Despite the headline declaration, the editorial itself makes no such bold statement, hedging its bets by calling the rules "seemingly reasonable."
Well, are they reasonable or not? The Post does not know.
It appears the Post editorial board has not read, or even briefly skimmed, the proposed rules.
The Post declares that Republican Grand Junction representative Josh "Penry and his colleagues should review the new rules carefully and ferret out any that seem wrong-headed." Wow. State legislators should review the rules carefully? Way to take a hard line stance, Post. Are they any such "wrong-headed" rules? The Post does not pretend to know, despite referring to them as "seemingly reasonable." How can they be "seemingly reasonable" if the possibility of "wrong-headed" rules exist?
Does the Post editorial board have an editor?
The Post takes a firm stand when it declares (decisively, no less) that "[t]he rules can't be so onerous that extraction becomes impossible." Hard to argue with that assertion. Indeed, rules governing the extraction of oil and gas should not make such extraction impossible. Is it necessary to use newsprint and ink for such an obvious truth?
It is a shame that only good editorial page in Denver is on the pages of the Rocky Mountain News, which is apparently about to close its doors for good.