Colorado Mandatory Setback from Oil and Gas Development Amendment (2016)
| Colorado Mandatory Setback from Oil and Gas Development Amendment | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Energy and Fracking | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
| Not on Ballot |
|---|
 |
| This measure was not put on an election ballot |
The Mandatory Setback from Oil and Gas Development Amendment, also known as Initiative 78, did not qualify for the November 8, 2016, ballot in Colorado as an initiated constitutional amendment.
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.[1]
Text of the Measure
Ballot title
The ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed by the Board was as follows:[2]
| “ | Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a statewide setback requirement for new oil and gas development facilities, and, in connection therewith, changing setback requirements to require any new oil and gas development facility in the state to be located at least 2,500 feet from the nearest occupied structure or other specified or locally designated area and authorizing the state or a local government to require new oil and gas development facilities to be located more than 2,500 feet from the nearest occupied structure?[3] | ” |
Full text
The full text of the measure can be read here.
Support
Yes for Health and Safety Over Fracking was the group behind this initiative and the initiative designed to provide local control over the oil and gas industry.[4]
Opposition
A Vote No on 75/78 committee was formed to oppose both this initiative and an initiative designed to establish local control over the oil and gas industry. The committee was backed by the American Petroleum Institute (API).[5]
Coloradans for Responsible Reform also opposed both initiatives.[6]
Arguments against
Gov. John Hickenlooper said,[7]
| “ | My opinion would be that would, in many cases, invalidate people’s opportunity to extract natural resources that they own.[3] | ” |
Karen Crummy, spokeswoman for Protect Colorado, said,[8]
| “ | We already have some of the toughest rules in the country. The question I have is, when is enough enough. ... It seems these groups aren’t going to be happy until there’s no oil and gas at all within the state.[3] | ” |
Media editorials
The Daily Sentinel published an editorial in opposition to the measure, saying,[9]
| “ | On their own — minus any understanding of the impact on jobs, the economy or state revenues — increased setbacks sound like a good thing.
But Initiative 78 would make 90 percent of acreage statewide off-limits to hydraulic fracturing or future oil and gas development, effectively booting the industry out of the state. That’s clearer now that the COGCC has mapped out how the setbacks would affect development. Some advocates say Initiative 78 is a response to a failure by the COGCC, lawmakers and the industry to do more to address public concerns. Even if that’s true, the measure is an extreme overreaction that won’t solve anything. The measure would conflict with Colorado’s constitutionally protected mineral rights, setting the stage for a legal battle that could be very costly for taxpayers. The legal question would center on how far the state can go in usurping property rights. The state Supreme Court recently ruled that cities could not ban fracking in their city limits. Worse, the measure throws collaboration and compromise out the window. As COGCC Director Matt LePore noted, backers of the measure “are proposing to amend the state Constitution in a way that offers no flexibility, no variance, no exception, one-size-fits-all for an industry that is anything but homogenous.” Tracee Bentley, the executive director of the Colorado Petroleum Council, pointed to the COGCC’s stakeholder process that has yielded “robust regulations” that ensure environmental protection. Initiative 78 is just one of several measures that seek to limit drilling in some form or fashion. Those seeking to put these measures on the ballot need more than 98,000 signatures. Those who sign must understand that they’re signing off on the death of an industry whose contributions totaled $126.5 billion in output in Colorado between 2008 and 2012 and supported more than 93,500 jobs, according to the University of Colorado Leeds School of Business.[3] |
” |
Reports and analyses
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission issued a report on the effects of the potential 2500-foot mandatory setback. The report said that 95 percent of the land area in Garfield, La Plata, Las Animas, Rio Blanco, and Weld counties would be off limits to new wells and other energy facilities if the measure made the ballot and was approved. In addition, the report said that approximately 90 percent of surface acreage in the state would be unavailable to future development.[10] The report can be found here.
Path to the ballot
- Sixteen versions of this Initiative were submitted. Supporters withdrew 15 of these versions on February 23, 2016, leaving one remaining version.[11]
- Initiative proponents needed to collect 98,492 signatures by August 8, 2016, to land the measure on the ballot.[12]
- Supporters submitted signatures by the August 8, 2016, deadline.[13]
- On August 29, 2016, the Colorado secretary of state's office deemed the signature petition for the initiative to be insufficient.[13]
State profile
| Demographic data for Colorado | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colorado | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 5,448,819 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 103,642 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 84.2% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 4% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 2.9% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.9% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.1% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 3.5% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 21.1% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 90.7% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 38.1% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $60,629 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 13.5% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Colorado. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in Colorado
Colorado voted for the Democratic candidate in five out of the seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
Pivot Counties (2016)
Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, four are located in Colorado, accounting for 1.94 percent of the total pivot counties.[14]
Pivot Counties (2020)
In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Colorado had three Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 1.66 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.
More Colorado coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Colorado
- United States congressional delegations from Colorado
- Public policy in Colorado
- Endorsers in Colorado
- Colorado fact checks
- More...
See also
- 2016 ballot measures
- Colorado 2016 ballot measures
- Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado
Footnotes
- ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Results," accessed April 1, 2016
- ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Results for Proposed Initiative #78," accessed April 1, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Yes! for Health and Safety, "Initiatives," accessed June 28, 2016
- ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Major Contributor Report for Vote no on 75/78," accessed August 16, 2016
- ↑ Coloradans for Responsible Reform, "Home," accessed August 16, 2016
- ↑ CBS Denver, "Drastic measures being taken to stop implementation of Clean Power Plan," March 31, 2016
- ↑ Colorado Independent, "Can Colorado activists win anti-fracking measures in 2016?" February 22, 2016
- ↑ Daily Sentinel, "Initiative No. 78 is bad for Colorado," June 14, 2016
- ↑ The Gazette, "Agency: Measure would put most of state off-limits to wells," May 27, 2016
- ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "2015-2016 Initiative filings, agendas & results," accessed February 26, 2016
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedtimeline - ↑ 13.0 13.1 Colorado Secretary of State, "2015-2016 Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results," accessed August 8, 2016
- ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.
 |
State of Colorado Denver (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | 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 |
