Hydraulic fracturing or fracking is a process of oil and natural gas extraction from underground rock formations such as shale, by injecting a mixture of high-pressure water with chemicals and sand through a well drilled through various layers of earth (US Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], ES-1). Wastewater generated from fracking is usually concentrated with various pollutants, and has to be treated before disposal. Further as the hole is drilled through layers of earth, there is possibility of new contaminants entering the water table due to disturbance. Also, if groundwater is tapped in excess, pollutants from the gas production well could fill the evacuated space in the aquifer (EPA, ES-13). About 50% of US’s active fracking wells are located in Texas, and most private water wells located close to the production wells in North Texas are contaminated with heavy metals such as arsenic, selenium and strontium (Yeo). Heavy metal concentrations in water samples (near Barnett Shale) were 16 times more than EPAs recommended levels for safe drinking water (Yeo). Thus there is need for a strong regulatory policy to check groundwater contamination by fracking in Texas.
1. Policy Instruments
Fracking in US is currently exempted from Safe Drinking Water Act as well as pollution control requirements of Clean Water Act (NRDC). It is regulated only at the State Government level, and the regulatory norms are not uniform throughout the nation (NRDC). Also, fracking companies are not bound legally to notify the contents of the fluid injected into ground (NRDC). Hence the following policies need to be implemented to protect Texas’s groundwater reserves.
Quantitative and qualitative standards regulating disposal of fracking wastewater have to be set under the Clean Water Act.
Environmental impact assessments (EIA) including groundwater quality assessments have to be carried out in areas with high density of fracking wells, and those close to residential communities. This should be responsibility of the project proponent.
Legislation that sets uniform regulations for environmentally intrusive fracking operations needs to be formulated and implemented nationwide.
2. Policy Instrument’s Rational
Fracking companies can use any combination of chemicals for the injecting fluid, and use any quantity of water from surface or groundwater reserves in the state. There are facilities that store the ejected liquid from the process well in pits, before transporting them to the effluent treatment plant (Throupe, Simons and Mao, 209). Seepage of pollutants can occur during this storage and some facilities discharge the effluent directly into surface water bodies too (NRDC). Unless there are regulations restricting disposal of fracking effluent, water quality in the area will surely be affected. EIA’s should be carried out by the project proponent with assistance from state or local regulatory authorities, and foreseen by US EPA. These assessments can be used to identify potential areas with contamination, and plan on remedial measures if required. But, this will require capital investment, administrative control and strict enforcement. However, incentives or tax benefits to responsible companies that indulge in voluntary EIAs can help in implementing this policy. Finally, a Legislation that regulates fracking operation must be passed to prevent discrepancies that exist in various states.
3. Constraints to Policy Implementation
There are political as well as cost constraints in dealing with groundwater pollution due to fracking. In Denton, the town residents passed a bill to ban fracking from 300 wells within the city limits, but Texas State Governor overruled it, through a bill that restricts local municipality’s control over private properties (Maqbool, BBC News). Fracking companies supported this action. Thus, implementing a strong regulation might also face a similar fate at the local level. To achieve consensus on a nation wide legislative policy on fracking might be difficult, but it is very much essential to protect the safety of environment as well as human health. Fracking technology has benefitted the society and made natural gas available at cheaper prizes, but based on the precautionary principle, the companies have a responsibility to prove their operations do not lead to any adverse impacts. Thus, there is a political constraint of achieving consensus over a nationwide legislation, backed by fear of project proponents on cost involved in conducting EIA’s as well as remediation actions in contaminated sites.
Works Cited
EPA. "Draft Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on
Drinking Water Resources." June 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2016. <https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf>.
Maqbool, Aleem. "The Texas Town That Banned Fracking (and Lost)." BBC News. 16 June
2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2016. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33140732>.
Throupe, Ron, Robert A. Simons, and Xue Mao. "A Review of Hydro ‘‘Fracking’’ and its
Potential Effects on Real Estate." JOURNAL OF REAL ESTATE LITERATURE 21.2 (2013): 205-32. Web. 29 Apr. 2016. <http://energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/A-review-of-hydrofracking-and-its-potential-effects-on-real-estate.pdf>.
Yeo, Sophie. "Texas Water Contamination Linked to Fracking Sites | Climate Home –
Climate Change News." Climate Home. 2013. Web. 29 Apr. 2016. <http://www.
climatechangenews.com/2013/07/29/water-contamination-discovered-near-texas-fracking-sites/>.
