Assembly passes CBM ordinance

MAT-SU — After nearly six hours of discussion, deliberation and amendments Wednesday night, the Mat-Su Borough Assembly passed an ordinance addressing coal-bed methane production within the borough.

The ordinance passed by a 4-3 vote, with assembly members Jody Simpson, Bill Allen and Talis Colberg opposed. The vote reflected a split that was prevalent throughout the deliberations, although several portions of the ordinance received unanimous approval from assembly members.

“This is no surprise tonight,” Simpson told the assembly after the ordinance passed. “It’s just a basic philosophical difference, and difference in our ... districts. It was a good discussion, a good back-and-forth.”

Assembly members came to the table armed with more than 30 amendments — many simple housekeeping measures, while others, such as a wholesale ordinance substitution from Colberg, were more in-depth.

Colberg’s recommendation took out portions of the ordinance that the borough did not have direct control over, such as a requirement that developers provide a copy of a fish and wildlife mitigation plan. His plan also changed setbacks and added in a requirement that a surface-user agreement be reached.

While assembly members didn’t agree to substitute Colberg’s ordinance, portions of it were used in the ordinance the assembly finally passed. That didn’t garner approval from Colberg, who chided Assembly Member Jim Colver for “hijacking” his amendments. He hoped, he said, to give developers a clear understanding of what’s expected in order to develop, without making it impossible to do so.

After the substitute ordinance failed by a 4-3 vote, Colberg suggested another amendment — one stating that coal-bed methane development should not be allowed within the Mat-Su.

“Why not just have them challenge the idea that they can’t do it, rather than ... the ordinance?” Colberg said.

That suggestion didn’t make it to the table, and assembly members continued shaping the ordinance to their liking. Numerous amendments were suggested from the administration, many of which took out requirements added by the borough’s planning commission when it considered the ordinance.

Some of those add-ins related to planning requirements — two required that photos of the area where activity is proposed be included in the planning portion of a coal-bed methane conditional use permit. Another kept in wording that would fine developers, on a per-facility basis, $500 per day for noncompliance with the ordinance.

An amendment to reduce public-notice requirements for adjacent property owners from one-half mile to one-quarter mile was reversed, with assembly members agreeing through a 4-3 vote to set public-notice requirements to one mile from the property proposed for development.

Two areas of the passed ordinance appear to be the most controversial, in that they could limit development on property despite state approval of leases. The first makes it mandatory for developers to have a signed surface-user agreement, and states that property owners cannot be compelled to enter into an agreement. It also sets out a list of items that may be included in the surface-user agreement, but doesn’t make it necessary for those items to be included. Assembly members approved the list, but debated it. Simpson changed the ordinance to list what may be included in the surface-user agreement, but the ordinance still requires that an agreement be reached, which is more than what’s currently required by the state.

The other issue that could bring challenges to the ordinance is wording regarding well density. After reaching an impasse on how to change wording to require that wells be spaced, at a maximum, at one well per 360 acres, assembly members tabled the issue. When it was brought up again, assembly members passed a proposal to set the minimum well spacing at two wells per 640 acres — less than well-spacing requirements discussed at the state level.

The requirements set by the assembly are tempered by a variance process that gives developers an avenue for changes. Although the variance language wasn’t favored by all assembly members, it passed with a 5-2 vote after Mat-Su Borough Manager John Duffy explained why it was needed.

“Sometimes, in certain geographic conditions, if you were to vary a setback, it would actually improve matters,” Duffy said.

Before passing the ordinance, Allen made a few suggested amendments, one to require a cost-benefit analysis of the industry and another to require that a fiscal note be drafted to estimate the cost of implementing the ordinance within 60 days of its passage. After discussion, Allen’s amendments were ruled out of order. Another amendment proposed by Allen to postpone the ordinance until later in October failed with Allen and Simpson in support.

Before the ordinance passed, Colberg, who was quiet during much of the discussion over amendments, spoke about why he opposed the final version.

“We are back at a situation where we’ve created a standard where this can’t, without a variance, be met by developers. I think this could have been done to have most of the protections we all really agreed on in one place,” Colberg said, “but this has to be challenged to work, and that doesn’t gain us anything. I think what we’ve created is Grendel’s mother, and it’s not going to work.”

About 10 area residents watched the borough’s process of deliberating the issue, and two offered a congratulations — and a round of beers — to the assembly after the ordinance had been adopted. Assembly members congratulated each other on a professional discussion of the often-heated issue, and several thanked residents who had demanded the ordinance — and stuck around to see it through the process.

“We were just a small part of a big effort in our community tonight,” Borough Mayor Tim Anderson said. “Thanks to the people who did get involved — we should be proud to be a part of this and take this step. We’ve set an example for other areas of the state.”

After the meeting, Chris Whittington-Evans, president of local planning group Friends of Mat-Su, said he was proud the borough had stood up to the challenge and passed the ordinance.

“Today was the one-year anniversary of the date the state promised us regulations for this industry, and we still have not seen anything,” Whittington-Evans said. “This is historic, and it’s a testament to the perseverance of the people of this borough, and to their willingness to ... stand up. It really should give the state pause and our representatives pause before they do something egregious like this again.”

Contact Rindi White at rindi.white@frontiersman.com.