas development in the state. By 2030, it would reduce the total value of production in the state by between 54% and 70%. The state and local tax revenue lost from the reductions in the oil and gas industry alone would range from -$201M to -$258M in the first year, to between -$825M and -$1.1B annually by 2030. And by 2030 there would be roughly 115,000 to 147,800 fewer jobs through all sectors of the economy. [15] ”

The full report can be read here.

Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) report[edit]

On July 2, 2018, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission released a study of the impact of the initiative.^[58]

Some major findings highlighted in the report can be expanded here

“ An estimated 54% of Colorado’s total land surface would be unavailable for new oil and gas development by adopting the buffer zone setbacks and federal land exemption proposed by initiative #97. Of the non-federal land in Colorado, 85% would be inaccessible using these same criteria. 78% of Weld County surface land (85% of non-federal land) would be off-limits to new oil and gas development. In Colorado’s top five oil and gas producing counties combined, 61% of the surface acreage (94% of non-federal land) would be unavailable. “Vulnerable areas” buffers, which initiative #97 defines to include a range of surface hydrologic features, would have a significantly larger impact than “occupied structure” buffers on making surface lands inaccessible to new oil and gas activity. [15] ”

The full report can be read here.

Background[edit]

Fracking[edit]

See also: Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is a method of oil and natural gas extraction. The process involves injecting fluid into subterranean rock formations at high pressure. The high pressure fluid produces a fracture network that allows crude oil and natural gas inside dense rocks to flow into a wellbore and be extracted at the surface. The fluid (known as frac fluid) contains between 98 percent and 99.5 percent water and sand; between 0.5 percent and 2 percent of the fluid is composed of chemical additives, which are used to stop the growth of microorganisms, prevent well casing corrosion, increase the rate at which the fluid is injected, and reduce pressure, among other uses.^[59] While states have primary regulatory authority over fracking, oil and gas operators must meet requirements in the following federal environmental and public health laws, among others:^[60]

• The Clean Air Act, which regulates air pollutants emitted during oil and gas production
• The Clean Water Act, which regulates all pollution discharges into surface waters and requires oil and gas operators to obtain permits to discharge produced water—fluids used during fracking as well as water that occurs naturally in oil or gas-bearing formations—into surface water.
• The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, which requires oil and gas operators to report the release of hazardous substances during oil and operations and allows the EPA to investigate hazardous substance releases and require operators to restore areas affected by hazardous spills.

Fracking in Colorado[edit]

See also: Fracking in Colorado

According to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, hydraulic fracturing in the state became a regular technique during oil and gas drilling beginning in the 1970s. According to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document on hydraulic fracturing (accessed in May 2017), "Hydraulic fracturing continues to be refined and improved and is now standard for virtually all oil and gas wells in our state, and across much of the country."^[61] According to U.S. Energy Information Administration data from December 2017, Colorado accounts for about four percent of U.S. crude oil production and holds 4 percent of the country's crude oil reserves. Eleven of the 100 largest natural gas fields are located in Colorado.^[62] The map below shows all oil and gas wells in Colorado (as of May 2017). An interactive version of the map below can be accessed here.

Impact of Proposition 112[edit]

The map below was created in July 2018 by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and maps the impacts of Proposition 112. An interactive version of the map below can be accessed here. Federal lands are shaded in pink. Areas that would not be available for development because they are within 2,500 feet of an occupied structure are shaded in green, while vulnerable areas are shaded in orange. According to this analysis, the areas left unshaded would be the only non-federal land available for new oil and gas development projects.^[63]

Statewide measures related to fracking in Colorado[edit]

See also: Fracking on the ballot and List of Colorado ballot measures

Of the nine other fracking measures Ballotpedia has covered, eight were in Colorado (in the years 2014, 2016, and 2018) and one was in Michigan (in 2018). None of the measures qualified for the ballot. Following are some of the statewide measures related to fracking proposed in Colorado:

• Colorado State and Local Oil and Gas Development Regulations Initiative (2018): This measure would have affirmed that local governments may regulate certain aspects of oil and natural gas developments as long as they do not restrict a property owner's access to their surface or mineral property, or "impose technically or economically unfeasible conditions on access or development."
• Colorado Mandatory Setback from Oil and Gas Development Amendment (2016): The measure would have amended the state constitution to establish that all new oil and gas development facilities must be at least 2,500 feet from an occupied structure.
• Colorado Ban on Fracking Amendment (2016): The measure would have amended the state constitution to ban the use of hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas development.
• Colorado Mandatory Setback of Oil and Gas Wells Amendment (2014): The measure would have set a mandatory distance from occupied structures for new oil and gas wells requiring a state or local permit, including those using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Democratic U.S. Representative of Colorado's 2nd Congressional District and candidate for Governor of Colorado Jared Polis was a primary supporter of this measure, though he opposed Proposition 112.

Local measures related to fracking in Colorado[edit]

Ballotpedia tracked seven measures related to fracking in Colorado between 2012 and 2014.

Ban on oil and gas fracking[edit]

The City of Lafayette Ban on New Oil and Gas Fracking Amendment, Question 300 was on the November 5, 2013, election ballot for voters in the city of Lafayette in Boulder County, Colorado. It was approved by a vote of 60 to 40 percent but later struck down by a court ruling. It would have amended the Lafayette city charter to add a "Community Bill of Rights and Obligations" section which would impose a ban on oil and gas extraction and all related activities, especially fracking, within the city limits. ^[64][65]

The Longmont City Fracking Ban Question was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in the city of Longmont, which is in Boulder and Weld Counties, Colorado. It was approved. This measure sought to ban the use of fracking in the city. It was overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court in 2016.^[66][67][68]

Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

The state process[edit]

In Colorado, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated state statute for the ballot is equal to 5 percent of the total number of votes cast for the office of Colorado secretary of state in the preceding general election. State law provides that petitioners have six months to collect signatures after the ballot language and title are finalized. State statutes require a completed signature petition to be filed three months and three weeks before the election at which the measure would appear on the ballot. The Constitution, however, states that the petition must be filed three months before the election at which the measure would appear. The secretary of state generally lists a date that is three months before the election as the filing deadline.

The requirements to get an initiated state statute certified for the 2018 ballot:

• Signatures: 98,492 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was August 6, 2018.

The secretary of state is responsible for signature verification. Verification is conducted through a review of petitions regarding correct form and then a 5 percent random sampling verification. If the sampling projects between 90 percent and 110 percent of required valid signatures, a full check of all signatures is required. If the sampling projects more than 110 percent of the required signatures, the initiative is certified. If less than 90 percent, the initiative fails.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Direct Action Partners and Encore Political Services to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $567,174.82 was spent to collect the 98,492 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.67.

Details about this initiative[edit]

• Anne Lee Foster and Suzanne Spiegel filed this initiative with the office of the secretary of state on January 5, 2018.^[14]
• The ballot title setting board approved version #97 of the initiative regarding the state's single-subject rule and issued a ballot title for it on January 17, 2018.^[14]
• On March 22, 2018, the petition format for versions #97 of this initiative was approved, thereby clearing the initiative for signature gathering.^[14]
• Proponents submitted signatures for the measure on August 6, 2018.^[69]
• The measure was certified for the ballot on August 29, 2018. A total of 123,195 signatures were found to be valid of the 172,834 signatures that had been submitted. To qualify for the ballot, 98,492 were required.^[69]

Lawsuit[edit]

Colorado Rising v. Direct Action Partners

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether the signature gathering company acted illegally by taking signatures out of state
Court: Filed in Denver District Court
Plaintiff(s): Colorado Rising	Defendant(s): Direct Action Partners
Plaintiff argument: The company hired to gather signatures acted illegally by taking petition sheets out of state after a contract dispute	Defendant argument: The petitions were taken to Oregon to process them for a cheaper price

  Source: New York Times

Colorado Rising filed a complaint alleging that Direct Action Partners, the signature gathering company it hired to collect signatures for the measure, acted illegally by removing signatures from the state and bringing them to Oregon for processing. On July 27, 2018, Colorado Rising announced that it had recovered the signatures. Rep. Joe Salazar (D-31), who filed the court complaint, said that Direct Action Partners "took the signatures of Colorado voters out of state. There should be a law that prohibits such a thing. My view is that they are the property of Colorado Rising and that it is the contractor's responsibility to safeguard those signatures." According to the New York Times, Michael Selvaggio of Direct Action Partners had emailed the Colorado Secretary of State's office to ask about the legality of removing the signatures to process in another state, to which an official with the secretary of state's office replied, “There is no prohibition that I am aware of that prohibits you from doing so.”^[70][71]

Related measures[edit]

• Colorado Amendment 74, Compensation to Owners for Decreased Property Value Due to State Regulation Initiative (2018)

How to cast a vote[edit]

See also: Voting in Colorado

Poll times[edit]

In Colorado, polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mountain Time for individuals who prefer to vote in person rather than by mail. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.^[72][73]

Registration requirements[edit]

In Colorado, an individual can register to vote if he or she is at least 16 years old and will be 18 by Election Day. A voter must be a citizen of the United States and have lived in Colorado at least 22 days prior to Election Day.^[74]

Colorado voters can register through Election Day but must register at least eight days prior to Election Day to automatically receive a ballot in the mail. Voters who register after that point must pick up a ballot in person at any Voter Service and Polling Center. Voters can register online or submit a form in person or by fax, email, or mail.^[74][75]

Automatic registration[edit]

Colorado automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Online registration[edit]

See also: Online voter registration

Colorado has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration[edit]

Colorado allows same-day voter registration for individuals who vote in person.

Residency requirements[edit]

Colorado law requires 22 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.

Verification of citizenship[edit]

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Colorado does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Verifying your registration[edit]

The site Go Vote Colorado, run by the Colorado Secretary of State office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements[edit]

Colorado requires voters to present non-photo identification while voting at the polls. Voters may also need to return a photocopy of their ID with their ballots if they are voting by mail for the first time. Click here for more information.

The following list of accepted ID was current as of April 2021. Click here for the Colorado Secretary of State's page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.

“

The following documents are acceptable forms of identification: A valid Colorado driver’s license or valid identification card issued by the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Note: documents issued to not lawfully present and temporarily lawfully present individuals under Part 5 of Article 2 of Title 42, C.R.S. are not acceptable forms of identification.) A valid U.S. passport. A valid employee identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. government or of Colorado, or by any county, municipality, board, authority, or other political subdivision of Colorado. A valid pilot’s license issued by the federal aviation administration or other authorized agency of the U.S. A valid U.S. military identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector. A copy of a current (within the last 60 days) utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the elector. A Certificate of Degree of Indian or Alaskan Native Blood. A valid Medicare or Medicaid card issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A certified copy of a U.S. birth certificate for the elector. Certified documentation of naturalization. A valid student identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by an institute of higher education in *Colorado, as defined in section 23-3.1-102(5), C.R.S.. A valid veteran identification card issued by the U.S. department of veterans affairs veterans health administration with a photograph of the eligible elector. A valid identification card issued by a federally recognized tribal government certifying tribal membership. Any form of identification listed above that shows your address must show a Colorado address to qualify as an acceptable form of identification. The following documents are also considered acceptable forms of identification for voting: Verification that a voter is a resident of a group residential facility, as defined in section 1-1-104(18.5), C.R.S. Verification that a voter is a person committed to the department of human services and confined and eligible to register and vote shall be considered sufficient identification of such person for the purposes of section 1-2-210.5, C.R.S. Written correspondence from the county sheriff or his or her designee to the county clerk indicating that a voter is confined in a county jail or detention facility.[76][15]

”

Background[edit]

As of April 2021, 35 states enforced (or were scheduled to begin enforcing) voter identification requirements. A total of 21 states required voters to present photo identification at the polls; the remainder accepted other forms of identification. Valid forms of identification differ by state. Commonly accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards.^[77][78]

See also[edit]

2018 measures 2018 ballot measures Fracking on the ballot 2018 legislative sessions

Colorado Colorado ballot measures Colorado ballot measure laws

News and analysis Ballot measure lawsuits Ballot measure readability Ballot measure polls

External links[edit]

• Initiative #97 Full Text

Support[edit] Colorado Rising campaign website Colorado Rising Facebook page Colorado Rising Twitter page

Opposition[edit] Protect Colorado campaign website Protect Colorado Facebook page Protect Colorado Twitter page

Footnotes[edit]

v • e 2018 ballot measures I&R States  • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington Non I&R States  • Alabama • Connecticut • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Louisiana • New Hampshire • New Jersey • North Carolina • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin Political topics  • Abortion‎ • Administration of government‎ • Bond issues‎ • Business regulation‎ • Campaign finance‎ • Civil and criminal trials‎ • Civil rights‎ • Civil service‎ • Constitutional conventions‎ • Constitutional language‎ • County and municipal governance‎ • Definition of a corporation‎ • Direct democracy measures‎ • Education‎ • Elections and campaigns‎ • Energy‎ • Environment‎ • Federal constitutional issues‎ • Forests and parks‎ • Gambling‎ • Government accountability‎ • Healthcare‎ • Housing‎ • Hunting and fishing‎ • Labor and unions‎ • Law enforcement‎ • LGBT issues‎ • Marijuana‎ • Natural resources‎ • Pension‎ • Property‎ • Redistricting measures‎ • State and local government budgets, spending and finance‎ • State executive official measures‎ • State judiciary‎ • State legislatures measures‎ • Statehood‎ • Suffrage‎ • Supermajority requirements‎ • Taxes‎ • Term limits‎ • Tobacco‎ • Tort law‎ • Transportation‎ • Veterans‎ • Water‎ • Welfare‎ Other Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Readability analysis • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaign finance • Media editorial endorsements • Voter guides • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2018 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Filed initiatives

	v • e State of Colorado Denver (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy