Pitch
Adapt currently used NEPA/CEQA regulation and policy to include fracking projects and proposals.
Description
Summary
There is already a process for monitoring and regulating projects similar to fracking. In fact, fracking is an exemption, and only a slight change in current law would require fracking projects to be regulated under these standards. Although NEPA is not perfect, it does provide the public with some sort of government protection regarding the safety of fracking. Furthermore, we can monitor the environmental impacts through NEPA, not just human-related impacts. In this way we can prevent future damages and take preemptive action. Ultimately, Environmental Impact Assessments are conducted to do preemptive work and eliminate damages later in the construction and operative stages of a project. This proposal moves to amend NEPA and reevaluate the current policies to include fracking projects and proposals.
Category of the action
Adaptation
What actions do you propose?
Reevaluate/reconstruct current NEPA and CEQA policy:
Government intervention on fracking is currently in a huge upheaval across the country, but on a state-by-state basis. Lawsuits are widespread, and have been particularly well covered in the Pennsylvania/New York area, as well as in California. California courts recently ruled on fracking regulation protocols, saying that more research on the safety of fracking must be done before lands can be released for such use. The EPA is also conducting studies on the impacts of fracking, but there has been a general failure to standardize regulations nationwide. This is especially important, and should be a first priority. Preemptive measures are far more effective in preserving the quality of the environment and the quality of human life. If we reconstruct NEPA policy, and amend it, to include case-by-case studies on the effects of fracking at a national level, we can gauge exactly what environmental impacts we will be looking at, and judge accordingly, prior to any damage being done.
Current law allows wells previously used for conventional oil extraction to alter the use and becoming fracking wells without being reevaluated by an environmental impact assessment. They are grandfathered into the original project, no matter how dramatically different the actual functioning of the site will be.
Who will take these actions?
The regulatory agencies have already been dictated since the proposal works within the confines of the already established NEPA protocols. With that in mind, the EPA, states, and local authorities would be in charge of carrying out the final stage of the proposal’s application. It would also likely be the EPA that would organize the legislative platform for the project, since government approval in changing NEPA (and CEQA for California) would be needed.
Where will these actions be taken?
The action would be taken at a national legislative level, so it would necessarily require intense political action and require top-down dissemination of altered policy. Essentially, the proposal works within established systems to create feasible change that would extend to every proposal requiring an EIA. The policy change would necessitate that each fracking project being proposed have case-by-case consideration but a standardized national protocol to do the initial evaluation. Furthermore, the findings of each case-by-case analysis would have standardized mitigations to ensure that the entire nation has agreed upon minimum standards of public and environmental safety.
What are other key benefits?
The most substantial social impact would be the opportunity for public involvement in decisions regarding fracking projects. Current law does not acknowledge public dissent in any substantial way.
Simply the act of redeveloping NEPA policy would be a huge benefit. The system has huge impacts upon development in the United States, but the intent and the actual implementation of the policies have certain discrepancies. Any reevaluation of policy is worthwhile in order to ensure the most efficient policy and function possible.
A minimum national standard would be beneficial to conserve government resources. It would prevent the need for state-by-state policy hearings and development.
What are the proposal’s costs?
The costs are largely indeterminable. The physical resources required are almost none, the cost would be almost completely calculated in labor hours. When thinking about the additional labor costs for the implementation of the proposal there are many layers: labor of politicians, EPA workers, EIA consulting firms, etc. The development of policy, the lobbying for the implementation of the policy, and the fulfillment of policy changes in the field would require additional human labor. Unfortunately, this would cause pressure on already overworked departments/firms. But it is also likely that the necessity for more labor would create more jobs. There will likely be no huge surge in employment opportunities, but specialty workers, with fracking-specific training would be required.
Time line
The timeline is unspecific because of the nature of policymaking. So much is dependent upon the importance of an issue at the time of policy approcal. It can be reasonably assumed that from decision to implement the proposal to complete proposal assimilation the process would take no more than 5 years. However, rushing the process may result in unstable, and therefore ineffective, policy creation.
An optimistic timeline would go as follows:
3 months for NEPA policy/amendment creation
1-2 years for revisions and necessary approval by political bodies
Following approval from necessary parties implementation would be immediate but delays in local incorporation can be expected
Related proposals
References
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2013/fracking-04-08-2013.html
By:
