NORTHRUP
The (Political) Science behind the dSGEISThe proposed gas well setbacks from Primary and Principal Aquifers is based onpopulation served, not hydrology, nor topography, nor geology nor any otherscientific methodology other than
political science
. Scientists recognize it for what itis – a political document, not a scientific one.
1
The distinction between Primary and Principal aquifers in New York State was made in1980 by the Department of Health based strictly on the population served by those water sources.
2
There are no other distinctions. The different levels of protection proposed bythe DEC in the dSGEIS are simply a function of population. The setback proposed for Principal Aquifers – SEQRA review over the aquifer and 500 feet beyond the aquifer – would virtually insure that much of Upstate’s Principal Aquifers will be gassed and polluted by horizontal fracking, since the SEQRA would be based on the same politicalconsiderations as the rest of the SGEIS, which are oblivious to hydrology andtopography, and would amount to little more than additional paper work for a drillingapplicant. The 500 foot “buffer” proposed is 100 feet less than the gas well setback in theFort Worth, Texas zoning ordinance –
where there are no shallow aquifers.
Despite the political science used to propose these “protections” there is no hydrology, notopography, no empirical studies to indicate that the dSGEIS guidelines will not simplyfacilitate the gassing of state aquifers of groundwater in general and of water wells in particular.
1
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=safety-first-fracking-second
2
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/36119.html
If you live in a region served by a Primary Aquifer, the odds of your water being polluted by horizontal fracking are a bit less, but not much and not for long, since the prohibitionof gas wells in Primary Aquifers is
provisional
for two years. These provisionalguidelines would require the same dinky 500 foot setback from the aquifer, virtuallyassuring that many of them will polluted and gassed.
3
3
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.full
Water bodies that have no political presence – such as streams - have a setback of 150feet – presumably as a political sop to trout fisherman and to keep roughnecks fromfalling off of the drilling rig and drowning. No setbacks are proposed for farm ponds(cows can’t vote) and private lakes - virtually guaranteeing that many of them will begassed by drilling.The proposed gas well setbacks can be plotted against the populations protected, asshown in Figure I. The political scientific behind the dSGEIS setbacks can be simplystated: “The protections proposed are directly proportionate to the population impacted.”The more people, the greater the protections in the dSGEIS. The fewer the populationserved, the lower the standard of protection, down literally to zero. No science isinvolved. No studies. A day trip to Pennsylvania plus some clippings from gas industrymemos should suffice. Serve up with the usual sound bites and political platitudes aboutthe “sanctity of water”. Then frack baby frack.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
The Political Science of the SGEIS
Proposed dSGEIS protections are pure political science. No science involved.
3.9K
Reads
37
Readcasts
8
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
