Denton Fracking Ban Looks to have Passed

KRAM1 · November 6, 2014

Honest question of logistics. Wouldn't the city have its own legal team on salary, thus keeping legal fees a fixed cost, lawsuit or none?

Nope...outside lawyers. City attorney in no way prepared to fight this fight. City Attorney will be involved for sure, but like most of these lawsuits, outside expert attorney's specializing in constitutional law and propert rights law/oil and gas lawful be hired. City will have to to have even a slim chance of prevailing in this one.

Ryan Munthe · November 6, 2014

Nope...outside lawyers. City attorney in no way prepared to fight this fight. City Attorney will be involved for sure, but like most of these lawsuits, outside expert attorney's specializing in constitutional law and propert rights law/oil and gas lawful be hired. City will have to to have even a slim chance of prevailing in this one.

Yes, outside lawyers that are now on the salary and have been since the ban was put up for a vote. The city, is once again, fairly confident that is has the ability to ban it due to home-rule laws and that the ban is procedural.

It was put up to a vote because the city did not know if the City Council's anti-fracking sentiment was echoed throughout the city. They did, and it passed overwhelmingly.

I realize that it is New York and it is far different than Texas, but New York's home rule laws are nearly identical to the Texas ones and fracking bans were upheld there.

EDIT: While I am on the side of the fracking ban, I couldn't care less to anyone what side you're on. I understand both sides (as long as you are invested/live in Denton), nor am I going to get baited into a political argument. Just want to make sure that people are educated on this topic, as it is something I've been invested in.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Ryan Munthe

KRAM1 · November 6, 2014

You kinda make it sound like it will be an easy win for the oil companies to win their litigation. If so, why would they have spent so much money campaigning against the proposition?

I agree that it is going to hurt the City's pocketbook, and I wonder if this was taken into account (the lawsuits if passed) when sending this to a vote.

While I think the State will eventually prevail, as it is a constitution issue, and a property rights issue that the state has prevailed in before regarding mineral rights vs surface rights issues, I do not think it will be easy.

Ryan sees it differently and that's fine, but the lawsuits are already being filed. If the average voter age is 51.....that means many many folks just passing through Denton did indeed vote...I don't care which way they voted...but their skin in the game lacks. This was an issue the City Council should have decided. Not one member of the city council deserves to be re-elected after punting on one of the most important decisions it has faced in many many years. Their punting will cost the citizen's and property owners of Denton dearly.

I firmly believe that a compromise ordinance could have been crafted that would have appeased both sides and which could have become the template for other Texas cities facing this same issue. The result would have been to hold Denton in high esteem across the state. Instead, the council punted and Denton becomes the target for multiple lawsuits and perhaps years of costly court dates.

It became an emotional issue as soon as the council punted on their responsibilities as most voters do not take the time...and it does take a considerable amount of time...to fully research the issues. Don't believe me? Just go back and read the letters to the editor in the Denton-Record Chronicle during the campaigning phase.

Yep...citizens voted...and voted big for the ban. They have their drilling ban on the books...sorry, Ryan...it is a drilling ban as no Fracking in the Barnett Shale...no gas.....technicality or not...reality trumps technicality here....bottom line effects are the same...no drilling.

As I enjoy watching and studying constitution based battles play out, this will be most interesting to me, but what will not be interesting to me is paying for the fun of watching it play out in the courts.

Ryan Munthe · November 6, 2014

I firmly believe that a compromise ordinance could have been crafted that would have appeased both sides and which could have become the template for other Texas cities facing this same issue.

They tried, many, many, many times. The oil companies refused to compromise. That's why the original moratorium was put in place. The oil companies flat out told the City Council they would not negotiate.

I totally agree, that a compromise ordinance would have been a better idea. But it was impossible, as one side would not bend even a bit.

And personally, I think what will come out of this after many legal battles is a compromise ordinance, because, yes, the ban as it stands now is an outright drilling ban despite technicalities which I think will cause problems from the RR Commission (which is hypocritical coming from a Republican legislature and citizen body.) Yes, despite me being a firm supporter of Frack Free Denton, I'm not sure this will stick as it is written currently.

But this will not affect the Denton citizens monetarily, is what I'm saying. The gas companies already don't contribute to the economy and they set aside money to back it in court. The Council is prepared. Kevin Roden and Chris Watts have said repeatedly, in fact, beforehand, they knew millions of dollars worth of lawsuits would come if it passed. Yet, Roden openly said he voted for the ban and Watts was enthusiastic about it passing.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Ryan Munthe

KRAM1 · November 6, 2014

Yes, outside lawyers that are now on the salary and have been since the ban was put up for a vote. The city, is once again, fairly confident that is has the ability to ban it due to home-rule laws and that the ban is procedural.

It was put up to a vote because the city did not know if the City Council's anti-fracking sentiment was echoed throughout the city. They did, and it passed overwhelmingly.

I realize that it is New York and it is far different than Texas, but New York's home rule laws are nearly identical to the Texas ones and fracking bans were upheld there.

EDIT: While I am on the side of the fracking ban, I couldn't care less to anyone what side you're on. I understand both sides (as long as you are invested/live in Denton), nor am I going to get baited into a political argument. Just want to make sure that people are educated on this topic, as it is something I've been invested in.

Ryan..New York laws are far far different than Texas laws on this issue. The Texas Constitution is really pretty different than most states on this issue...as I recall, Texas even "retained" it's mineral rights when it agreed to become a state.

Also..agree 100% that this is not a political issue...it is a constitutional issue. One the city council should have decided. Have no problem with anyone being on either side of this issue. My "issue" is not with the voters...they get to vote as they so choose...my issue is that all this could have been avoided if the council had done its job. Now, the lawyers and courts will get to "tell" Denton what they will or will not do. It is now out of Denton and it's citizen's hands thanks to our punting city council. Let the "fun" begin. Well, I will enjoy watching this play out in the courts without the emotions of the voters, but I will not enjoy paying for all the legal fees!

Ryan Munthe · November 6, 2014

Ryan..New York laws are far far different than Texas laws on this issue. The Texas Constitution is really pretty different than most states on this issue...as I recall, Texas even "retained" it's mineral rights when it agreed to become a state.
Also..agree 100% that this is not a political issue...it is a constitutional issue. One the city council should have decided. Have no problem with anyone being on either side of this issue. My "issue" is not with the voters...they get to vote as they so choose...my issue is that all this could have been avoided if the council had done its job. Now, the lawyers and courts will get to "tell" Denton what they will or will not do. It is now out of Denton and it's citizen's hands thanks to our punting city council. Let the "fun" begin. Well, I will enjoy watching this play out in the courts without the emotions of the voters, but I will not enjoy paying for all the legal fees!

Texas did maintain it's mineral rights. What I'm arguing is that the home rule laws are identical. Home rule is the factor here. The city has ability to trump state in regards to zoning, according to home rule. But it gets messy because the Texas Constitution is famous for contradicting itself because of the immense amount of amendments.

The council tried to take care of it itself, and was not successful because EagleRidge and the like said "too bad. Deal with it." They did not want to outright ban drilling if the city didn't support it. They found out the city supported it, as they did as well, and here we are.

You will not be paying a dime in legal fees, either.

Y'all can go about arguing whether or not it is constitutional because that's a valid debate, I just wanted to come on here and lay down some base-level facts that people do not know because the campaigns were so emotionally-driven.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Ryan Munthe

KRAM1 · November 6, 2014

They tried, many, many, many times. The oil companies refused to compromise. That's why the original moratorium was put in place. The oil companies flat out told the City Council they would not negotiate.

I totally agree, that a compromise ordinance would have been a better idea. But it was impossible, as one side would not bend even a bit.

And personally, I think what will come out of this after many legal battles is a compromise ordinance, because, yes, the ban as it stands now is an outright drilling ban despite technicalities which I think will cause problems from the RR Commission.

But this will not affect the Denton citizens, is what I'm saying. The Council is prepared. Kevin Roden and Chris Watts have said repeatedly, in fact, beforehand, they knew millions of dollars worth of lawsuits would come if it passed. Yet, Roden openly said he voted for the ban and Watts was enthusiastic about it passing.

I know, Ryan...but Denton did not need the oil companies to craft a suitable compromise ordinance. The oil companies are not idiots, they felt they could eventually win in the courts (which I believe they will), so it was in their best interests to stand firm. The council just took the bait and punted. As the oil companies are not idiots a decent compromise crafted without them could well have staved them off. Sometimes a council just needs to put their big person panties on and make the tough decisions and do what they were voted into office to do. Watts and Roden both deserve no pats on the back for shirking their responsibilities.

How will this "not effect the citizens of Denton"? Are you saying that now the council will craft a compromise ordinance before the court cases are heard that will be acceptable to the state? Did the council allow this vote just to get folks off their backs knowing it would pass and then they could craft a suitable ordinance and say...."see we tried" , but they made us change it?

Cerebus · November 6, 2014

On the one hand the science on fracking side effects is still under review. On the other hand, I've seen people light the water that flows from their kitchen sink on fire. So....

That one image has turned so many people against fracking but yet no one ever bothers to follow up what happened. The state investigated and found:

“Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic [naturally occurring] in origin. … There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well.”

---

That assertion has also been debunked by COGCC, which visited the site six separate times over 13 months to confirm its findings: “Stable isotopes from 2007 consistent with 2004 samples indicting gas bubbling in surface water features is of biogenic origin.”

---

“These samples have been analyzed for a variety of parameters including natural gas compounds (methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexanes), heavier hydrocarbon compounds including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), stable isotopes of methane, bacteria (iron related, sulfate reducing, and slime), major anions and cations, and other field and laboratory tests. To date, BTEX compounds have not been detected in any of the samples.”

Methane leaks into water wells all over the country. The EPA doesn't even regulate methane in water wells because 1) it isn't toxic, and 2) it sublimates out of water very fast.

It does, however, make a great sound byte.

Ryan Munthe · November 6, 2014

I know, Ryan...but Denton did not need the oil companies to craft a suitable compromise ordinance. The oil companies are not idiots, they felt they could eventually win in the courts (which I believe they will), so it was in their best interests to stand firm. The council just took the bait and punted. As the oil companies are not idiots a decent compromise crafted without them could well have staved them off. Sometimes a council just needs to put their big person panties on and make the tough decisions and do what they were voted into office to do. Watts and Roden both deserve no pats on the back for shirking their responsibilities.
How will this "not effect the citizens of Denton"? Are you saying that now the council will craft a compromise ordinance before the court cases are heard that will be acceptable to the state? Did the council allow this vote just to get folks off their backs knowing it would pass and then they could craft a suitable ordinance and say...."see we tried" , but they made us change it?

You can't compromise unless you have both sides interested in compromise. The oil companies thought that they would be able to easily throw nearly a million dollars in marketing to outright lie to the voters and the ban would fail. As soon as they were proven wrong, they sued. This was proven by their multiple attempts to close down the UNT voting place and comments about how "bohemian hippies" voted for the ban.

If the council had made their own decision and then got sued, it would look bad on Denton and then the citizens would be asking "Why are my taxes going to legally fight something that I don't agree with?"

No, I'm saying that there is no taxes that will be passed onto the voters to pay for the legal fees. The city used existing taxes to set aside the necessary funds to fight it in court.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Ryan Munthe

MeanGreenTexan · November 6, 2014

Ryan..New York laws are far far different than Texas laws on this issue. The Texas Constitution is really pretty different than most states on this issue...as I recall, Texas even "retained" it's mineral rights when it agreed to become a state.
Also..agree 100% that this is not a political issue...it is a constitutional issue. One the city council should have decided. Have no problem with anyone being on either side of this issue. My "issue" is not with the voters...they get to vote as they so choose...my issue is that all this could have been avoided if the council had done its job. Now, the lawyers and courts will get to "tell" Denton what they will or will not do. It is now out of Denton and it's citizen's hands thanks to our punting city council. Let the "fun" begin. Well, I will enjoy watching this play out in the courts without the emotions of the voters, but I will not enjoy paying for all the legal fees!

I know some of the city councilmen were for the ban (not sure if a majority was). Wouldn't the litigation happen whether the voters or the council instituted the ban?

KRAM1 · November 6, 2014

Texas did maintain it's mineral rights. What I'm arguing is that the home rule laws are identical. Home rule is the factor here. The city has ability to trump state in regards to zoning, according to home rule. But it gets messy because the Texas Constitution is famous for contradicting itself because of the immense amount of amendments.

The council tried to take care of it itself, and was not successful because EagleRidge and the like said "too bad. Deal with it." They did not want to outright ban drilling if the city didn't support it. They found out the city supported it, as they did as well, and here we are.

You will not be paying a dime in legal fees, either.

Y'all can go about arguing whether or not it is constitutional because that's a valid debate, I just wanted to come on here and lay down some base-level facts that people do not know because the campaigns were so emotionally-driven.

Ryan, tell me why you think the citizens will not be paying legal fees? And, while I think you are off-base with that position, I truly hope you are correct. Just help me to understand why you think so.

Ryan, you seem much more educated on this issue than most others I have talked with about it from the very start, and I appreciate your position. But, do not think "home rule" is the issue here, and I don't think the home rule issue trumps state law or the Texas Cinstitution in this regard. But, like I said...this is why I will enjoy watching and studying as this plays out. The Texas Cinstitution is unique in so many ways.

Appreciate your coming on here and discussing this important issue in a civil manner. As I am not a constitutional attorney, just an amateur constitution study fan, I can only watch and read as it plays out. Just so very sorry the council punted and left it to an emotionally charged citizen vote. Don't think it had to go that way.

Cerebus · November 6, 2014

No, I'm saying that there is no taxes that will be passed onto the voters to pay for the legal fees. The city used existing taxes to set aside the necessary funds to fight it in court.

Your position on this is nonsensical. So the city set aside taxes it already takes from people, to fight this lawsuit, but yet voters won't see their taxes used to fight this lawsuit?

If your position was NO NEW taxes were going to be used to fight this lawsuit, then that I can agree with. However, money that has been collected in taxes, that could have been used for other purposes, is set aside to fight this lawsuit.

So yes, taxes will be used to fight this lawsuit. I don't see how that isn't considered being "passed on" to the tax payers. It's not like some sort of fund from the Uzbekistani Royal Family is being used to fund the lawsuit.

Ryan Munthe · November 6, 2014

Your position on this is nonsensical. So the city set aside taxes it already takes from people, to fight this lawsuit, but yet voters won't see their taxes used to fight this lawsuit?

If your position was NO NEW taxes were going to be used to fight this lawsuit, then that I can agree with. However, money that has been collected in taxes, that could have been used for other purposes, is set aside to fight this lawsuit.

So yes, taxes will be used to fight this lawsuit. I don't see how that isn't considered being "passed on" to the tax payers. It's not like some sort of fund from the Uzbekistani Royal Family is being used to fund the lawsuit.

I meant to say that there are no new taxes in the quoted spot. The money has traditionally gone into a fund for legal fees, but seeing as the money doesn't get used often, the taxpayer won't notice any difference in that regard, if the council and mayor is to be believed. That's why I said passed, but that was a typo on my part.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Ryan Munthe

KRAM1 · November 6, 2014

You can't compromise unless you have both sides interested in compromise. The oil companies thought that they would be able to easily throw nearly a million dollars in marketing to outright lie to the voters and the ban would fail. As soon as they were proven wrong, they sued. This was proven by their multiple attempts to close down the UNT voting place and comments about how "bohemian hippies" voted for the ban.

If the council had made their own decision and then got sued, it would look bad on Denton and then the citizens would be asking "Why are my taxes going to legally fight something that I don't agree with?"

No, I'm saying that there is no taxes that will be passed onto the voters to pay for the legal fees. The city used existing taxes to set aside the necessary funds to fight it in court.

And..where did the city get those funds and where will the money come from to replace those funds when exhausted due to this legal fight?

And the compromise I am talking about in crafting a workable ordinance would be with the citizens of Denton for and against the ban and perhaps after consulting with the state. Again, the oil and gas companies are not idiots. Not hey knew they had a pretty constitutionally sound position, so why give at that point? If I hold all the cards, or think I do, I am not prone much to compromise, but if the tide turns it might just be in my bests interests to compromise a bit. Having a workable ordinance that the citizens are behind yet still allows for drilling could have brought them to the table, but since the council punted we will never know. Now the courts will tell us what to do...and you know those decisions are always just great! Ha!

Anyway, appreciate your comments. They are well stated and you have obviously formed your opinions based on some considerable research and work. You, Sir, are an educated voter. Thank you. Don't care what side you voted on, you seem fully prepared to cast that vote.

We can all stay tuned and see where this goes.

Army of Dad · November 6, 2014

Ryan why do you say you don't want to be baited into a political argument and the proceed to take potshots at one political party?

Also, yes this will cost the residents of Denton, at least 4 million dollars. 4 million dollars that could have been spent on road or park improvements or simply not spent at all. Whether it was budgeted or not doesn't change the fact that it's real money that will come out of the residents collective pocket and will not be spent on public improvements.

Ryan Munthe · November 6, 2014

Ryan why do you say you don't want to be baited into a political argument and the proceed to take potshots at one political party?
Also, yes this will cost the residents of Denton, at least 4 million dollars. 4 million dollars that could have been spent on road or park improvements or simply not spent at all. Whether it was budgeted or not doesn't change the fact that it's real money that will come out of the residents collective pocket and will not be spent on public improvements.

I tend to vote conservative, more libertarian though.

There were ordinances for infrastructure that passed already. The money was budgeted for legal fees before hand if you believe the council and the mayor.

Army of Dad · November 6, 2014

I tend to vote conservative, more libertarian though.
There were ordinances for infrastructure that passed already. The money was budgeted for legal fees before hand if you believe the council and the mayor.

Budgeted or not, it's still real money. The council and mayor suck, even if they believe it to be true I have little confidence they will be proven correct.

They picked a fight that will cost real money. It's a fight I think they (we? Since I live in Denton) will lose.

If you don't think it's real money because it was budgeted the please add me to your budget, maybe something in the 12,000 dollar range. Just budget in the 1,000 per month and it won't cost you any more than that.

Coffee and TV · November 6, 2014

That one image has turned so many people against fracking but yet no one ever bothers to follow up what happened. The state investigated and found:

Methane leaks into water wells all over the country. The EPA doesn't even regulate methane in water wells because 1) it isn't toxic, and 2) it sublimates out of water very fast.

It does, however, make a great sound byte.

That's good to know. I remember staying at a cabin in Wimberley a few years ago that used well water. They made sure to let us know in the FYI pamphlet that the well water smelling like gas was totally natural and nothing to worry about. I'd consider myself fairly well up to date when it comes to a lot of the politically important issues, but truth be told I haven't really dove much into fracking and natural gas drilling.

meangreendork · November 6, 2014

You can't compromise unless you have both sides interested in compromise. The oil companies thought that they would be able to easily throw nearly a million dollars in marketing to outright lie to the voters and the ban would fail. As soon as they were proven wrong, they sued. This was proven by their multiple attempts to close down the UNT voting place and comments about how "bohemian hippies" voted for the ban.

The anti-ban side went into some really questionable territory with their campaign. I take it back, it wasn't questionable, it was wrong.

cwb · November 6, 2014

Let me get this straight. The people of Denton voted for liquor sales and voted against fire water coming out of their faucets?

Hmm.

UNT90 · November 6, 2014

Ryan why do you say you don't want to be baited into a political argument and the proceed to take potshots at one political party?
Also, yes this will cost the residents of Denton, at least 4 million dollars. 4 million dollars that could have been spent on road or park improvements or simply not spent at all. Whether it was budgeted or not doesn't change the fact that it's real money that will come out of the residents collective pocket and will not be spent on public improvements.

Don't forget the money in lost revenue this will cost the city from natural gas drilling rights profit on city owned land.

Really, really, really stupid.

This town will never support UNT athletics because of this exact type of mindset.

Screw Denton. Glad I don't live there.

Edited November 6, 2014 by UNT90

MeanGreenTexan · November 6, 2014

Don't forget the money in lost revenue this will cost the city from natural gas drilling rights profit on city owned land.
Really, really, really stupid.
This town will never support UNT athletics because of this exact type of mindset.
Screw Denton. Glad I don't live there.

Cant remember where I saw it, but there were statistics put out there from a certain councilman that said the profits made from the drilling were minimal. Don't have time to dig for it now, but I'll try and look it up later.

meangreendork · November 6, 2014

Don't forget the money in lost revenue this will cost the city from natural gas drilling rights profit on city owned land.
Really, really, really stupid.
This town will never support UNT athletics because of this exact type of mindset.
Screw Denton. Glad I don't live there.

I think the locals won't show up at UNT athletics because its most visible programs have failed to produce a winning product in consistent fashion.

Censored by Laurie · November 6, 2014

Don't forget the money in lost revenue this will cost the city from natural gas drilling rights profit on city owned land.
Really, really, really stupid.
This town will never support UNT athletics because of this exact type of mindset.
Screw Denton. Glad I don't live there.

"True liberals always call people that disagree with their political philosophy stupid"

you're either trying to tell us something about your shifting political ideologies, or you're just remarkably poor with self-awareness.

Ryan Munthe · November 6, 2014

Don't forget the money in lost revenue this will cost the city from natural gas drilling rights profit on city owned land.
Really, really, really stupid.
This town will never support UNT athletics because of this exact type of mindset.
Screw Denton. Glad I don't live there.

We're really missing that 1% of the economy.

I'm glad you don't live here too.

Thanks for detailing a civil argument.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Ryan Munthe