State Regulations With the lack of current federal regulations, the regulatory authority lies with each individual state. This causes a lack of uniformity, where each state has different regulations and requirements, making it confusing for people to tell what’s what. Many of the regulations on fracking are dependent on the political environment of the state, where currently 33 have deposits of natural gas (Davis 189). Since fracking is an economically beneficial industry in the United States, states could compete with one another to develop the best regulations that makes it the easiest for gas companies to come in and set up fracking wells (Rabe 322). As states have the ultimate authority to regulate, they can give regulatory powers to local governments. In some cases, this traditional handing down of power is cut off. Oklahoma recently just moved to ban fracking bans in local governments (Arias). While states can go to this extreme, it has been observed that there are two types of states when it comes to hydraulic fracturing. States either pass new emergency regulations, or instill a moratorium on fracking while the state conducts an environmental study (Negro 3). West Virginia is one of those states that passed emergency laws that ranged from casing standards to the disposition of wastewater. These regulations have received praise from the EPA, as they were all geared toward groundwater protection (Negro 3-4). New York, along with others, decided to install moratoriums on fracking while an environmental study was conducted and laws are more carefully constructed (Negro 3). By reviewing the regulations of Texas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New York it will be easy to see the differences that occur. Texas, Colorado, and Pennsylvania were chosen based on
any regulations. The federal government has very little regulations pertaining to fracking, exempting them from major environmental policies. Looking at the relationship between federal, state, and local regulations has clarified why some regulations are upheld while others are struck down. Furthering this analysis with a case study viewing the regulations of Colorado, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New York has led me to come up with my own personal recommendations on this controversial gas extraction process. Fracking has expressed both positive and negative impacts to the industry. Positive impacts include economic benefits, less reliance on foreign oil, and a cleaner energy alternative to coal and oil. Negative impacts include the amount of water needed to frack, use of chemicals, possible link to earthquakes, and public health concerns. With the information that I have learned, I developed my own recommendations to federal, state, and local governments pertaining to regulations to protect public health and the environment. As Negro brilliantly put it, “The oil and gas industry maintains that fracking can be safe and beneficial if done right, while all levels of government fight to figure out what that means” (10). What members in Congress are currently trying to do is to remove the exemptions in the Safe Drinking Water act and others on fracking (Negro). Otherwise known as the Halliburton Loophole, it explicitly exempts hydraulic fracturing wells from following standard environmental protection laws (Rinfret 88). President Obama’s new rules that are going into effect in June only cover federally owned lands, not other lands where fracking takes place (David Jackson). By amending these exemptions, hydraulic fracturing operations would be forced to take extra measures to prevent groundwater contamination that is become a common problem in communities. Like a rippling effect, with the exemptions removed, states will be forced to amend their regulations to comply with the federal regulations, and so on.