For now, the 2,700-square-foot house is on hold. The Lippitts might expand a nearly finished apartment once they know whether natural gas wells will be drilled on or near their land.
"We don't want to build our dream house until we know what's going to happen and what property values are going to do," said Liz Lippitt, standing outside the building where her husband was cutting boards.
The reason is the so-called "split estate": One person owns the land, another owns the minerals beneath it. The split occurred across the West when the federal government granted homesteads but retained the mineral rights, or when people sold surface rights but kept the minerals as an investment.
Now, though, growing coalitions of ranchers, environmentalists and homeowners in the Rockies are demanding more consideration of their property rights. They've rallied behind legislative proposals from Montana to New Mexico that would require companies to consult landowners on drilling and other operations and, in some cases, compensate them for loss of property value.
They support federal legislation by Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., to regulate groundwater produced during oil and gas development, increase surface owners' input when federal minerals are mined and set reclamation standards.
The whole issue can be a rude awakening for newcomers, who may find out through the mail or a knock on the door that companies that own or lease the minerals under their property have the legal right to use the surface to extract the oil, gas or coal. In 2001, Colorado started requiring that real estate contracts note when the mineral rights are severed, but critics say the implications aren't addressed.
Even farming and ranching families who have lived for decades with oil and gas development complain that the current natural gas boom, fueled by high prices and a push for more domestic production, is encroaching on their land and threatening their livelihoods.
"I was born and raised in this area. I'm a fourth-generation rancher, and it's been hard on our operation," said Chris Velasquez of Blanco, N.M., who has reported leaking oil from gas-field equipment, unlined waste pits and cows that aborted after drinking tainted water. "The reason I raise Cain is that it's affecting my pocketbook."
Just as vocal are energy producers, their employees and businesses that service gas companies, who fear the impact on an industry that's pumping out hundreds of new jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue. Dozens of people wearing buttons reading that read "Oil and gas feeds my family" packed a hearing Feb. 14 in Glenwood Springs to protest a Colorado bill that would mandate arbitration if landowners and operators can't negotiate a surface-use agreement.
"I believe it's not prudent to hobble an industry that is a piston in the engine that drives the economy," Larry Kent of Halliburton Energy Services said during the hearing.
Steve Soychak, who manages Tulsa, Okla.-based Williams' gas development in northwest Colorado, said new rules allowing landowners to ask state regulators for on-site inspections in disputes should be given a chance.
"There are very few cases where we have been unable to reach surface-use agreements," Soychak said.
"I don't believe the legislation is really needed. It creates additional steps that unnecessarily slow down the reasonable development of natural gas that our state and country needs."
The problem, say proponents of the legislation, is that landowners have little formal protection. The federal government and some states require that companies try to craft an agreement with landowners. Operators often reimburse owners for use of the land and damages.
Ultimately, though, companies have the right to "reasonable use" of the land to extract the minerals. If no agreement is reached, companies can post bonds and move in.
The option of a bond is "a government-sponsored trap door" for companies that erodes landowners' leverage, said Mike Matheson, an oil and gas adviser for La Plata County in southwest Colorado.
Although mineral rights have historically dominated, recent court cases have given more weight to surface rights, said Gwen Lachelt, executive director of the Colorado-based Oil and Gas Accountability Project. The group has worked closely with sponsors of New Mexico legislation that would require negotiation on location of roads, equipment and waste ponds and other points.
Arbitration would be the next step, but the parties could cancel it if they strike a deal.
Bob Gallagher of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, a trade group, said people need to give new voluntary guidelines endorsed by the industry a chance.
"We don't need more government interference. We need more open communication," he added.
New Mexico residents have coexisted with oil and gas production for more than 80 years, Gallagher said. He blamed some of the current clashes on "East Coast liberal organizations" behind anti-development groups.
"I was born and raised in New Mexico. I've never lived on the East Coast, and I can assure you that I'm a very conservative Republican," replied Bill Humphries, the former state land commissioner and a rancher who supports the legislation.
The issue cuts across partisan and social lines because rising property values mean people have more to lose and individual landowners are overmatched going up against big energy companies, Humphries said.
Montanans watching neighboring Wyoming's surging development of coalbed methane - gas released from coal seams by pumping out groundwater - lobbied for a bill to give them more say once drilling gears up in their state. But the measure died by four votes in the state Senate.
"The industry was saying, 'This is going to slow down development,' " said Sen. Mike Wheat, D-Bozeman, the bill's sponsor.
He hopes an interim study approved by lawmakers will lead to successful legislation.
In Wyoming, Gov. Dave Freudenthal signed a bill Feb. 24 requiring written notice of development plans, negotiations on damage payments, reclamation, bonds and options for mediation. The measure was written by a committee that included landowners and industry representatives.
Northern Wyoming rancher and veterinarian Eric Barlow was helping with a campaign to place a similar measure on the ballot and is waiting to see how the new law works. He doesn't have drilling on his land, but it's all around him. He said gas company employees and subcontractors drive through his pastures and leave behind garbage.
"Every consumer is playing a role in this, not just big companies and landowners," Barlow said.
Absent efforts to develop more renewable energy sources, he said, turning on a light switch likely means that "something's getting dug up or being drilled somewhere."
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)