Bill by Tipton brings divide
A draft on drilling was written by an energy firm and big donor.
washington» A draft bill released this month by U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton is taking heat from activists in the Thompson Divide region because of concerns his proposal to settle a fight over oil and gas drilling was written largely by an energy company that is also Tipton’s largest campaign Tipton contributor. Under the proposal, oil and gas companies with leases in the Thompson Divide could trade their holdings in the wildlife haven for similar plots elsewhere in Colorado — a goal of environmentalists and local leaders who want to keep it free from drilling.
But the bill does not spell out a plan for long-term conservation in the Thompson Divide. Opponents said its absence is indicative of where the Republican congressman got the idea for his proposed legislation: a draft bill put forward last year by SG Interests and Squire Patton Boggs, the lobbying firm working for the Texasbased energy company at the time.
In an interview, Tipton confirmed its origin, and documents obtained by The Denver Post show that Tipton’s draft legislation duplicates — word for word — entire sections of the proposal offered by SG Interests.
“This was not an end, but it was a starting point,” Tipton said, adding that he was soliciting comment from local interests before officially introducing it.
That Tipton relied on an outside group to help with his proposal is not uncommon; members of Congress routinely call on lobbyists, issue experts and specialinterest groups to help write federal legislation.
Indeed, the language Tipton used as a template also was sent last year to the offices of Colorado U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet, a Democrat, and Cory Gardner, a Republican, according to an e-mail provided by a Tipton aide.
But one ethics watchdog said it’s hard to ignore the financial connection between Tipton and SG Interests.
Over the course of Tipton’s congressional career, the third-term lawmaker has received about $39,000 in campaign contributions from individuals associated with SG Interests — the most of any donor, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in U.S. elections.
The company also established Colorado Future Fund, a political action committee that spent about $11,000 against Democrat Sal Pace, who lost to Tipton in 2012.
“Campaign contributions certainly have access and influence with congressional offices, and any congressional office (that) tells you otherwise is lying,” said Aaron Scherb, director of legislative affairs at the public-interest group Common Cause.
He agreed it is common practice for outside groups to help lawmakers write bills, but Scherb warned of its potential consequences.
“When special interests and corporate lobbyists get to write legislation, it calls into question who is really running the government,” he said. “Is it elected officials or special interests that call the shots?”
“A starting point”
Asked about the proposal, Tipton said his goal was simply to begin a conversation. “You have to start somewhere,” he said.
The reason he began with a plan outlined by SG Interests, he added, was because the company was the “primary stakeholder” and because no other group put forward a suggestion on how to write it.
“No one else offered language to be able to get to the starting point,” Tipton said.
He also dismissed the implica- tion that he was doing a favor for SG Interests.
“Is it a favor to do a draft? Is there an outcome from that? Not until we introduce a bill, ... (and) we are far from that,” he said. “This was a starting point.”
SG Interests did not respond to repeated requests for comment, but executive Robbie Guinn told The Daily Sentinel this month that “we’d be very pleased” if Tipton’s proposal became law.
Tipton’s draft bill is the latest chapter in a fight over the Thompson Divide that began when the President George W. Bush administration issued dozens of leases for oil and gas drilling in the region.
Since then, the companies have feuded with environmentalists and local officials, who have argued that drilling in the Thompson Divide would ruin a local economy that relies on tourism dollars from hikers and hunters who visit the area.
“It’s not that oil and gas drilling shouldn’t occur anywhere. It’s that oil and gas drilling shouldn’t occur everywhere,” said Zane Kessler, executive director of the Thompson Divide Coalition, which opposes the drilling. “There are certain places that are inappropriate for development.”
For years, policymakers have tried to mediate the dispute and find a compromise that protects the region’s natural beauty while respecting the property rights of the companies that purchased the leases.
To that end, the driving point of the Tipton draft bill is to arrange a lease swap with two of the companies who hold leases in the area.
His proposal would have SG Interests surrender about 30,000 acres in the Thompson Divide in exchange for roughly the same amount of total acreage in Mesa, Delta and Gunnison Counties. Ursa Piceance, another energy company, would swap about 12,000 acres for 11,500 acres in Rio Blanco County.
Much of Tipton’s plan borrows heavily from the earlier proposal from SG Interests.
For example, one section spells out how the U.S. Department of the Interior should calculate a cost estimate for the leases held by SG Interests and Ursa Piceance.
Stakes especially big
This formula is critical, as the estimated price of these leases would be used as a baseline to find similarly priced leases outside Thompson Divide.
The stakes are especially big for the companies. As written, the companies would have to pay the U.S. government if the value of the leases they are getting are more than the ones they would be trading.
The same, however, is not true in the inverse.
So the proposals offered by both Tipton and SG Interests require that the cost estimate of the leases held by the two energy companies is “at least equal” to the money they paid to get it — as well as interest on the value of the lease.
Tipton’s proposal, however, would boost the potential value of their leases in a way not suggested in the original plan.
His plan would add to the cost estimate any money spent by the companies for work done to prepare for the exchange, such as permitting or environmental surveys, according to the draft bill.
Said Tipton of this provision and the bill in general: “This was standing up for private-property rights.”