Posted on 08/25/2011 2:09:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Issuing a one-year moratorium on "fracking," Gov. Chris Christie today issued a conditional veto of S-2576, recommending changes to the legislation that balances protecting New Jersey’s environment and drinking water and encouraging cleaner energy alongside the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
As currently written, S-2576 would permanently prohibit fracking in New Jersey, a drilling technique used for the exploration or production of natural gas, even as concurrent studies on the practice are underway by the federal government and no known natural gas deposits necessitating use of the fracking process have been proposed for development in New Jersey.
“I share many of the concerns expressed by the legislators that sponsored this bill and the environmental advocates seeking a permanent moratorium on fracking. We must ensure that our environment is protected and our drinking water is safe,” said Christie. “I am placing a one-year moratorium on fracking so that the DEP can further evaluate the potential environmental impacts of this practice in New Jersey as well as evaluate the findings of still outstanding and ongoing federal studies.”
The governor's office said the legislature pushed the fracking bill at the same time that two federal agencies – the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Department of Energy (USDOE) – were studying the environmental impact of fracking.
While the USDOE issued preliminary recommendations over the past two weeks outlining immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of shale gas development, including the development of best practices, a final report by the USDOE is not expected until November 2011 and the preliminary findings of USEPA’s study are not expected to be released until 2012, according to the governor's office.
“The potential environmental concerns with fracking in our state must be studied and weighed carefully against the potential benefits of increasing access to natural gas in New Jersey," said Christie. "The decision on whether to ban fracking outright or regulate it for environmental protection must be developed on the basis of sound policy and legitimate science,” continued the Governor. “Therefore, while I share many of the concerns expressed by those who support this legislation, I believe that a one-year moratorium on fracking in New Jersey while the issue is studied by the USDOE, USEPA, and NJDEP is the most prudent, responsible, and balanced course of action.”
Enviros were quick to condemn the governor's actions, saying Christie had sided with big business over the people of the state.
“Governor Christie would rather take the side of big oil and gas companies over the drinking water of the people of New Jersey. A one year moratorium is meaningless because they will not explore for gas and oil until after that. Whether he does a study or regulations a one year moratorium is a PR gimmick that does not protect the people of New Jersey instead takes the side of the gas and oil industry,” said Jeff Tittel, Director of New Jersey Sierra Club.
Tittel said the vetoed bill would have ensured cleaner water and protected forests statewide. Fracking involves injecting water, sand and toxic chemicals deep underground to break up dense rock formations and release natural gas. According to Tittel the process can pollute water supplies when fracking chemicals can leak into underground wells or when accidents spill the fluids into rivers or streams.
Tittle said over 1,000 cases of water contamination have been reported near fracking sites.
"A study released by researchers at Duke University in April found methane levels in shallow drinking water wells near active gas drilling sites at a level 17 times higher than those near inactive ones. Similarly, a 2011 Cornell University study found that the process of fracking releases methane, which according to the EPA, is 21 times more damaging greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide," a release from teh Sierra Club said.
“Since this bill passed overwhelmingly in both house we need to call on the legislature to override this conditional veto. They need to stand up for the drinking water and open spaces for people of New Jersey,” said Tittel.
Well it’s true that despite the jobs and economic boom you get from energy development, you can’t trust an oil/gas company executive as far as you can throw em.
I’m in the “trust but verify” group myself, especially with water quality.
Moratoriums to placate the sierra club is just bad policy and sends the wrong message though.
We don’t need more study, we need transparent oversight.
So we’re not so far apart on this issue :)
I don’t see a real Veto. I see this lets throw money we don’t have and kick the can down the road moratorium. The left has no real proof relating fracking to earthquakes and the last time I heard the state needed jobs and money. That’s just too slick for me.
Anyway, it’s better that the investment is in flyover country, but I still can only name a couple of places outside New Jersey that the earth would be better served with an enema.
We have found here that even the “green groups” fade away once the gas companies hold “meetings” with them. Money is their language and the main concern of the special interest groups and pollys. But the pollys want continuing - ahem - benefits.
It’s the local landowners here who have worked hard for transparency, so far we aren’t getting any at all. Just hopey changey crap.
My main concern will always be the water. Our landscape can recover...over time.....but the water probably wouldn’t ever once it is polluted so far below ground. Almost all of our large parcel owners, and all of our rural land owners use drilled wells. There is no other source of water available to them.
The powers that be KNOW what is in the frack fluid, and they know it is absolutely toxic. My understanding is that the gas companies have other options, but this is the cheapest, so they don’t want to give up on it.
My property is junk - it’s soggy and covered with thick scrub with huge thorns. But it is private, covered with beautiful wildflowers and wild apple too, and stunning views. Great hunting there also. It is not something I ever plan to build on, and most of the acreage surrounding me is vacant, plus I’m backed by a huge parcel of state land. In other words, I wouldn’t lose a lot of the value in my acreage if it is fracked, cause it’s rather poor for building on.
If the state leases that parcel behind mine to be fracked, I can be COMPELLED to allow drilling under my parcel. They passed some kind of law. So, you see, they are going to allow it - once the right “agreement” is reached. It’s all in place.
I suspect and fear that they are working out the “eminent domain” angles.
Thanks SeekAndFind.
There are no commercially viable recoverable hydraulic fracturing fields in New Jersey.
Don’t see the point of the law or the veto. Just showmanship.
here here!
well said!
here here!
well said!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.