The debate over local control when it comes to Idaho’s burgeoning gas exploration made its way to the floor of the Idaho Senate Friday morning.

What started as a series of speeches promoting the benefits of oil and gas exploration evolved into a robust debate of how much input Idaho cities and counties should have in determining where, or even if, oil and gas wells should be allowed.

“I want the oil and gas industry to succeed and move forward, but I also have grave reservations about this bill,” said Rupert Republican Sen. Dean Cameron, referring to House Bill 464, which would give ultimate authority on permits for oil and gas drilling to the state, trumping local oversight. “I have received a good deal of correspondence from our counties that are expressing their concerns.”

Read more: Senate Deadlocks on Amending Gas Drilling Measure, Lieutenant Governor Casts Tie-Breaker

(By George Prentice, Boise Weekly)

House Bill 464 passed the Senate Resources and Environment Committee on Friday, March 2, with a 6 to 3 vote after three and a half hours of discussion and testimony extended from a similar Wednesday, February 29, hearing.  Deviously crafted and promoted by the Idaho Petroleum Council, the proposed bill bypasses state rulemaking processes and limits city, county, and local jurisdictional control of natural gas drilling operations, including hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” practices.  It also would exempt all natural gas wells from state regulations for injection wells, thus allowing disposal of hazardous fracking fluids underground, where they could endanger community and private drinking water.  Five other oil and natural gas laws were also recommended as “do pass” measures by the seven Republican and two Democrat committee members.  Listen to between 13:11 and 6:21 of the Monday, March 5, Evening Report, Two Megaload Blockers Arrested, on KRFP Radio Free Moscow for a description of this legislation and its testimony and deliberations, Senate Resources Committee Approves Drilling Ordinance Pre-emption Law.

* Industry is attempting to push through too many major changes in one piece of legislation.  This bill should really be three different bills. Instead, it’s one large and very bad bill. There are so many problems that need to be addressed:  local control issues, water grabs, and injection well issues; that frankly, the Senate Resource and Environment Committee should kill it.

* The gas industry and the State have essentially coerced counties into supporting bad legislation.

* House Bill 464 is a direct attack on local control and citizen involvement in land use regulation.

* How can the gas industry call this a “compromise bill” when the only county in Idaho with a gas and oil ordinance wasn’t invited to the negotiations?

* The impacts of the gas industry will be felt most acutely at the local level.  Local governments must absolutely retain authority over siting, setbacks, noise, odor, road use, etc., and the ability to use the special permitting process to create site-specific conditions that may, at times, require stronger regulations than the state’s. Continue reading →

For 35 years, statute has required local governments to develop a comprehensive plan and then adopt ordinances which conform to the plan and state law.  In this way, development is orderly and follows a road map (comp plan) which is tailored to each community.  As you probably know, all land use is divided into difference use zones.  Then administrative permitting or guidelines are written for what is allowed in each of those zones.  In this way for example, if you want to build a 2000-square-foot home, you can do it simply by applying for a permit to do so in any zone which allows for that use.

Most every community also identifies certain other activities which by their very nature, can be allowed in one or more zones but because of potential conflict or other concerns, need special review.  For example, a day care center may be allowed in a commercial zone, but requires a special use permit to be allowed in a residential district because the hours of operations, traffic, and other safety or quality of life issues could be impacted.  In a rural setting such as the county, things like cell towers, gravel pits, CAFO’s, etc., are usually allowed in most zones, but only by special use permit.  In this way, adjacent property owners can have some input to address issues that may impact the enjoyment of their own property or other safety and quality of life concerns.  It allows local authorities to grant the use if certain conditions are met to mitigate these concerns.  In reality, the special use permit cuts two ways.  Rather than completely excluding a potentially compatible use from any given area because there might be instances where such a use is problematic, special use permits are really about expanding opportunity.  So too it is with gas & oil. Continue reading →

Urgent action is needed on House Bill 464!

If House Bill 464 passes the Idaho Senate as it has already passed the House, it would shift all meaningful control over oil and gas production from the county/city level up to the state level.

Under the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA) and current state statutes, anytime someone wants to develop a property in a manner and location other than how that area is currently zoned, they must follow a special permitting process. For example, if Snake River Oil and Gas wanted to drill a well on the Payette Elementary School grounds, they would have to apply for and be granted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Special Use Permit (SUP), in this case, through the City of Payette. They would file an application with the city and be required to go through a public hearing process in order to be granted the permit. That process mandates a public notice, written notification to surrounding property owners, and a public meeting where residents can testify for or against the siting of the facility. It also affords affected property owners the ability to appeal a permit if they feel they have been aggrieved in any way or if the process was not handled correctly (no public notice, no notification to surrounding landowners, etc.). Continue reading →