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
. Scientists recognize it for what itis – a political document, not a scientific one.
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.
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.