Fracing foes concur on water study

Stakeholders: EPA research a good idea

by Katie Burford
Herald Staff Writer

Article Last Updated; Tuesday, November 03, 2009 12:01AM

Finally, something people agree on.

Leaders both nationally and locally have been divided on hydraulic fracturing and its potential to contaminate drinking-water supplies.

But a call from Congress for a study on the matter by the Environmental Protection Agency is being hailed as a positive development by both sides of the issue.

"We don't have a problem with that at all," said Christi Zeller, executive director of the La Plata Energy Council, an industry group. "Hopefully everybody will be comfortable when we say fracing is safe if there are studies to support that." And from the other side: "Good science is important, so we're pleased with that part of the language," said Bruce Baizel, a staff attorney with the Oil and Gas Accountability Project.

In fracing, chemicals, water and sand are pumped into a well at high pressure to fracture rock formations and release the gas.

The call for a study was included in a conference report accompanying the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama on Friday.

The conference report provides the EPA and other funded agencies additional instructions on how to use the money.

The provision urges the EPA to "carry out a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of information." Because the report must be approved by both houses of Congress, Baizel said it represents a clear consensus on the need for more study.

"It was nice to see," he said.

In addition to the EPA, the $32 billion appropriations bill provides funding for the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service and other agencies.

U.S. Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, as well as U.S. Rep John Salazar, D-Manassa, voted in favor of the bill.

Zeller said the EPA had studied fracing under the Clinton and Bush administrations, but never as it specifically related to drinking water.

The differences on fracing lie in the question of whether the EPA should regulate it under the Safe Drinking Water Act and whether companies should be forced to disclose the chemicals they use.

Federal legislation introduced in the House and Senate in June would require both.

So far, Udall, Bennet and Salazar have not signed on as co-sponsors for the bill, which in the House was introduced by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver.

Udall spokeswoman Tara Trujillo said the senator supports disclosure and regulation in theory but is not sure whether the bill is the right mechanism to go about it.

Michael Amodeo a spokes-man for Bennet, said in an e-mail, "With clean-burning natural gas expected to play an important role in Colorado's clean energy future, a study based on the best available science to determine hydraulic fracturing's effects on public health and drinking water supplies would allow us to forge a thoughtful, balanced approach to the extraction of this vital resource." Amodeo said Bennet is looking forward to examining the study's findings to determine what policies Congress should pursue regarding hydraulic fracturing.

Representatives for Salazar did not immediately respond to calls for comment.

Salazar in the past has sponsored legislation to regulate fracing, and in July he said he remained open to the possibility but worried about its impact on industry.

A nonbinding resolution in support of the federal legislation was introduced by La Plata Commissioner Wally White in July but voted down by commissioners Kellie Hotter and Joelle Riddle.

Riddle later introduced a follow-up resolution that called for a review of fracing by the National Academy of Sciences, but commissioners chose not to vote on it after White criticized it as not going far enough.

kburford@durangoherald.com