Hydro Relief Web                                        

"Can We Protect Our Drinking Water?"  Mr. Cunningham is the manager of the Clinton Waste Water Treatment Facility and he gave a factual overview of the functions and limitations of the water treatment processes at the Clinton Facility - as well as a general background on the water treatment process.  The talk was at the invitation of the Kirkland Committee to Prohibit Hydrofracking. Mr. Cunningham's presentation confirmed his reputation as an expert in the field of waste water management.
    However, he seemed to indicate at a number of points that hydrofracking processes could be improved and made acceptable by way of technology and thus can be mitigated - a position that HRW rejects. The prevailing economics which prioritizes the bottom line (what the NY Times called a shale-gas "ponzi scheme") together with the numerous examples of illegal dumping, the  externalization of some of the costs of production onto the public sector (spill clean-up),  and the larger moral questions of whether or not we should be spending such large amounts of money on  depletable energy development - went largely unaddressed.
    Also, he was forcefully rebutted by Toshia Hance on the issues of well bore improvements and integrity in addition to the effectiveness of "Reverse Osmosis" as a filtration process on frack effected ground water.
    Mr. Cunningham's position (very similar to industry taking points) that hydrofracking is inevitable in New York, will continue to be opposed by the growing number of activists concerned with human health and the environment.

Deborah is an economist who has worked for the Dallas Federal Reserve.  She has analyzed shale-gas economics and has uncovered some astonishing information.  The reality is very different from what the industry claims.  Take a look at her presentation HERE.

Dr. Ingraffea is one of the small group of pioneers in the field of  hydrofracking process by which methane is extracted from shale formations deep under the surface of the earth.  He speaks with a scientific and engineering authority that few possess. His talk on November 28th in Clinton, exposed the dis-information of gas companies and revealed the real risks to the environment and human health that the large-scale roll-out of these industrializing processes would involve.

Thank you Board Members!  And on behalf of Oneida County citizens - we appreciate you taking your PUBLIC TRUST seriously by protecting our common air and water.

Excellent new  article from the "Forth Worth Weekly" on the EPA proven pollution of well water in Pavillion WY.  See INFO - Pavillion

By Elizabeth Konstantinova and Joe Carroll

Jan. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Bulgarian lawmakers banned hydraulic fracturing and established a 100 million-lev ($65 million) fine for offenders, thwarting Chevron Corp.’s plans to explore for natural-gas deposits in the Balkan country.
     Lawmakers voted 166-6 to prohibit the drilling technique known as fracking. That makes Bulgaria the second country in the European Union after France to ban the process, which uses a mixture of water, sand and chemicals to open fissures in shale rocks and release gas and oil.

_ Kudos go to colleagues in Oneida County in New York State for the powerful grassroots action that has resulted in citizens in all but 5 of 28 municipalities being under the protective umbrella of a ban, prohibition or moratorium against high volume slick water hydrofracking.  Action is pending in 4 towns in the county. 

A new tally approximates that over 27% of the population of central and western New York are protected.

Once again it has become crystal clear that the ability to protect  citizens’ health, welfare and safety resides in home rule and local leadership.  This message is reaffirmed after the President stated his ill-advised position on gas drilling that he proclaimed just this week in his state of the union address.  “Safe drilling” as measured by vetted scientific research and actual experience by legions of our neighbors who have lived through the nightmare of fracking counters articulately the argument of the chief executive and his industry-tainted advisers.

As totals rise in increasing numbers of concerned and action-oriented communities, our resolve remains strong.

Best regards, Joe Hoff, Chairman

 1. How do you feel about the energy company, Anschutz, suing Dryden? Angry—this is Goliath pushing David around

A super majority of Dryden residents want fracking banned from Dryden; so this is a Multi millionaire Ancshutz and multinational energy company trying to tell citizens of Dryden what to do and trying to make us forfeit our rights as U.S citizens

2 . Why do you think Dryden was sued?

Has to do with our Town Board election. A majority of the seats on the Town Board are up for election this November, and there is clear line between them. The Democrats, Mary Ann Sumner, Joe Solomon, and Linda Lavine are for the ban while the Republicans want fracking.

There is also an election in nearby Caroline which has the same issue; Most people are afraid of law suits of any kind, so Anschutz and the energy companies are trying to scare the voters...

3 . Why do you think Anschutz sued now when neither the SGEIS nor drilling regulations are in place?

Sure, the SGEIS says that energy companies will have to certify to the State that fracking is consistent with a Town’s Zoning Law; so if they were to be in place, it seems to me Anschutz would either have to lie or admit that fracking wasn’t permitted and not even try for a permit in Dryden.

4 . Do you think there is a connection to November's Town Election?

Again, I think it is about trying to bully voters into voting for people who favor fracking. Luckily in Dryden, neither the current Town Board nor the Democratic candidates are frightened. They know the majority of the citizens of Dryden don’t want fracking in our Town, and they will stand up for the ban.

5 . Is fracking a partisan issue in Dryden?

It wasn’t until the Republicans came out for fracking. When we gathered petitions in the Town asking the Town Board to pass a ban on fracking, independents, Republicans, and Democrats signed it. When the Board voted, the Republican member and the Independent member both voted along with the Democrats to make it unanimous.

6 . The fracking industry says that fracking will bring jobs and tax revenue to Upstate New York Towns like Dryden. Do you agree?

That’s what the energy companies’ advertising says, but the history of fracking in PA and out west demonstrates that the high paying jobs go to out of staters who travel around the country dong the drilling or who sit in Houston or overseas and do the layering and the money investing. The short-­‐term and low paying jobs go to locals—usually they are hired away from local agriculture, tourism, or from local businesses.

As to generating tax revenue, New York is one of only two states in the US—PA is the other one—which has no tax on companies who take gas, oil, or other minerals out of the ground. So, the only taxes we locals might get are from property tax and that comes only two or three years after the fracking has started and then at a big discount compared to regular property taxes.

These taxes should in no way compensate for the damage to roads, the reduction in residential property values, the increased demand for health, emergency, police, fire, court, jail, school, and social services, and the environmental destruction all of which have occurred in PA. It is we local taxpayers who pay for that.

GARFIELD, CO.  -  A large-scale study done in Garfield County investigating the potential health and environmental impacts of a proposed fracking facility near a residential development is raising eyebrows around Colorado.

Some regional environment and conservation advocates say the Health Impacts Assessment study conducted by the University of Colorado School of Public Health may hold answers to questions La Plata County residents have been facing for decades.

“Any study that’s this comprehensive is extremely informational for policymakers and citizens,” said Mike Meschke, environmental health director for the San Juan Basin Health Department. “It gives us a good example of the kinds of things we should be reviewing, what we should be sensitive to and what our discourse should revolve around.”

The study was designed to help address possible health impacts of an impending Antero Resources proposal that would put 200 wells within 500 feet of Battlement Mesa. Among its many findings, the draft report indicates that residents who live within a half mile of a well pad are more likely to experience health effects than residents farther away, with air-pollution impacts being an important concern. The researchers recommended 78 possible actions to reduce the identified impacts.

After reportedly spending about $250,000, Garfield county officials opted to end the research project on the second draft, saying they have enough information already to make decisions on the project.

Bruce Baizel, an oil and gas accountability attorney for Earthworks, said in addition to identifying several “significant public health issues related to natural-gas development,” the study revealed the lack of data available to assess impacts.

Josh Joswick, an energy issues organizer for the San Juan Citizens Alliance, said, “There’s no doubt in my mind there are health concerns for people who live near oil and gas wells.”

Like some Garfield County community members, Joswick expressed disappointment that commissioners there didn’t extend the research contract to get it finished.

“It just shows how much influence the industry has,” Joswick said.

Baizel concurred, saying the industry not only worked to undermine the study, but some state agencies refused to participate in its development and then later criticized it.

The debate rages at the national and international levels, though, he said.

“The disconnect between the refusal to address the impacts and the increasing number of people simply calling for a ban on further natural-gas development seems to have escaped most decision-makers here in Colorado,” Baizel said.

Antero Resources has questioned the report’s findings in letters to Garfield County officials saying its problems are “extensive.” The company also voiced concerns to state officials, whom some news outlets have indicated might be eyeing the report as a potential model for evaluating drilling impacts.

Local industry representatives also discount the potential implications.

Christie Zeller, executive director of the La Plata Energy Council, said it “doesn’t have a lot of weight” in addressing local impacts because of the differences in geology and gas development between here and Garfield County. She said state regulations are rigorous enough, and “it’s probably time to quit spending money on studies and just ensure the enforcement of good regulations,” which she said can be the most effective way to reassure the public.

But for Joswick and other like-minded residents, studies such as this confirm health risks they suspected all along. And with La Plata County commissioners aiming to push future gas and oil well development into areas where well pads and other gas and oil infrastructure already exists, some worry their health risks will grow.

County officials said the goal is to cut down the number of new well sites in the future to prevent further surface and resident disturbances.

Baizel said further “downspacing” of wells will mean more wells near homes and schools, and it will increase the need for large-scale assessments similar to the one in Garfield County.

Meschke said the San Juan Basin Health Department could play a greater role – as the Garfield County health department did – in looking at gas development’s impacts on children, schools, homes, day care centers and water supplies.

“There’s a lot to examine from an environmental standpoint on these proposals, but we’re not currently examining them,” Meschke said.
Heather Scofield Herald Staff Writer

Reports are upcoming.