The Real Cost of Fracking (23 page)

I asked Wade why the cattle spring and the pond—the cattle’s sources of water—were not tested prior to drilling, as his family’s water supply was. Wade had asked the PADEP this very same question a few years ago and was informed that these water sources weren’t tested because they weren’t for human consumption. “But I sell my cattle every year for human consumption,” Wade had responded at the time, “and they drank this pond water for nearly six months before I fenced it off.” And grazed this pasture for many more months, a pasture the cattle graze on to this day, a pasture where the soil was neither tested nor remediated. As would become all too commonplace, Wade’s concerns were not addressed.

As we walked back along the edge of the pasture, Wade confirmed that in the second calving season postdrilling, five of nineteen cows failed to breed back (become pregnant), but those that did so produced normal calves. In the third calving season postdrilling, no calves were produced despite good health and normal behavior on the part of the bull and the cows. Consequently, as Wade told me earlier, he sold this bull at auction. I asked him about the fourth calving season, just ending now, and he said that eleven out of thirteen cows calved normally and that the remaining two cows failed to breed back. Before gas drilling operations moved onto his property, this sort of season would have disturbed him because it was rare to have anything go wrong. But for now, he was simply thankful for any calves to be born alive.

Crossing the next pasture, we found his horses—a quarter horse, an Appaloosa, and a Hanover—grazing. According to Wade, soon after the gas company placed new fencing on the lower pasture, his quarter horse ran into it, receiving numerous lacerations on his head and body. As he recalled what had happened, Wade’s voice became loud and strident, and his body trembled. What upset him most was that this accident was preventable: the fencing should have been marked, and his horse, now covered with scars, could have avoided weeks of pain and healing.

Silent for a few minutes after telling this story, Wade regained his composure, and then apologized for becoming so upset. In his opinion, the industry doesn’t understand farming or farmers. He said a drilling company in his neck of the woods is airing TV commercials promoting the idea that gas drilling can change the way farmers think about farming. “The gas industry says farming is for fun,” he said. “It ain’t got nothing to do with fun. It’s work doing farming—raising your cattle and planting your grains and hays. It’s not about putting gas wells on your farm—that has nothing to do with farming.”

A few months after visiting Wade’s farm, I traveled through Tioga County, New York, where a moratorium on horizontal high-volume gas drilling is still in place as of the end of 2013. I passed a big sign in front of a farmhouse: coming soon: natural gas and my new barn. I think of these leased farmers, expecting to be happy. Perhaps they will be, if absolutely everything goes right. But even if everything is perfect, they probably won’t be farming as many hours, won’t be producing as many crops, and will have smaller herds because they simply won’t have to work as hard. In the end, the question becomes not only one of the farmer’s way of life or one of food safety, but where will we—as consumers—be buying our food if our farmland is producing more gas and less food?

Wade’s case encompasses a number of important issues surrounding gas development on farmland. His cattle were exposed to drilling fluids and subsequently experienced reproductive problems; by the end of 2013, Wade’s calf production is still below where it was before drilling began, and it seems he is caught in a vicious cycle, one from which his calf operation seems unable to recover. The health impacts of gas drilling were and continue to be a devastating financial blow that was not compensated for by the small royalties he was paid from the two wells on his farm.

And what about the beef cattle that were exposed and eventually went to slaughter on his farm or on others’ with similar issues? Although meat produced in intensively drilled areas may or may not be safe for consumption, what percentage of cattle may have been exposed to drilling waste, and what are the long-term effects? At this point, we have no definitive answers to these questions.

Wade’s case further touches on the issue of land use. Wade did not lease his land directly but rather purchased leased land, land that he never expected to be drilled, particularly since the lease was more than sixty years old when he purchased the property. When the drilling companies exercised their legal right to drill, the farm was divided by access roads, and the fencing was compromised. The portion of the land that was restored after the wells were put into production was restored in a way that was no longer suitable for hay production and grazing. Essentially, the drilling company permanently altered Wade’s land.

Beyond these material changes, the bottom line for Wade and a number of other farmers with whom we have spoken is simply a matter of respect. If his right to farm and the integrity of his land had been respected, if his concerns for the health of his cattle and horses had been respected, if the loss of the water that supplied his house had been acknowledged and dealt with respectfully, his attitude toward all the problems he encountered would have been different. Instead, he has been arrested for protesting contaminated trash in his hayfield, is forced to purchase drinking water, and has lost more money than he’s gained in royalties due to the devastation drilling has brought to his farm.

After all the work he has done on his house and land, I wondered if Wade would ever leave this farm. He said that he would move in a minute to a place that has good water, but only under one condition—that he could bring his cattle and horses with him. “If I can’t take my animals with me,” he said, “ain’t no sense living. I’ll go down dying right here, because I’ve got farming in my blood.”

EIGHT

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

—US Environmental Protection Agency
¹

NIMBY. Not in my backyard. Anyone who brings up problems associated with gas drilling or suggests that shale gas extraction may not be the best idea since the Emancipation Proclamation is often referred to as a NIMBY. The argument is that if you use any sort of fossil fuel, then you had better be willing to have a drill pad next to your home. We recently checked Google Maps to locate the well pads near the home of the recently departed CEO of Chesapeake Energy and were unable to find them. A curious finding—perhaps the map was outdated. Although we have seen well pads near expensive homes in Pennsylvania, the areas that are intensively drilled are largely rural and not particularly prosperous. This leaves us with the question of who pays and who gains.

We are often presented with the positive economic aspects of shale gas extraction—more jobs and lower prices for natural gas. The reality, as always, is more complex. There is no doubt that jobs in the drilling industry have become available in the shale gas areas and that this has stimulated the hotel, fast-food, and trucking industries. Natural gas prices are down, in part due to the glut in the market. But understanding both sides of the equation, the benefits and the drawbacks, is key to assessing the impact of this industry.

This analysis should include both the long-term consequences and the uneven effects on different parts of society. A stock market bubble can benefit Wall Street investors, but have little or no effect on an elderly person with a fixed income. We cannot judge the health of the economy on the basis of the net worth of wealthy investors any more than we can judge the benefits of shale gas on the basis of temporary jobs created during the boom cycle.

Evaluating the impact of income to local and state governments—such as tax on gas extraction, multiplier effects associated with increased local business, donations to schools and hospitals—must be balanced by the costs of road repair, crime, health care, and massive tax subsidies, as well as the costs associated with the inevitable decline following the gas boom. The loss of traditional businesses such as tourism and agriculture also needs to be factored into the equation. When all factors are taken into consideration, neither the long-term nor the short-term economic benefits of shale gas extraction on local communities are evident.
²
And that is even before we begin to consider changes in traditional ways of life and other aspects of community disruption.

We discussed the idea of landowner rights in the previous chapters. The notion that landowners should be able to do whatever they like with their land, including allowing large-scale industrial gas drilling, presupposes that the effects are limited to the owners’ properties. Yet it takes little more than a short visit to shale gas country to realize that when drilling arrives, the whole community is affected.

The notion that the decision to allow gas drilling into a community should be based mainly on the opinions and business practices—essentially the votes—of those owning the most land is profoundly antidemocratic. Since the 1964 Supreme Court decision in
Reynolds v. Sims
,
³
the law of the land has been one person, one vote, rather than one acre, one vote. Yet, a few large landowners can change the character of a community seemingly overnight. The question is really whether local governments can control land use or whether the state exempts local governments from control, effectively allowing the largest landowners to decide (by leasing) whether drilling will occur within the community.

In New York, for example, Article 23-0303 of the Environmental Conservation Law
⁴
stipulates that local governments cannot regulate oil and gas drilling. Some people have taken this part of the law to apply to local zoning—that is, zoning would be considered a type of regulation that is restricted under the law. However, New York State law considers zoning a land-use issue that is the purview of local government under the general principle of home rule. Thus far, the courts have ruled unanimously in favor of home rule, even after Norse Energy, a Norwegian company, appealed decisions to support the zoning laws in two small upstate communities that restrict the location of oil and gas wells.
⁵
The case went before the New York State Court of Appeals, and a decision is expected in the spring of 2014, despite the bankruptcy (Chapter 7 liquidation) of the US subsidiary of Norse Energy.
⁶

In Pennsylvania, Act 13
⁷
was passed by the Republican-dominated legislature and signed into law by the Republican governor Tom Corbett in February 2012. Among a large number of other changes to oil and gas law, Act 13 removed the ability of local governments to apply zoning to the location of oil and gas wells. In July 2012, the Commonwealth Court found that this provision of Act 13 was unconstitutional,
⁸
and the case is now being appealed in late 2013. As of early 2014, local governments in both New York and Pennsylvania do have the right to restrict the location of gas drilling, but this may change at any time depending upon the whims of the higher courts.

Within a community, however, the issue of shale gas extraction is often highly contentious. This is illustrated dramatically in the plight of a small town in the Delaware Valley of New York. Sanford lies in the western portion of the Catskills not far from the Pennsylvania border. Some of the town officials reportedly have a financial stake in seeing drilling move forward in their area. On the other hand, considerable opposition to drilling is present in the town. The opponents urged the board to pass a ban on hydraulic fracturing, and the town board replied by passing a resolution urging the state to issue permits for shale gas extraction and banning further discussion of this issue during the public comment period of town board meetings. A First Amendment lawsuit was then filed against the town by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy. The town board ultimately backed down and rescinded the ban, and the lawsuit was dropped.
⁹

Similar dramas are being played out throughout the Marcellus Shale region. This issue has inflamed tempers and pitted neighbor against neighbor. One of the most interesting aspects of this debate is that it cuts across political philosophies and is not a left-versus-right, red-versus-blue issue. We can point to both ardent environmentalists and Tea Party Republicans who are bitterly opposed to unconventional fossil fuel extraction,
¹⁰
and more moderate politicians who think that this process is the best thing that has ever happened for the environment.
¹¹

But irrespective of politics, unconventional fossil fuel extraction is a divisive issue in shale country, unlike anything else except maybe gun control legislation. Perhaps it is easy to see why. The debate involves people who believe that they will make a lot of money, and others who see their way of life disintegrating. But caught in the middle are the poor, with little or no prospects of making money from shale gas and little material wealth to protect themselves when their lives are shaken by drilling activities.

The rural poor do not have a seat at the table in any discussions of whether or where shale gas extraction should occur, even though drilling often tends to occur in areas that are not particularly prosperous—the land of the rural poor. While air and water pollution knows no socioeconomic bounds, dealing with pollution is a socioeconomic issue: the wealthy are better able to cope with pollution than are the poor. An investment banker living in a million-dollar home near a gas drilling operation can pay for a new source of water and install air filters, or simply pick up and move. A couple living from paycheck to paycheck or a widow scraping by on social security has few options other than to do without in order to afford to buy bottled water.