U.S. Rep. Jason Crow effectively wants federal regulators to intervene in the proposal to operate oil and gas wells near the Aurora Reservoir, citing its proximity to a Superfund site. 

Crow has been pushing the EPA since last year to interject in the matter.

In a letter on July 15, Crow asked the EPA if the agency has “evaluated the risks of the proposed oil and gas development near” the Lowry Landfill Superfund Site “using independent scientific studies.”

“If so, can EPA provide the sources of this information? If not, how can the agency be certain the drilling will not cause fractures and instability that threaten the mitigation strategies EPA has in place at LLSS?” the congressman said. 

Civitas, which has cleared the technical requirements to complete its application, is encountering opposition from nearby residents and environmental groups.   

The EPA has not objected to the drilling proposal, though it raised concerns regarding the proposed wells’ proximity to the Superfund site, which is owned by the City and County of Denver and operated by Waste Management of Colorado.

From 1965 to 1980, an estimated 138 million gallons of liquid industrial waste was disposed of in about 78 unlined pits over about 200 acres near Gun Club Road in Arapahoe County.

In the 1980s, the EPA found contamination from the site in groundwater, surface water, soil and sediments and put a remedial plan into place. It included adding underground barrier walls, constructing a water treatment plant to treat groundwater, and taking other measures to make sure the contaminants no longer affected health and safety.

Talk about the proposed drilling project started two years ago, when Civitas  filed the Lowry Ranch Comprehensive Area Plan, which includes 32,000 acres of proposed subsurface mineral development. The company proposed eight locations with a total of 166 new wells and 14 existing horizontal wells. The development includes drilling about 7,000 feet under the Aurora Reservoir.

After several revisions sought by the Colorado’s Energy and Carbon Management Commission, the state body determined last February that the application is now complete and scheduled for a hearing on the proposal in late July.

In his letter to the EPA, Crow cited concerns by Aurora residents over the “lack of conclusive scientific review regarding an adequate seismic buffer zone to safeguard the LLSS remediation infrastructure.”

“My office has further heard concerns regarding the safety of the Aurora Reservoir Dam and the reservoir itself; the impact of the CAP on compliance with EPA environmental standards, exposure to hazardous pollutants, and the 3-mile plume; and ensuring nothing threatens the work EPA has done to ensure continued access to safe, clean drinking water across the community,” he said.

He also asked if the EPA plans to conduct PFAS testing in the area. 

Last May, the EPA told Colorado’s Energy and Carbon Management Commission it is “concerned that minerals exploration, including fracking, could create releases of the hazardous waste from the landfill mass.”

The federal agency has discussed the matter with Civitas.

Rich Coolidge, a Civitas spokesperson, also there has not been any “reportable seismic activity caused by hydraulic fracturing in Colorado.”

Company officials promised to adopt a wide array of precautions, including building wells farther away from homes and adding air monitoring and sound barriers to protect residents and ensure the project does not negatively affect the area.

In addition to meeting the requirements to finally get a hearing from the state Energy and Carbon Management Commission, the company has assured the EPA that it would limit its wells to stay clear of a Superfund site.

Civitas added the project would yield an estimated $235 million in tax revenue for Arapahoe County.

In a letter to Civitas from the city of Aurora, officials said they are not concerned about seismic risk to the Aurora Reservoir or dam. Seismic studies have not showed any large faulting in the area or any evidence of a fault that could be re-activated through hydraulic fracturing, they said.

The controversy erupted even as policymakers are aggressively seeking to transition the state away from fossil energy. Indeed, while Colorado is one of the country’s top energy producers — in 2022, the state ranked No. 5 in crude oil production and No. 8 in natural gas — there has been a persistent effort to limit the industry’s footprint, a campaign that has intensified in the last several years.

Proponents of the transition argue it benefits the environment, creates a healthier environment for people and saves Coloradans money, anticipating that, over the long term, renewable energy would be more economical to produce. Critics, meanwhile, say the transition is happening too quickly, that it would be financially costly to people and businesses alike and that a diverse energy portfolio that incudes fossil-fired and renewable energy is more reliable and sustainable

The Energy and Carbon Management Commission will hold a hearing on the proposal on July 30 and Aug. 2.

“Local community members remain concerned over the lack of conclusive scientific review regarding an adequate seismic buffer zone to safeguard the LLSS remediation infrastructure,” Crow wrote in the letter. “My office has further heard concerns regarding the safety of the Aurora Reservoir Dam and the reservoir itself; the impact of the CAP on compliance with EPA environmental standards, exposure to hazardous pollutants, and the 3-mile plume; and ensuring nothing threatens the work EPA has done to ensure continued access to safe, clean drinking water across the community.”