This has been a week filled with establishing the framework of Idaho’s Oil and Gas Commission. On Thursday we had four bills. First we had H. 460, which established a funding source for regulatory functions of the Oil and Gas Commission. It would establish a temporary fee of up to $2,500 for a permit to drill or treat an oil or gas well. This fee will go into the Oil and Gas Conservation Fund to pay for the administration and enforcement expenses of the Commission. Second on the list was H. 462, which gives the Public Utilities Commission authority over regulating pipe lines connecting individual wells to treatment facilities and those connecting the facilities to a transmission pipeline. Thirdly, H. 463 provides updated definitions for this Oil and Gas legislation and established a $10,000/day fine for a violation of oil and gas regulations and outlines the procedures companies have to follow when in violation of the regulations.
The fourth bill, H. 464, establishes the Oil and Gas Commission and outlines its authority. After reading the changes proposed, I found I had questions in three general areas. First, that the new language was restricting local elected officials’ ability to exercise control over decisions on the local level, however, the state does has authority over oil and gas extraction as well as other natural resources. The exceptions are federal or state agencies that have specific authority, such as the Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Water Resources, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The state’s goal for the new oil and gas regulations was to have uniform drilling and siting regulation throughout the state. To achieve that, the decision was made to give the state the authority to regulate the actual drilling and siting of the oil and gas extraction process through the Oil and Gas Commission. The local County Commissioners and P & Z were given authority to regulate the post drilling facilities with reasonable ordinances, as long as it does not limit the installation for more than 21 days. I had a chance on Wednesday to talk to most of the County Commissioners and other elected officials from District 25. They were not pleased but felt that they had some local control over roads, placement of buildings, and other infrastructure associated with the process. We are grudgingly willing to go along with the agreement made by the Association of Counties leadership.
The second problem was with the apparent use of low temperature geothermal water without a water right. It appears well drillers often encounter this warm or hot water when they are drilling deep. It has to be removed from the well as it would interfere with the extraction of the gas. If it is contaminated with natural gas it has to be treated for temperature and contamination before it can be released into any water bodies. Since it is a byproduct of the drilling, it does not need to have a water right. However, the new rules allow DWR to investigate and if they believe the well is causing or has caused negative effects to pressure, temperature, or quality necessary for beneficial use or quality of water available to other water rights, they can make the well owner mitigate the loss. I felt this somewhat covered my concerns but I’m not sure what kind of mitigation would adequately correct this kind of loss.
My third concern was the introduction of injection wells. Historically, Idaho has 5 classifications of injection wells but has not allowed any injection wells other than very shallow ones and on a case-by-case basis. Lynn Tominaga, who represents many ground water organizations, testified that Idaho is currently in negotiations with the EPA, which is the federal agency in charge of that type of water decision, to develop negotiated rule making on fracking and associated practices related to deep drilling for Idaho. These will take place over an 18 month period. It appears this does leave us hanging with no direction for the well drillers in the near future. The gas companies do not currently believe they will need to use the fracking process in the wells in Payette and Washington Counties. So it may not be an issue until later development, if at all. We will just have to keep an eye out for when these negotiations are going to take place and participate if possible. With reservations, I voted with the 17 other members of the committee to send H. 464 to the House.
Now we move on to another topic, which generated a number of e-mail correspondence. The Agricultural Affairs committee, knowing that there is a bill coming from the Senate dealing with the same issue, failed to print an Animal Cruelty bill proposed by Rep. Tom Trail. I always feel it is a courtesy to print a bill so that we can get testimony, but it failed on a 9-3 vote. Both bills contained a felony conviction, but I have not had the chance to read the Senate bill, S. 1303.
As I mentioned earlier, the county elected officials were in town for their annual meetings. It is always in the middle of the Legislative Session and I very much appreciate their counsel on current issues. We circled up and talked for 1 ½ hours. Most of the conversation was serious, but we had fun too. We all do have a great relationship and it is incredibly productive for our Counties.
Again, I thank you for all of your correspondence and please do not hesitate to contact me regarding your opinions and/or concerns.
