(1) (a) The commission has jurisdiction over all persons and property, public and private, necessary to enforce this article 60, the power to make and enforce rules and orders pursuant to this article 60, and to do whatever may reasonably be necessary to carry out this article 60.
(b) Any delegation of authority to any other state officer, board, or commission to administer any other laws of this state relating to the conservation of oil or gas, or either of them, is rescinded and withdrawn, and that authority is unqualifiedly conferred upon the commission, as provided in this section; except that, as further specified in section 34-60-131, nothing in this article 60 alters, impairs, or negates the authority of:
(I) The air quality control commission to regulate, pursuant to article 7 of title 25, the emission of air pollutants from oil and gas operations;
(II) The water quality control commission to regulate, pursuant to article 8 of title 25, the discharge of water pollutants from oil and gas operations;
(III) The state board of health to regulate, pursuant to section 25-11-104, the disposal of naturally occurring radioactive materials and technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials from oil and gas operations;
(IV) The solid and hazardous waste commission to:
(A) Regulate, pursuant to article 15 of title 25, the disposal of hazardous waste from oil and gas operations; or
(B) Regulate, pursuant to section 30-20-109 (1.5), the disposal of exploration and production waste from oil and gas operations; and
(V) A local government to regulate energy and carbon management operations pursuant to section 29-20-104.
(c) Any person, or the attorney general on behalf of the state, may apply for a hearing before the commission, or the commission may initiate proceedings, upon any question relating to the administration of this article 60, and jurisdiction is conferred upon the commission to hear and determine the question and enter its rule or order with respect to the question.
(2) Repealed.
(3) The attorney general is the legal advisor of the commission, and it is his or her duty to represent the commission in all court proceedings and in all proceedings before it and in any proceedings to which the commission may be a party before any department of the federal government.
(4) (a) Except as specified in subsection (4)(b) of this section, nothing in this article 60 authorizes the state or its local governments, including the commission, boards of county commissioners, and municipalities, to regulate the activities of:
(I) Federally recognized Indian tribes, their political subdivisions, or tribally controlled affiliates, undertaken or to be undertaken with respect to mineral evaluation, exploration, or development or energy and carbon management operations on lands within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation located within the state; or
(II) Third parties, undertaken or to be undertaken with respect to mineral evaluation, exploration, or development or energy and carbon management operations on Indian trust lands within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation located within the state.
(b) Regulation by the state or its local governments, including the commission, boards of county commissioners, and municipalities, applicable to non-Indians conducting oil and gas operations on lands within the exterior boundaries of the Southern Ute Indian reservation may apply to lands where both the surface and the oil and gas estates are owned in fee by a person other than the Southern Ute Indian tribe, regardless of whether the lands are communitized or pooled with Indian mineral lands.
(c) Nothing in this article 60 alters the authority for the regulation of air pollution on the Southern Ute Indian reservation as set forth in article 62 of title 24 and part 13 of article 7 of title 25.
Source: L. 51: p. 655, § 7. CSA: C. 118, § 68(7). CRS 53: § 100-6-5. C.R.S. 1963: § 100-6-5. L. 81: (2) repealed, p. 1690, § 3, effective May 21. L. 2016: (3) amended, (HB 16-1094), ch. 94, p. 268, § 18, effective August 10. L. 2019: (1) amended and (4) added, (SB 19-181), ch. 120, p. 511, § 11, effective April 16. L. 2024: IP(1)(b), (1)(b)(V), and (4)(a) amended, (HB 24-1346), ch. 216, p. 1330, § 3, effective May 21.
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For article, "Conservation of Oil Resources — Colorado's Position Today", see 22 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 489 (1950).
This act is a comprehensive statute intended to be exclusive means of regulating development, production, and utilization of gas and oil; whether conflict exists between local regulation and statutory scheme is irrelevant in determining validity of local regulation. Oborne v. County Comm'rs of Douglas Cty., 764 P.2d 397 (Colo. App. 1988).
General assembly has power to delegate to commission certain powers and authority with reference to the administration of any legislation concerning oil and gas. Union P. R. R. v. Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, 131 Colo. 528, 284 P.2d 242 (1955).
Rule of commission preempted county regulation imposing financial requirements on operators, where county regulation created an operational conflict with the commission's bonding and fine assessment procedures. Gunnison County Bd. of County Comm'rs v. BDS Int'l, LLC, 159 P.3d 773 (Colo. App. 2006).
This act preempts a home rule municipality's ban on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) because the ban conflicts with the state's interest in the efficient and responsible development of oil and gas resources. Oil and gas development is a matter of mixed state and local concern and, therefore, a home rule municipality's regulation of oil and gas development may coexist with this act only if the regulation does not conflict with the state statute. City of Longmont v. Colo. Oil & Gas Ass'n, 2016 CO 29, 369 P.3d 573.
Municipal ordinance placing a five-year moratorium on fracking and the storage of fracking waste within city limits is preempted by this article on the basis of operational conflict. Fort Collins v. Colo. Oil & Gas Ass'n, 2016 CO 28, 369 P.3d 586.
The commission reasonably construed this ambiguous statute as not giving it jurisdiction to interpret a contract between a landowner and an operator. Chase v. Colo. Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, 2012 COA 94M, 241 P.3d 161.