An initiated state statute on Nov. 6 will include Colorado Proposition 112 on the ballot. Proposition 112 would set the minimum distance requirement for new gas, oil and fracking projects initiative at 2,500 ft from “vulnerable” areas or occupied buildings. The controversy lies in the perspective of both sides. Those that vote “yes” are looking at the environmental implications, and those that vote “no” are looking at the economic impact.
To clarify what “vulnerable” areas includes, it references public places such as playgrounds, rivers, amphitheaters, etc. Presently, according to BallotPedia, “The current restrictions as of 2018 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.”
These restrictions don’t suffice in the minds of some voters, because of the dangers of fracking. It can be life threatening. The process of fracking requires millions of gallons of water to be used from lakes, rivers, etc. The chemicals used to frack easily leak into the clean water supplies. According to Investopedia, “Between 20 percent and 40 percent of the water used for fracking that is returned to the ground surface consists of toxic contaminants.”
A study completed in 2011 by Duke University found levels of methane in the drinking water of 60 sites throughout Pennsylvania and New York. The U.S. Department of Interior cites methane as dangerous and requiring urgent “hazard mitigation” action. It is evident that fracking has its negative effects. It’s presumed that in increasing the distance of the fracking site from people, it will decrease the likelihood of contamination.
On the other side of the argument, those that oppose the proposition claim that it will hinder the economy.
In the words of the Common Sense Policy Roundtable, “ By 2030, over $26B in state GDP would be lost annually. For comparison, the GDP of the entire Boulder MSA was just under $24B in 2016.”
If Proposition 112 were to be approved, approximately 85 percent of Colorado’s non-federal land would be excluded from development with the 2,500 ft setback. The oil and natural gas production is prevalent to Colorado’s economy, providing roughly $10.9 billion in revenue.
While people’s moral compasses may be telling them to vote “yes,” realistically, it isn’t the best option. It sounds cruel to state that the economic impact is more prevalent than the environment impact, but it is true. Proceeding with Proposition 112 will not stop fracking. The U.S. has built its economy off of the exploitation of the land. The economy and the environment are interlaced. The focus has to be turned towards finding safer alternatives to utilize the environment without exploiting the land, and the people. Fracking is a temporary solution to oil and gas production. It is a finite source that is quickly exhausting natural resources for the coming generations. Proposition 112 will stall economic progress, and regardless of the environment and health fallout, it is not plausible to believe that change will occur if the economy falters in the process of searching for better means of production.
