## Facts

- Colorado’s Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OGCA) declares a statewide interest in efficient, responsible oil and gas development and authorizes the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) to regulate operations, including hydraulic fracturing.
- Under that authority, the COGCC adopted comprehensive rules addressing hydraulic fracturing and related public health and environmental concerns.
- Longmont, a home-rule municipality, adopted a charter amendment (Article XVI) by voter approval in 2012.
- Article XVI prohibited hydraulic fracturing within the city and also prohibited the storage and disposal of hydraulic fracturing wastes within city limits.
- The Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) sued for a declaration that Article XVI was invalid as preempted and sought an injunction against enforcement.
- The district court held the state statutory and regulatory scheme preempted the local bans and permanently enjoined enforcement; Longmont and citizen intervenors sought review.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a matter of mixed state and local concern, Longmont’s charter-based bans on hydraulic fracturing and fracking-waste storage/disposal are preempted by the OGCA and the COGCC’s statewide regulatory scheme.
2. Whether the Colorado Constitution’s inalienable rights provision (art. II, § 3) permits a home-rule municipality to enforce such bans notwithstanding state-law preemption.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and upheld the permanent injunction against enforcement of Article XVI.
- The Court classified regulation of hydraulic fracturing and oil and gas operations as a matter of mixed state and local concern.
- The Court held the fracking ban and the fracking-waste storage/disposal ban were preempted because they created an operational conflict with the OGCA and COGCC regulations.
- The Court rejected the argument that the inalienable rights clause provides an independent basis for a municipality to avoid preemption.

## Legal Principles

- For matters of mixed state and local concern, a home-rule enactment is invalid to the extent it conflicts with state law.
- Operational conflict preemption applies when a local measure materially impedes or destroys the state interest or forbids what state law authorizes.
- Because hydraulic fracturing is integral to modern oil and gas development and is regulated (not prohibited) under the OGCA/COGCC scheme, a categorical municipal ban materially impedes the state’s regulatory program and is preempted.
- A broad constitutional guarantee of inalienable rights does not function as a municipal power to override otherwise controlling state statutes and preemption doctrine.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court held that Longmont’s voter-enacted prohibitions on hydraulic fracturing and on storing or disposing of fracking waste were preempted because they operationally conflicted with Colorado’s comprehensive statewide oil and gas regulatory scheme, and the inalienable rights clause did not preserve the bans from preemption.


City of Longmont v. Colo. Oil & Gas Ass'n, 369 P.3d 573 (Colo. 2016)