Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

Redistribution of severance taxes and mineral royalties to local governments is one of the mechanisms state governments utilize to ensure local governments benefit from local mineral extraction. The Colorado Department of Local Affairs administers the Energy/Mineral Impact Assistance Fund Grant which is intended to “assist political subdivisions that are socially and/or economically impacted by the development, processing, or energy conversion of minerals and mineral fuels.” However, such grant programs require applicants to detail measureable outcomes within the application. As a result, it is expected localities mitigating development would have more success applying for state funds that have a clearly measurable impact on population growth, revenue, or local government assets. Reviews of the major public health impacts of oil and gas to communities have identified air pollution, water contamination, noise, community change, traffic and stress as negatively impacted public health outcomes— each presents sub-chronically, meaning investment in community public health projects may suffer from lack of quantifiable short-term impacts. The challenge in measuring such impacts can make justifying grants for public health interventions difficult especially where budgetary requirements demand a clear indication of return on investment. By applying for community health grants, localities face increased risk of failure in the granting process despite despite the fact such applications may fully meet the intended program design. Therefore, it is critical to know what contexts and cues encourage local governments to pursue community health grants, and what factors are associated with local managers being willing to justify projects on a public health rationale compared to an asset building rationale.

What factors are related to localities applying for public health grants to obviate mineral extraction externalities, and how do rates of these projects compare to rates of capacity grant applications in stressed communities? This paper characterizes DOLA grants from the last three rounds of grant cycles. For each grant we evaluate responses to the questions, “Why is the project needed at this time?”, “How does the implementation of this project address the need?”, and ‘What are the measureable outcomes?” We code each project need and implementation strategy for recognition of community health as a project rationale, separating projects by impact and medium. We then stratify projects by the DOLA assigned score for the likelihood a community is impacted by oil and gas development, and within each group assess how demographic variables, project funding sources, and locally adopted funding mechanisms interact with warnings, social and environmental cues about impacts to promote local health investments. Cues and warnings evaluated include spills, releases, public health evaluations, and local environmental interest group activities.

In conclusion, this paper characterizes the willingness of localities and the state to invest in public health projects relative to asset and capacity projects, and provides evidence about what kinds of events, funding structures, and cues make such investment choices most likely. The results of this project are useful for understanding how localities respond and act on local public health impacts of economic activity relative to investments in growth and infrastructure.