Regulation Of Hydraulic Fracturing Research Articles

Analysis of environmental legal system of shale gas fracturing in China

Hydraulic fracturing is a technique for shale gas production. The use of this technology allows natural gas and oil to be economically produced from shale formations. However, the application of fracturing is accompanied by potential environmental risks such as water waste and pollution, ecological damage, air pollution and earthquakes. In China, shale gas development as one of the key ways to achieve energy supply security and its 2030 peak carbon target. China has liberalized the restrictions on extraction entities and has taken numerous measures to encourage shale gas development. The regulation of hydraulic fracturing and other environmental issues poses a new challenge to the harmonization of energy and environmental legislation in China. Based on the analysis of the existing system, this study proposed the shortcomings of the current Chinese shale gas environmental regulatory framework, which indicate that the legal level for hydraulic fracturing is low; there are loopholes in the legal rules regulating the environmental problems caused by hydraulic fracturing, and the environmental and energy laws are not compatible. A typical case of Fuling, China was selected for analysis. In addition, it is suggested that Chinese regulators should develop a special shale gas law, introducing appropriate hydraulic fracturing regulations to fill the legal regulatory loopholes.

The effect of policy narratives on policy elite versus public preferences for hydraulic fracturing regulation

AbstractCentral to the growing policy debate surrounding climate change is the role of fossil fuels in the energy sector. Chief among these issues is the role of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which has drawn controversy for its negative externalities while also allowing the extraction of a new range of oil and gas reserves. This research applies the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), combined with grid‐group cultural theory (CT), to examine the similarities and differences in the ways in which the general public and policy elites' policy preferences are shaped by culturally nuanced fracking narratives. In doing so, we employ a unique online survey experiment using a sample of the general public (n = 1149) and local policy elites (n = 1110), where our experimental subjects are assigned to one of four groups: a control group which receives a standard list of facts regarding fracking, and three treatment groups, each of which receives an egalitarian, individualist, and hierarch fracking policy narrative, respectively. We utilize causal mediation analysis to comparatively examine effects of these narrative treatments on fracking policy preferences. We find that policy elites and the general public are influenced by narrative elements in different ways, suggesting how a potential gap in policy preferences could form even if the general public and policy elites are exposed to the same policy narratives. This has implications for fracking regulation policy processes as well as other environmental and energy policy domains.

Comparing Online Policy Networks: The Cases of Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation in Colorado

Comparing Online Policy Networks: The Cases of Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation in Colorado

Problem Uncertainty, Institutional Insularity, and Modes of Learning in Canadian Provincial Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation

AbstractThis study uses policy learning frameworks to explain variation in processes of hydraulic fracturing regulatory development in Canadian provinces. Using a cross‐case comparison of British Columbia and Nova Scotia, the article demonstrates that differences in problem uncertainty and institutional insularity in each province determined modes of technical, social, and political learning in each province. In British Columbia elected officials framed LNG as a safe, clean energy source generating economic benefits. These frames made it difficult for anti‐fracking advocates to increase the salience of environmental risks and scientific uncertainty. Low problem uncertainty and high institutional insularity fostered processes of technical learning within the BC Oil and Gas Commission focused on single‐issue regulations. In Nova Scotia, an external review provided an ad hoc institutional venue through which environmental advocates, residents, and experts could increase the salience of scientific uncertainty and dread environmental risks. These conditions fostered collective processes of social learning among anti‐fracking advocates and political learning among elected officials, resulting in a ban.

The impact of water scarcity on support for hydraulic fracturing regulation: A water-energy nexus study

The rise of unconventional oil and gas development in the form of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has drawn much attention from media, scholars, and policy makers, and Texas has frequently been the epicenter of this attention. This paper looks at fracking through a particular lens, that of an extraction process that relies heavily on water. This “water-energy nexus” has been studied in terms of the physical connections, but little research exists on how ordinary people might understand that nexus. This paper examines the effect of people's awareness of the water-energy nexus and county-level drought characteristics on their support for increased regulation of water issues associated with hydraulic fracturing. The analysis uses data from a Texas-based public opinion survey, and county-level data from the U.S. Drought Monitor and the Texas Railroad Commission. Multi-level modeling techniques are used to examine the impact of proximity, local water scarcity, and individual awareness of the water-energy nexus on people's willingness to support regulating aspects of water in hydraulic fracturing practices. The paper supports the hypothesis that individual awareness of the energy-water nexus and local water scarcity affects willingness to support greater regulation and concludes with some policy recommendations to improve policy transparency surrounding hydraulic fracturing.

Environmental Knowledge Cartographies: Evaluating Competing Discourses in U.S. Hydraulic Fracturing Rule-Making

In this article, we evaluate competing environmental knowledge claims in U.S. hydraulic fracturing (HF) regulation. We conduct a case study of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) rule-making process over the period from 2012 to 2015, which was the first attempt to update federal oil and gas regulations in thirty years. Our study addresses a gap in the energy geographies and environmental governance literatures, which have yet to evaluate systematically HF-related decision-making processes at the policymaking scale. We mobilize theoretical insights from science and technology studies on boundary objects and critical environmental discourse analysis to conduct a “cultural cartography” of the BLM’s rule-making process. Our analysis of a subset of 1.4 million public comments submitted to the BLM, combined with fifteen stakeholder interviews, focuses on (1) who participated in the rule-making process; (2) the types of knowledge claims advanced in support or opposition of the rule; and (3) how these claims affected the rule-making process. In contrast to recent literature that finds increased “horizontality” of environmental knowledge production, we find a clear hierarchy that privileges government knowledge—including federal government–sponsored research and existing laws—above all other categories of evidence cited. As such, we argue that government knowledge—which in this case brought disparate stakeholder groups together to debate HF regulation—functions as a key boundary object in the rule-making process. We conclude with a discussion of implications for both research and policy. Key Words: boundary work, Bureau of Land Management, hydraulic fracturing, regulation, rule making.

Reforming Natural Gas Fracking Regulations in 2017–2018: How Should States Enforce Regulations?

ABSTRACTWhile much scholarly work has been published on hydraulic fracturing regulatory frameworks, there is little discussion on the enforcement mechanisms of these regulations and statutes. This article explores state hydraulic fracturing regulations and the expansion of a criminal framework to enforce compliance. More specifically, this article takes a comparative look at fracking enforcement regimes in California and several states with the most hydraulic fracturing activities. First, the article discusses fracking's economic benefits and environmental issues. The article then analyzes federal regulations, (which essentially leaves the bulk of regulation and enforcement to state and local governments) and state enforcement systems in California and the four states with the most fracking wells (Texas, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and Colorado). California, a state that is pushing for more renewable resources, has robust regulations under Senate Bill 4. In the end, states that rely heavily on fracking should reform the enforcement mechanisms to disincentive noncompliance. Regulatory regimes in the other states appear to have deficiencies that could be remedied by adopting stricter enforcement mechanisms—such as criminal sanctions—that would disincentivize noncompliance, which could lead to large-scale environmental disasters. This article postulates that a model system incorporating a variety of methods including increased criminal enforcement could provide for proper remedies, justice, and deterrence. An ideal enforcement framework for effective deterrence should focus on transparency, flexibility, trusted delegation, and proportionality.

Agenda‐Setting at the Energy‐Water Nexus: Constructing and Maintaining a Policy Monopoly in U.S. Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation

AbstractDespite calls to increase federal oversight of hydraulic fracturing (HF), the U.S. Congress has maintained a regulatory system in which environmental regulatory authority is devolved to the states. We argue that this system is characterized by a long‐standing “policy monopoly”: a form of stability in policy agenda‐setting in which a specific manner of framing and regulating a policy issue becomes hegemonic. Integrating theories on agenda‐setting and environmental discourse analysis, we develop a nuanced conceptualization of policy monopoly that emphasizes the significance of regulatory history, public perceptions, industry–government relations, and environmental “storylines.” We evaluate how a policy monopoly in U.S. HF regulation has been constructed and maintained through a historical analysis of oil and gas regulation and a discourse analysis of eleven select congressional energy committee hearings. This research extends scholarship on agenda‐setting by better illuminating the importance of political economic and geographic factors shaping regulatory agendas and outcomes.

Regulating under conditions of uncertainty and risk: Lessons learned from state regulation of hydraulic fracturing

ABSTRACTUncertainty and risk can often characterize the conditions under which new policy is developed. This has been particularly true in the case of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and its regulation within America’s federal system of governance. During the George W. Bush administration, the federal government intentionally limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s legal authority to regulate processes associated with fracking. This decision shifted the primary responsibility for the regulation of fracking to the states. Some states, in the interest of economic development, were quick to adopt policies that promoted the use of fracking despite environmental concerns regarding the risks. Other states were more cautious, instituting moratoriums on its use. In this study, we develop a typology that can explain the actions of states in response to uncertainty. We also provide seven lessons that can be learned from the regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the United States.

Comments: Mexico Moves Forward

Editor's column Later this month, Mexico will auction off 35 shallow-water blocks in the Gulf of Mexico, as its attempt to revive its oil and gas industry moves forward. It will be the ninth auction held under a reform program that began 4 years ago, and will follow the most successful auction to date. The 31 January deepwater auction surpassed expectations, drawing participation from supermajors and national oil companies (see page 42). Along with Argentina, Mexico has emerged as one of the upstream bright spots in Latin America. At the January auction, Mexican regulatory officials expected only 7–10 blocks to be awarded. But the event attracted bids from 11 different firms as 19 blocks were awarded, nine of those to Shell. Although the deepwater auction is thought to have the most valuable acreage, future tenders may also attract heavy interest. Last year, a consortium led by Talos Energy discovered as much as 2 billion bbl in place at its shallow-water Zama-1 well in the Sureste Basin. And Eni found as much as 1 billion bbl at the shallow-water Amoca field; startup is expected early next year, which would make Eni the first foreign company to produce hydrocarbons in Mexico in 80 years. Mexico’s decision to open its oil and gas sector to foreign investment could not have come at a worse time, months before oil prices abruptly declined and operators sharply cut spending. But, after weathering the early bid rounds, which attracted only light participation, Mexico appears on a roll. In addition to the March shallow-water bidding, 37 onshore blocks will be tendered in July, and there are plans of auctioning the first unconventional acreage, located near the Texas border, before the end of this year. The July blocks are located in northeastern and southeastern Mexico, covering 3,668 sq. miles and prospects of reserves for 260 million BOE of light crude and gas. The unconventional blocks are concentrated in the Tampico-Misantla and Burgos basins, south of the prolific Eagle Ford acreage in south Texas. The Mexican government previously announced auctions for unconventional acreage twice, but the first two events were canceled because of questions surrounding the potential regulation of hydraulic fracturing. The money from the bidding and the prospects of increased production are welcome news for Mexico. State oil company Pemex has been heavily strapped for cash, deterring advancement in deepwater and unconventional plays. Mexico’s oil production peaked in 2004 at 3.38 million B/D and has since fallen to less than 2 million B/D. The oil sector’s chief concern now is an upcoming presidential election. Leftist candidate Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador has a sizable lead in public opinion polls ahead of the July election, and has been a critic of the energy reforms. He has vowed to review all contracts that have been awarded during the recent bid rounds. Many political analysts believe that he could indeed slow the pace of reform but would have a difficult time turning back the clock to the days when only Pemex was allowed to invest in the upstream.

Federal Lands, Federal Authority: The Case for Federal Regulation of Fracking on Public Lands

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” continues to grow rapidly as an oil and gas extraction method in the United States, and its growth has recently led to the emergence of natural gas as the nation’s new leading energy source for power generation. However, the hydraulic fracturing process carries innumerable environmental and health-related concerns, and federal regulations to address these concerns have struggled to keep up with the blistering pace of fracking’s growth and development within the United States.In 2015, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), under the Obama administration, promulgated a rule to ‘complement’ its regulations with respect to hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands, citing the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) as sources of statutory authority. This 2015 Fracking Rule faced intense opposition, first from industry and state parties within the federal court system, and later from the BLM itself under a newly-elected President Trump. This Note argues that the Bureau of Land Management has the statutory authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing on federal public lands under the MLA and FLPMA, by cause of the plain language, general history, and reasonable agency interpretation of these statutes. This Note further supports BLM’s authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing with justifications related to both natural resource protection and the effectiveness of federal-level regulation. Legal battles over BLM’s authority are ongoing, and the question of whether or not BLM has statutory authority to regulate fracking on federal public lands remains critical as the nation continues to struggle in deciding how to best utilize our commonly-shared lands and resources. Additionally, it will be increasingly important to continue developing and updating federal hydraulic fracturing regulations in order to increase our understanding of this extraction method, while hopefully mitigating its associated environmental and health risks.

A transboundary comparative analysis of opportunities for public participation in the regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the Bakken Shale Formation

This is a comparative analysis of how regulatory regimes overlying the Bakken Shale Formation (Manitoba, Montana, North Dakota and Saskatchewan) provide for public participation in government decision-making processes for hydraulic fracturing technology. Three processes are examined and analysed: (1) policy development and rule-making; (2) licensing and operational decision-making processes; and (3) ensuring compliance with licence or approval conditions. Statutory provisions for public participation are often associated with the common law duty of ‘procedural fairness’. A description of the Bakken and an overview of public concerns about potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the environment, human health and communities are provided.

Information exchange under uncertainty: The case of unconventional gas development in the United Kingdom

New techniques of unconventional oil and gas extraction, such as hydraulic fracturing, challenge current political, institutional and administrative practices in how to regulate activities in the underground. Conflicts of interests between economic promotion, landscape and natural resource protection, and new trends on energy markets are further intensified by the fact that techniques of oil and gas extraction come with a considerable amount of uncertainties regarding ecological and health impacts. Information exchange is one important aspect of how political actors try to reduce uncertainties and conflicts. Based on exponential random graph models (ERGM) for network data, we analyze to what degree ideologies, public authority, existing collaboration and scientific expertise drive information exchange in hydraulic fracturing regulation in the United Kingdom. Results show that technical and political information exchange have to be disentangled, and that the former is driven by expertise and existing collaboration, the latter by ideology, public authority and existing collaboration.

Regulating Hydraulic Fracturing: Regulatory Recourse for Subsurface Communication

This article provides an overview of the legal framework for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing in Alberta and examines the potential regulatory options and liability for subsurface reservoir communication caused by hydraulic fracturing activities. Specifically, this article examines the jurisdiction of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER or the Board) to: (1) order that operations be shut-in or suspended due to subsurface reservoir communication; (2) impose obligations on industry to provide notification of hydraulic fracturing activities, including subsurface reservoir communication; (3) order mandatory commingling orders; (4) encourage production sharing agreements; and (5) impose testing, monitoring, production controls, and reporting obligations.With the widespread use of multistage horizontal hydraulic fracturing, disputes related to subsurface communication will continue to be raised with the AER and in the courts. Thus far, the AER has taken a risk management approach through monitoring and testing requirements. Generally, the AER has permitted development to occur by endorsing an approach which relies on the known and inevitable consequences of mining and recovering the minerals. This approach has been justified by the AER on the basis that any production of another party’s minerals does not result in irreparable harm. The harm or damage caused can be identified, quantified, and compensation paid.

Regulating Hydraulic Fracturing: Regulatory Recourse for Subsurface Communication

This article provides an overview of the legal framework for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing in Alberta and examines the potential regulatory options and liability for subsurface reservoir communication caused by hydraulic fracturing activities. Specifically, this article examines the jurisdiction of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER or the Board) to: (1) order that operations be shut-in or suspended due to subsurface reservoir communication; (2) impose obligations on industry to provide notification of hydraulic fracturing activities, including subsurface reservoir communication; (3) order mandatory commingling orders; (4) encourage production sharing agreements; and (5) impose testing, monitoring, production controls, and reporting obligations. With the widespread use of multistage horizontal hydraulic fracturing, disputes related to subsurface communication will continue to be raised with the AER and in the courts. Thus far, the AER has taken a risk management approach through monitoring and testing requirements. Generally, the AER has permitted development to occur by endorsing an approach which relies on the known and inevitable consequences of mining and recovering the minerals. This approach has been justified by the AER on the basis that any production of another party’s minerals does not result in irreparable harm. The harm or damage caused can be identified, quantified, and compensation paid.

Use of borehole imaging to improve understanding of the in-situ stress orientation of Central and Northern England and its implications for unconventional hydrocarbon resources

New interest in the potential for shale gas in the United Kingdom (UK) has led to renewed exploration for hydrocarbons in the Carboniferous age Bowland–Hodder shales under Central and Northern England. Following an incidence of induced seismicity from hydraulic fracturing during 2010 at Preese Hall, Lancashire, the publically available databases quantifying the in-situ stress orientation of the United Kingdom have shown to be inadequate for safe planning and regulation of hydraulic fracturing. This paper therefore reappraises the in-situ stress orientation for central and northern England based wholly on new interpretations of high-resolution borehole imaging for stress indicators including borehole breakouts and drilling-induced tensile fractures. These analyses confirm the expected north northwest – south southeast orientation of maximum horizontal in-situ stress identified from previous studies (e.g. Evans and Brereton, 1990). The dual-caliper data generated by Evans and Brereton (1990) yields a mean SHmax orientation of 149.87° with a circular standard deviation of 66.9°. However the use of borehole imaging without incorporation of results from older dual-caliper logging tools very significantly decreases the associated uncertainty with a mean SHmax orientation of 150.9° with a circular standard deviation of 13.1°.The use of high-resolution borehole imaging is thus shown to produce a more reliable assessment of in-situ stress orientation. The authors therefore recommend that the higher resolution of such imaging tools should therefore be treated as a de-facto standard for assessment of in-situ stress orientation prior to rock testing. Use of borehole imaging should be formally instituted into best practice or future regulations for assessment of in-situ stress orientation prior to any hydraulic fracturing operations in the UK.

Environmental Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing

Summary Since the late 1990s, coalbed methane (CBM) has grown to be a significant part of the economy of the State of Queensland, Australia, building alongside world-scale coal-export operations. Environmental regulation in Queensland over the same period has evolved, with petroleum activities following a unified mineral rights/land tenure and environmental permitting process, particularly in respect to the impacts related to the spatial extent of CBM-basin developments. Following the announcements in 2008 of a number of multibillion-dollar liquefied-natural-gas-export projects, with industry estimates approaching 30,000 wells, attention by interest groups and the public at large gave rise to increased scrutiny by regulators of the scope of prevailing rules. In respect to the application of hydraulic fracturing, the CBM sector has indicated a likelihood of fracturing up to 40% of wells. A number of shale resources and tight gas basins are also under exploration in Queensland, with horizontal completions. Thus, the State can expect a significant rise in the application of stimulation technology. The unconventional-resources sector in Australia is somewhat different from that in North America, with the absence of a third-party pipeline sector, the result being few major producers with their own pipeline networks and speculative minors. As a result of this industry structure of relatively few operators, permitting has been project-based rather than sector-based, resulting in older approvals having conditions inconsistent with modern expectations. The State Government has moved to amend this position by developing more-performance-focused codes in respect to new hydraulic-fracturing programs. It has also moved toward greater emphasis on compliance activities. This paper examines a wide range of environmental issues related to hydraulic fracturing, including those potentially affecting groundwaters, surface waters, landforms and geology, biodiversity, the atmosphere, and community, drawing examples from Queensland and elsewhere. In respect to environmental regulation of hydraulic fracturing, a single, risk-based comprehensive code is proposed that encompasses the use of stimulation across all energy sources and fluid systems—conventional oil and gas, CBM, unconventional oil and gas, and geothermal. Fundamental to the approach is a comprehensive risk assessment, considering a wide range of issues at local and regional scales. Permit conditions will target pre-event disclosure requirements, engineering constraints, environmental-protection measures, product accreditation, process monitoring, and post-event reporting. Disclosure of products is required under petroleum and gas legislation, but this new approach will require product accreditation under an international standard that encompasses contaminant-concentration limits, human toxicology, and ecotoxicology. Evidence supporting code development includes consideration of environmental issues in Queensland, detailed review of hydraulic-fracturing studies, and reviews of petroleum-engineering risks. A detailed legislative review was completed that considers rules from 55 jurisdictions (including Australia, the US, Canada, Brazil, the UK and Scotland, France, and South Africa) across 59 identified regulatory matters. The following general principles and practices have been proposed to underpin the revised code to minimize the likelihood of adverse impacts from hydraulic fracturing: Detailed understanding of the local stratigraphy, including aquifers, faults, linear features, hydraulic conductivity, porosity, seismic risk, and groundwater-dependent assets Detailed engineering understanding of the impacts of applied stresses, including aquifer drawdown, on connectivity to aquifers above and below the fractured zone subsequent to the hydraulic-fracturing activity To require the presence of vertically impermeable formations between the fractured zone and other aquifers To require installation of a multibarrier casing string that isolates aquifers from hydrocarbon-bearing formations and, with current certification, demonstrates internal and external mechanical integrity To ensure injected fluids have low toxicity, contain no persistent bioaccumulating constituents, and are accredited for use under an international standard For the operator to apply advanced process control that incorporates real-time analysis, fracture modeling, and formation understanding by use of techniques such as microseismic measurements, as required, to assist in the early development of the resource and to address identified environmental risk over the life of the project To initiate and maintain a high level of meaningful communication with adjacent groundwater users, near neighbors, government, and the public in general This paper presents information supporting the chain of evidence leading to a revision of the Queensland regulations that is expected to be completed and approved in 2015, following industry and public consultation.

Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in South Africa: A Project Life-Cycle approach? (note)

This note deals with the 2015 regulations pertaining to hydraulic fracturing in South Africa from a project life-cycle approach. A brief history of the fragmentation of the regulation of environmental and mining related matters is provided, followed by a discussion of the application of the 2015 regulations during the project life cycle, ie the pre-commencement phase, the design and authorisation phase, the testing phase, the operational phase and the decommissioning and closure phase.

E&P Notes (June 2015)

E&P Notes “Regulatory Compliance Just One Reason for Groundwater Sampling” The US Department of the Interior encourages the practice of baseline groundwater sampling before drilling, according to its recently released hydraulic fracturing regulations. Although the practice will not be legally required across all federal lands, there are additional reasons to conduct groundwater sampling, said Ryan Leatherbury, client service manager at environmental engineering firm Weston Solutions. The most obvious reason for sampling is for use as a form of “cheap insurance” against water contamination claims, said Leatherbury, who spoke at a recent SPE Gulf Coast Section Waste Water Management Study Group meeting. “Argentina Expands Research on Shale and Mature Fields” Although Argentina is home to what is probably the largest shale formation in South America, the country remains a net importer of oil and gas, according to the US Energy Information Administration. To produce more hydrocarbons from the Vaca Muerta shale and increase recovery in other domestic plays, the country’s majority state-owned oil company YPF, created a separate research organization called YPF Tecnologia (Y-TEC) in 2012. At present, the research company’s main location is in La Plata, Argentina, 70 km south of Buenos Aires. The construction of a 129,000-ft2 laboratory complex in nearby Berisso will be completed before the end of the year, said Gustavo Galliano, manager of communications and knowledge management and technology liaison at Y-TEC. “A New Map for Composite Design and Testing” Researchers at Rice University in Houston are hoping their new theory on composite properties may help the oil and gas industry reduce the time it takes to develop and test new materials. After 3 years of work, the researchers have created a design map that predicts strength, stiffness, and toughness of different materials when they are layered onto one another. Applications for this theoretical map may include pipes, downhole tools, and marine drilling risers, and especially those that are exposed to high-pressure/ high-temperature environments. To develop the map, the research team looked to nature. Rouzbeh Shahsavari, an assistant professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rice, said that designing composites that are strong, tough, and lightweight is a big challenge for the materials science world. “Wastewater Recovery a Common Challenge for Aerospace and Oil Industries” While wastewater reuse is an option for oil and gas operations, it is an imperative for space travel. With payload weight at a premium, recycling is the only way to provide potable water for journeys longer than a few days, said Mark Jernigan, executive director of Rice Space Institute at Rice University and associate director, exploration systems development, human health and performance directorate at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC). “The desire for NASA is to reclaim water so we don’t have to bring so much,” said Jernigan, who spoke at a meeting of the SPE Gulf Coast Section’s Waste and Water Management Study Group.

Utilizing Home Rule: The Case for Restricting Hydraulic Fracturing at the Local Level

The surge of hydraulic fracturing in the United States has spawned concern over public health risks associated with the practice. Some states, such as New York, have ultimately banned hydraulic fracturing citing significant environmental and public health hazards. Nationally, debate over regulation of hydraulic fracturing has taken center stage. The current regulatory scheme is a patchwork of state regulation with minimal federal oversight that leaves many individuals at risk of health and property damages. For individuals negatively affected by hydraulic fracturing, pursuing a cause of action may not be a viable option. Poorly defined property rights and significant evidentiary barriers often hinder individuals from the ability to purse a legal remedy for injuries suffered as a result of nearby hydraulic fracturing operations. Using their home rule powers, municipalities may be in the best position to insulate their residents from health and property damages by restricting or banning hydraulic fracturing within their borders. This article will analyze why hydraulic fracturing poses substantial health and property risks; why the currently regulatory regime leaves individuals vulnerable; and will suggest strategies for municipalities to restrict or ban hydraulic fracturing with their borders.