Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99

Editorial

News Opinion Editorial

Md. fracking study loses ground

Last year, when Gov.Martin O'Malley signed an executive order establishing a commission to study the impact of drilling for natural gas in Western Maryland's Marcellus Shale deposit, he promised the state would be guided by "scientific knowledge." Yet gathering that much-needed information costs money, something the state doesn't have at the moment.

That lack of funds will likely mean many months of delay for the fact-finding efforts of the governor's advisory commission. The alternative — to simply not do a thorough study of such issues as the potential economic effects of fracking, the disposal of toxic waste water, and the impact on local ground water — would be wholly unacceptable.

The effort was supposed to be financed by a $15 per acre charge to those companies that hold gas interest to the land. The Maryland Department of the Environment was counting on collecting as much as $2.3 million from the study fee to pay for research. That includes the $138,950 the agency has already spent (and expected to be reimbursed for) on its soon-to-be-released review of industry best practices — essentially the second phase of the agency's 3-part review.

While legislation establishing the fee was approved by the House of Delegates in mid-March, it never made it out of the Senate's Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee. The bill may have gotten caught up in the budgetary battle between the two chambers, the same standoff that caused the adoption of a "doomsday" budget and will likely lead to a special session to reconsider matters of taxes and spending next month.

The bill's supporters say the gas industry lobbied heavily against the fee, claiming it was anti-business. But it's hardly uncommon for government to expect potential polluters to pay for environmental impact studies, and given the industry's track record in neighboring Pennsylvania, it would seem foolhardy not to conduct one. Certainly, it makes more sense than the only alternative available — to charge state taxpayers for the enterprise.

Make no mistake, U.S. natural gas resources are considerable and could prove extremely helpful in gaining greater energy independence. But that doesn't mean hurtling headlong into whatever the gas and petroleum industry wants to do. Maryland should be no quicker to do that than to give carte blanche to strip mining or off-shore oil drilling.

Regulating hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" is not anti-business, it's a sound way to protect health and public safety while enabling responsible use of a valuable natural resource. Last week, theU.S. Environmental Protection Agencyissued rules restricting harmful emissions from such natural gas wells in a classic regulatory win-win. The new rules require drilling companies to capture gases that are often allowed to escape into the atmosphere. That not only protects the environment but provides revenue for the producers and is not expected to slow production.

States have a role to play in this regulatory process as well, and the potential adverse impact of fracking on water supplies is troubling. Opponents have raised legitimate questions about the chemicals used in the process and the possibility that not only groundwater but underground aquifers might be put at risk by large-scale drilling.

Perhaps that danger can be easily managed, as industry officials claim. But that's not a decision that should be made purely on the advice of those private companies that stand to make huge profits from gas drilling in Maryland and elsewhere.

Granted, that cautious approach may put Maryland at a competitive disadvantage to those states that have chosen not to closely regulate gas drilling, particularly as falling natural gas prices are likely to slow new drilling anyway. But that's a choice Marylanders ought to be comfortable making as the value of clean water and air is not something to be taken lightly either.

Maryland's natural gas study was supposed to be wrapped up by Aug. 1, 2014. That seemed a reasonable timetable — until the effort lost its funding source. Now, a completion in 2015 seems more reasonable assuming lawmakers agree on a plan to pay for the research next year. And if industry officials express displeasure with that? Well, they only have themselves to blame.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Western Md. faces fracking threat
    Western Md. faces fracking threat

    The recent article about fracking in Western Maryland seemed to me to raise more arguments for not drilling for natural gas in Garrett County than for it ("Fracking debate intensifies in Western Maryland, those benefits would be relatively short-term since "Western Maryland's gas reserves are limited."

  • Risks of fracking are unacceptable
    Risks of fracking are unacceptable

    I am a resident and property owner in Garrett County and want my voice heard by state officials: I do not want fracking in Maryland.

  • Fracking an assault on the planet
    Fracking an assault on the planet

    The Baltimore Sun recently carried a letter from a reader advocating fracking in Maryland, apparently placing the priority on overpopulating the planet and "to hell with the environment" ("Md. shouldn't make the same mistake as New York in banning fracking," March 31). Already, fracking has been...

  • Fracking causes no harm
    Fracking causes no harm

    With the House of Delegates recently voting to institute a three-year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, it's clear that politics could trump science in Maryland ("Md. shouldn't make the same mistake as New York in banning fracking," March 31).

  • Md. shouldn't make the same mistake as New York in banning fracking
    Md. shouldn't make the same mistake as New York in banning fracking

    I live in Deposit in New York's Southern Tier and know first-hand how New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's decision to ban fracking has taken away our chance to transform our economically depressed communities into thriving ones ("New York bans fracking, citing health risks," Dec. 18).

  • Fracking's risks are 'considerable'
    Fracking's risks are 'considerable'

    I applaud your March 23 editorial endorsing a moratorium on fracking in Western Maryland ("Fracking deserves a pause," March 25). My considerable research reveals fracking in Maryland imposes severe and permanent environmental risks with questionable to negative long-term economic impacts to produce...

  • Fracking moratorium is the right step
    Fracking moratorium is the right step

    Your editorial ("Fracking deserves a pause," March 25) got it right on all counts. Fracking simply does not mesh well with our tourist industry in Western Maryland.

  • Fracking not worth the risks
    Fracking not worth the risks

    I applaud The Baltimore Sun for its position in favor of a moratorium on fracking in Maryland ("Fracking deserves a pause," March 25). We are learning more every day of the irreparable damage being done to the environment and health of people living where hydraulic fracturing is taking place. And,...

Comments
Loading

75°