On Thursday Nov. 1 at 6:30pm
there will be a public hearing in the Alfred Station Fire Hall. The Alfred Town
Board will be seeking comment from citizens on the plan to extend the current
moratorium on horizontal,
high volume, slick water, hydrofracking for another year within the Town of
Alfred. Since the announcement of this meeting I have been thinking about the
importance of a moratorium and the idea that some have put forth that a
moratorium is a threat to our individual property rights.
Rather
than seeing the moratorium as a threat, I think it is actually quite the
opposite. I take great comfort in the fact that our civic representatives are
taking the time to study this issue and all of its possible effects and
ramifications on our town and our way of life. I have travelled in some of the
highly drilled communities in Pennsylvania and seen first hand the impact on
individuals, families, roads, property rights, as well as the impact on the
natural resources we too often take for granted such as clean drinking water
and clean air. Since this entire industry is exempt from the federal clean air
and clean water standards, I believe that it is unconventional gas drilling
that is the threat, not a moratorium.
No
matter how we feel about the extent of government regulations, I think we can
agree that there are numerous ways in which the rights of individuals to do as
they please are moderated by rules that protect the greater good of a
community. Why not have an adult bookstore across the street from a public
school? That’s why we have zoning. Why have regulations that protect human
health? Why not dispense with septic systems? Why do we have a police force? Speed
limits?
A moratorium
on horizontal, high volume hydrofracking protects the public while this issue
is being studied. This seems prudent. Many citizens recently attended the
informational meeting in Almond where Scott Torrey of the Allegany County Soil
and Water department illustrated how the Village and Town of Alfred, as well as
Almond, are all intimately connected because we draw water from the same unprotected
aquifer. Professor Ingraffea from Cornell then proceeded to explain from a
scientific and geologic point of view just how vulnerable these resources are
and the impacts that all the processes associated with unconventional drilling
can have on them.
The
Comprehensive Plan for the Town and Village of Alfred includes a study of water
quality and management. Although commissioned in 1993, long before this type of
drilling was an issue, it is particularly relevant today. This is an excerpt from the study:
“A quick survey of remediation costs for
contaminated groundwater supplies will show that prevention is well worth the
effort. Corrective measures can rapidly escalate into the millions of dollars,
not to mention yielding substantial inconveniences to those dependent on the
contaminated water supply. There really is no such thing as being overly
protective when it comes to groundwater protection, especially when it is a
community’s only source of drinking water….While many of the suggestions
provided in this guide may seem politically unpopular in the short-term, having
contaminated groundwater would be even more unpopular. It is far easier to
address threats and prevent contamination than to deal with the costs and other
problems associated with crisis-type situations…. Groundwater protection
efforts are most effective when done on a more regional level as aquifers and
their recharge areas do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries.”
This
last statement is particularly relevant because many of the issues associated
with horizontal drilling do not stop at “jurisdictional boundaries.” Polluted
water and air don’t recognize property rights and property boundaries. The
fracking industry doesn’t either. Through compulsory integration, if 60% of
individual landowners have leased their land in a well spacing unit, the other
40% can be integrated against their will and drilling will occur under their
land whether they give their consent or not. So much for individual property
rights. When I first read about compulsory integration I thought it was an
article about China.
The
same individual who is worried about his property rights has also stated that
decisions should be made on facts, not emotion. Many have studied this issue
for a long time now and feel strongly, emotionally if you will, exactly because
they have studied the facts, including the dismal record of leaks, spills, and methane migration. I am one of them.
Furthermore, I have met people in Pennsylvania that have poisoned water, and
who, from the industry perspective, are expendable. Not surprisingly, they
aren’t any different from you or me; they simply had the bad luck to own a well
that was polluted by a nearby horizontal fracking operation. They are,
understandably, emotional.
My
family drinks from a spring whose recharge area does not obey property
boundaries. I will do my best to protect it and I expect others to do the same.
The community has to ask itself – are there threats to our town, universities
and schools, our way of life, our water and health that are worth protecting
ourselves from? Where do individual rights stop and individual responsibility
to others begin? I would strongly suggest right here, right now.
As of
early October, 234 communities in New York State have invoked home rule by
enacting bans or moratoriums or are in the process of doing so, like the Town
of Alfred. These 234 towns have decided that it is imperative to protect
themselves from the threat of unconventional drilling and that clean water and
clean air are essential, and need to be a protected right for all.
