All posts by Rick Casey

Subtitle: How much water does it take to start being scary?

As Colorado endures the lowest snowpack in its history, and begins to enter the 2026 summer fire season, water has become a prime concern for many. And now that the future of the Colorado River itself is in doubt, and the seven Western states that are part of the Colorado River Compact apparently unable to reach an agreement by its own deadline, there is ever more impetus for the states water leaders to look seriously at their water use policies.

Having been involved in anti-fracking activism since 2012, I have come to learn about the prodigious amounts of fresh water that is consumed by fracking. Although I can tell you that one frack job on a typical well can consume 5 to 8 millions gallons of water — and now that statistic has climbed to 15 to 20 millions of gallons of water per well in current use — such numbers may simply go in one ear and come out the other. The human mind is not made to have a feel for what such large numbers mean.

The human mind, in fact, is much better at processing images than numbers. Which is why I began a project that would attempt to visualize the amount of water used in fracking for the state.

With the help of several activist colleagues with technical skills, I was able to progress in this project this year…and create this visualization with their help:

Statewide water use of fracking compared to Denver residential water use

What this graph shows is that statewide use of water in fracking is comparable — and can even exceed — the amount of water consumed by Denver residents in a given year. And, if you were not aware, this water is taken forever out of the hydrologic cycle, never to return….never. As in, forever.

The regulation of water use in fracking has not received the same attention as the other negative environmental effects of fracking, such as the noise, air and water pollution and truck traffic. As such, the data itself has only recently begun to be available, from organizations such as FracFocus (see fracfocus.org). Among the Colorado environmental activist community, the specious data reporting by the industry is a well known and obvious fact of life. The industry needs to be reporting its data more reliably and with greater transparency.

What Colorado’s policy setters need to consider is if allowing this industry to continue throwing away billions of gallons of water every year is in its own environmental best interests. To my mind, this is simply an insane use of water in a climate that is going to become more and more dry with each passing year, which is what the climate science predicts. Water is life — and we should be guarding it with our own lives.

DATA TABLES

The numerical data tables for the above graphs are shown here:

COLORADO WATER USE FOR FRACKING, 2012-2023
year	gallons	billions
2012	1,296,620,479.24	1.3
2013	5,259,007,798.54	5.26
2014	6,640,304,994.85	6.64
2015	6,238,368,957.20	6.24
2016	5,354,258,926.11	5.35
2017	11,580,540,366.86	11.58
2018	13,611,946,880.83	13.61
2019	12,994,692,196.84	12.99
2020	6,984,377,209.16	6.98
2021	10,934,751,410.34	10.93
2022	10,873,881,470.06	10.87
2023	13,313,894,765.55	13.31
2024	12,635,105,779.73	12.64
2025	12,104,661,504.08	12.1
SOURCE: FracFocus.org

DENVER RESIDENTIAL WATER USE, 2012-2023
	Residential_Water_Use
year	gallons	billion gallons
2012	14,052,609,000	14.053
2013	11,629,361,000	11.629
2014	11,603,885,000	11.604
2015	11,359,464,000	11.359
2016	12,435,755,000	12.436
2017	12,330,988,000	12.331
2018	12,874,463,000	12.874
2019	12,140,925,000	12.141
2020	14,174,959,000	14.175
2021	12,815,473,000	12.815
2022	13,051,564,000	13.052
2023	11,106,173,000	11.106
SOURCE: Denver Water CAFR tables, Based on ChatGPT inquiry, 2/10/2026

Air quality monitoring, Earthworks, ECMC, General Environmental Reference, State government

Another fracking LTE appears in….Greeley?

March 24, 2026 Rick Casey Leave a comment

I was surprised to see a byline “Fracking fight” in the Greeley Tribune Letters To the Editor section recently (March 21, 2026), but there it was:

Work to monitor fossil fuel sites slow, but hopeful

After blinking my eyes in disbelief, I was pleased to see that the author was our friend in Ault, Carol Hawkins. She also pointed out how much work that Andrew Klooster with Earthworks has done over the years. She has worked closely with him to document many emissions violations in Weld County; and notes that the response rate of the ECMC to such complaints has increased from about one third to fifty percent in 2025.

Small steps towards progress; but, yes, it is indeed hopeful, and I hope it continues.

CO state regulatory agencies, ECMC, Environmental damage from O&G, General Environmental Reference

Another wrist slap on the bad old O&G industry

February 27, 2026 Rick Casey Leave a comment

There was a good news/bad news article in the Colorado Sun earlier this week (Feb 24, 2026):

Colorado fines Chevron subsidiary $1.7 million over 2025 well blowout in Weld County

How much is seven square miles of inhabited properties, still polluted from a four day bath of toxic spewing in April 2025, worth? Apparently not all that much. A fine of $1.7 million to Chevron (which had an net income, i.e. profit, of $17.6 BILLION in 2024) would be little more than pocket change to them.

If that kind of grates you the wrong way, as it did me, you are not alone…and here is the testimony of another Front Range resident who expressed her outrage in this way (name withheld to protect the incensed):

Crumbs!!!

When are we going to stop crouching under the table of Oil/Gas/State Regulators while begging for crumbs?

Chevron’s fine for the “Galeton Geyser” that spread toxic chemicals as far away as four miles (as detected by CSU mobile monitors called out to the site that day in April 2025), will not be remedied by 1.7 million. Let’s not forget that the spokesmen for Chevron, at an emergency Galeton Town Hall meeting, assured the public that there’s no danger here, as the well was still spewing 100 feet in the air, in windy conditions, that lasted FOUR DAYS. Mobile air monitors from CSU were called to the scene that day and found high levels of toxins (think benzene, etc.) as far as four miles away. Chevron called the CSU monitors “poor methodology.”

As I raged about this injustice (yes, I’m calling out BOTH the ECMC and Chevron), I was reminded by another activist that “The SUNCOR spill several years ago that contaminated the Commerce City area profusely was fined something like over $9 million. An additional grant received in 2000 was for $1.8 million. So Chevron got off quite cheaply in Galeton.”

If the Galeton Geyser didn’t get the ECMC to act with equal justice, or recent health studies (McKensie) that support previous health studies of the negative impacts of living within six miles of an oil and gas complex don’t move our regulators to action, then we can be sure that they’ll do little if anything for the daily spills, leaks, road damage, and clogging infrastructure we already experience in towns like mine in Ault. Yet even when we do protest permits, the ECMC fails us, and when we later capture the pollution these permits bring on OGI images, only a third of complaints get any action. Why? Intended loopholes from bogus regulations and complicit regulators who refuse to stand up to the fossil fuel industry. Three years of data (2022, 23, 24) prove this case in Ault.

Now we witness a slap on the wrist by the ECMC toward Chevron. I’d like to slap them all (ECMC and Chevron) across the face for this injustice . . . but a slap is not enough.

The ECMC, by its very name (Energy Carbon Management Commission) serves the Industrial Carbon Complex, not the people of Colorado who pay their salaries. I can only hope that we get a new governor and revamp our state agencies, particularly by firing current state regulators, to best serve the public and protect our environment from the onslaught of dirty oil and gas development across Colorado. There’s no such thing as clean well pads. “Best Practices” is a myth used by industry to keep drilling the cheapest and fastest way possible. And setbacks won’t save us either. Don’t be duped by a new playground at your local school courtesy of oil and gas. If a fracking operation is within six miles of that playground, those children and locals are at risk.

Show some brass, ECMC!

Let’s Educate, Organize, Resist . . . Vote out the current government, fire its regulators, and ban the permits!

I must confess I feel the same way…and we will still need to continue our struggle against these state regulatory agencies who have kowtowed to this industry for far too long.

APCD, AQCC, CDPHE, General Environmental Reference, New Gas Plant (at PRPA), Our Longmont, PRPA

Update on the PRPA turbines — we’re not giving up!

February 27, 2026 Rick Casey Leave a comment

As many of you may know, the PRPA (Platte River Power Authority) is planning on building a 200 MWatt gas turbine plant over the objections of the local environmental community. We protested this strongly to the City Council of Fort Collins, and the Commissioners for Larimer County over the past two years.

I, for one, thought this was a done deal; but it turns out the PRPA must get one last permit before they are allowed to erect this testament to their folly; and this is a permit from the APCD (Air Pollution Control Division), the highest echelon in the air emissions permitting business in Colorado.

This issue may be a bit too “into the weeds” for most folks; but what is certainly of concern to anyone who breathes in northern Colorado, is whether the PRPA will build the gas plant. This hinges on some rather arcane technicalities, but fortunately the issue has been explained at length by Ethan Augreen, who is a City of Longmont Sustainability Advisory Board Member.

See his excellent article on his Substack post (Feb 2026): FAQ: Clean Air Act Violations by PRPA’s New Rawhide Gas Project

If you don’t have time to wade through that, here is the short ‘Cliff Notes’ version of the essential questions (supplied by Ethan):

what is the difference in a “major” and “minor” air permit w/r/t the EPA?

At an existing large power plant like Rawhide (already a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) major source, the key question is whether a new project counts as a “major modification.”

If it’s classified as minor, the state handles it under a simpler construction permit process without full PSD review.
If it’s classified as a major modification, it triggers the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program under the Clean Air Act.

PSD review requires:

Stricter emissions analysis
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) review
More extensive modeling
Mandatory public hearing rights
Direct federal oversight authority (including potential EPA objection)

So the classification determines whether the full federal framework applies.

why would having the PRPA permit reclassified as “major” matter so much?

One important reason why it matters is that we would get a public hearing with the Air Quality Control Commission, which is a request that several commenters on the Draft Permit made, namely Barbara and myself.

Another super important reason is that the project would almost definitely end up with better pollution controls. That’s what Best Available Control Technology (BACT) review does.

Perhaps most significantly, it greatly increases the chances of killing the project and putting PRPA into the position of having to reassess with a new Integrated Resource Plan.

Basically, a major classification would slow the project timeline, require more detailed federal-level scrutiny, open the door to mandatory public hearing, and potentially expose additional legal vulnerabilities.

It doesn’t automatically stop the project — but it raises the regulatory bar significantly.

Is this classification tied into Colorado’s statewide GHG reduction program somehow?

Indirectly — but not directly.

PSD classification is based on federal Clean Air Act criteria (primarily criteria pollutants like NOx), not directly on Colorado’s statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets.

However, Colorado’s broader decarbonization planning — including the anticipated retirement of the coal unit — interacts with how emissions are calculated for netting and applicability.

So while the classification isn’t technically a GHG compliance decision, the retirement assumptions and emissions accounting intersect with Colorado’s climate policy framework.

Will there be repercussions to PRPA if this reclassification occurs? If so, how? When?

Yes — procedural and practical, not punitive.

If reclassified as major:

PRPA would need to undergo full PSD review for this project.
The permit process would likely be delayed, possibly for as long as 9 to 12 months.
Additional technical demonstrations would be required.
There might be greater litigation exposure.

It would not impose fines or penalties — but it would change the regulatory pathway and timeline.

PRPA could take a financial hit on the project, but it might be much less bad for ratepayers than letting the project continue on its current path.

What really matters to the public is not wasting money (if the project can be stopped) and getting stronger controls on pollution.

Larimer Alliance website & blog