NEW YORK - The blowout of a natural gas well last week on the anniversary of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has advocates of safe water in New York concerned. The incident, in Bradford County, Pa., across the border from Binghamton, N.Y., spewed toxic fluid across a livestock-grazing landscape and into a creek that feeds the Susquehanna River. The chemicals were residue from the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing - or fracking - used to free natural gas from shale rock formations.
Earthjustice attorney Deborah Goldberg says lax oversight continues to worry her.
"This is emblematic of what we can expect if the industry isn't watched very carefully. We shouldn't have episodes like this, but we have them all the time."
Industry representatives say natural gas drilling is safe and brings jobs and income to communities situated over the Marcellus shale formation. They argue that natural gas is a "bridge" to a renewable energy future.
Earthjustice opposes an unlimited expansion of drilling and calls for stronger oversight.
Kate Hudson is with Riverkeeper, the independent watchdog group protecting New York's watersheds and drinking water. She calls the Pennsylvania blowout a warning.
"The State of New York should be looking to Pennsylvania, because if you let the drillers come in before you're ready and then try to play regulatory catch-up, this is the kind of disaster that will occur in New York."
A moratorium halting all horizontal, high-volume fracking in New York is set to expire at the end of June, but Goldberg does not expect to see a resumption soon.
"At best, we will see a new draft of the environmental impact statement this summer, and I would be very surprised if we would actually see a final environmental statement and an opportunity to start issuing permits until the end of the year."
Hudson says the Pennsylvania well blowout is an example of why Riverkeeper is skeptical of natural gas promoters.
"The drilling industry has consistently said, 'We have everything under control and the environmentalists who are trying to keep us from moving into New York are just creating fictions about problems that don't exist.' Well, this incident belies everything they've been saying."
It took Chesapeake Energy Corp., the owner of the well, two days to plug it. The company said there were no injuries and there was no danger to the public.
get more stories like this via email
As South Dakotans affected by recent record floods take stock of damages, researchers say water quality is among the concerns.
The state has been collecting damage data - but some impacts, like water contamination from livestock operations, are harder to quantify.
According to the nonprofit Food and Water Watch, coming into contact with or consuming manure-contaminated water can increase the risks of E. coli, giardia, and other waterborne illnesses. And those can lead to kidney failure, intestinal complications or cancer.
Amanda Starbuck, research director at Food and Water Watch, said public water systems are tested for these contaminants - but private, rural wells may not be.
"There's a lot of concerns about rural communities and their waters," said Starbuck, "and whether they have the ability, the financial resources, to test and to remediate any kind of contaminations that do stem from these factory farms."
Huge June rainstorms caused the Big Sioux River to swell up to 45 feet - breaking the previous record by seven feet, according to NASA, and inundating nearby farmlands.
Starbuck said South Dakota has some of the highest concentrations of confined beef, dairy and hog operations in the country.
Starbuck added that, according to a Food and Water Watch analysis, the state's factory farms produce nearly 22 billion pounds of manure each year.
"So, that's 17.5 times as much sewage as produced by the state's entire human population," said Starbuck. "So, we're talking about unsustainable amounts of livestock in these confinement operations."
She said the manure output should be of concern regardless of flooding. Still, river floodplains are expected to grow in coming years, according to a FEMA report.
get more stories like this via email
New York environmentalists want the Environmental Protection Agency to re-dredge the Hudson River. This comes after the agency released its latest five-year review saying more information is needed on the dredging efforts, although progress has been made. However, other reports show the EPA's dredging efforts failed, leaving the river riddled with PCBs.
Pete Lopez, executive director for science policy and advocacy with Scenic Hudson, said the EPA's reduction targets aren't being met.
"EPA has done its best to get massive amounts out of the river, but there are massive amounts left in the river, in our opinion, that are causing PCB levels to remain persistently high and dangerous. And, EPA is not addressing it. They're kicking the can down the road," he said.
Lopez thinks the agency should investigate where high levels of PCBs are and determine how to keep fish and humans safe from them. The EPA says more annual fish data can help discern whether the cleanup is meeting the expectations of the original plan. Once the data are available, the agency will issue an addendum to the current five-year report no later than the end of 2027. A public comment period on the five-year review is being held until October, with more information available at epa.gov/hudsonriverpcbs.
The river was dredged from 2009 to 2015 to remove 30 years' worth of chemicals General Electric dumped into it. Although the EPA warns against eating fish caught in the Hudson between Troy and Hudson Falls, people still eat them, which can lead to serious health impacts. Lopez said elected officials across party lines and different state regions want the EPA to take action in cleaning up the Hudson River.
"One would think that if 22 members of Congress, a U.S. senator and leaders of the Black and Puerto Rican caucus reached out, that you would step back and think about this, and maybe want to engage with them and talk with them."
Instead, he feels actions from the EPA have been "Pro-forma correspondence," sticking to the agency's assurance that the data aren't wrong.
get more stories like this via email
Wyoming's irrigation infrastructure is aging and the state gets regular requests to update it but in some cases, project benefits may not outweigh the costs.
Parts of the Bighorn Basin are some of the driest in Wyoming, according to state data. The proposed Alkali Creek Reservoir Project would provide supplemental, late-season water to 33 irrigators across 13,000 acres of land, a design in the works since 2007.
Jason Mead, director of the Wyoming Water Development Office, said a recently announced potential design change, from an open irrigation ditch to a pipeline, added about $30 million to the dam's price tag. It also decreases the ratio of benefits to costs, a calculation the office does for any water storage project it works on.
"In regards to the grant and loan, we can grant up to 100% of a project per our criteria," Mead explained. "But it's not to exceed the public benefit."
Benefits include boating and fishing in the reservoir, the short-term benefits of dam construction and the indirect benefits to local and regional economies through increased crop production. Mead noted other considerations are the life expectancy of the dam, the ability and willingness of the users to pay for it and, of course, the direct benefit to irrigators themselves, who plan to use the water mainly for alfalfa, corn, sugar beets and barley. Opponents said the dam will disrupt natural watershed functions.
Dagny Signorelli, Wyoming director for the Western Watersheds Project, said the dam could reduce spring flows in Paint Rock Creek by 33%, in Medicine Lodge Creek by 16% and in Alkali Creek up to 100%.
"In general, dams disrupt natural river ecosystems by altering their flow patterns and reducing the frequency and intensity of natural flooding events," Signorell pointed out.
Signorelli added it could alter habitat for wildlife both upstream and downstream, with special concerns for trout, pronghorn, elk, mule deer and raptors. Plus, according to permit objections submitted by Western Watersheds Project in 2018, greater sage grouse use five breeding grounds within a four-mile radius of the project.
get more stories like this via email