Anti-fracking argument not sound
Dorothy T. Hufford's letter “Ban fracking to protect water” claims justification for the proposed Delaware River Basin fracking ban is “scientifically sound” and fracking “will destroy our drinking water.” But the latest studies show that Hufford's argument is anything but “scientifically sound.”
The Environmental Protection Agency's report “Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States” found no evidence of widespread water contamination from fracking, despite expanding fracking's definition to include activities that are part of all oil and gas development and not exclusive to fracking.
That report is one of no fewer than 28 studies reaching the same conclusion, including a Department of Energy study that found “no evidence” of Marcellus shale natural gas or brine migration into Pennsylvania groundwater.
In 2013, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission found no “significant” impacts to the river over three years, despite the fact it runs through the heart of Marcellus drilling regions. And the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection released a 2016 report that found no water contamination threat posed by fracking to streams, lakes and groundwater.
As these studies show, the Delaware River Basin Commission's entire justification for its unconstitutional land grab is based entirely on an anti-fracking talking point that's been thoroughly debunked. Not only is DRBC's proposed fracking ban anything but “scientifically sound” — it's flat-out unconstitutional.
The writer is a member of Upper Delaware River Basin Citizens (udrbc.org).