## Facts

- La Plata County adopted land-use regulations requiring county permits before constructing or installing oil and gas facilities.
- Bowen/Edwards Associates, Inc., and other mineral-interest owners and oil and gas operators held leasehold and working interests in La Plata County and alleged the regulations would impose added costs, delays, and burdens affecting ongoing and planned operations.
- Bowen/Edwards filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the regulations as preempted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act and as otherwise invalid under statutory and constitutional theories.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing, reasoning Bowen/Edwards had not applied for and been denied a permit and had not shown a concrete injury.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding Bowen/Edwards had standing and concluding the Act totally preempted county oil and gas regulation.
- The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act authorizes the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to regulate oil and gas operations to prevent waste, protect correlative rights, and protect public health and safety through rules governing drilling and related activities.

## Issues

1. Whether Bowen/Edwards had standing to seek declaratory relief without first applying for a county permit under the challenged regulations.
2. Whether the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act totally preempts local governmental regulation of oil and gas operations, or instead permits local regulation unless a specific local provision conflicts with the Act or Commission rules.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals on standing.
- The Court held Bowen/Edwards adequately alleged injury in fact to legally protected interests because the regulations threatened immediate and concrete burdens on its operations; applying for a permit was not required to obtain pre-enforcement review.
- The Court reversed the court of appeals’ determination of total preemption.
- The Court held the Act contains no express preemption and does not impliedly occupy the entire field so as to exclude all county land-use regulation.
- The Court adopted an “operational conflict” approach: particular local provisions are preempted only if they materially impede or destroy the state interest embodied in the Act or Commission rules, or if compliance with both regimes is impossible or irreconcilable.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings to determine, on a developed evidentiary record, whether specific county regulations operationally conflicted with the Act or Commission regulations.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff has standing to seek declaratory relief by alleging (1) injury in fact and (2) injury to a legally protected interest; pre-enforcement standing does not require the plaintiff to first submit to the challenged regulatory process.
- State preemption may be express, implied by field occupation, or based on conflict; absence of an express preemption clause weighs against total displacement of local authority.
- The Oil and Gas Conservation Act does not, by itself, eliminate all local land-use authority affecting oil and gas development.
- Local regulation is preempted only where there is operational conflict—where the local requirement materially impedes the state’s statutory and regulatory interests or makes compliance with state and local requirements impossible or irreconcilable.
- Whether operational conflict exists is a fact-dependent inquiry that generally must be resolved case by case on an evidentiary record.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a pre-enforcement declaratory challenge to county oil and gas permitting rules and rejected a rule of total state preemption, holding that local land-use regulations may coexist with state oil and gas regulation unless specific local provisions create an operational conflict with the Act or Commission rules.


Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Bowen/Edwards Assocs., Inc., 830 P.2d 1045 (Colo. 1992)