The story of a proposal to overhaul Colorado’s oil and gas industry is one of a rift between the state’s urban and rural communities, if opponents of Senate Bill 181 are to be believed.

Conversely, proponents say it’s an attempt to value health, safety and the environment over cash and corporate development.

Both stories were told again and again during more than 12 hours of testimony Monday before the Colorado House Committee on Energy and Environment, which approved the sweeping and controversial bill along party lines, sending the measure to the House Finance Committee.

The measure, proposed by Sen. Steve Fenberg, D-Boulder, was approved along party lines in a Senate committee earlier this month and again on the chamber’s floor last week. That most recent vote came during the frigid “bomb cyclone” which devastated much of the state, Republicans complained.

In short, the proposed legislation does five things, said Rep. KC Becker, D-Boulder, who is co-sponsoring the measure in the House alongside Rep. Yadira Caraveo, D-Thornton:

• It hands local governments control over incoming industry developments and operations;
• ensures that those holding more than half of mineral rights interests in a common area consent to drilling;
• requires industry companies to restore land containing abandoned wells;
• directs the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to prioritize public health and safety and the environment over fostering the industry;
• and requires increased emission monitoring for the industry.

The bill “is not Proposition 112,” Becker said. “It doesn’t even mention setbacks. … It is not a de facto ban at the state level or the local level.”

“This bill is not a moratorium,” she said, later adding, “This bill is not a job killer.”

Several local government representatives backed Becker, saying they support the measure and that city and counties across the state are well equipped to handle land use issues surrounding the industry.

Colorado, Coloradans and the fossil fuel industry can peacefully coexist, even with the proposed legislation, said John Messner, a Gunnison County commissioner.

“Our current regulations are more stringent,” Messner said. “And we have not denied any permits. We have a thriving oil and gas industry within Gunnison County and are able to balance that with health, safety, welfare and the environment.”

Others, however, begged to differ and cited fears that increasing the regulatory burden on the industry could send companies out of the state, leaving blue-collar families out in the cold.

For Trevor Smith, a self-proclaimed “frackhound,” the industry has been a blessing.

“I can afford to take my kids to the doctor when they are sick or to the dentist to keep their teeth clean,” Smith said. The work ensures he can provide his “kids a happy and healthy future.”

Smith’s story is one repeated throughout the state, he said.

“Think about my family and the thousands of others who are just like me,” Smith said.

The economic damage might not stop at families however, others said. Any damage to the oil and gas industry could curb property and other taxes collected by local governments, limiting the services they could provide.

Luis Lopez, a Las Animas County commissioner, expressed fears that such a downturn could force his government to close two days a week, which had been done in recent years due to a lack of revenue.

Rep. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, apparently felt many of those statements fell on deaf ears.

“Your voice is trying to be heard, but most of the people here do not represent rural Colorado,” Liston told one witness.

After he repeated the complaint a second time, Becker reminded him that her district does include a rural portion of the state.

Concerns like Smith’s were often repeated throughout hours of testimony, though others, perhaps in equal numbers, refuted claims that increased regulation would cost the state and tax revenue. Some speculated that the changes could actually create jobs, while others noted that even if the measure is enacted, Colorado would still be an economically viable state in which industry leaders could invest.

After witness testimony concluded, Becker chided fellow lawmakers and other bill opponents, noting that while many took issue with the speed of the measure’s passing, she heard few substantial arguments against the proposal.

Because dissenters can not attack the bill’s contents, they attack its process, Becker said.