As we’ve discussed here before, the federal government has played a limited role thus far in the regulation and oversight of hydraulic fracturing, leaving states and municipalities to manage a large and fast-paced industry. Today, members of the Senate have a chance to allow the EPA to better protect water resources in oil and gas development across the country.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has introduced an amendment on the currently-under-debate Keystone XL bill on which senators will vote on amendments this afternoon. The well-written amendment would close the so-called “Halliburton loophole” that currently exempts the oil and gas industry from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The amendment is a welcome move, given the risks to drinking water associated with oil and gas development.
What is the “Halliburton Loophole” and what is its impact on fracking?
A central component of hydraulic fracturing is the injection of millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals deep underground; however, most hydraulic fracturing operations are exempt from regulation under the SDWA because of a provision inserted in the Energy Policy of Act 2005, commonly known as the “Halliburton loophole.”
Evidence suggests that the Halliburton loophole was put into the law by oil and gas interests. This exemption was recommended by the Energy Policy Task Force, a team of experts convened during the George W. Bush administration to advise on energy policy issues. The task force was chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney, who served from 1995 to 2000 as chairman and CEO of Halliburton Co., one of the largest companies engaged in unconventional oil and gas development. An initial draft of the task force’s report expressed concerns about possible water contamination from hydraulic fracturing, but such concerns were absent in the final report.
As a consequence of the Halliburton loophole, the EPA currently cannot regulate the majority of hydraulic fracturing operations. To some extent, the federal government has investigated groundwater quality near drilling sites. For example, the EPA did use its existing authority to start investigations of drinking water contamination in Dimock, PA; Pavillion, WY; and Parker County, TX. However, in the end, the agency abandoned its study of water contamination in all three locations, demonstrating the limitations in the agency’s ability and willingness to investigate and hold actors accountable for instances of potential water contamination from oil and gas activities.
We can better protect our drinking water
If the EPA had authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to oversee hydraulic fracturing operations, the agency could better manage risks to drinking water supplies posed by oil and gas development. Such a move could serve to prevent what happened in Dimock, Pavillion and Parker County from happening in other places. I support this amendment to better protect our drinking water in communities across the country.
Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.