A Fracking Challenge
Issued July 25, 2011
Today on the front lawn and within the stately chambers of the Legislative Building in Raleigh, I demonstrated along with half a hundred like minded advocates my opposition to bills that will deregulate environmental protections and lead to legalizing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in North Carolina. Such action always borders on masochism in this current political climate. It’s like spitting into the wind, an ill wind driven by habit, hope, hype, greed, denial and ideology. It’s a “David vs. Goliath” battle, but without the biblical results or rewards. Therefore, there was no surprise when the Governor’s veto to kill S781 (the environmental deregulation bill) was overridden 75-43.
The evening became a time for licking wounds and resuming my “homework” by searching the internet for yet more information on the ever troubling issue of fracking. There are hundreds of videos on the world wide web that deal with fracking, because there are hundreds of communities already or potentially affected by it. I’ve seen many of the videos. But none have impressed (or depressed) me like the one I came across this evening.
I watched an interview with three people from Oneida County, NY who went to PA to see for themselves the fracking operations going on in Bradford County. I have often thought, “If only every person was forced to live in the midst of ‘Frackland,’ then no citizen and no legislature would be promoting this operation.” But if you don’t live there for real or can’t pay a personal visit to fracked communities, then this interview is the next best thing. The video challenges every rationale that embraces natural gas drilling by presenting eye witness testimony to the contrary. It challenges our sense of right and wrong and our sensibilities to respond morally.
And it has challenged me to extend the challenge near and far. Therefore:
- I challenge every single person who reads this article to sit down for the better part of an hour in front of their computer screen. Join these real people as though they were your next door neighbors. Sit around the table in the home where the interview was taped. Watch, listen and learn exactly what the whole fracking operation is like from people just like you. Let it sink in like a drill bit boring to the very center of your heart.
- I challenge everyone to answer for him/herself if the cost of the “collateral damage” that is the result of fracking for methane can be justified in a moral society.
- I challenge every citizen to contact every member of the NC General Assembly and their local governmental officials to challenge them to watch the interview.
- I challenge every member of the NC General Assembly and every county and municipal official to not only watch this interview, but to explain in great detail to all the people of NC exactly why it is that they will or will not vote to promote and legalize fracking in NC.
Knowing what I know and living where I live in a county that is part of the “Ground Zero” of potential fracking in NC, I cannot in good conscience remain silent or inert about this life changing issue. Watch the interview for yourself and decide what you must do. Take the challenge now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m25VycotOiE
– Gary Simpson (CCEC Board of Directors member)
The Last Ride of the Chatham Bookmoblie
Good jobs or the environment … do we have to choose?
And here is how I replied:
Why, yes, I do! I absolutely think that. I am a board member of CCEC and a supporter of the Haw River Assembly, and I would very much like to see high-paying industries in Chatham County. Industries where people can have real careers, not just jobs. Industries where people feel good about where they work. Industries that want to be good corporate citizens. It’s a false choice to assume that to have good-paying jobs, we have to sacrifice the environment, and many modern, successful companies understand this.
“Streamlining” Continues
What’s going on these days in Chatham County government? The so-called “streamlining” continues. It’s easy to lose track of where we are in what could more accurately be described as a mudslide.
A public hearing has been scheduled for June 6th on proposed amendments to the county’s Watershed Protection Ordinance (WPO), which would return the functions of the Watershed Review Board (WRB) to the county’s Planning Board (PB). Also in June, the Board of Commissioners (BoC) will discuss the removal of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirement and its peer review by the Environmental Review Board (ERB) on commercial projects in general-use zones. A public hearing has been scheduled for June 6th on proposed amendments to the county’s Watershed Protection Ordinance (WPO), which would return the functions of the Watershed Review Board (WRB) to the county’s Planning Board (PB). Also in June, the Board of Commissioners (BoC) will discuss the removal of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirement and its peer review by the Environmental Review Board (ERB) on commercial projects in general-use zones. A public hearing will likely be scheduled in July for eliminating the same on conditional-use residential subdivisions. And there will be a 6 PM public hearing this coming Monday (May 23) at the Community College Multipurpose Room in Pittsboro on the proposed budget that will eliminate the Environmental Resource Department and its director. Another public hearing will be held at 6 PM on May 24th in the Siler City Courtroom.
The WRB is a state-mandated review board that makes decisions on appeals and variance requests. This board also makes recommendations to the county commissioners on amendments to the WPO, and acts in either an advisory capacity or in a quasi-judicial capacity, depending on the request. For example, the WRB most recently drafted amendments to the WPO to bring it into compliance with the Jordan Lake Rules, which are state regulations intended to restore, protect and maintain the water quality of Jordan Lake.
The ERB was established in 2007 to peer review EIAs for proposed developments, and to advise the BoC on environmental issues. Prior to that, the Planning Board had acted as the WRB. Once the ERB was established, the BoC designated the ERB as the WRB. The considerable scientific expertise of the ERB members made this assignment an absolute no-brainer.
So what logic is at play here? The BoC majority has decided that the ERB must go. And so must the EIA. And now that we have seen the proposed budget, the Environmental Resources Department must also go, along with its director. All these are connected and interrelated, and all of them are to be eliminated. Next could be a rewrite of the Watershed Protection Ordinance by guess who? Our new “open-for-business” Planning Board!
I don’t need to tell you that this will leave the county’s environment and natural resources extremely vulnerable. Property owners will have no recourse and can expect no consideration from the county to protect their property from negative environmental impacts. Our newly elected commissioners would have us believe that they are only getting rid of an unnecessary and cumbersome board, and that we will still have environmental guidelines. But what will they be and who’s going to enforce them? This is just plain disingenuous.
Environmental guidelines will be sidelined. There will be no one left with the scientific credentials within the county review process to assess and identify potential impacts. And state and federal government cuts are gutting the environmental watchdog agencies that we might depend on to protect the environment. Essentially we will be at the mercy of the goodwill of developers for commercial projects (and eventually large residential projects) to do the right things to protect our natural resources. I think we all know where that leaves us — right back where we were in the mid-2000s. Mud running into our streams, rivers and lake.
Mudslide.
Chatham citizens must let their elected officials know that this deliberate dismantling of protections for land, water, and our own welfare is unacceptable. Commissioner Chair Brian Bock has said on several occasions that the majority has already agreed that these decisions will be made, even before hearing from the citizens at public hearings! Is this the “transparent” government he’s been talking about?
Let the commissioners know how you feel about environmental protections and citizen input. Write, call, and speak out on Monday night.
- Caroline Siverson and Kate Dunlap
A quarter century ago the world was introduced to a humorous science fiction movie about time travel. In a move of pure genius, it was given the curious and catchy title: “Back to the Future.” The confusing play on words was a real grabber. It was so well received that sequels II and III soon followed. We couldn’t get enough of going back to the future… whatever that means.
As we watch the progress of Senate Bill 709, one can imagine the NC General Assembly writing a new science fiction piece around the issues of energy and economy. Like many bills it already has a curious title. In fact, like most bills it has two titles, a short one and a longer descriptive title. The short title is “Energy Jobs Act.” The long title is: “An act to increase energy production in NC to develop a secure, stable and predictable energy supply to facilitate economic growth, job creation, and expansion of business and industry opportunities and to assign future revenue from energy exploration, development, and production of energy resources in order to protect and preserve the state’s natural resources, cultural heritage, and quality of life.”
It’s a curious (and crafty) title to be sure, but not very catchy. There must be an alternate title, perhaps more like the sci-fi movie. How about rather than “Back To The Future,” we flip it and call it the “Forward to the Past Act: An act to perpetuate ‘business as usual’ and maintain our addiction to carbon based energy forms, while paying lip service to energy efficiency and conservation, placing window dressing on renewable energy sources, and offering false hope of health, safety and environmental protection in the midst of gutting regulatory and enforcement agencies.” That may clear up some of the confusing language in the original version. But nothing can make it humorous. A tragedy just isn’t funny.
Call me skeptical and even cynical… call me doubting and dubious… call me overly cautious and fiercely protective of “the state’s natural resources, cultural heritage, and quality of life” (to quote S 709) – but to paraphrase Hope Taylor, Director of Clean Water for North Carolina, “This is a disastrous bill for the environmental community.”
And therein you have the crux of the debate over fracking in the midst of the bigger picture of energy, economy and environment. Will the direction that the legislature is moving lead us to a profitable AND renewable, resilient future that protects and preserves the state’s natural resources, cultural heritage and quality of life? Can we have our party cake and eat it, too… with frosting… and candles fueled by natural gas?
There are those that believe we can, and say so. There are also those who say so, but don’t actually believe so. There are those who want to believe it, and are being sold on it. There are also those who would like to believe, but no longer buy into the reality of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. And there are those victims of GASLAND who bought the goose that laid the golden egg… and watched it turn into fool’s gold… a rotten egg sickening their lives and livelihood and befouling their environment and communities.
Here’s the question: What price are we as a civilization, society and community willing to pay to continue greedily doing business as usual and living our convenient and consumptive lifestyles as usual in the midst of rapid planetary changes taking place around us? WE have to wrestle with that question personally and collectively. WE have to come up with the answer personally and collectively. And WE have to declare that answer personally and collectively.
A documentary like GASLAND is one resource to help us come up with an answer on the fracking debate. The Independent Weekly’s mid May two-part series on fracking is another. A local alliance of concerned organizations and citizens is also forming around the fracking issue. For now, continue to look to the CCEC blog and website to get more information on the formation of the alliance and the fracking issue. And, of course, the internet is awash with information via your favorite search engine.
- Gary Simpson
“Let’s Get Fracking!”
It’s a cry now being heard across the state from politicians on Jones Street to citizens on Main Street and applauded by the entire gas drilling industry. It’s a call to grab hold of that low hanging fruit (shale gas) just beneath our feet and reap the harvest. It’s an invitation to partake in a monetary feast to be spread out among the State, land owners and energy moguls alike. It’s perceived as Mother Nature’s gift to us, a Cornucopia to shore up sagging revenues, bolster individual bank accounts and boost business profits. But that’s not all; it also comes with the promise (or premise?) of being a home grown (no foreign fingers in the pot), clean (less CO2 and grimy stuff), safe (think Fukushima reactors) bridge to an alternative energy future. And how about all those jobs it will create for our local truck drivers, bulldozers and well sinkers. What’s not to love? Let’s git ‘er done! Let’s g et fracking!
And so, the great NC “Gas Rush” of 2011 begins with high hopes and great expectations by many as a partial panacea for our economic and energy woes. But just as politicians, land owners and gas executives hurriedly line up to find their place in the parade, others of a more questioning and wary nature step in line. Their caution is perceived as dark clouds looming on the horizon. Will they bring rain to delay or cancel the parade? Will they ruin a good time with a down pouring of doubts? Will they just dry up and blow away? Doesn’t everyone love a parade?
Like most “hot button” issues facing a diverse society and divided populace, the extraction of natural gas through the process of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) tends to draw a line in the sand (or shale in this case). The resulting “tug-of-war” sets up a contest to recruit and persuade people to throw the weight of their knowledge and convictions into the tussle. Helping folks to understand the pros and cons, assets and liabilities, and the potential for help or harm based on factual study and documented information is critical in the fracking debate. It is important to straddle the line, look in both directions, gather facts and filter misinformation in preparing to choose which direction to pull.
As an education and advocacy organization, the fracking issue has been on CCEC’s radar screen for many months. We’ve looked in both directions, listened and learned and discerned. Now, with the local activity of gas drilling companies to secure leases for mineral rights, and the move afoot in the NC General Assembly to remove fracking prohibitions, we believe it is time to be proactive. With this in mind, and upon CCEC’s invitation, a dozen folks representing ten organizations gathered on April 20 for a brain-storming session. Together they began to lay the foundation for an alliance of groups and individuals to address the issue of natural gas extraction via fracking in Chatham and NC.
In the coming weeks and months CCEC will continue to collaborate with this core group, and we look forward to sharing emerging plans for citizen education and advocacy as together we get cracking on this critical and controversial issue of fracking.
-Gary Simpson
FRAC Act Introduced on Capitol Hill to Close “Halliburton Loophole”: NC Legislators Headed in Opposite Direction
While there’s a move afoot on Jones Street in Raleigh to open the now closed and locked door to horizontal hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in NC, on Capitol Hill in D.C. a piece of legislation has been introduced to nudge the door in the other direction. If it were to defy all odds in the current Congress and get serious consideration (one can only dream), the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC ACT) would close what is unaffectionately dubbed as the “Halliburton Loophole.” That loophole is the natural gas industry’s carte blanche to fracking frenzy.
Ever since 2005, when former V.P. (and former Halliburton Executive) Dick Cheney helped to craft and launch the so-called Halliburton loophole, oil and gas companies have been selectively exempted from customary safety measures, health safeguards, regulatory oversights, penalties and liabilities in the Clean Water Drinking Act (CWDA). This means that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pretty well handcuffed in matters of fracking. It is worth noting that in 2001 Cheney’s “energy task force” touted the benefits of hydraulic fracturing, while redacting references to human health hazards associated with the process. So, fracking ended up with the “Don’t Worry… Be Happy” seal of approval.
For your edification, here’s how they did it: Step 1. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to exclude “…the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.” Step 2. The Clean Water Act changed the definition of pollutant: “This TERM (Pollutant) DOES NOT MEAN (A) sewage from vessels ‘within the meaning of section 312 of this Act; or (B) water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate production or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the State in which the well is located, and if such State determines that such injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of ground or surface water resources.”
Bottom line, if you need to pollute natural resources (say, like water) in order to get the prize at the bottom of the Cracker Jacks box, but it’s illegal to pollute … then just change the definition of what a pollutant is. Forget that old line about a rose by any other name smelling as sweet. Nevertheless, redefining the poison cocktail of noxious chemicals shoved down Mother Nature’s throat and partially vomited back up doesn’t make it any less lethal. And legalizing the insidious process doesn’t make it morally acceptable.
There’s a whole lot of drumming and fifing these days against “Big Government” as a restrictive and punitive plague upon the landscape of private enterprise. But the fact is that a “core function” of government has always been to protect citizens’ health and our natural resources… not to turn its back, close its eyes and stick its head in the sand while the Bull has its way in the china shop. Anyone care to spend “happy hour” unwittingly sipping on a Salmonella Cocktail (or how about a glass of swill from a contaminated well or river)?
Join with other concerned citizens across America in support of the FRAC Act. Visit http://stopfrackingnow.com/.
And stay tuned for more information from CCEC and the emerging fracking alliance of concerned local organizations and citizens about legislation being introduced to the General Assembly of NC.
-Gary Simpson
