On the recordDecember 2, 2015
I respect my good friend and colleague from Colorado. Part of the goal of this amendment is to ensure that the full area of disruption receives notification. So where you have a suburban subdevelopment, it is one thing for the owner under which the activity is occurring to get notice. But keep in mind the activity also has an impact certainly within a mile radius of that activity in terms of loud noises, trucks, et cetera. Families may choose to leave town; others may choose to stick it out and make sure they are prepared for whatever activity will occur, when it occurs. But, clearly, if there are notification aspects in the current law, which there are, they are insufficient, because I come before you telling you that there are homeowners in Colorado who have no prior word of extraction activity on their land until, literally, they see it occurring. They see trucks, they see people. They go out, they say, ``What are you doing?'' and they say, ``We are getting ready to drill.'' This happens in my State. This amendment would make sure that, more than a good faith effort that is simply signed off on by some bureaucrat and therefore waived, there is a real effort of implementation. We give full rulemaking authority to the BLM to actually come up with a system for notifying homeowners and adjacent property owners about extraction work that is occurring for the mineral rights that occur under where they live.…





