The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Fracking Bill Could Take the ‘Public’ Out of Public Lands
The House Natural Resources Committee is considering a bill that would bar the feds from enforcing any “Federal regulation, guidance or permit requirement regarding” fracking in states that have their own rules or guidance.
The impetus for the bill? The Interior Department has proposed updating its fracking regulations, which are more than 30 years old. It’s a reasonable thing to do considering that the technology has dramatically changed and literally transformed the landscape of drilling, opening up previously inaccessible deposits.
But the priority for the bill’s proponents is that the Interior Department keeps its hands off oil and gas operations on our public lands.
And they aren’t worried if the public or federal officials don’t think state rules are strong enough to protect water and air quality, human health, wildlife and fish. The bill sponsored by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and Rep. Bill Flores of (R-TX) would prohibit the Interior Department from regulating fracking on federal lands regardless of whether state rules “are duplicative, more or less restrictive, shall have different requirements or do not meet Federal guidelines.”
During a recent hearing, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) said the bill contains “broad terms with severe implications.”
“[The bill] would allow fracking within any unit of the national park system or any other federal land if it was permitted to do so under state law,” Rep. Holt warned.
Leavin’ It to the States?
The response from the bill’s proponents? The states are already doing a good job regulating fracking and other energy operations. Enforcing federal rules would be redundant.
“The bill before us today is about empowering local self-government in placing a check on the growth of an out-of-control, one-size-fits-all federal government,” Rep. Flores said during the hearing.
A cynic would argue that the bill is about the empowerment of the oil and gas industry. It’s easy to see why oil and gas companies would rather take their chances with state regulators.
Consider the following:
- Federal agencies are charged with balancing competing uses on federal lands and analyzing the potential effects on a range of resources. States usually have no such mandate.
- State regulations, enforcement, staffing and funding levels vary widely.
- The main focus of most state oil and gas commissions is on getting the minerals out of the ground and the makeup of commissions is typically heavily weighted toward industry.
- While many state oil and gas agencies include the word “conservation” in their name, it doesn’t refer to “environmental protection,” as a recent E&E story noted. It refers to extracting all the oil and gas in an area before moving to another spot so the minerals aren’t wasted—“conserving” the petroleum resources.
The More Things Change…
Not so very long ago here in Colorado, the oil and gas industry was fighting the enforcement of state rules on federal land. Enactment of the Colorado Habitat Stewardship Act required the oil and gas commission to place a stronger emphasis on resources other than fossil fuels. The oil and gas commission’s membership was changed to include representation from local governments, conservationists and landowners.
The changes were championed by a governor who ran on a conservation platform and courted hunters and anglers who worried that a natural gas boom was threatening wildlife and habitat. The industry loudly protested the state’s insistence that the new rules applied to federal land.
The pendulum has swung again in Colorado. The administration of a different governor is joining an industry group in a lawsuit against the City of Longmont,which has banned fracking within its borders. I doubt Longmont’s ban is the kind of “local self government” the federal lawmakers have in mind.
The bill’s proponents talk about states’ rights; that’s not the issue. The issue comes down to how energy is developed responsibly while we safeguard all the other important resources on lands. These lands are a public trust and are home to irreplaceable natural, archaeological and cultural treasures. It’s about requiring consistent, minimum environmental and health standards for a process that forces, at high pressure, chemical-laced fluids underground and leaves behind large volumes of wastewater.
It’s understandable that businesses seek whatever advantages they can. But as long as our public lands remain public, elected officials are obligated to consider more than corporate bottom lines when making decisions about them.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Ketura Persellin
Global consumption of beef, lamb and goat is expected to rise by almost 90 percent between 2010 and 2050. But that doesn't mean you need to eat more meat. In fact, recent news from Washington gives you even less confidence in your meat: Pork inspections may be taken over by the industry itself, if a Trump administration proposal goes into effect, putting tests for deadly pathogens into the hands of line workers.
‘Companies Should Not Be Allowed to Use Hazardous Ingredients in Products People Use’: Michelle Pfeiffer Speaks Up for Safer Cosmetics
The beauty products we put on our skin can have important consequences for our health. Just this March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that some Claire's cosmetics had tested positive for asbestos. But the FDA could only issue a warning, not a recall, because current law does not empower the agency to do so.
Michelle Pfeiffer wants to change that.
The actress and Environmental Working Group (EWG) board member was spotted on Capitol Hill Thursday lobbying lawmakers on behalf of a bill that would increase oversight of the cosmetics industry, The Washington Post reported.
By Julia Conley
Scientists at the United Nations' intergovernmental body focusing on biodiversity sounded alarms earlier this month with its report on the looming potential extinction of one million species — but few heard their calls, according to a German newspaper report.