A lawmaker has asked Pennsylvania’s top environmental official to turn down a plan by PennEnergy Resources to draw as much as 3 million gallons of water a day from Big Sewickley Creek and one of its tributaries for natural gas drilling.

Members of the Big Sewickley Creek Watershed Association also have raised concerns that drawing so much water from the creek could be harmful to wildlife because the creek regularly experiences low levels during dry periods.

“One of these locations where water will be pulled includes the famous swimming hole on Cooney Hollow Road,” the association wrote in social media posts asking residents to contact public officials to voice their opinions on the proposal.

“Any water withdrawals from the creek will permanently affect the existing habitat due to low flow during summer drought, leading to a need for stream restoration actions. If the flow is altered much more, it may affect the trout stocking and recreation permanently.”

Penn Energy sent letters to officials in Economy Borough in Beaver County on June 28, informing them of the plan to draw 2 million gallons of water from Big Sewickley Creek each day and 1 million gallons a day from its North Fork tributary.

The water is used for hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” a technique used to extract oil and gas from bedrock by injecting a high-pressure mixture of water, sand or gravel and chemicals.

In response to Penn Energy’s notification to the borough, state Rep. Rob Matzie, D-16th, asked state DEP Secretary Patrick McDonnell not to approve the plan.

Matzie wrote that while he supports natural gas drilling, he can’t back PennEnergy’s proposal.

“Let me be clear. I am on record as supporting natural gas extraction. I do not support a ban,” Matzie wrote. “But I have also fought for and voted against measures that weaken regulations and remove local input and control on these permit requests.

“In most cases, I believe we can have energy extraction and maintain a clean, healthy environment. I do not believe this is one of those cases. Many companies have worked hard toward that goal, going above and beyond what is required by state and federal government. Penn Energy should do the same and use an alternative water source.”

Matzie said he grew up swimming, fishing and skipping rocks along Big Sewickley Creek and wants to ensure that future generations can enjoy the same activities.

He called the potential for the creek to dry up because so much water is being removed daily “disgraceful.”

In response to a request for comment from PennEnergy, the company issued the following statement:

“At this time PennEnergy is working with Pennsylvania DEP in the general course of the Water Management Plan application process.

“Throughout this process, we will continue to provide information as requested by the DEP and in doing so we feel that we can address concerns raised by various stakeholders within the community.”

But documents provided by the state Department of Environmental Resources show that the company’s application addresses some of the concerns that have been raised.

Its application to draw water from the creek indicates that it plans to reduce the amount drawn from the creek as the level drops.

Full-pumping operations only will occur when the creek is at its normal level, according to the application.

During drought conditions, the amount of water removed from the waterway will adhere to the following guidelines:

• Drought watch: Reduce pumping by 5%

• Drought warning: Reduce pumping by 15%

• Drought Emergency: Cease pumping

When drought conditions are lifted, the amount of water removed will be increased gradually, according to PennEnergy.

The company plans to install a system that uses a floating intake device attached to a flexible water line that leads to a storage container where the pump is located, according to the application.

To keep invasive species from being sucked into the system and transported to other locations, the intake will have a screen and a backflow prevention device “to prevent the comingling of water from the others sources with water from this location,” according to PennEnergy’s response the questions from the DEP.

The system also will be removed from the waterway when it is not in use.

PennEnergy’s application says its proposal already has been reviewed by several other agencies to determine if its plan to draw water will have an impact on wildlife.

The state Game Commission, the Fish and Boat Commission and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources all responded that the project will result in no known impact on wildlife.

The Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory, as well as the U.S. Wildlife Service, also said that their records show “no known impact to threatened and endangered species and/or special concern species and resources within the project area.”

DEP spokeswoman Lauren Fraley said the application submitted by PennEnergy is only in the preliminary stages of its review.

She said the process is split into an administrative review to ensure that the application is complete, followed by a technical review of the plans to determine if it meets the state’s requirement.

“We’re still working on the administrative review,” she said. “The company has been sent a deficiency letter indicating that we need more information about the project before we can complete that review and begin a deep dive into what they plan during the technical review process.”

Fraley said among the deficiencies in PennEnergy’s application is the lack of information about how water will be transported from the creek to the well site and how the contaminated water will be taken from the well for treatment and disposal.

She said water can be transported in tanker trucks or through waterlines that are installed.

“But we would need to know specifically how they plan to do that before we can proceed with the review,” she said.

The agency also has asked the company to justify why it needs to draw water from two locations that are about 2.5 miles apart from each other.

Lewis Benson, a resident of Sewickley, said the lack of information PennEnergy has provided to the public for its proposal is troubling to him.

“I was surprised that they were asking to use so much water,” he said. “But we really don’t have any details beyond that, which bothers me.”

Benson said while he isn’t a fisherman and doesn’t use the creek for recreation, he believes it is important to take steps to protect the waterway.

Economy borough manager Randy Kunkle said while council has no say in what PennEnergy does because drilling operations are regulated by the state, they have raised concerns about the impact of removing the water.

“It’s a seasonal creek and I’ve seen the water level get very low during dry periods,” he said. “If it’s approved, I can’t imagine that they will be able to pull that much water from the creek throughout the year.”

Fraley said input from the public is critical to the DEP’s review process.

“Local officials and residents know these areas very well and may be able to provide us with information about things that are not mentioned in the application, but may have some sort of impact,” she said.

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)