What has happened to the promise of SB19-181

A wolf in state’s clothing

After years of working to improve meaningful community involvement in Colorado’s oil and gas permitting system, I find myself asking one difficult question: Was this process ever truly intended to give communities a meaningful voice, or was permit approval always the expected outcome?

Today, it feels as though I have turned over the last stone, exhausted every avenue, and arrived back at the same place.

I have met dedicated public servants throughout this process, and I recognize that many of you believe you are carrying out your responsibilities in good faith. My concern is not simply with individual decisions. It is with a system that, despite years of reform and unprecedented public engagement, has left many communities questioning whether public participation was ever intended to meaningfully influence permitting decisions.

The reason so many people committed years of their lives to this process is because Colorado promised something different.

Senate Bill 19-181 was passed seven years ago and has now been implemented for five. It represented a fundamental shift in how oil and gas development was supposed to be evaluated, placing greater emphasis on protecting public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife. Communities were told permitting decisions would meaningfully consider real-world impacts on people and places.

Yet from my perspective, and from many others who have devoted significant time and energy participating in this process, very little has changed. The industry appears increasingly confident that permits will ultimately be approved, while the public is increasingly left with the impression that community participation is expected, but rarely consequential.

That disconnect is what has created so much frustration. Citizens across Colorado have invested years of their lives into this process, spending evenings, weekends, and countless volunteer hours learning the law, participating in rulemakings, submitting public comments, reviewing scientific literature, and engaging with decision-makers. We took on these insurmountable tasks because we were encouraged to believe that our voices would meaningfully influence the outcome.

Then we are essentially told that public outrage is not a basis for denying a permit.

When we raise concerns with the state, we are told counties and municipalities are responsible for addressing local impacts. When we speak with local governments, we are told they look to the state for direction and leadership. Communities are left asking: If responsibility is continually passed from one level of government to another, where are meaningful public concerns actually supposed to be addressed?

As the leader of one community organization, I can honestly say I have worked harder over the last two years than at almost any point in my professional career. I have dedicated myself to learning from experts, building relationships with impacted communities across the country, and understanding both the science and the regulatory framework.

Today, I serve on the board of an environmental justice organization while supporting several others. Together, we have built networks to educate residents about decisions that affect their lives, often before they even know those decisions are being made.

Thirty percent of Coloradans still do not realize that Colorado is the 4th largest oil and gas producer in the country, that 99% of production comes from fracking, or that much of what is produced here leaves the state and has little or no impact on local prices for the product while communities continue to bear the long-term impacts of development, infrastructure, and eventual cleanup.

The most discouraging part of this work is not disagreement. Reasonable people can disagree.

It is watching citizens spend hundreds of hours educating themselves, reviewing peer-reviewed research, understanding complex regulations, and presenting evidence, only to see subtle head nods while real concerns are set aside because they fall outside an existing regulatory framework or create obstacles to permit approval.

Too often, communities hear that an application “checks all the boxes” or that best management practices will adequately address potential impacts. Those assurances are not always consistent with what communities experience or with the growing body of scientific research.

Over time, that does more than create frustration. It creates skepticism about whether public participation has meaningful influence at all.

Many community groups eventually disappear, not because the concerns disappear, but because sustained participation requires enormous personal sacrifice, fundraising, technical expertise, and volunteer labor. Few people can sustain that indefinitely.

Perhaps that explains why emotions sometimes boil over during these proceedings. Those emotions are rarely born from a lack of understanding. More often, they come from years of participation without seeing evidence that the process itself is willing to evolve.

The semi-judicial structure only reinforces that perception. The rules governing permits are established through one process, interpreted through another, and revised only under limited circumstances. When new peer-reviewed science emerges, communities are often left wondering how, or even whether, that information meaningfully influences permitting decisions.

If anyone believes these last several years have convinced community advocates to simply walk away, they misunderstand what this experience has created.

What I have gained over the last three and a half years is a deep appreciation for the people across Colorado who continue to advocate for their communities with remarkable dedication and resilience. Our organizations have grown and there is energy and positivity surrounding it. We will not slink quietly into the night and have, instead, expanded our efforts beyond individual permits and into broader civic and political engagement.

Myself and many others will continue advocating for meaningful changes to policies, regulations, agency missions, and public accountability because we believe Colorado can still fulfill the promise made when SB19-181 became law.

I would encourage every decision-maker involved in this process to consider not only whether the promise of SB19-181 is being realized, but also the role you personally play in shaping Colorado’s future. The decisions made through this process will become part of your public service record and the legacy you leave behind. Regulations can be rewritten, permits can expire, and administrations can change, but the impacts of decisions made today will be carried by our state and the communities we all live in for generations.

In closing, you are all responsible for understanding the industry and the real impacts it has. Your jobs give you the opportunity to see them up close. Take a minute and go look. Look beyond the applications before you and consider the lived experiences of the communities your decisions affect. In truth, that is the most important part of your job.