Category Archives: Local government (city & county)

How ‘good trouble’ & local activism go together

This post is about how local activism works, with an excellent recent example of it. I hope it inspires others to do the same.

Ms. Christina Swope is whom I’m talking about, and she is determined to make an impact in local environmental policies adopted by the Fort Collins city council.  If you would like to contribute to the mighty task of dealing with climate change, and assisting in changing the energy basis of our economy to clean, renewable energy, this is where the rubber meets the road.  She deserves more support, and I hope some of you reading this will find ways of doing just that.

I have included a recent post by her below, which she widely circulated last week, but to which I did have time to respond to until now.  She describes her recent experience of serving on a city citizen board about local air quality.

For those not aware, FoCo’s city government seeks citizen input on a wide variety of topics (see ‘City Seeks Volunteers to Serve on Boards and Commissions’, 12/3/25). I have not served on any of them myself, but have observed several others’ experience with them. Such boards can be frustrating, because while the city offers them as an opportunity for citizen input, the boards have no power over changing actual council policy; and I have observed concerned citizens get frustrated with these boards, and with council, by making decisions that run contrary to what sound science and good judgement would recommend.

The only solution to this is to keep trying — and to seek the help of others in the community to voice their concerns to their council members. Find out which city council district you live in (see here), and then contact your council representative (see here).

It ain’t rocket science….

And like John Lewis said, don’t be afraid to cause “good trouble”….I applaud Christina’s efforts on the Air Quality Board and “asking a lot of annoying questions”. Good job at causing good trouble, Christina!

June 18, 2026

Hey guys,

So I am on the Air Quality Advisory Board for the City of Fort Collins and on Monday we had a presentation from folks from both the city and the county about a new project they’re working on. I learned a lot from having industry experts in air quality and regulation in front of me and the ability to question them. For some of you on this list, this might be old news, but I figure there’s enough of us fracking newbies in this effort that it might be helpful to you as it was to me.

The project they were presenting about was this: there’s only about 50 fracking wellheads left in Larimer County. We’re mostly on the edge of what’s worth drilling in our basin anyway. Ten are within city limits. The company who used to own many of them, Prospect Energy, was a chronic rule breaker and shoddy fixer. Eventually, there was a leak of fracking water, almost 8000 gallons of brackish, benzene riddled water in a snooty neighborhood (they’re a suburb by the country club) and they got shut down. [Editor’s note: This was in the Hearthfire neighborhood, just north, but outside of, city land, which had a long, sordid history with Prospect Energy.]

The city and the county actually argued for and WANTED those wells to be placed into an orphaned status by the state. This surprised me. I actually have been very confused by the verbiage of the industry for a long time. We, as anti-fracking activists, want wells to be “capped and abandoned.” Abandoned sounds like a bad word but in industry speak it seems to mean “properly closed because it was no longer considered worth the money,” NOT just a dangerous thing nobody is taking accountability for. Contrarily, orphaned wells are “turned off” but NOT properly capped and sealed. So they can keep leaking for ages.

So why would the county regulators WANT the wells in Larimer to be “orphaned”? Apparently, its some kind of formal designation that prevents those wells from being sold to other companies who would try to continue to drill and profit off of them. Our city has made it clear we don’t want drilling in our back yard, so we were happy to prevent that and finally shut these suckers down.

However, we all know that this state is drowning in orphaned wells with leaky heads that are on a never ending list of things to be fixed some day by a team of 2 people, maybe 10 years from they day they were turned off. [Editor’s note: the cost of shutting in low producing, likely-to-be-abandoned O&G wells in Colorado is around $8 billion; the entire state budget is around $40 billion, just to give you some idea of how much the O&G industry is shunting off onto the public the mess that it has created over the decades. –Rick]

That’s where this grant comes in! They are going to be asking city council next month to approve some ticky tacky verbiage/redundancies in local statute so that the state/ECMC can grant the money they would normally spend fixing these now orphaned wells (ten years from now when they get to it) to the city and county. The city and county can hire a 3rd party service to do almost everything the state would normally do: plug the wells and remove the service equipment and minor site remediation. Now the people in this hoighty toighty neighborhood don’t have to wait on the ECMC’s overburdened staff to get around to properly sealing these leaky wells ten years from now.

If this works well, it could be a model for other communities and developers to actually get orphaned wells taken care of without the chokehold of an understaffed ECMC.

During this presentation I annoyingly asked a LOT of questions and learned some more.
1) I asked about zoning. Why is it with other industries, we have “industrial zoning” and “business zoning” and “housing zoning” but with fracking its fine that we have people living literrally on top of mining sites? The answer seemed to be “money and lack of planning”
2) I learned that “capping” a well isn’t just sawing the top off and putting a lid on it. They tend to do at least 2 concrete tubes of at least 40 ft length that are strength/seal tested, and those concrete fills are often separated by a few hundred feet for the redundancy, and there is extra consideration near water tables (i was not satisfied with their answers as to the safety of the water in those water tables but they at least have rules about it
3) I also learned that when a site is being closed by the state, well-heads/equipment areas often have had “small leaks” and soil contamination so it is a rule they remove a certain squarefootage of soil from around the wellsite (i think it was like 5 ft deep and 3 feet arround?). For this grant to work, if there are any big spills, the state still has to take care of removing the contaminated soil, replacing it and testing it, over and over again until it’s “clean.” I have no idea where they take the contaminated soil.

Anyway. It was a sliver of hope for me that my county/city might be just about fracking-free soon, AND that we have a new tactic for orphan wells and community recovery.

see you soon
Christina

“The need to transition off fossil fuels”…a LTE hits a home run!

In case you missed it, there was an impressive event that happened recently with regard to environmental activism: a Letter To the Editor (LTE) about the danger of fossil fuels was published in three local papers  — Greeley Tribune; Loveland Reporter Herald, and Longmont Call Times — simultaneously! This is an unprecedented accomplishment, which deserves some recognition.

The author, Carol Hawkins, has been part of the Larimer Alliance for some time; and during that time, has sought a resolution to her situation, but has come round to the same grim realization of others in the community: until the state regulators of O&G see the light, and begin to limit the issuing of new drilling permits, local residents are almost powerless to stop them. All that SB-181 accomplished, it would seem, it to guarantee at least as 2,000 foot setback from any new well.

Below is Dr. Hawkins’ LTE, taken from the Greeley Tribune, 11/19/25:

Colorado faces a difficult choice, transition off fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy or continue to jeopardize our environment and health. Transition will cause economic and social disruption for workers and communities.  Any “just transition” requires solutions that mitigate the negative consequences while simultaneously eliminating the deadly pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.

I have lived in Weld County since purchasing my house in 2017. I lived in Maine at the time, near the end of an ”unexpected journey” watching my partner die from Alzheimer’s. I decided to move back to Colorado where I had family and a history of living in the state since the early 1970s. I wanted familiar surroundings. I searched online and found the perfect bungalow, my retirement home, in Ault, a rural town in a good location between Greeley and Fort Collins. I had no idea of the influx of fracking about to come. Shortly after moving, I received a forced pooling notice. I went from grief and PTSD to a sense of doom. Fracking! What did this mean for my quiet life and my health?

The facts about fracking and the impacts were easy to find, but fighting the frack hasn’t been easy. Weld County, otherwise known as “Welled” County, remains the most polluted and fracked in the state. My neighbors, many who work in oil and gas, are mostly working class, and others are first-time home owners looking for affordable housing or long-time residents. Local government is staffed by those who appear unaffected by fracking. When wells were drilled next to the Highland School campus, located in the middle of town, I called the Ault Town Office and Weld County Oil and Gas to question why the drilling was so close to the school when SB 181 called for 2,000-foot setbacks. The Ault Town Office said that they had no knowledge of drilling near the school, although it was happening just down the street, and the Weld County Oil and Gas Office laughed off my reference to SB 181 with the comment “those rules are easy to get around.” And I’ve come to learn that he is right. All you have to do is look at the loopholes. One is home rule, the other is reverse setbacks.

I then turned to the state and began to protest permits, but soon learned that state regulators and the governor support the fossil fuel industry. However, outside of Colorado, a global consensus calls for a “just transition” away from fossil fuels. The planet is heating, driven by greenhouse gases from extracting and burning fossil fuels like oil and fracked gas. Agreements from COP28 called for net-zero emissions by 2050.

Current research, developed by analyzing efforts toward a “just transition” around the world, provides principles that guide policy development: governmental support, dedicated funding streams, strong and diverse coalitions, and economic diversification to address the short-term impacts and long-term needs of workers and communities.

Colorado must come together around this framework of principles for a “just transition,” but the transition from fossil fuels to renewables will still disrupt existing economies, and some communities may face economic hardship due to the loss of jobs and tax revenue from the fossil fuel industry. However, we must make the hard choice to experience the gains from a clean energy economy and healthy environment.

Colorado’s current environmental damage and health impacts are not sustainable and challenge communities reliant on oil and gas to make the hard choice — we need a “just transition” off of fossil fuels. Stop the permits and clean up the mess while supporting displaced workers and disproportionately impacted communities, like Ault.

[Carol Hawkins is a retired English professor who moved back to Colorado from Maine in 2017. She was served a forced pooling notice in 2018 and has been part of the resistance to fracking ever since. Her focus centers on health impacts and damage to our environment, with a particular interest in health care and job training for displaced oil and gas workers, along with support for disproportionately impacted communities like hers in Ault. Dr Hawkins noted that all three papers are owned by a single company, which could be a factor in her LTE appearing in all three simultaneously.]

A wild night in Windsor

There was a rare display of real community unity facing a threat from the O&G industry last Monday night, November 3, 2025, at the Windsor Community Center. What had been planned as a simple “show & tell” by Verdad Resources about their plans for a huge drilling operation (22 wells off one drillpad) in their community was transformed into a room of local residents banding together to tell them how much they did not want any drilling in their community, thank you very much.

The public meeting was hosted by an O&G firm, Verdad Resources, who is required to give notice to all residences within a half mile radius of the proposed wellsite. Here is the first page of the announcement:

The remainder of the 17 page letter contained a detailed plan of the operations, from beginning to end, the current owners of the mineral rights, and other background information. (The complete pdf file is available here.)

Perhaps of most concern is the actual location of the wellsite. This was shown in a black & white aerial shot in Verdad’s letter, which included the latitude and longitude of the site. I used that information to to create this Google map of the location:

click to see larger image

As you can see, this is about three miles north of the center of Windsor…1.5 miles east of Timnath Community Park…and there are a scattering of residences within a half a mile of the site, the required notification zone (see a poster photo below). Which is how I learned about it, through one of the local residents who received the above letter from Verdad, and who attended a meeting of the Fort Collins Sustainability Group. This was the Salon that took place on October 24, 2025, the Safe and Healthy Colorado Campaign webinar. Please see the video for that excellent presentation on the current campaign by 350 Colorado to create a safer and healthier Colorado by phasing out fracking by 2030.

I was curious enough to use the QR code in the letter. It took me to a form to enter my name and contact info, and when asked if I had any questions, I replied “Why are you building this so close to residences? ” but I haven’t heard back…oh well! 🙄

On the night of the meeting, I carpooled over to Windsor with a number of  fellow concerned citizens from Fort Collins. When we arrived, there was a line out the door for people filling out forms by hand with their contact info (so much for the advance registration… ). Once inside, it was a clear that a number of people  wanted to hear what Verdad had to say:

Public attendees at Verdad meeting

Arranged on tables were about five or six big posters with maps and information about the proposed drilling operation. As well, there were two large screen displays with glitzy corporate slides describing what a great company Verdad is, and how this would be done very safely, using the latest technology, etc:

This is the half mile radius around the wellsite, wherein all residences must be notified. (click to see larger image)

After milling around for about twenty minutes, I, at least, had seen about all there was to see. The half dozen Verdad staff that were mingling with the crowd were there to answer any questions; but when asked if there would be a presentation of any kind, which would address the entire crowd, and allow for public Q&A (like most public events of this kind), the answer was, No, they were not planning to do that. Well, that’s that, I thought.

But then something unexpected happened. One of the locally notified residents, who lives within that perimeter boundary, took matters into her own hands. I’ll call her Ms. K, to protect her identity. Ms. K was not satisfied with Verdad’s “rolling forum” style of a meeting, and, since this was a public facility, and she was a local resident who paid taxes to support this community center, she thought there very well might be a public address system built into this room. She went to find out.

Turns out, she was right! And soon returned with community center staff who turned it on, and handed Ms. K a wireless mic — and that’s when the meeting really got started!

Ms. K starts the real meeting….

Once the real meeting started, people from the audience were only too happy to express themselves publicly, and share their views with the audience, and ask questions to the Verdad staff, who were then forced to reply:

Audience member expressing disapproval of the proposed operation.

 

Verdad official replying to a question.

 

Verdad official replying to a question.

Under more direct questioning from the audience about how application process the drilling application would proceed, we came to find out that a well informed person was in the house: Brett  Cavanagh, the director of Oil and Gas Energy Department for Weld County. Mr Cavanagh was able to answer some the questions from the audience. This would never have happened without Ms. K!

Brett Kavanagh answers a question

One burning question that came up was: what can local residents do to stop this operation from even happening? The answer from Mr Kavanaugh was: nothing. First, the application has to be filed with the state (i.e. the ECMC, Energy and Carbon Management Commission); only then protests can be filed. But, ultimately, the decision will be made by the five commissioners that head up the ECMC…who are appointed by the governor.

More detailed questions kept coming. This resulted in one of the Verdad officials grabbing a poster with a map on it, indicating such things as: where would the truck traffic go? Which local residents would be notified?

(click for larger image)

Another burning question was: how much water would this operation need? Where would it come from? This resulted in another Verdad representative stepping up to the mic, one who was familiar with their drilling operations:

Answering drilling operations questions

In answer to the amount of water, the answer was 700,000 barrels per well. Given this critical piece of data, we can do the math on the total water impact:

700,000 barrels X 42 gallons/barrel X 22 wells = 646,800,000 gallons for all the wells

At 325,851 gallons / acre-foot = 1,985 acre-ft of water for all the wells.

One acre-ft is enough for approximately two families for a year. So, this 22 well operation will consume the amount of water for

1,985 * 2 = 3,970 families for a year.

If we approximate an average family at 3.15 (see here for the reference), this means:

3,970 families x 3.15 people/avg family =  12,506 people.

In 2024, the entire population of Windsor was estimated to be 44,769. So, by the above calculations, this one drilling operation of 22 wells is going to use same amount of water used by about

12,506 / 44,769 = .28

or about 28 per cent of the population of Windsor over a year…over one fourth of the entire city population!

And this is only covering this one operation. One wonders what would be the water consumption figure for the entire Weld County — with some 18,000 wells in operation.

As far as the source of the water, all the Verdad would say is that it would come from “agricultural and industrial sources.” One of the other attendees later commented how she had once seen legal documents showing how such water had been purchased at heavy discounts from the price paid by the public…like 10¢ on the dollar.

There were two other informative officials who spoke. One was a lady from the ECMC staff:

And another was a man from the local water board:

I don’t recall exactly what were their main points; but their answers did help to answer some of the questions of the audience in the moment.

At one point during all this, Ms. K asked the crowd directly “How many of you are opposed to this?” Hands shot up from all but a few of the people present.

But at other times in the back-&-forth Q&A session, two points were clear:

  • Why must Verdad Resources drill in such close proximity to residential areas? Why can’t they drill farther away?
  • Why were only some of the local residents notified? (Not all of those inside the notification perimeter were notified, but who spoke out quite strongly at the meeting.)

The representatives from Verdad and government agencies did not have answers for these highly relevant questions.

Since the “Estimated Timeframe” poster shows that Verdad expects to start construction in 3rd quarter 2026, then begin drilling in 4th quarter. At least the local residents have been given enough lead time to get their concerns before Weld County and the ECMC.

But this will only be the beginning of the story, I’m afraid. The O&G industry has a history of getting their way in this state…but perhaps that pattern is about to change.

Our hats are off to the courageous residents who took command of the meeting, and transformed a passive, corporate show-&-tell into a true display of community spirit. We at the Larimer Alliance stand with them, and wish them the best in their fight to keep this operation out of their community.

The BOCC makes fateful decision about PRPA’s gas plant

There was a mighty display of direct confrontation between the local environmental community and the entrenched power structure around our local utility company, the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA), at a fateful meeting of the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on Monday, April 21, 2025. It is fair to say it was somewhat of a shootout, with each side firing its best arguments before the three attentive commissioners, attempting to persuade them of the merits of their case, and pointing out the weaknesses in the arguments of the opposing side. Not unlike the shootout at the OK Corral, one side or the other was going to win, a fight to the death, so to speak. The consequences of it will be felt for decades, and it was a telling moment for just how much the country commissioners are aligned with the transition to renewable energy.

The entire recording can be seen here

What was being debated was whether the BOCC should approve or deny the 1041 Permit for the PRPA to build a gas-fired power plant to supplement its generating capacity as it retires the coal burning part of the plant. That is the huge smokestack that you can see west of I-25 as you drive north towards Cheyenne.

If the gas plant is built, it will mean the PRPA will not be 100% fossil free in 2030, which was their original goal in 2018. Instead, PRPA will be relying on natural gas, i.e. methane, a notoriously potent greenhouse gas, for decades to come to assure its generating capacity. This would, I can only imagine, have the effect of blunting any push into using renewable technology to its utmost. This is particularly true of making use of virtual power plant technology, which the PRPA has kept under wraps, saying almost nothing how they intend to roll that out (more on that in future posts about how other utilities are using it).

The environmental community was not calling for an absolute denial of building the gas plant; they were only saying that the BOCC should get an independent opinion from an unbiased source, preferably NREL, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, to analyze this. Because the unfolding scenarios for how the utility industry is changing are so complex in the current times, it takes the expertise of such a reputable research facility to address the issue with confidence. Obviously, the environmental community was not trusting the analysis from PRPA, for reasons which made abundantly clear during their presentation.

Though I would normally not covera meeting in such detail, this was such an historic event it deserves it. So, here is how the meeting went down:

First, a PRPA attorney spoke for 15 minutes on their reasons why they believe the gas plant is needed. Then there was extended dialogue between the PRPA staff (primarily Jason Frisbie freely speaking his mind with no time limit) and the commissioners for about the next hour…while the public attendees waited their turn. (This is how things work at such public meetings: the incumbent party has the advantage of tiring out the public before they even get to speak.)

During the following public comment period, each speaker had just two minutes. There were a number who spoke in favor of the gas plant. So, after about an hour and 10 minutes, the first of the environmental contingent began to speak (about 1:39 into the meeting. Note that the meeting does not start until about 20 minutes into the recording.)

I could not attend in person, but did watch the meeting carefully via Zoom, and took these screenshots of those who spoke.

(Note: click an image to see an enlarged version)

First to speak was Mike Foote:

Mike Foote, attorney, speaking for NCP4CE

Mike’s comments mainly concerned that PRPA’s plan will violate the county’s Land Use Plan because of insufficient evaluation of its environmental impacts. It sure seemed pretty convincing to me!

Showing Rawhide generation by fuel source

This slide shows how the electricity generated by natural gas (PRPA does have gas-fired peaking units now), using PRPA’s own data, was sold outside its service area, and not locally needed. Another convincing point: since PRPA is covering its existing demand without gas, why is the gas plant needed?

Next was Barb Krupnik-Goldman: she addressed  ozone as as key concern, which reported on PRPA’s refusal to cooperate with requests to minimize current ozone production.

Ozone issues with PRPA

Next was Kevin Cross:

Analysis of ‘dark calm’ scenario

Kevin’s slides pointed out drawbacks in PRPA’s scenarios about renewable energy, which emphasized “dark calms” in winter months when it may not be able to provide sufficient electricity to meet demand.

As for ozone precursors, the Rawhide plant is, by far, the largest source of ozone precursors in the county:

Table of NOx emissions sources

Finally, the Sierra Club was represented by Doug Henderson, who roundly called out PRPA for not making a convincing case for investing $300 million in a new gas plant.

Screenshot

A major point of the environmental contingent was that PRPA’s own analysis showed that a new gas plant really wasn’t necessary.

During all this commentary, there was much commentary by the commissioners themselves, particularly Commissioner Kefalas, who asked many questions.

In hindsight, some of my colleagues and I wonder why the cost factor was hardly raised. Past estimates put the rate increase at 6 percent per year for 10 years; which, in the end, is around an 80% increase! We should be asking PRPA more detailed questions on anticipated rate increases as they move forward with this enormous project.

As I did not observe the entire meeting (it went on for over five hours) I cannot say exactly when the commissioners came to a final vote; but one of those who did was Kevin Cross, convenor of the Fort Collins Sustainability Group, who has been at the forefront of this battle from the beginning.

However, in the end, the decision was not satisfactory to the environmental community; I will post here the statement made the following morning by Kevin’s statement:

Good morning, CCLC and NCP4CE Member Representatives and Allies

First, I want to thank everyone on these listservs who contributed toward our legal expenses to oppose the Platte River Power Authority’s gas plant application to Larimer County.  Altogether, we raised just under $22,700, which in turn is just shy of the amount we’ll need to pay our able attorney, Mike Foote, for his work to date.

I am sorry to report that the outcome of the continuation hearing last night was not great, despite a number of initial good questions and statements from the commissioners, in particular from John Kefalas and Jody Shadduck-McNally.  It was apparent from the outset that the commissioners were more interested in imposing “conditions of approval” rather than an outright denial of the application, as we were urging.  Conditions of approval could have included things that we would have been at least somewhat satisfied with, however, such as a limit on the generating capacity of the new plant and limits on when it could operate, e.g. on Ozone Alert days.

In the end, though, the conditions of approval were watered down to the point of being nearly meaningless.  The PRPA will need to prepare a couple of reports, one explaining how joining the Southwest Power Pool in 2026 will help them use more renewables, and one justifying their decision to build a 200 MW gas plant rather than a 160 MW gas plant – which would still be too big.  Limitations on operating hours and emissions were rejected by the PRPA, and the commissioners did not push back, despite, of course having he power to do so.  It wasn’t helpful that county staff was in full support of the proposal, and didn’t provide any support to those commissioners who may have wanted to take a firmer line.

I am anticipating that there will be stories on all this in both the Coloradoan and KUNC, and will share those with you all if and when they appear.  And – we are not “done” with our opposition to the gas plant yet, but it’s too early to talk about “next steps” yet.  I will let you all know when we’re ready to do that.

With appreciation for everyone’s support,

Kevin Cross

Board Member, Northern Colorado Alliance for a Livable Future