Please leave this field empty
Donate Monthly Make a Gift Renew Your Membership Ways to Give
Food & Water Watch Food & Water Watch Food & Water Watch
  • About
  • Problems
  • Campaigns
  • Impacts
  • Research
  • Contact
Donate Monthly Make a Gift Renew Your Membership Ways to Give
  • facebook
  • twitter
Please leave this field empty
Food & Water Watch Food & Water Watch
$
Menu
  • About
  • News
  • Research Library
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Donate
Search
Please leave this field empty
  • facebook
  • twitter

Advisory Panel Boxes in Obama EPA on Fracking Study

After peer-reviewers panned the Obama EPA for its draft assessment on fracking, will the administration come clean on where the science ended and the politics began?

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • google-plus
  • envelope

We all need safe food and clean water.

Donate
Anti-fracking event at the EPA building in Washington, D.C., October 2014
11.23.15

Last June, when the Obama EPA released its draft study on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, it downplayed the impacts as not “widespread, systemic.” News organizations ran with this top-line claim, generally failing to recognize the line as spurious, and out of context.

But the study never came close to quantifying how widespread or systemic impacts have been from fracking. Now scientific advisors are panning the administration for how it handled the study — and for the “widespread, systemic” line in particular — but in this moment of truth, news media that ran with the top-line claim are nowhere to be found.

We at Food & Water Watch were quick to point out the study’s limitations. The actual text of the thousand-page study is a testament to how, at every turn, EPA’s efforts to evaluate the “frequency and severity” of the impacts of fracking on drinking water resources were thwarted by significant “data limitations and uncertainties.”

The top-line claim has become controversial because it papers over this fact: it presents a conclusion that is unsupported. The Obama Administration’s embrace of fracking as central to an “all-of-the-above” energy policy suggests political interference occurred, akin to what happened with the Bush EPA’s 2004 study of fracking’s impacts on drinking water.

In August, we led a large group in submitting detailed comments that outline the problems with the final draft study, as well as with the administration’s press release that rolled it out. Many others have chimed in on how the study whitewashed the impacts of fracking on drinking water. (Fracking’s impacts on our climate, in contrast, have already been greenwashed.)

This fall, under the auspices of the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), an “independent” panel of 30 scientists, engineers and oil and gas industry representatives has been reviewing the study. Many of the panelists have joined the public in honing in on the “widespread, systemic” top-line claim as unsupported and off base.

When the panel met in Washington, D.C. at the end of October, it erupted in spontaneous applause after one scientist suggested replacing the EPA’s summary of the study’s findings with the following:

“Water quality impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing have occurred in a number of locations. Occasionally, these have been severe. Many of the impacts have been associated with failures to follow industry best practices and might be preventable. Quantifying the frequency and severity of water quality impacts is difficult to do accurately because of data limitations including: reporting of incidents is often voluntary, uneven follow-up regarding impacts, lack of systematic study of these impacts, sealed information in litigation, lack of knowledge about or monitoring methods for compounds in hydraulic fracturing fluids. With the available information, the number of documented cases of impacts is small relative to the number of wells developed using [hydraulic fracturing].”

It’s almost as if the line was a late edition to the 1,000-page study, by someone who had not worked on drafting it.

In many cases, the agency itself is to blame for the lack of available information. The agency’s omission of three high-profile cases of contamination — in Dimock, Pennsylvania, Parker County, Texas and Pavillion, Wyoming — stands out as one example of the EPA’s failure to protect. We’ve joined with affected landowners John Fenton, Steve Lipsky and Ray Kemble to demand that the agency re-open the investigations it abruptly abandoned in these cases, and include the cases in its study.

We are pleased that, after hearing from people involved in these cases who are not under gag orders after signing court settlements, the panelists recommended that EPA include explicit summaries of the cases the agency abandoned. But this is far from the necessary step of reopening the cases, and it remains to be seen whether the EPA dodges this recommendation from the panel.

The panel’s rejection of the “widespread, systemic” line is heartening, but there’s work to be done to ensure that the EPA — and the administration — walk back the summary of the study’s takeaways, as currently recommended by the panel.

On December 3 there will be a public teleconference, during which the panelists will at least come close to finalizing their recommendations to the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board. The SAB will in turn review the panel’s report before passing along recommendations to the EPA to consider in finalizing the study. We need people listening in, and weighing in, so the EPA knows that it won’t be able to get away with ignoring the advice of its scientific advisors. (The call-in and webcast information is here.) 

At the same time, it is important to be mindful that recommendations from the panelists cut both ways. Five of the 30 panelists are currently employed within the oil and gas industry and another three, at least, conduct industry-funded research as academics. In fact, during the meetings, one of the panelists — an academic — repeatedly used “we” as synonymous with “industry.”

Given the clear presence of conflicts of interest among some members of the panel, Food & Water Watch and allies will be continue to watch this process closely.

Related Downloads

  • Report: The Urgent Case for a Ban on Fracking

    Report: The Urgent Case for a Ban on Fracking
  • Public Comment to EPA SAB on Fracking Study

    Public Comment to EPA SAB on Fracking Study
  • Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

    Monsanto's Roundup is a "probable human carcinogen." We need to ban it!

    Get the latest on your food and water with news, research and urgent actions.

    Please leave this field empty

    Latest News

    • Trump’s Out, Biden’s In! Now The Fight Of Our Lives On Climate Begins.

      Trump’s Out, Biden’s In! Now The Fight Of Our Lives On Climate Begins.

    • Biden’s 100-Day Must-Do List for a Cleaner, Healthier Country

      Biden’s 100-Day Must-Do List for a Cleaner, Healthier Country

    • Fracking, Federal Lands, And Follow-Through: Will President Biden Do What He Promised?

      Fracking, Federal Lands, And Follow-Through: Will President Biden Do What He Promised?

    See More News & Opinions

    For Media: See our latest press releases and statements

    Food & Water Insights

    Looking for more insights and our latest research?

    Visit our policy & research library
    • Renewable Natural Gas: Same Ol' Climate-Polluting Methane, Cleaner-Sounding Name

    • The Case to Ban Fracking on Federal Lands

    • Dangerously Deep: Fracking’s Threat to Human Health

    Fracking activist with stickersFracking activist in hatLegal team loves family farmsFood & Water Watch organizer protecting your food

    Work locally, make a difference.

    Get active in your community.

    Food & Water Impact

    • Victories
    • Stories
    • Facts
    • Trump, Here's a Better Use for $25 Billion

    • Here's How We're Going to Build the Clean Energy Revolution

    • How a California Activist Learned to Think Locally

    Keep drinking water safe and affordable for everyone.

    Take Action
    food & water watch logo
    en Español

    Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold & uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people’s health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.

    Food & Water Watch is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization.

    Food & Water Action is a 501(c)4 organization.

    Food & Water Watch Headquarters

    1616 P Street, NW,
    Washington, DC 20036

    Main: 202.683.2500

    Contact your regional office.

    Work with us: See all job openings

    • Problems
      • Broken Democracy
      • Climate Change & Environment
      • Corporate Control of Food
      • Corporate Control of Water
      • Factory Farming & Food Safety
      • Fracking
      • GMOs
      • Global Trade
      • Pollution Trading
    • Solutions
      • Advocate Fair Policies
      • Legal Action
      • Organizing for Change
      • Research & Policy Analysis
    • Our Impact
      • Facts
      • Stories
      • Victories
    • Take Action
      • Get Active Where You Live
      • Organizing Tools
      • Find an Event
      • Volunteer with Us
      • Live Healthy
      • Donate
    • Give
      • Give Now
      • Give Monthly
      • Give a Gift Membership
      • Membership Options
      • Fundraise
      • Workplace Giving
      • Planned Giving
      • Other Ways to Give
    • About
    • News
    • Research Library
    • Contact
    • Careers
    • Donate
    Learn more about Food & Water Action www.foodandwateraction.org.
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • 2021 © Food & Water Watch
    • www.foodandwaterwatch.org
    • Terms of Service
    • Data Usage Policy