Introduction
The issue of hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking” an innovation how to extract natural gas from minerals such as shale rock has become very controversial as of recently in the United States. Large sections of the United States especially in the Northeast have lots of shale rock which has caused many oil and gas companies naturally to extract the region’s resources. This over time has caused many conflicts between the oil companies, local residents as well as local, state and federal authorities. Many people question how safe of a process fracking is and what are the unknown or unintended environmental effects of this technique. This has naturally caused much of controversy surrounding the question of if first of all the fracking industry has been regulated enough and second of all who should regulate it.
The conversation around the fracking issue has raised some very interesting points about the relationships between citizens, corporations, regulators and legislators and the bargaining to see who has the upper hand on either continuing fracking unabated, stopping it completely or a synthesis based on greater regulation and oversight by government agencies. This case has clearly delineated interest groups for and against and both fracking. The politics of fracking and the way that it has mobilized certain groups against it especially because of the use of the media in the case has really solidified it as one of the most interesting cases of interest group politics in the 21st century.
There is a simple argument both for and against the use of fracking as a technique and they hinge on environmentalism and economics. It is hard to question given the evidence that fracking isn’t hurting the environment in any way but there is something to be said for what domestic production of natural gas has done to help the US economy, this contrast is ultimately the one that matters most and the one that is the dividing line on this issue. The question isn’t “is fracking good or bad?” The question worth asking is “is fracking worth the costs?” The oil companies say yes while many others say that the environmental cost of fracking is in fact too high.
Interest Groups and the Politics of Fracking
The issue over fracking much like many others that are involved with environmental protection in some way pits a population or some sort group interested with the conservation of a resource with the entity trying to exploit that resource. Opponents of fracking which is to say supporters of more stringent regulation on oil and gas companies involved in drilling for natural gas using fracking have a mind towards protecting their drinking water and the environment. The energy companies on the other hand have largely one interest in mind increasing the amount of gas that that they can drill and sell. The interest group politics of fracking are complicated because they are mediated not only by legislative politics but by bureaucratic and regulatory agencies in both the federal and state levels. This has led to an all out effort by both sides to try and carve out space in the law that either protects environmental interest or the interest of drillers.
These are the main interest groups on either side of the issue and they have worked thoroughly along the same avenues of trying to get their side better and stronger conditions to attempt to create an atmosphere that is more hospitable to their side. Opponents of fracking do not want to ban it, they instead just prefer that there be much stricter regulation on the process and the chemicals that are used in it. While on the hand the gas companies do not want to accede to any of these demands because they naturally want to continue operating with as little regulation and oversight as possible from government agencies.
Government Bureaucracy and Regulation of Fracking
The fracking industry is regulated by both state and federal environmental protection agencies These government agencies are largely responsible for regulating the shale gas industry because of the connection between the process of hydraulic fracturing and how it relates to the environmental impact of the water sources in the region. There has been much controversy recently as the use of fracking has expanded in recent years about the environmental impact of the technique especially of the region’s water supply. Concerns with the safety of fracking are based on fears that include that the process could include “groundwater (aquifer) contamination by fracking chemicals, accidental chemical spills, waste disposal, air quality, the land footprint of drilling activities, pipeline placement and safety, and the amount of water used. (Rahm, 2011, p.2975) Proponents of more regulation base their complaints on the fact that the gas extraction companies use fracking fluids do not have to disclose what they are using and that many of the chemicals may be hazardous enough to be carcinogens and to contaminate both the air and water around the gas wells. (Rahm, 2011, p. 2976) Although it has also been conclusively shown that there is evidence of methane contamination of private drinking-water in areas where shale gas extraction is occurring.” (Jackson et. al, 2011, p.3)
At the state level these facts are important because it shows that state bureaucracies – departments of environmental protection – have enough to go on to create a satisfactory regime to regulate fracking but unfortunately there isn’t a single uniform set of regulations or an equal desire by different states
At the federal level the shale gas industry was originally exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005 but more recently the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) has stepped in and has asked President Obama to further investigate the issue in three major categories. First, characterization of the fracking life cycle. Second, fracking and its relationship to drinking water sources and finally the potential “health and environmental hazards” of the technique. (Manuel, 2010) The EPA has the jurisdiction to deal wit this problem and to create regulations for the shale-gas industry and fracking as process because of their connection to potential hazards to the country’s air and water.
Congressional Politics and the Fracking Issue
One of the truest maxims in all of politics is that ultimately “all politics” is local and this has been proven very true with the fracking issue. Although in large part fracking still isn’t a national issue one that spans the entire country it certainly has quickly become much more of a federal issue where many actors have been attempting “federalize” the issue. This has been done in the US Congress primarily by Democratic Party legislators from states where fracking and its use have become a concern this includes Diane DeGette and Jared Polis from Colorado, Maurce Hinchey from New York in the House of Representatives as well as Senators Bob Casey from Pennsylvania and Chuck Schumer from New York. (Davis & Hoffer, 2012, p.10) The efforts of these legislators and the U.S House Energy and Commerce Committee was to try to and pass the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act or FRAC Act. (Davis & Hoffer, 2012, p.10) The FRAC Act
contained several provisions which included amending the SDWA and providing EPA with the authority to establish regulatory standards for fracking. In addition, the bill would have required that oil and gas companies disclose the ingredients used in fracturing fluids, though proprietary formulas would continue to be protected except during an emergency. (Davis & Hoffer, 2012, p.10)
This along with a congressional investigation discover that both the energy industry and the EPA had been deficient in keeping the nation’s environmental health in mind and prompted the agency to clarify and better enforce the regulations on fracking. Congressional pressure especially by the representatives of those actually affected by the problem proved to be a majorly important factors in actually making some progress in crafting a federal response to regulation of fracking and the gas industry.
Fracking and Wilson’s Interest Group Politics
The issue of fracturing although it has many benefits in the form of more plentiful and cheaper natural gas for all American citizens actually has a very limited impact on a regulatory basis. The environmental impacts of fracking are limited to the immediate region where the drilling is happening and the regulation of it is limited to only the oil and gas companies engaging in the practice. The citizens of a particular place such as Pennsylvania or New York might come together on a pluralistic basis to try and work together to regulate their commonly held resource and environmental legacy.
When both the costs and benefits of regulation are concentrated this is typical of interest group politic and this is the case with the issue of hydraulic fracturing. Although many people are directly affected by the negative environmental hazards caused by fracking it is not as though many people proportionally are actually hurt, this is a problem only in shale plays that are being actively explored by oil companies in states in the Northeast, Texas, Colorado and some other places. The impacts of regulation are also concentrated because the only group that is actually hurt by tougher regulation so it becomes a one-on-one fight between the people who demands better regulation and the energy industry who want as little regulation as possible. (Wilson, Dilulio, Bose, & Levedunsky, 2016, p. 5)
There are interest groups both for and against fracking and their motivations are total divergent. One groups favor greater regulation and they are representative of the pluralist theory that says that political power isn’t concentrated and that interest groups if they act together can actually affect change by using the established political system. The oil and gas companies on the other hand represent the elite theory of organization. They are an elite because they control a resource in this case the land that is being explored and they have access to the channels of decision making where they can work positively to create policies that are favorable to them and their industry. (Wilson, Dilulio, Bose, & Levedunsky, 2016, pp. 9-12) The role of interest group politics on both sides of the fracking issue are very emblematic of how American government and bureaucracies function. If there is enough public call for change it is possible but that only usually happens when mediated by governmental politics and the message is boosted by another important actor in the creation of public opinion, the media.
The Media and Hydraulic Fracturing
In an open pluralist society, the media has a very important role in actually informing the political process and playing a role in driving the issue in whatever direction is deemed the most necessary. In the case of fracking, the media and entertainment industries have in large sided with the view that is a dangerous practice which is bad for the environment. The 2010 documentary Gasland by Josh Fox was one of the first cases of the issue of fracking actually becoming a national issue. Fox in a mixture of great reporting, analysis, emotion and some sensationalism actually brought to the general public the issue of fracking as something that was actually of deep local concern but had not yet registered on the large public as an actual issue. (Adlesic & Fox, 2010) Another work that really spread the issue of fracking to a national audience was the 2012 movie Promised Land starring Matt Damon. (Jaspal & Nerlich, 2014, p.4) These two movies are part and parcel of how the discussion around fracking has been defined in the United States an have actually in large part driven the issue to one that transcends local politics making it an important part of the national conversation.
Recent Fracking Case Law
Opponents of fracking have used any recourse available to them in order to try and restrict the use of the technique on their land and to try and hold the oil and gas companies accountable. They have used the court system in order as an avenue to work their cause and although there is a very large body of litigation still ongoing across the United States from Pennsylvania to Texas many of them base their complaint that the oil companies have in fact violated the terms of the Safe Drinking Water and many state and local ordinances related to environmental protection (Nicholson & Blanson, 2011) The upshot of the case law at the time of writing despite the fact that most of the cases were early in litigation, the authors “have not located any legal judgment to date against a well operator, drilling contractor, or service company for contamination of groundwater resulting from hydraulic fracturing. (Nicholson & Blanson, 2011, p.1)
Conclusion
The issue of hydraulic fracturing and the controversy around it for the best part of a half decade are a very interesting case of how interest group politics no matter how seemingly local and unimportant on a national scale can actually transcend those boundaries and actually become the part of the national conversation. That is largely because of how the interest groups on both sides of this issue actually have gone about trying to build political support. Anti-fracking activists have partly used very traditional methods of organization in order to try and get laws changed, they have used public forums at all levels of government, the courts and most importantly the media to get their word out there. The 2010 documentary Gasland was actually one of the moments where fracking first entered the public consciousness and became a cause celebre among the Hollywood elite. Environmentalist and other activists have also flocked to the anti-fracking cause and have actually been able to actually force changes from the power structure.
The other side on this issue, the oil and gas companies have always had their own method of getting things done. Oil and gas companies have been very connected to how business is done in Washington for a really long time and that industry’s interests are represented by their ability to actually finance candidates’ campaigns as well as through lobbying efforts. This is the old trope of “insider politics” which the oil companies have actually been able in large part to capture many state legislatures as well as the US Congress and the machinery of the legislative process.
In order for regular people to succeed against the establishment and entrenched interests such as this they need to work tirelessly and be organized and I think that in large part groups that have been in favor of more regulation of fracking have acted generally correctly and have tried their best to affect change and create a new policy environment. It has hard to foresee victory but is still heartening to see that with enough organization and the right forces on your side there can still be hope for actually having the right side win for the sake of protecting the environment today and leaving a more sustainable planet for the next generation and the ones still to come.
Politics doesn’t always have to be a bleak business and although many victories are hard to come by I admire that an interest group using pluralist tactics can still change things enough to make sure that there is hope that all of the entrenched interests won’t always win every single battle where decency and sustainability over profits are the main battle
References
Davis, C., & Hoffer, K. (2012). Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking. Policy Sciences, 45(3), 221-241.
Fox, J., Gandour, M., Adlesic, T., Sanchez, M., International WOW Company., Gasland Productions., HBO Documentary Films., New Video Group. (2010). Gasland: Can you light your water on fire?. New York, NY: Docurama Films.Bottom of Form
Jackson, R. B., Pearson, B. R., Osborn, S. G., Warner, N. R., & Vengosh, A. (2011). Research and policy recommendations for hydraulic fracturing and shale-gas extraction. Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Jaspal, R., & Nerlich, B. (2014). Fracking in the UK press: Threat dynamics in an unfolding debate. Public Understanding of Science, 23(3), 348-363.
Manuel, J. (2010). Mining: EPA tackles fracking. Environmental health perspectives, 118(5), A199.
Nicholson, B., & Blanson, K. (2011). Tracking Fracking Case Law: Hydraulic Fracturing Litigation. Nat. Resources & Env't, 26, 25.
Rahm, D. (2011). Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2974-2981.
Wiseman, Hannah Jacobs. "Untested waters: the rise of hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas production and the need to revisit regulation." Fordham Environmental Law Review 20 (2009): 115.
Wilson, J., DiIulio Jr, J., Bose, M., & Levendusky, M. (2016). American government: Institutions and policies. Nelson Education.
