County responds to SG Interests’ lawsuit

Looking for a summary judgment

Gunnison County responded to a lawsuit by natural gas developer SG Interests I LTD (SG) Monday, July 11 with a motion to dismiss the suit altogether on the grounds that some of the major claims in the lawsuit have already been heard and resolved in a 2003 lawsuit involving the county.

The Motion for Summary Judgment says, the “Plaintiff alleges that it is entitled to declaratory relief that the County’s Oil & Gas Regulations are preempted by federal law… This claim misses the mark entirely because this very issue was previously resolved in BDS.  
The county was sued by BDS International in 2003 over the question of whether or not the county’s regulation and gas operations was preempted by state and federal rules.
It goes on to explain, “In the BDS case, the Colorado Court of Appeals rejected an identical claim asserted by BDS [International] and others against the County Regulations. The Court of Appeals first pointed out that no federal statutes relied upon by the plaintiff explicitly preempted all local regulation of oil and gas operations on federal lands. The Court of Appeals also held, after discussing a number of cases on the issue of implied preemption, that Congress did not intend to preempt all local regulation in the area of oil and gas regulations.”
The complaint filed by SG Interests in early June also alleges that the county’s regulations are void because they were titled as “Temporary.” But the county counters, “This claim also misses the mark because the statute on which Plaintiff relies does not apply in this case.” It goes on to explain why.
The response also asks the court to remove planning commissioner Ramon Reed and assistant director of community development Neal Starkebaum as defendants in the suit, saying a county official who is named as a defendant  has to have “ultimate responsibility for decision-making,” which neither Starkebaum or Reed have.
Finally the county asks the court to dismiss the suit because SG’s claims “are moot.” It says, “A case is moot when a judgment would have no practical effect on an existing controversy or would not end any uncertainty.”
Finally the county’s response says that if the court decides there aren’t sufficient grounds to dismiss the suit, then they would like to see the claim for declaratory relief, or an exemption from the rules, thrown out and for the court to say that the County’s gas regulations are, on their face, valid.
SG will now have a chance to respond to the County’s motion to discuss.