Public Hearing to Build Awareness About Hydraulic Fracturing, and Solicit Testimony Regarding Legislation and Public Policies Needed to Protect the Health and Welfare of the Public and Our Environment

Eastern Water Project Director 3 Trout Unlimited 4 Bruce Ferguson 206

Member 5 Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy 6 7 ---oOo--- 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 SENATOR BALL: Good morning. 2 If we could just start with the Pledge of 3 Allegiance, everybody, and then we'll get started. 4 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the 5 United States of America, and to the Republic for 6 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, 7 with liberty and justice for all. 8 I know that everybody is busy, so we're going 9 to get started. 10 We have a few more senators that are on their 11 way, and making it to the North Country from the 12 city, which can always be tough. I know, in the 13 reverse direction, I am late sometimes. 14 I want to introduce Senator Krueger for a 15 couple brief remarks. 16 Before that, I'll just make a brief 17 statement. 18 You know, we're on the precipice of having a 19 multi-billion dollar industry come in to the state 20 of New York. 21 And as a legislator, sometimes you sit at a 22 table. And specifically on this issue, those who 23 are against fracking, very successfully, and very 24 forcefully, present their side, their opinion. And 25 then the industry -- 1 Senator, how are you? 2 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Hi. 3 SENATOR BALL: -- then the industry will, 4 with an absolute certainty, present their side. 5 And at the end of that discussion, you're 6 left scratching your heads, saying: Who's telling 7 the truth, and where's the gray here. 8 I find that, in politics, the answer isn't 9 always on the extreme of either side. But in this 10 one, we're dealing with folks' health, the quality 11 of our environment, and some extremely pressing 12 issues. 13 So, I decided to head to Pennsylvania, right 14 across the border, and see it firsthand. 15 And I can tell you that I saw some good 16 stuff. I saw some economic activity, I saw some job 17 creation. Some of those jobs were from -- for folks 18 from Texas and Colorado, not Pennsylvanians, which 19 is a totally different issue. 20 But, I saw some bad stuff too. Some really 21 bad stuff. 22 I saw farmers whose lives were devastated; 23 whose cattle, in one instance, there were 24 eleven cows at freshen. 25 Many of you may not have grown up on a farm. 1 I did. 2 Out of those eleven, eight of those were 3 still-birth. The farmer was pulling dead calves out 4 of those cows. 5 Eight out of eleven -- if any you have an 6 agricultural background -- is absolutely ridiculous. 7 Just doesn't happen. 8 I saw a fifth-generation family, whose 9 property value went from $300,000 to $9,000. Their 10 water was contaminated. 11 And the industry said, "Well, it's not our 12 fault"; even though they had been drinking that 13 water from five generations. And only in the 14 aftermath of a fracking platform put on a neighbor's 15 property was their water contaminated. 16 And I've seen loophole after loophole in 17 Pennsylvania, where an industry has been allowed to 18 walk through those loopholes with nothing short of a 19 Mack truck. 20 Can we frack in New York? Can we create jobs 21 in New York? Can we increase economic activity in 22 New York? 23 Let's have that discussion, but let's not do 24 it by creating the very same loopholes that we've 25 seen taken advantage of in other states. 1 I invited the industry to come here today -- 2 [Applause.] 3 SENATOR BALL: I invited the industry to come 4 here today. 5 And, honestly, there were questions, with the 6 hearing that held when I was in the Assembly, that I 7 really would have liked to have had answers, to. 8 I think it's extremely important that we dig 9 down into this issue as New Yorkers on both sides of 10 the aisle, and really begin to ask some of the very 11 tough questions that need to be had. That's got to 12 be part of this equation. 13 And, for the industry not to be represented 14 today, I can tell you that these questions, if it's 15 up to me -- and I won't speak for the other senators 16 because they do a good enough job themselves -- but, 17 before we allow a multi-billion dollar industry, 18 that's on the gateway of New York's border, to come 19 in here and profit off of our land and our 20 resources, these questions better get answered. 21 Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins joined us. 22 And I know she'll make a few marks, I'm certain. 23 And, Senator Krueger. 24 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 25 Hi. I'm Liz Krueger, and I'm here from 1 Manhattan. And I've been working on educating 2 myself around the risks of hydrofracking, now, for 3 several years. 4 And I'm here to say that the City of New York 5 is almost universally in agreement that the State 6 should not rush forward with hydrofracking. And, in 7 fact, in the Governor's plan, there will be no 8 hydrofracking in the New York City reservoir areas, 9 nor the Syracuse reservoir areas. 10 But, that's not satisfactory. 11 Simply saying, "Well, we won't put the water 12 for New York City at risk, but we can ignore what 13 the questions are for the rest of the state," is not 14 acceptable. 15 It's not acceptable to me. It's not 16 acceptable to the people of New York City. 17 I hear, over and over again, from advocates 18 for the environment, from activists throughout the 19 state of New York, that they're really scared. 20 They've seen what happened in Pennsylvania. 21 They've read the newspaper stories. They've heard 22 about the industry being caught lying. They've 23 heard about the federal government burying some 24 reports that aren't so favorable to hydrofracking. 25 And they're asking us, as state legislators, 1 they're asking us as their state government, to do 2 more than our due diligence. To, cross every "T," 3 dot every "I," challenge every assumption, before 4 any kind of permitting goes forward in New York 5 State. 6 I, in fact, am not convinced that there is a 7 safe way to do this at this point in history. 8 I'll accept the fact that technology keeps 9 moving forward, and we might find ways to do 10 hydrofracking or some other model of removal of 11 natural gas from below the Marcellus Shale in the 12 future that doesn't pit our communities at risk, our 13 air and water at risk, our farm land at risk. 14 But, based on all of the research I've done, 15 I don't believe that model exists yet. And, so, I'm 16 not supporting New York State going forward with any 17 permitting at this time. 18 And I just want to -- 19 [Applause.] 20 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 21 -- reinforce what Senator Ball said, when he 22 pointed out, the industry was invited to this 23 hearing. He made it very clear to me that the 24 industry was invited. 25 If they've got nothing to hide, why do they 1 never show up to testify on their own defense? 2 [Applause.] 3 SENATOR KRUEGER: Look at all of you, you're 4 here today. 5 [Applause.] 6 SENATOR KRUEGER: So, I look forward to 7 hearing from all of you. 8 And I wish that there was a more honest 9 dialogue taking place with the people who are 10 pushing for New York State to allow hydrofracking to 11 take place. 12 Thank you, Senator Ball. 13 SENATOR BALL: Senator? 14 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Thank you. 15 Good morning, everyone. 16 I'm Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins. 17 And, I'm just a little south of Senator Ball, 18 and a little north of Senator Krueger, but, I think 19 that the sentiments that have been expressed by my 20 colleagues have been quite eloquent and quite on 21 point. 22 Again, Senator Ball, I thank you for hosting 23 the hearing. 24 When I was driving up, I was telling someone 25 who I respect a great deal, that I was coming to the 1 fracking hearing. 2 And she said to me: Well, you know, I think 3 that, you know, there's been such a great increase 4 in the technology, and it's not like it was before. 5 It's much safer now. And they go through so many 6 different things to make sure they protect the water 7 and the area. 8 And I said: You know, maybe you should come 9 to testify, because, the people who you're getting 10 this information from, apparently, are depending on, 11 you, who have no knowledge -- smart lady, wonderful 12 woman -- but no real knowledge. But, I, guess 13 they're depending on "you" to tell "us" that 14 everything's okay. 15 And I said: The fact that they're unwilling 16 to come, to tell us how everything has improved 17 makes me, not only suspect, but extremely concerned. 18 I have always been a legislator that has been 19 willing to listen to all sides before I rush to 20 judgment. 21 I certainly support the moratorium. And 22 certainly support the identification of what you're 23 talking about is in these fracking fluids. 24 I want a longer time period for discussion on 25 the DEC. 1 [Applause.] 2 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: 60 days is not 3 enough. 4 So -- but, but, but, I'm wanting all that, 5 because I want like you want: to be educated, and 6 assured. 7 And when we come to a hearing like this, and 8 the side that is discussing how beneficial this is 9 going to be, how it's going to be a win-win-win, 10 isn't represented, I think it is really sad because 11 it was a missed opportunity. And, of course, allows 12 us to continue to say, you know, "No frackin' way." 13 But, anyway, I look forward to hearing from 14 you. 15 SENATOR BALL: Okay, well, thank you very 16 much. 17 And, we're going to get started. 18 I do ask, that, if those who are in 19 attendance can just make sure that we maintain 20 complete decorum, so we can get through this, and 21 pay the most respect to those who are speaking. 22 So, without further ado, Robert Moore, 23 Environmental Advocates of New York. 24 Thanks. 25 ROBERT MOORE: Thank you very much, Senator. 1 And thank you, Senator Krueger and 2 Senator Stewart-Cousins, for also attending this 3 very important public hearing on the -- one of the 4 most pressing environmental issues, and one of the 5 most pressing, I think, economic and 6 community-development issues facing New York State 7 today. 8 In addition, thank you for inviting the other 9 panelists here today. They represent a great number 10 of experts on these issues; the various aspects of 11 hydrofracking that are going to impact New York 12 State, potentially, and also concerned members of 13 New York State's advocacy community. 14 I am Robert Moore, the executive director of 15 Environmental Advocates of New York. 16 Our mission is to protect the air, land, 17 water, and wildlife, and the health of all 18 New Yorkers. 19 We're based in Albany, and we are well known 20 within the state capital. 21 We monitor state government, evaluating 22 proposed laws, and championing the policies and 23 practices that will ensure the responsible 24 stewardship of our shared environment. 25 Today, based on the gas industry's record in 1 Pennsylvania, Texas, and the many other states where 2 it has deployed fracking, Environmental Advocates 3 has well-founded concerns about the ability of the 4 gas industry to frack without putting our 5 communities and our waters at risk. 6 We're also very concerned about the ability 7 of a depleted state environmental agency to properly 8 oversee an industry known nationwide for playing 9 fast-and-loose with the rules. 10 We also remain deeply concerned that New York 11 is poised to allow fracking to occur before 12 developing the proper laws, rules, and regulations, 13 and enforcement resources, to oversee an industry 14 whose activities could grow exponentially once it is 15 allowed to begin operating within our state. 16 Many of the others testifying here today can 17 speak to the risks associated with fracking; the 18 negative impacts it could have on air and water 19 resource and the questionable economic benefits to 20 local communities. 21 I will, therefore, like to -- would like to 22 focus my testimony on the problems we see with the 23 process by which New York seems to have embarked 24 upon to rush to approve gas drilling, as well as 25 share with those here today, some background on the 1 activities of the recently convened 2 Fracking Advisory Panel to the Department of 3 Environmental Conservation, which I currently serve 4 upon. 5 Let me first start by reminding those in 6 attendance, that Governor Mario -- excuse me -- 7 [Laughter, and applause.] 8 ROBERT MOORE: Although I'm sure 9 Governor Mario Cuomo would also agree with this 10 statement, but Governor Andrew Cuomo has repeatedly 11 said that he would only allow fracking in 12 New York State if it could be done safely. 13 He has also said that he intends for the 14 State's actions be guided by the best available 15 science. 16 However, as we sit here today, the Governor 17 and his administration seem to be deviating from 18 that course. 19 At the urging of the Governor's office, the 20 DEC released in July an incomplete revision of its 21 plans for allow hydrofracking. This document, so 22 eloquently known as "The Predraft Supplemental 23 Generic Environmental Impact Statement," and for the 24 sake of brevity, I will simply refer to this as 25 "The Administration's Draft Drilling Plan" today. 1 The Cuomo Administration's draft drilling 2 plan has improved from Governor Paterson's original 3 plan, but still contains many flaws. Some of these 4 flaws are highlighted in a document that I have 5 attached to my testimony today, which was a 6 press release from Environmental Advocates and many 7 other organizations represented here today, of the 8 ten, kind of, top fracking flaws we saw in this 9 preliminary draft. 10 Others will speak more directly to these 11 flaws associated with the draft drilling plan and 12 the inherent risks associated with fracking. 13 DEC Commissioner Joe Martens has stated that 14 the official public comment period for the 15 administration's draft drilling plan will begin at 16 the end of this month. 17 I would guess, it would probably be the 18 Friday before Labor Day, if past timing of 19 public-comment-periods starts is any indication. 20 Pending the completion -- this is also 21 pending the completion of an analysis of the 22 socioeconomic impacts that will be incorporated into 23 the final plan. 24 It is the Administration's intent to only 25 allow a brief 60-day public comment period on this 1 highly technical 800-plus-page document. 2 A 60-day public-comment period is holy 3 inadequate, and we are asking for a 180-day 4 public-comment period, as many of the people here 5 today have called for -- 6 [Applause.] 7 ROBERT MOORE: -- as have many of the public 8 officials that we are speaking with today. 9 This would allow the public, members of the 10 legislature, and anybody with a vested interest in 11 clean water, clean air, and our local communities, 12 to make sure they have adequate time to review the 13 draft drilling plan. 14 Natural gas has been trapped in these shale 15 deposits for millions of years, so a 180-day comment 16 period is not going to impact the amount of gas that 17 can -- continues to be contained in these shale 18 deposits; nor will it impinge on any reputable 19 company's ability to extract it if New York decided 20 to allow them to move forward. 21 On a separate track from the review of the 22 draft drilling plan, is also -- are the 23 deliberations of the DEC's Fracking Advisory Panel, 24 which as I said before, I'm a member of. 25 It had its first meeting last -- just last 1 Thursday. 2 And the charge of this advisory panel is to: 3 One: Recommend what resources and staffing 4 are necessary to provide proper oversight of the gas 5 industry, should Governor Cuomo decide to move ahead 6 with fracking; 7 Two: Recommend how the state should pay for 8 the dramatic increase in the Department of 9 Environmental Conservation's resources and staffing, 10 to carry out that plan; 11 And, three: Recommend how the state could 12 generate revenues from natural-gas drilling, and 13 pass some of these revenues back to local 14 communities. 15 The Fracking Advisory Panel is being asked to 16 make these recommendations before November 1st. 17 These recommendations will then be used to advise 18 the Governor's 2012-'13 Executive Budget proposal. 19 And, therein lies the major problem with the 20 task before the Advisory Panel. 21 Once an executive budget is proposed in 22 January, probably before the end of the requested 23 180-day public-comment period, and partial review of 24 public comments, and any alteration of the 25 administration's drilling plans, becomes extremely 1 difficult. 2 Drilling, perhaps, becomes inevitable, and 3 the approval of permits for drilling almost 4 predestined. 5 The reason for this, is that, once the state 6 includes a proposal for generating revenues from 7 fracking in the state budget, there is also a plan 8 for spending those monies. 9 If the DEC later determined that there's a 10 need for further study, a need for additional 11 investigation, or that permits could not be issued 12 before a more detailed statutory guidance or 13 regulatory guidance were developed and adopted, the 14 state financial plan would then be in deficit. 15 There would be a hole in the state budget, and 16 budget cuts would then have to be implemented in 17 order to account for the lack of revenue from not 18 issuing fracking permits or not collecting receipts 19 on a production tax or severance tax. 20 Put more simply: If Governor Cuomo's next 21 budget includes revenues associated with fracking, 22 he's simply counting his chickens before they're 23 hatched. 24 Doing so would, in effect, put tremendous 25 pressure on the DEC to simply approve the 1 Administration's drilling plan without further 2 review, without further investigation, without 3 further consideration of policy options. 4 In other words: Planning for the state to 5 make money from fracking could take the decision on 6 whether to allow fracking, as well as, when to allow 7 fracking, and under what conditions fracking might 8 go forward, out of the DEC's hands in many ways. 9 Environmental Advocates has clearly stated 10 this concern to the Fracking Advisory Panel, and 11 feel it is premature and completely inappropriate to 12 make a formal recommendation on fracking revenues 13 until the right policies are in place. 14 We would urge the State Senate to reject any 15 budget proposal that includes state revenues from 16 hydrofracking. 17 The other two questions before the 18 Fracking Advisory panel concern the DEC itself, and 19 how it is funded. 20 It is important to remember that the DEC has 21 fewer staff today than at any time since 22 Governor Mario Cuomo was in office. 23 Since April of 2008, the agency has now lost 24 20 percent of its staff. And its budget for 25 activities, like, field inspections, air- and 1 water-quality monitoring, drinking-water testing, 2 and wildlife studies, and many other activities, 3 that are central to regulating fracking and 4 pollution of all types, as well as just monitoring, 5 the environmental condition, environmental health, 6 of the state, those budgets have been slashed by 7 50 percent. 8 This is an agency in crisis, and unable to 9 fulfill many of its already-existing 10 responsibilities. 11 For this agency to be able to have adequate 12 staff and resources available to oversee a massive 13 expansion of fracking in New York State, and the 14 enormous expansion of DEC responsibilities that 15 would accompany it, it would not surprise me if DEC 16 would need a short-term doubling of its resources. 17 Last week, the Fracking Advisory Panel 18 received a briefing from agency staff on the scope 19 of the potential increased responsibilities, should 20 the Administration's drilling plan be finalized. 21 And, the scale of the task before them is daunting 22 to say the least. 23 Hundreds of new DEC staff would need to be 24 hired in the next two to three years in order to 25 meet the projected demands for drilling permits. 1 On the technology front, the agency is using 2 antiquated databases and some of the best technology 3 from the 1980s for tracking and issuing pollution 4 permits of all types. 5 And, these would need to be completely 6 replaced in order to handle the magnified workload 7 that would be presented if we moved forward with 8 fracking. 9 And, the agency does not have the equipment 10 or manpower necessary to monitor air- or 11 water-quality impacts associated with fracking. 12 Indeed, it does not have adequate resources to 13 monitor the current condition of the state's air 14 quality and water quality. 15 I could go on and on with examples of just 16 how unprepared the DEC is to take on this task at 17 present. 18 And, this is but one of many agencies that 19 needs to oversee aspects of hydrofracking. 20 The Public Service Commission is going to see 21 an enormous jump in proposals for the citing of 22 natural-gas pipelines. 23 We've had absolutely no discussion of what 24 additional resources that agency is needing to get. 25 The Department of Transportation, we already 1 know, is looking at very severe problems with 2 maintaining roads and bridge infrastructure in the 3 state because of increased truck traffic associated 4 exclusively with hydrofracking. 5 That information was displayed in a memo from 6 the Department of Transportation that received press 7 coverage not too long ago. 8 There are many agencies that need to be 9 brought into this process, and to the best of our 10 knowledge, haven't even been engaged yet. 11 It's imperative that Governor Cuomo also look 12 more carefully at the impacts fracking would have on 13 the workload of a broader state and local government 14 agencies. 15 In closing, let me remind those here today, 16 that Governor Cuomo has committed to the people of 17 New York State that fracking would only be allowed 18 if it could be done safely. 19 He did not say that it would be done as 20 safely as DEC could regulate it with its current 21 resources or with available resources. 22 He did not say it would be done as safely as 23 was cost-effective for the gas industry. 24 He said, he would ensure that New Yorkers 25 would be safe. 1 However, the process that New York is about 2 to embark upon does not seem to be completely 3 consistent with the Governor's earlier pledge. 4 A case in point, is that administration is 5 now proceeding before the release of a nationwide 6 U.S. EPA study on fracking's water-quality impacts. 7 That study will not be completed for at least 8 another year, according to officials from U.S. EPA's 9 regional administrative office, which I talked to on 10 Friday. Yet, the Administration is pressing ahead 11 without the benefit of this science. 12 And this completely contradicts the 13 Governor's assurances that science would indeed 14 guide this process. 15 Moreover, as I stated earlier, the State is 16 already seeking to determine what revenues it might 17 bring in from fracking, and what portion of those 18 revenues might be shared with local governments. 19 This is clearly putting the cart before the 20 horse, as it is entirely inappropriate to be 21 planning on revenues coming into State coffer's 22 before we have completed the process of determining, 23 if fracking will be allowed at all, and under what 24 conditions it might be allowed to move forward. 25 We have exactly one chance to get this right. 1 Every state that has preceded New York and 2 allowed fracking to move forward has failed to get 3 it right. 4 For New York State, there is nothing to be 5 gained, but there is much to be lost, by rushing to 6 a conclusion and opening up our borders to fracking. 7 I'd like to thank the Senator for convening 8 this meeting. 9 And, thank you all for attending as well. 10 [Applause.] 11 SENATOR BALL: We'll open it up to questions. 12 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 13 Rob, I also share your position that we 14 should extend the comment period. But, even more 15 concerning to me, is an understanding that the DEC 16 has indicated they would begin the process of 17 approving fracking permits before it completes its 18 formal rule-making process. 19 Can you help me understand why they would do 20 that? 21 ROBERT MOORE: Yeah, it's a bit of a 22 procedural question. 23 Originally, the Department of Environmental 24 Conservation intended to issue permits strictly 25 under its authority under the State Environmental 1 Quality Review Act. It would issue an environmental 2 impact statement, and then issue permits in 3 accordance with that impact statement. 4 However, in the new drilling plan that was 5 made available in July, the agency has indicated 6 that it will issue permits under that impact 7 statement once it's completed, but it also 8 recognizes the need to develop formal regulations. 9 This creates, in legal terms, what could be 10 an unequal playing field. 11 The public could be served differently by the 12 permits that were issued under the impact statement 13 than the permits issued under the regulations. 14 The industry could be served differently. 15 They might get a more stringent deal under the 16 regulations than they would get under the impact 17 statement. You know, the regulations might provide 18 for more environmental protections than the impact 19 statement currently does. 20 The Agency has not been able to tell us what 21 aspects of the impact statement would be codified in 22 regulations, and what parts would just simply be 23 part of a generic permit. 24 So, this seems to be a big problem that I 25 think the agency is going to need to address. 1 What they should do, is simply develop, over 2 the next year or two, a full regulatory proposal, 3 that's informed by the impact statement, before even 4 considering issuing permits. 5 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 6 Can I ask one more question? 7 SENATOR BALL: Yes. 8 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 9 Thank you. Just one more question. I know 10 we have so many testifiers today. 11 So, you talked about, and most, I think, of 12 us here in this room understand, that the growing 13 concern is the hazardous wastewater that comes out 14 of the hydrofracking process. 15 And despite the problems we're seeing with 16 toxic wastewater and solid wastes across the 17 country, the State is still proposing that 18 contaminant-laden, potentially radioactive drilling 19 and fracturing fluids, mud-drilled cuttings, pit 20 liners, flowback water, and produced brine be 21 classified as "non-hazardous industrial waste." 22 And I'm just wondering, how is that 23 nonhazardous? 24 ROBERT MOORE: I -- you would have to ask 25 somebody at the DEC how they came to that 1 conclusion. 2 I completely agree with you, Senator, that, 3 you know, these are materials that should not be 4 disposed of as non-hazardous waste. 5 SENATOR BALL: Well, Rob, let's just get to 6 the point. I mean, what's going on here? You know 7 firsthand; right? 8 At the end of the day, you have an industry 9 that was able to benefit from a Halliburton loophole 10 in the previous administration. 11 Now, in this Administration, under Obama at 12 the highest levels, they seem to have, you know, 13 great hooks as well. The industry doesn't even feel 14 like they have to show up to hearings. 15 What's happening with this governor? What's 16 happening with the Second Floor? And, what's 17 happening with the Administration? 18 Why are they able to just -- if you look at 19 the loopholes that have been opened up -- and I can 20 drill down that question that was just asked by 21 Senator Krueger -- is about eight hours of deep 22 questions that should be asked in this state, and 23 need to be answered, before we can even get close to 24 saying that this can be done safely. 25 So, from our perspective: You must have 1 inside knowledge. That, this is your job; you do 2 this every single day. This is your issue; this is 3 Issue Number 1. 4 Are they getting a free pass here? 5 What's going on with the industry, and the 6 executive branch in this state? 7 ROBERT MOORE: Well, first off, Senator, I 8 appreciate you pumping up my credibility before I 9 answer. 10 [Laughter.] 11 SENATOR BALL: Number 1. 12 ROBERT MOORE: I really do appreciate that. 13 Second off, you know, I have become quite 14 fatigued by hearing the industry's calls for, 15 they're losing money because fracking isn't 16 occurring in New York State. 17 I've become quite fatigued by landowners who 18 are talking about: We're losing money because we 19 don't have fracking going forward in New York State. 20 The fact of the matter is, the gas industry 21 has gotten exactly what it asked for, when it got 22 Congress, in 2005, to pass the Energy Policy Act, 23 and exempt them from federal Clean Water Act 24 standards and federal Safe Drinking Water Act 25 standards. 1 They did that, knowing, that they would have 2 a much friendlier reception from state regulatory 3 agencies that would -- 4 SENATOR BALL: Can you just back up on that 5 point? Because, I know most of the people here 6 understand it, but, for the media that's here, 7 explain why we're here, as State representatives, 8 drilling down into these discussions, and asking for 9 answers that should have been answered at a federal 10 level. 11 Go back, and explain exactly that Halliburton 12 loophole, and why, state after state, they've been 13 able to roll out the red carpet. And, New York's 14 next on the chopping block. 15 ROBERT MOORE: Sure. 16 In 2005, Congress was -- passed the 17 Energy Policy Act, which, in addition to giving -- 18 well, it did a lot of bad things for the energy 19 policy of this nation. But, one of the things it 20 did, was it exempted the natural-gas industry from 21 controls that had been in place, since the 1970s, 22 for adhering to water-quality standards, discharge 23 standards, for their activities. 24 It basically removed U.S. EPA oversight, and 25 the delegated oversight that's granted to states 1 under the federal Clean Water Act and under the 2 federal Safe Drinking Water Act. 3 The reason the industry wanted to do that is 4 not very hard to figure out. It means less 5 regulation, less oversight, less scrutiny, of their 6 operations. 7 They also knew that it meant that regulation 8 of their industry would then, basically, be only at 9 the state's discretion. 10 If you look back in 2005, where the areas of 11 most intense natural-gas drilling, you find it in 12 pretty resource -- you know, states that have 13 history of being close to the resource-extraction 14 industry: Wyoming, Louisiana, Texas, a little bit of 15 Arkansas. 16 So, they knew that they would get a much 17 better deal from those state regulatory agencies. 18 That they -- there was already a relationship there. 19 They wouldn't have to get pushed around too much, or 20 adhere to a -- be held to a higher standard. If 21 anything, they would be held to a far lower 22 standard. 23 Their plan worked really well, right up to 24 the point they got to New York State, where they 25 don't -- where New York doesn't have such a history 1 with the oil and gas industry. We don't have any 2 coal mining here, to speak of. We just don't have a 3 history of extractive industries, so we weren't 4 quite, I guess, as easily taken in as Pennsylvania 5 was, also, with a long history of extractive 6 industries. 7 So, the industry, as I said before, got 8 exactly what it wanted; it got a pushover in all the 9 other states. 10 But, New York, being one to question these 11 things a little more seriously, has given a lot more 12 scrutiny of the industry, and is now moving -- had 13 been moving in a direction towards tighter 14 enforcement. 15 You know, in the last couple of months, it 16 is -- it seems that the Governor's resolve may be 17 weakening. 18 The Governor has stated before, that, this 19 would only happen if it could be done safely. 20 Suddenly -- the Governor had also been very 21 careful, I think, in the campaign, and in his first 22 few months in office, of making sure that the DEC 23 was left to ponder this, and to consider the 24 alternatives, at its own pace. 25 That changed in May, when a memo from the 1 Second Floor was found, to, basically, be directing 2 the agency to -- [snaps fingers] -- kind of, wrap it 3 up by July. 4 And that's -- and those events have brought 5 us to where we are today; with the DEC proposing to 6 put a draft environmental impact statement out at 7 the end of this month; and, then, trying to rush, 8 get some very serious budget recommendations in for 9 the Governor's next budget. 10 SENATOR BALL: Okay. 11 Okay, thank you very much. 12 Thanks, Rob. 13 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 14 [Applause.] 15 SENATOR BALL: Dr. Barth. 16 DR. JANNETTE BARTH: Thank you. 17 My name is Jannette Barth. I'm a 18 Ph.D. economist, and I have been conducting economic 19 analyses and developing economic models for 20 35 years. 21 Thank you, Senator Ball, for organizing this 22 hearing. 23 The gas industry claims that gas drilling in 24 the Marcellus Shale will bring great economic 25 prosperity to Upstate New York. 1 The gas industry is seriously misleading the 2 public and our politicians. They ignore costs and 3 exaggerate benefits. 4 There some are New Yorkers who desperately 5 want to believe that shale-gas drilling will be a 6 panacea to all of the economic woes in 7 Upstate New York. 8 In reality, the region is likely to be even 9 worse off in the long run if we allow drilling in 10 the Marcellus Shale. 11 And, remember, that the Utica Shale, which 12 extends to this side of the Hudson, will be next. 13 I have reviewed the frequently quoted 14 economic impact studies, and I will explain the 15 multiple reasons why the conclusions from these 16 studies are exaggerated. 17 Before discussing the studies, however, there 18 are several important facts to know. 19 Many of the jobs created are short-term and 20 part-time. Many of these workers are imported from 21 other states on a transient, non-permanent basis. 22 Some estimates in Pennsylvania, are that as 23 many as 70 percent of the Marcellus workers are from 24 out of state. Such transient workers send their 25 wages to their families in their home states, to be 1 spent there, improving those economies, not here in 2 New York. 3 The studies that claim a positive economic 4 impact from gas drilling tend to be biased, dated, 5 seriously flawed, or inapplicable to our region. 6 The studies funded by the gas industry ignore 7 declines in other industries that are likely to 8 result from a combination of pollution, a shift to 9 an industrial landscape, and crowding out. 10 Examples of industries likely to be 11 negatively affected include agriculture, tourism, 12 organic farming, wine-making, hunting, fishing, and 13 river recreation. 14 A thorough evaluation would include the 15 impact analysis of potential declines in other 16 industries. 17 The industry-funded studies ignore the fact 18 that there will be damage to infrastructure, 19 especially roads and bridges. 20 It appears that the taxpayers of Arkansas 21 will have to pay more than $400 million of the 22 road-repair costs resulting from drilling there. 23 The cost of drinking-water contamination and 24 land, stream, and air pollution are ignored in the 25 economic impact studies. The cost of mitigation is 1 ignored. And, so is the cost in terms of health. 2 The economic costs of treating birth defects 3 and serious diseases are not reflected in any of the 4 economic impact studies. 5 Costs to communities are ignored, including 6 costs due to the increase demand on hospitals, 7 police, fire departments, and emergency health 8 services. 9 Likely declines in property values are 10 ignored. 11 Reports indicate that some banks are not 12 giving mortgages for properties with a gas lease, or 13 even for properties nearby a leased land. 14 How can one sell a house if a buyer can't get 15 a mortgage, or if the house has contaminated 16 drinking water? 17 Also, some insurance companies are refusing 18 to issue policies on homes with gas wells. 19 It was reported that, in Wise County, Texas, 20 where gas drilling takes place in the Barnett Shale, 21 the central real estate appraisal district decreases 22 values of homes by 75 percent when a gas well sits 23 on the land. 24 Remember, that if property values decline, so 25 do property-tax revenues. 1 The industry-funded studies take myopic view. 2 They don't address what happens when the gas is gone 3 and we may be left with contaminated drinking water, 4 pollution, an industrial landscape, a population 5 with failing health, and vanished employment 6 opportunities. 7 These studies use data that may be highly 8 biased, as the data are provided by the gas 9 industry. And they use a technique called 10 "input/output analysis," which is not an appropriate 11 standalone economic-modeling technique in this case. 12 While there are many factors that may 13 distinguish one county from another, I took a look 14 at some of the measures of economic health in 15 gas-intensive New York State counties. 16 I've looked at actual data for the top ten 17 gas-producing counties in New York State, for the 18 period from 2006 to 2008. 19 This is, of course, conventional vertical gas 20 drilling. 21 I compared the top ten gas-producing counties 22 to five neighboring counties without gas wells. 23 The gas-intensive counties are not better off 24 than the non-gas-drilling counties when you look at 25 the number of families below poverty level, the 1 median household income, or unemployment rates. 2 It appears that the industry has been 3 exaggerating estimates of gas production expected 4 from shale. 5 Independent experts have shown that decline 6 curves for shale-gas extraction are much steeper 7 than industry claims. 8 In reality, the vast majority of the gas is 9 produced in the very first year or two. So, the 10 years of production, per well, are fewer in reality 11 than what is assumed in the economic-impact studies. 12 Analysts have also claimed that reserves 13 themselves may be overestimated by a substantial 14 factor. 15 One analyst stated that the gas companies may 16 have borrowed a huge amount of money, based on 17 reserves, so they cannot pull out of the ground at a 18 commercially viable cost. 19 Some analysts have gone so far as to liken 20 this to the mortgage-backed-securities bubble. 21 So, if assumptions of levels of gas 22 production and the number of years of production are 23 greatly exaggerated, and put into an economic model, 24 then it is quite obvious that the projections coming 25 out of that model, such as employment levels, income 1 levels, and tax revenue, will also be greatly 2 exaggerated. 3 The economic-impact studies coming out of 4 Penn State University have used the exaggerated 5 gas-production numbers provided by the industry; 6 and, so, their conclusions are likewise exaggerated. 7 The Marcellus Shale Coalition, a lobbying 8 organization for the gas industry, frequently quotes 9 the Penn State studies, which they funded. 10 The Coalition claimed that 88,000 new jobs 11 were created in Pennsylvania in 2010 due to 12 Marcellus Shale drilling. 13 Publicly available Pennsylvania data showed 14 that total job creation in the entire state was only 15 65,600. And, half of these jobs were in education 16 and health, and the other -- and in leisure and 17 hospitality. 18 The grandiose job creation claimed by the 19 industry is not at all consistent with data from 20 unbiased publicly available sources. 21 Official employment numbers out of 22 Pennsylvania, as reported by the Keystone Research 23 Center, show that the Marcellus core industries and 24 ancillary industries, when taken together, created 25 less than 6,000 net jobs between fourth quarter '07 1 and fourth quarter 2010. That's less than 6,000 new 2 net jobs in 3 years. 3 So, again, the industry continues to mislead 4 the public in order to paint a rosy picture so that 5 they can help -- so that they can reap high profits 6 at the expense of our environment, our public 7 health, and our economy. 8 Independent, unbiased economic analysis 9 reaches vastly different conclusions than do the 10 industry-funded studies. 11 Headwaters Economics concluded that western 12 counties that were not focused on fossil-fuel 13 extraction experienced higher growth rates, more 14 diverse economies, better educated populations, 15 a smaller gap between high- and low-income 16 households, and more retirement and investment 17 income. 18 An academic study published in 19 "Sociological Inquiry" concluded that unemployment 20 and poverty worsened in mining counties in 21 non metropolitan regions. It found that the highest 22 levels of long-term poverty are in places where 23 there was once a thriving extractive industry. 24 Very recently, a peer-reviewed article in the 25 academic journal "Ecological Economics" concludes 1 that the industry-funded economic impact studies of 2 shale-gas extraction are overstating the economic 3 impacts, and it is very important to have accurate 4 estimates for the functioning of the state economy. 5 Dr. Christopherson of Cornell University says 6 that the gas industry is a speculative, high-risk, 7 short-term industry. And that the shale play is 8 likely to create a short-term boom, followed by a 9 long-term bust. 10 The oil and gas industry has a record of 11 booms and busts. Extractive industries are known 12 for the boom-bust cycle. 13 Nobody disagrees that there will be 14 short-term jobs. 15 Short-term jobs created will include: Jobs 16 on drilling sites. And, ancillary jobs, such as 17 truck drivers, welders, road workers, and hotel and 18 restaurant workers. 19 The questions are: 20 How many are long-term, full-time jobs? 21 How many are good jobs? 22 How many of these jobs will be filled by 23 local residents? 24 And, how long will these jobs last? 25 Also, with hydrofracking, we will see the 1 building of a vast network of pipelines; gas-company 2 gathering lines and transmission lines. 3 I observed the spiderweb of pipelines when I 4 visited Bradford County, Pennsylvania. 5 It has been pointed out, in both Texas and in 6 Bradford County, that the potential of future 7 development is destroyed in many communities because 8 building cannot take place on top of or too close to 9 pipelines. 10 Large winding spiderwebs of gas lines from 11 drilling pads to transmission lines may very well 12 prevent our communities from building and developing 13 into the future. 14 The reality is, that the only parties likely 15 to benefit in the long run, are the gas companies, 16 and a very few lucky landowners. 17 The economic impact is unlikely to be worth 18 the risk of the potentially severe, and in some 19 cases, irreversible consequences, in the form of 20 health, environmental, and infrastructure 21 degradation. 22 Gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale may well 23 result in a net negative economic impact for 24 New York. 25 Thank you. 1 [Applause.] 2 SENATOR BALL: If I can just -- I'm honestly 3 going to ask, (a) I need my phone so I can track 4 time. That's number one. 5 Number two, I need everybody to keep it to a 6 minimum. And that means, no clapping, no noise, so 7 we can get through it. 8 [Groans from audience members.] 9 SENATOR BALL: Well, folks, we're going to be 10 professional. We're going to hold a hearing. It's 11 not a pep rally. And, we need to hear, and move 12 forward, to take full respect of everybody's time. 13 I think that's very simple to ask. 14 Okay? Thank you. 15 Ma'am? 16 SENATOR KRUEGER: You know, what, Dr. Barth? 17 I think your testimony is so critically important. 18 And, I'm going to follow up, rather than take the 19 time here at the hearing. 20 But, I will just say, that the one argument 21 that is constantly brought to me when I make 22 explicit that I don't think New York State should go 23 down this road, is that I'm not understanding the 24 economics of what a win this will be for our state. 25 And, so, I just want to thank you for doing 1 independent analysis here for us today, about how 2 the industry studies, arguing that it's a win for 3 the State of New York, can, in fact, be refuted with 4 science. 5 That is incredibly important. 6 So, thank you for being here today. 7 DR. JANNETTE BARTH: Well, thank you for 8 saying that. 9 I do think that the big problem we have here, 10 is that the industry has a lot of money, and they 11 buy PR advertising, they make political 12 contributions, they spend a lot of lobbying. And 13 they also buy economic studies. 14 SENATOR BALL: On the point with the -- what 15 we've seen, at least in Pennsylvania, on my brief 16 tour with the landmen, and their ability to go out 17 into these communities and wrap up property well in 18 advance, what is the activity that we're seeing on 19 tying up property, at this point, in New York? 20 DR. JANNETTE BARTH: I know that, at one 21 point -- I may not be the most knowledgeable on 22 this, but I do know that, at one point, there was a 23 lot of activity with landmen coming. And, then, 24 when the moratorium started, the landmen kind of 25 slowed down a bit in New York. 1 And I think there are other people here that 2 would -- could answer that question better than I. 3 SENATOR BALL: And, then, on the 4 infrastructure front, have we also seen -- I know, 5 in some instances in Pennsylvania, the industry 6 itself is paying for the maintenance in various 7 infrastructure in some of the local areas. 8 It seems like, you know, you see where 9 there's devastation, on a microlevel, whether it be, 10 communities, or even on individual properties, but 11 the industry itself also seems to be pretty good at 12 going into a community -- and I'm not going to -- 13 you know, I have to use my terminology properly -- 14 but, investing money in those communities, and 15 making friends amongst, you know, local town boards 16 or local small businesses. 17 We've seen one instance, where a local 18 community had their water contaminated. And then 19 they actually had a group of local small businesses 20 that ran a PR campaign against them, as if they were 21 the bad guys for having their water contaminated. 22 Do you see the industry itself actually 23 investing in local infrastructure? 24 DR. JANNETTE BARTH: Well, yes. 25 I visited, I had a good long tour, of 1 Bradford County. And I did see the industry -- 2 claims, that the industry was paying for road 3 repair. 4 And, I think that is wonderful. 5 However, it's still -- we're still in the 6 very short term in Pennsylvania. And I think we 7 should wait, and observe, what happens over the long 8 term. 9 We know that Arkansas has had drilling longer 10 than Pennsylvania. And as I said in my remarks, the 11 taxpayers are getting stuck with over $400 million 12 worth of repairs on state roads. And that doesn't 13 even include county and local roads. 14 SENATOR BALL: And that's direct from the 15 industry, that $400 million? That's been calculated 16 as an impact -- 17 DR. JANNETTE BARTH: That, I saw in a 18 newspaper article in Arkansas. 19 The report from -- the total damage reported 20 from the Arkansas State Highway Department was 21 $455 million. 22 And, Arkansas -- which I might note, has a 23 severance tax, and we do not -- was not even able to 24 raise enough money from the industry to pay for all 25 of that road damage. 1 SENATOR BALL: And, then, on the -- you 2 talked a little bit about individuals who have 3 fracking platforms or activity on their property, 4 not being able to borrow against a property. 5 We heard some of that in our tour, and just 6 in our communications. 7 Has that been verified? That, the industry 8 borrowed, something like, $14 billion. And 9 individuals, private property owners, have gone to 10 the bank and been told that they can't borrow 11 because the industry itself has already borrowed 12 against their property? 13 Has that been -- 14 DR. JANNETTE BARTH: I would love to have 15 that source, if you could send it to me. 16 [Laughter.] 17 DR. JANNETTE BARTH: I haven't seen that 18 myself, but I have seen various reports from -- you 19 know, quotes from various bank people, that say 20 they're not willing to give mortgages on some of 21 these properties, to homeowners. 22 I haven't seen the information about the 23 industry borrowing. 24 SENATOR BALL: Okay, thank you so much. 25 DR. JANNETTE BARTH: Thank you. 1 SENATOR BALL: Next, we have Craig and 2 Julie Saunter. 3 And, Victoria. 4 Victoria? 5 VICTORIA SWITZER: Uh-huh. 6 SENATOR BALL: Okay. 7 We are providing lunch, but -- 8 [Laughter.] 9 VICTORIA SWITZER: Good morning. 10 My name is Victoria Switzer. I am a retired 11 school teacher, currently engaged as an accidental 12 activist. 13 I begin with my most recent experience with 14 Senator Ball, whom we had the honor of meeting with 15 few week ago in an informal setting. Residents of 16 the now infamous Dimock met with the Senator. 17 We shared our information and offered our 18 stories. We did this out of our concern for others: 19 for New York. 20 It is our hope, that by exposing our tragedy, 21 others will not succumb to our fate. 22 Senator Ball listened carefully to each of 23 our voices. 24 Personally, I believe him to be seriously 25 concerned about the downside of gas drilling. 1 He asked insightful questions, and appeared 2 to be genuinely distressed by our anguish. 3 It wasn't until he asked, "None of you 4 environmentalists before the drilling, were you?" 5 that I felt exasperated and overwhelmed again. 6 It's been a long haul in Dimock. 7 When did our concern for the environment and 8 the protection of the quality of the natural 9 environment become something bad? 10 When did it become un-American to want to 11 preserve clean water, air, forests, and wildlife? 12 The environment is not a place we visit. It 13 is our home. It is precious, and it is finite. 14 We are either its caretaker or its taker. 15 Or, possibly, with thorough investigation, an 16 intelligent balance of both. 17 Already, there are numerous studies available 18 for you to read. 19 The University of Pittsburgh Graduate School 20 of Public Health produced its results in August of 21 2010. 22 Carnegie Mellon University and 23 Pittsburgh Sewer Authority found gas drilling 24 contaminants in drinking water, in their 25 April 19, 2011, study. 1 Documented water contamination is not a 2 fairytale dreamed up by those environmentalists. If 3 you want to see the information, it is out there. 4 The number of families existing on 5 replacement water in drill zones is a bit harder to 6 find. 7 The water buffalo, and not the 8 African mammal, is alive and well in Bradford, 9 Tioga, Washington, Susquehanna Counties, and more. 10 Every day the numbers grow. No fear of 11 extinction of this animal. 12 Pennsylvania has thrown caution to the wind, 13 and is bent on repeating the same destructive 14 behavior of the Coal Era. 15 Our fate is sealed. 16 Our elected officials have decided to allow 17 the gas industry to control the outcome instead of 18 the state leading the development of the 19 Marcellus Shale. 20 The tail wags the dog in Pennsylvania, and 21 that dog don't hunt. 22 We have opened our doors; more exact, our 23 woods, our streams, our communities, to an industry 24 that has been reckless and arrogant. 25 To date, we gave it away. 1 Seventy-one natural-gas wells are in 2 production in our area around my home. 3 Of the 43 gas wells that have been tested in 4 the Dimock area, 22 have been determined, by DEP, to 5 be defective, insufficient, improperly cemented or 6 cased, or other defect. 7 SENATOR BALL: Can you repeat that number? 8 VICTORIA SWITZER: Of the 43 gas wells that 9 have been tested in the Dimock area, 22 have been 10 determined, by "DEP," our Department of 11 Environmental Protection, to be defective, 12 insufficient, improperly cemented or cased, or other 13 defect. 14 I ask: Would you care to enter into a 15 partnership with an industry with that track record? 16 Flip a coin, 50/50, we drill and you don't 17 drink. 18 Acceptable odds, collateral damage, just part 19 of the deal. 20 I think not. And, I think you would not care 21 to participate in that experiment either. 22 In every direction from my home, families are 23 living on bottled or replacement water. A few have 24 accepted treatment systems. 25 This is the water, after a treatment system. 1 [Speaker demonstration.] 2 CRAIG SAUNTER: Most of them, if not all, are 3 still drinking bottled water. 4 In my home, we use bottled water for 5 drinking, cooking, hand-washables, hand-washing, 6 pets, plants, and a removal of contacts, 7 teeth-brushing. We have our own filtration system 8 for shower and laundry. And, live with much anxiety 9 concerning what is in that water, daily. 10 We have seen water tested show 11 ethylene glycol and toluene, and two or three 12 unknown chemicals. 13 Our methane spiked to nearly 12 percent, and 14 has since receded. 15 Methane is the least of our worries. 16 A chemist told me, the chemicals in my water 17 in April of last year, would defat my skin. 18 And I do not mean in a good way. 19 [Laughter.] 20 VICTORIA SWITZER: Recent testing does not 21 show these chemicals. 22 The gas company pronounces my water as safe 23 to drink. 24 Does that give me piece of mind? Not at all. 25 It only makes me wonder: When? 1 To be safe, we would have to test daily. 2 Fractured rocks have been fractured. 3 When the gas company returns, will we be 4 safe? 5 New York has an opportunity, and a challenge. 6 You can determine your fate. You can decide which 7 way this goes. 8 You can protect your beautiful forests and 9 lakes. You can secure the drinking water of your 10 residents. 11 You can tell the private gas companies that 12 this is not Texas. This is, your home, your 13 environment, and at no cost will you allow them to 14 exploit it. 15 You will not get any second chances. There 16 is no restoration of the aquifer. 17 There is not a gas lease in the world that 18 tells you how they will bring back your drinking 19 water. It is a myth. 20 If you believe that drinking water should be 21 a once-a-week delivery, then you have truly 22 forgotten what made this nation great: our 23 resources. 24 It is your duty to protect your state. 25 My state has failed me. 1 Please do not forfeit your most precious 2 resource: water. 3 The first official hearing I attended was in 4 2008, with Republican Senate majority, led by 5 Senator Mary Jo White. It was not a fact-finding 6 hearing. It was simply a form for the gas industry 7 to threaten the elected officials that they would go 8 elsewhere if we made them follow too many rules. 9 They whined about our regulations. 10 A gas-industry spokeswoman held up a thick 11 pile of papers for proof: It would be too hard to 12 drill in PA, and they would have to go back 13 to West Virginia. 14 It was a debacle I will never forget. 15 I sat in the back of the room, and watched 16 the gas boys high-five each over their good fortune 17 to find such an accommodating state. 18 This hearing, I believe, is very different. 19 I believe you are here to learn more about the 20 dangers of gas extraction. 21 I pray you are serious about getting the 22 information you need to determine whether the risks 23 outweigh the benefits. 24 25 1 SENATOR BALL: Thank you. 2 Victoria, if we can -- if I can just -- 3 because I think it's important, if we can just drill 4 down on a couple of things that you said, if you 5 don't mind? Is that okay? 6 When we're talking about -- well, first, do 7 you have fracking platform on your property? 8 VICTORIA SWITZER: No. 9 SENATOR BALL: Any act- -- so you're -- 10 VICTORIA SWITZER: I have three gas wells, 11 one around me, not on my land. They border me. 12 I have one, 710 feet; one, a little over than 13 1,300 feet; and another one, a little over 14 1,400 feet. 15 There are 63 wells in the area. I can walk 16 to all of those wells. 17 SENATOR BALL: And, Craig and Julie, it's 18 same thing. I know you're going to speak. 19 But, it's the same thing; you don't have an 20 active fracking platform, or any platform, on your 21 property. All your water has been contaminated. 22 Where do you get your water from? 23 I know you went into detail, but, where are 24 you getting your water from right now? 25 VICTORIA SWITZER: Water is delivered every 1 week by a subcontractor for the gas company. 2 SENATOR BALL: The gas company that 3 contaminated your water is now delivering water, 4 through a subcontractor, for your families to drink? 5 VICTORIA SWITZER: Yes. 6 SENATOR BALL: And it's in -- it's in a 7 huge -- explain exactly what a "water buffalo" is. 8 VICTORIA SWITZER: I don't have a 9 water buffalo in my yard. 10 I have all bottled water: large containers, 11 small containers. 12 We didn't take the water buffalo, simply, in 13 the beginning, because our problem was methane. 14 Later, when we had additional contaminants, 15 we requested one. And we haven't received one yet. 16 So, we are playing a serious, dangerous game, 17 with showering and laundry at our home. 18 SENATOR BALL: And the industry has -- have 19 they taken responsibility for contaminating your 20 water? 21 VICTORIA SWITZER: No, they have not taken 22 responsibility. 23 In fact, I'll give you the consent order 24 here. 25 They deny the findings of DEP. They refuse 1 to believe them. They will not comply with the 2 consent orders. And, they are getting away with it 3 in my hometown. 4 SENATOR BALL: So, they deny responsibility, 5 but they are, just happen to be in the 6 water-delivery business. 7 VICTORIA SWITZER: Well, you know, push comes 8 to shove, we kind of forced that issue when we went 9 public. 10 We refused to be quiet, and that's why we got 11 water -- 12 SENATOR BALL: Your water was tested in 13 advance of that platform being put in? 14 VICTORIA SWITZER: Oh, before drilling? 15 SENATOR BALL: Before the contamination. 16 VICTORIA SWITZER: I had a drill -- i had a 17 pre-drill done. Spur of the moment, I asked the gas 18 company for a water test, I heard, because they were 19 going to start drilling the following week. 20 And Penn State had said: You need a 21 pre-drill. 22 And I called the gas company, and said: 23 Look, I need a pre-drill. 24 And they said: No, no. You're just a 25 worrier. You don't need a water test unless the gas 1 well is going to be on your property. 2 SENATOR BALL: Oh. 3 VICTORIA SWITZER: I did have a test done. 4 It wasn't full-scope, because, at that time, in 5 2008, was it, we didn't know what to have tested. 6 And that's still the problem; because, I can 7 have my water tested, but things aren't going to 8 just show up. I have to know what I'm testing for. 9 I have to know I'm testing for "that," to get that 10 test done. 11 SENATOR BALL: And in the instance of 12 fracking fluid, it's proprietary information? 13 VICTORIA SWITZER: Absolutely. 14 SENATOR BALL: Like McDonald's "special 15 sauce." 16 VICTORIA SWITZER: Coke. 17 SENATOR BALL: Yeah. 18 Okay, thanks. 19 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: I just wanted -- 20 when you say that it -- what is being delivered is, 21 bottled water? Or, is that being delivered, or -- 22 VICTORIA SWITZER: These are the containers 23 that the water comes. Every week, the truck pulls 24 in, and the boxes come out. 25 They will give us as much as we want. I 1 never run out, you know. 2 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Okay. 3 VICTORIA SWITZER: They will, willingly, 4 bring the water weekly. 5 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: But, is it the 6 water that you've showed? 7 VICTORIA SWITZER: It comes in these -- these 8 are -- this is what I wanted. I use these 9 containers -- 10 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Right. 11 VICTORIA SWITZER: -- because they were -- 12 feel -- 13 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: No, I understand. 14 But, when you shook them, things happened. 15 VICTORIA SWITZER: Oh, yeah. 16 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: I mean, is that 17 what you get? 18 VICTORIA SWITZER: This is not the water 19 they're bringing me now. 20 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Okay. 21 VICTORIA SWITZER: This was my water last 22 year -- 23 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Okay, before they 24 started -- 25 VICTORIA SWITZER: Yeah. 1 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: -- bringing you the 2 water that they're bringing you, just because they 3 want to bring you water. Not because there's -- 4 VICTORIA SWITZER: They want to. 5 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: -- anything 6 particularly wrong. 7 Okay. Thank you. 8 SENATOR BALL: Craig, Julie. 9 CRAIG SAUNTER: Hi. My name is 10 Craig Saunter. This is my wife, Julie. We live in 11 Carter Road in Dimock. And, most of you people know 12 where Carter Road is in Dimock. 13 It's also known as "ground zero" for 14 water-well contamination. 15 We had our water well contaminated in -- 16 September 11th of '08. And, you know, you can't 17 forget a date like that: 9/11. 18 We moved there in April of '08. So, it 19 wasn't very long after that, a landman approached 20 us, and we signed a lease. And, you know, 976 feet 21 away was the well. 22 Within a month of drilling, we had a 23 contaminated well. 24 Now, our contamination came during the 25 drilling process of a vertical well. Not fracking, 1 and not a even horizontal well. So, you know, 2 things can happen even before the fracking begins. 3 Now, we aren't experts; we're not water 4 experts, we're not hydrogeologists. All we are, are 5 victims of circumstances that happened, you know, 6 when things go wrong. And that's all we are. 7 You know, we're not experts in the field, but 8 we are experts in living with this for so long. 9 Almost three years now. 10 And they -- their response for Cabot was, to 11 purge my well. 500-feet deep, and they wanted to 12 drain it, to see if it would clear up the well. 13 SENATOR BALL: And Cabot's the -- a drilling 14 company? 15 CRAIG SAUNTER: Cabot is the drilling company 16 in the area, yes. 17 SENATOR BALL: And they were invited here 18 today, just so you know. 19 CRAIG SAUNTER: Oh! Okay. Hmm. 20 Well, they wanted to purge my well. 21 And I told them, "Don't do it. It's 500-feet 22 deep. An old well pump, and everything." 23 They said, "Don't worry about it. We'll buy 24 you a new one." 25 "Don't do it." 1 I come home, I had no water. 2 They purged it anyway, without my consent. 3 So, now I have no water in the house. 4 So, they scrambled around. Got a roll-back 5 truck, put a water buffalo on it, and sat it in my 6 front yard. 7 Now, what kind of spectacle is that for 8 people that don't even have any problem with their 9 well water in the area, and, all of a sudden, boom, 10 there was a big truck sitting in your front yard, 11 with a water -- you know, with a buffalo on it. 12 So, that's how we lived until the water 13 started to freeze up. 14 One morning I got in the shower, it was 15 froze. Had to go outside and kick it to get it 16 going. 17 And, right after that is when they put 18 filtration system in our house. 19 We used that filtration system for almost a 20 year. 21 Now, it was an add-on system. They added 22 this on, they added that on, until, finally, you 23 know, almost a year later, they finally took it off 24 because it was no -- it wasn't doing the job. 25 My wife ran out of water -- spring water for 1 the dogs. 2 Gave it to the dogs, and they threw up 3 immediately. 4 Now, this is our well water. 5 And they told us; they called my wife on the 6 phone, and said, "You will drink that water." 7 Now, they're not going to tell me that I'm 8 going to drink the water, you know? 9 So, she said: Well, maybe it's just because 10 they're Pomeranians; little dogs. 11 She gave the same water to a 12 German Shepherd -- hundred-pound German Shepherd -- 13 and he threw up right away. 14 Now, I mean, for it to do that, I mean, dogs 15 are -- you know, they can survive a lot of things. 16 I mean, come on! 17 Now, we're -- and, you know, we couldn't even 18 do that. So, thank goodness we never drank the 19 water. 20 My daughter would get in the shower in the 21 morning, and she'd have to get out and lay on the 22 floor, because she thought she was going to pass out 23 from the methane sucking the water out of it -- or, 24 sucking the oxygen out of air. 25 Now, you know, we didn't know about it, but 1 she did this over and over again. 2 They had eczema on their elbows. Eczema up 3 and down the legs. I mean, hives all over. 4 Now, you know, we never had that problem when 5 we had the well water. Then, all of a sudden, you 6 know, they started getting all these hives, and 7 everything. 8 And they said: Ah, it's nothing. It's 9 nothing. 10 You know? 11 And they tried to prove, in the beginning, 12 that it was my fault. They tried more to prove that 13 it was my -- a faulty well or pipes in my house 14 causing all the problems. 15 And that was not right, you know? 16 So, then, we, after a year -- almost a year, 17 Secretary Hanger promised us a waterline. 18 Well, so much opposition from the 19 Enough Already group came in, yanked it out right 20 from underneath us, and we were put back -- you 21 know, they did away with it. 22 They said: We compensated you for the -- 23 SENATOR BALL: Craig, I get -- just slow down 24 for a second. I'm not going to kick you out. 25 That's Rule Number 1. 1 Number two -- Senator Krueger may, but I'm 2 not going to. 3 [Laughter.] 4 SENATOR BALL: But, let's just back up for a 5 second, because there's a couple of things that you 6 mentioned. 7 Number one: The filtration system itself -- 8 the very same industry that did not take 9 responsibility for contaminating your well -- who 10 paid for that filtration system? 11 CRAIG SAUNTER: Cabot paid the whole bill. 12 I didn't pay a penny for it at all. 13 The only thing I paid was, you know, the 14 extra electric to run it. And I had to fight, for 15 six months, to get that money back from that. 16 SENATOR BALL: So, they won't take legal 17 responsibility for contaminating the 20-plus wells 18 in your community. 19 CRAIG SAUNTER: True. True. 20 SENATOR BALL: But, they're providing 21 everybody water. 22 CRAIG SAUNTER: Uh-huh. 23 SENATOR BALL: And they paid for the 24 filtration system in your home? 25 CRAIG SAUNTER: Yes. 1 SENATOR BALL: Okay. 2 CRAIG SAUNTER: And it's still sitting there 3 to this day. 4 And, I was told -- when they yanked the 5 waterline from us, they said, that: We got you 6 double the value of your house for your replacement 7 water. 8 Well, they didn't tell everybody, it wasn't 9 double the market value, it was double the tax 10 value. 11 That is a big difference right there. 12 So, I called the DEP, and said: What would 13 happen, you know, if I took that money? 14 Well, first of all, you got to pay tax. 15 SENATOR BALL: Explain the difference in the 16 numbers. 17 Give actual numbers, as far as -- 18 CRAIG SAUNTER: My house is worth about 19 200,000. So, if it would have been market value, it 20 would have been 400,000. 21 They offered us, like, a hundred and -- or, 22 275,000. It was the tax value of the house; double 23 that. That's all. 24 So -- 25 SENATOR BALL: And you mentioned the 1 Enough Already group? 2 CRAIG SAUNTER: Right. 3 SENATOR BALL: Because, you're in New York. 4 CRAIG SAUNTER: Okay. All right. 5 SENATOR BALL: I mean, I want to understand 6 what's going on in Pennsylvania. 7 But, what they need to understand, explain 8 the genesis of that group: who started that group, 9 and how they have pit the community against itself. 10 CRAIG SAUNTER: Okay. 11 It was a bunch of local businessmen and local 12 neighbors, that got together, to fight us. 13 They told -- they got a group together, and 14 they said: You guys cannot charge the gas company 15 that much money for a waterline for so few people. 16 In other words: They didn't think we 17 deserved the money, or the water. 18 SENATOR BALL: Most of those people that are 19 members of that group, most of those businesses, 20 were all subcontractors or contractors for -- 21 CRAIG SAUNTER: Yes. Absolutely, yes. 22 In fact, the people that deliver us the 23 water, is one of the supporters of this group. 24 Now, that's a conflict of interest if I've 25 ever seen one, you know, right there. And he's 1 supporting -- you know, he's supporting this 2 Enough Already group, and he's delivering us water. 3 How do we know what's going on with that 4 water? 5 That's supposed to be State-certified water. 6 I have asked for certificates for it. I have 7 yet to see one. 8 How do we know what they're doing with the 9 water, or where they're even getting the water, 10 because they don't tell us. 11 I mean, my tank has so much crap in the 12 bottom of that tank, that, one day we didn't get 13 water, and it started sucking this -- my daughter 14 got up the next morning. Because the water level 15 was low, sucked all that stuff off the bottom while 16 she was in the shower. And, broke out in hives, 17 from head to toe, for a week. 18 Bobby Kennedy was at my house, and saw it, 19 and could not believe all that junk that was in the 20 bottom of the tank. 21 That's tested. And we got test results on 22 it. And it's not too pretty. 23 And we've had test results -- I mean, this is 24 water, you know, it varies. 25 And, how can you trust a well like that when 1 it changes from -- you know, from one day to the 2 next? 3 They want us to put a filtration system in 4 our house. 5 I've gone that route already. I've done that 6 already. I know what it's like to do that. 7 A water buffalo, it's a 550-gallon tank that 8 used to sit in my garage. And, they would forget 9 that they had the hose in it. 10 I'd come out in my garage, and there would be 11 two or three inches of water on my floor. 12 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Wow. 13 CRAIG SAUNTER: And guess who paid to get it 14 cleaned up, and all the lost stuff? I did. 15 SENATOR BALL: Do you have -- can you talk a 16 little bit about what was found in your water, as 17 far as the list? 18 I know there was a list that was done -- 19 CRAIG SAUNTER: Okay. 20 SENATOR BALL: -- the shirt. 21 If you can show the shirt that -- I hope you 22 don't mind. Do you mind if I just...? 23 [Mr. Saunter stands, and displays his 24 T-shirt.] 25 SENATOR BALL: This shirt has a list of the 1 chemicals that this family found in the water; all 2 these families found in the water. 3 They did this. They put it on the billboard. 4 And the company actually -- the gas company 5 actually had it taken down. 6 CRAIG SAUNTER: Well, it wasn't the gas 7 company that had it taken down. That's what they 8 told us, anyway. 9 It was the local landowner. They said it was 10 too offensive. 11 [Inaudible comment by Julie Saunter.] 12 CRAIG SAUNTER: It was Enough Already people, 13 you know. 14 Let me tell you one thing: They could -- 15 SENATOR BALL: Two days after I left 16 Pennsylvania, I got an e-mail from a worker, 17 threatening me, to sue. And, it was very well 18 written. 19 I don't think it was the worker that was 20 threatening to sue me. 21 CRAIG SAUNTER: No. No. 22 SENATOR BALL: So, it's starting to all come 23 together. 24 CRAIG SAUNTER: Right. 25 They can take that billboard down. 1 Let's see them take this one off of me, 2 though. I'll tell you right now. 3 [Laughter.] 4 SENATOR BALL: Can you go through the list, 5 and talk about the chemicals that are in your water? 6 CRAIG SAUNTER: Yeah. I mean -- 7 You can read it. What is it? 8 I mean: There's aluminum. There is 9 chloride. There's sodium. There's three types of 10 uranium. There's barium. There's strontium. 11 JULIE SAUNTER: Arsenic. 12 CRAIG SAUNTER: Methane. 13 JULIE SAUNTER: Barium. 14 CRAIG SAUNTER: Arsenic. 15 JULIE SAUNTER: Acetone. 16 CRAIG SAUNTER: Acetone. 17 SENATOR BALL: Now, did you have a test done 18 of your water before? 19 CRAIG SAUNTER: Yes. And it was by Cabot. 20 They did a pre-drill test, and it came out 21 perfect. There was nothing wrong with it. 22 And you know what they said? 23 They didn't like the test results that came 24 out there, you know. But, they paid for it. 25 But they -- to this -- now, when we put that 1 billboard up, we had press conference. They were 2 there. 3 And they said that this billboard that we put 4 up was nothing but a lie. 5 They said this was not my water. And I did 6 not have that stuff in my well. 7 I have all the test results at home to prove 8 it. 9 JULIE SAUNTER: These are Duke University 10 results. 11 CRAIG SAUNTER: Right. These are from the 12 DEP and Duke University test results. They had the 13 same test results as us. 14 Now, they said: We have the 15 latest-and-greatest test results, and we show that 16 there's nothing wrong with your water. 17 So, we -- somebody invited the PR from Cabot, 18 George Stark, to come to Dimock, to come to my house 19 and drink the water. 20 "No problem. No problem. I'll go over 21 there. There's nothing wrong with your water." 22 So, the news crew says: Can we go -- 23 we'll -- "Can we tag along with you, and film you 24 while you're drinking the water?" 25 He says, "I'm not going over there. That's a 1 hostile area." 2 SENATOR BALL: Ah. 3 CRAIG SAUNTER: Now, just because I got signs 4 in my yard means it's a hostile area? 5 He's never been to my house. 6 How did you make accusation like that, you 7 know? 8 I mean, we've been ostracized in the 9 community. 10 We go around in the public, wearing these 11 shirts. Nobody says a word to us, but they'll talk 12 behind our backs. 13 And, then, when they start talking about my 14 kids on the blog sites, that's when I -- you know, I 15 get pretty upset. You know? 16 And, you know, we're just a victim. That's 17 all we are. 18 And all we -- you know, they say we're 19 greedy, and all this stuff, and we're holding out 20 for more money. 21 That's not it. 22 We're holding out for clean water, and that's 23 all there is to it. 24 There's the water. There's the proof. 25 How would you like to have water -- how would 1 you drink water like that? 2 They told me that's fine to drink. Nothing 3 wrong with it at all. 4 Thank you. 5 SENATOR BALL: Thank you. 6 Questions? 7 SENATOR KRUEGER: Well, first up: Is anybody 8 in Dimock able to sell their home, if they want to, 9 at this point? 10 I mean, is there any property value, other 11 than the company's potentially trying to buy you out 12 because you're trouble-makers? 13 CRAIG SAUNTER: On one of the blog sites, one 14 of our local neighbors said that we were offered 15 $200,000 for our house by a local businessman, and 16 we turned it down because we're asking for three to 17 five million. 18 I think I would have known about it before 19 them. 20 VICTORIA SWITZER: The property across from 21 my street was for sale for $4.1 million. It's 22 60-some acres, and it had two active gas wells on 23 it. 24 That's the asking price the landowner wanted. 25 It's just sold for $700,000, recently. 1 A family did not guy buy it. A corporation 2 bought it, and now they're using it as an investment 3 property and a rental. In fact, it's being rented 4 by a gas worker. 5 The landowner that owned the land previously 6 was part of the Enough Already group, and had put a 7 large sign up in his yard, "No Waterline." And put 8 lights on it, and it flashed in our bedroom window 9 all night long. 10 He also made a commercial for the gas 11 company, stating that it was a wonderful place to 12 raise your children, Dimock was, and the water was 13 fine. 14 And then he moved to Florida. 15 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 16 Thank you for your testimony. 17 SENATOR BALL: Thank you so much. 18 We have Craig Stevens. 19 Craig, how are you? 20 CRAIG STEVENS: Good, thank you, Senator. 21 Thanks for inviting me, Senators. 22 And, good morning to everybody. 23 My name is Craig Stevens. I'm a resident of 24 Silver Lake Township, Pennsylvania. 25 I'm here today to offer my thoughts and 1 observations regarding the oil and gas industry's 2 activities in northeastern Pennsylvania over the 3 past four or more years. 4 My experiences started on April 30, 2007, 5 when my father, Lloyd, died of cancer, and I became 6 a part owner of our sixth-generation home and 7 115-acre property near Montrose, Pennsylvania. 8 I was not informed at the time, but on 9 July 17, 2007, Chesapeake Energy sent a landman to 10 my 95-year-old grandmother's Bernis's (ph.) nursing 11 home, and signed her to a 10-year, 12 1/2 percent 12 lease; for $135.10 an acre. 13 On November 24th, Chesapeake sold 14 one-third interest of my leased property to 15 Stat Hydro Oil from Norway, along with 32,000 other 16 leases all over the northeast, for $3 billion. 17 In November I received a letter from my 18 father's sister Eloise (ph.), that said, "As you are 19 aware, a gas lease was signed on July 17th by 20 Grandma Price." 21 She and my uncle owned one-third, each, of 22 the property. 23 I was informed on February 2010 that my 24 grandmother, aunt, and uncle had signed a pipeline 25 agreement with Laser Midstream in January of 2010. 1 I went to see them. They were very excited 2 to see me. They needed my brother and sister and 3 I's signature, unlike Chesapeake, which obviously 4 did not. They actually recorded my -- this lease of 5 my grandmother's. 6 They needed -- they want to put the trunk 7 pipeline in, that goes from Windsor, all the way 8 through, for 33 miles, to Pennsylvania. 9 They were offering five whole dollars a foot; 10 at a 60-foot-wide by 2,400-foot space. And, they 11 said that's what all my neighbors took for that. 12 So, I said, "You're in the talking to my 13 neighbors. You're talking to me." 14 Then they said that all my neighbors had 15 signed. 16 They didn't know I called all my neighbors. 17 And, for five miles to the west of me, not one had 18 signed. 19 These are people trying to do business deal 20 with me. 21 Then they said, "It's okay, because the State 22 is going to give us a certificate of public 23 convenience." 24 I said, "Do you mean eminent domain?" 25 "Well, we prefer to call it 'certificate of 1 public convenience.'" 2 So I said -- basically, I walked out. 3 Before I said, I said, "First of all, I don't 4 do business with liars. You're lying to me about my 5 neighbors. And if you think you're going to take my 6 land without paying me for it, or my permission, 7 you've got another thing coming." 8 I went to the PUC hearing that was held in 9 the state of Pennsylvania; "Public Utility 10 Commission." 11 This same company was trying to get -- called 12 a public utility, so they could take the land for 13 this pipeline and not even spend money for it. 14 I spoke. I was very clear. 15 Both CEOs of the company, Laser and 16 Delphi Midstream, were in front of me. 17 And I said: At my home, I have a phone line, 18 that, magically, I can pick up and talk on, that 19 comes to my home. I have a power line. I have a 20 cable television. 21 All these are public utilities that have a 22 specific utility cost that cannot be raised without 23 a hearing. 24 I said, "You do not provide anything." 25 As a matter of fact, in the hearing, these 1 gentlemen said that they will never be providing gas 2 directly to anybody's location. It's going to go in 3 that pipeline, and it's going to come right past you 4 here, to New York, New York City or New Jersey, and 5 it's going to be liquefied, and go overseas. 6 That is where it's going. 7 If you haven't looked lately, the price of 8 natural gas at the well head is less than $4 per 9 1,000 cubic foot. 10 It was $12 less than two years ago. 11 The gas is not staying here, folks. So, when 12 you watch these commercials, do not believe it. 13 I was approached by "Associated Press." They 14 want to do a story on my signing by Chesapeake. 15 I allowed them to do it. 16 My story came out on Black Friday last year. 17 That is the day after Thanksgiving. 18 It went: "You know that you've arrived." 19 That's an international story that went all 20 over the world. You can Google my name in every 21 country on this planet. And that was on the front 22 page of the "New York Times," the "L.A. Times," 23 "Dallas Times." 24 It's kind of interesting. 25 I showed up. Didn't know anything about this 1 industry. I found out quite a bit in the last year 2 and a half. 3 I began speaking with the people that were 4 just here, my heroes, Craig, Julie Saunter; 5 Victoria Switzer. They have spent the last 6 three years living in hell. 7 And all my neighbors -- 90 percent of my 8 neighbors have turned their back on these people. 9 I refuse to do it. I wasn't raised to turn 10 my back on my neighbors. They're in trouble, I'm 11 here to help. 12 What I didn't realize was, sadly, the 13 pipeline construction began about three months ago, 14 going across, behind my property. Not on my 15 property, but behind it. 16 And, they had a blowout in my creek, on 17 July 29th, behind my property. 18 That blowout means drilling mud came up 19 because they were trying to save the environment and 20 drill underneath, 40 feet under. 21 Well, guess what? The drilling mud blew out 22 on the 29th. Nobody bothered to tell me, and I 23 didn't see any telltale in the creek. 24 That same night, the same drilling-mud 25 company truck flipped over and crushed my neighbor 1 John Jones to death, with his 17-year-old daughter 2 sitting right next to him in the car. She opened 3 the door and got out. Her dad was dead. 4 Okay? That's my neighbor. 5 Three days later, they blew out again, on 6 August 1st. 7 That blowout ended up -- that morning, my 8 kids threw breadcrumbs to the baby trout that are in 9 the stream. 10 I have an exception-value watershed 11 trout-stocked stream. That's the highest valued 12 watershed in the United States that you can be 13 rated. 14 Four hours later, after they were throwing 15 breadcrumbs, it looked like the Mississippi: 16 "Old Muddy." 17 Nobody bothered to come and tell me anything. 18 All of a sudden, there were trucks going everywhere, 19 sucking mud out. 20 A week later, they blew out again, not being 21 stopped by the DEP. They were fully involved in 22 what was happening. 23 Keep drilling, baby. Keep drilling. 24 So, after that, we had the debacle that 25 happened with the billboard that went up. 1 Three days up. We have a press conference. 2 The next day, it gets taken down. 3 You can see what our rights as free speech 4 are. 5 If you are pro the industry, you can buy any 6 ad space you want. 7 If you're against it, wear it on T-shirt, 8 folks, 'cause that's only the time you're going to 9 see it. 10 I was very concerned about what was happening 11 in the creek behind my house, so everybody that was 12 at the billboard press conference came down with the 13 cameras. 14 We filmed -- they filmed. It's on a township 15 road. They couldn't have had this disaster for that 16 company happen in a worse spot; on a public road, 17 right underneath it. 18 This is a creek I grew up, coming here. I'm 19 from California originally. 20 And, we could swim in it and fish out of it. 21 It was now completely demolished. 22 They've now had five blow-outs in the last 23 3 1/2 weeks, in the same creek. They were stopped 24 for one day by the DEP, to talk to 25 Secretary Cranser. 1 I guess they said things he liked to hear, 2 because they continued drilling. 3 The video footage from my neighbor got 4 on-line. Went completely crazy. 5 And on -- 7:30 in the morning on the Thursday 6 after they had the blowout, two workers showed up at 7 my house, pounding on the door, looking for 8 "the lady with the gray hair that drives the red 9 Prius." 10 That would have been my friend that keeps 11 track of everything environmental. 12 I said, "No, she doesn't live here." 13 They asked for her number and her address. 14 I refused to give it. 15 They were coming, looking for her, because 16 they had filmed -- she had filmed them. 17 I find it very scary. I called the police. 18 That went all the way to the 19 district attorney of my county. They weren't very 20 excited about have -- being -- our -- their citizens 21 being hunted. 22 We all know the reasons that people want this 23 industry here. The economic benefit is impossible 24 to ignore. And I'm -- and -- but I'm going to teach 25 the politicians out here how to keep their job, by 1 just adding one item. 2 This has to be safe, or these people have to 3 pack up and go home. 4 The five generations that came before me 5 passed clean water, fertile land, and healthy 6 environment. And, thankfully, did not sell out 7 their future for short-term gain. 8 I am confident, if, 100 years ago, my 9 great-grandfather found -- if he found out that 10 strangers were in town causing irreparable harm to 11 their environment, he would have given them 12 30 minutes to pack up their stuff up and leave, or 13 he would have solved the problem himself. 14 Luckily, they're dealing with people who are 15 a little nicer nowadays. 16 When strangers come to town and start handing 17 out $1,000 bills to people, that does not make them 18 your friend. 19 Your friends are the people you grew up with, 20 go to school and church with. 21 And, I, for one, am going to stand with my 22 friends, and not turn my back on them when they -- 23 when problems arise. 24 I hope you will agree to stand with your 25 neighbors, not teach your kids that money is the 1 reason for everything. 2 Why work at McDonald's all week for a few 3 hundred bucks, when I can steal or sell drugs and 4 make ten times the money. 5 Please be careful of what kind of example you 6 are showing your children because they are watching. 7 My eight- and seven-year-old boys know the 8 answer already. They want to be able to live there 9 in my seventh -- in their seventh-generation 10 ancestral home. 11 I pray that you put your children and 12 grandchildren's face on this issue, and think about 13 what this will be like in, a year, five years, 14 ten years, a hundred years, from now. 15 Thanks for this opportunity to share my 16 thoughts with you. 17 And, I look forward to answering any 18 questions you might have for me regarding this 19 industry, and what I see in the future for all of 20 us. 21 [Applause.] 22 SENATOR BALL: Lets wrap it up. 23 24 25 1 SENATOR KRUEGER: I just want to thank you 2 for your testimony, and everyone who's living 3 through this in Dimock. 4 On behalf of New York State, we appreciate 5 you coming across the border, in fact, over and over 6 again, to help educate us about the mistakes we can, 7 and should, avoid, because Pennsylvania 8 unfortunately, has not. 9 Thank you. 10 CRAIG STEVENS: Senator, let me tell you: 11 This morning, I brought, all the Saunters, Brett, 12 here. We drove across the bridge at Bear Mountain. 13 That's one of the most beautiful scenic areas 14 I've seen in this state. 15 And, my mother was born in Oswego, New York, 16 and is an Oswegonian. 17 I'm the fifth generation in New York, and I 18 was the sixth generation in Pennsylvania. 19 You have gorgeous country here. 20 If anybody here wants to find out what your 21 future lies with this, just come down and visit the 22 people in Dimock, and my area, and you're going to 23 find out, they can't fix the problems they're 24 causing down there. 25 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 1 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: You had indicated 2 that, initially, none of your neighbors had signed. 3 And then you were saying that there was drilling 4 going on behind. 5 Did, ultimately, everyone sign? 6 CRAIG STEVENS: The pipeline is 33 miles 7 long. It has 153 people that signed. 8 They were originally offering $5 a foot, and 9 a lifetime easement. 10 And, group got together from Pennsylvania and 11 New York, and you know what they ended up with? 12 $115 a foot, and a 40-year lease, that will end, 13 which means that they can renegotiate. 14 It's the same as the landman. They come into 15 town, throwing nickels around -- like my dad used to 16 say, "nickels around like manhole covers." 17 [Laughter.] 18 CRAIG STEVENS: In other words: They were 19 given -- there are people right here, after my story 20 came out; after that came out, the first call I got 21 was from Lloyd Thompkins near Ithaca. 22 $3 an acre, Chesapeake has him locked up. It 23 was a ten-year lease that expired in 2009. 24 They used an option clause, and they're 25 holding thousands of leaseholders in the state of 1 New York, Senator, at $3 an acre. And they will 2 enforce those $3 contracts until you go broke. 3 They will spend a million dollars to keep 4 that, because, let me tell you the difference: I 5 have neighbors that have 1,000-acre farms right next 6 to each other. 7 One signed for $50 an acre, four years ago. 8 That's $50,000 they received. They bought a new 9 tractor and a car. 10 Their next-door neighbor waited, with an 11 identical 1,000 acres. Get $6,000. 12 That's $6 million for the next-door neighbor. 13 You think that the family's staying together, 14 that, the father talked the family into taking 15 50,000? I don't think so. 16 You're looking at economic benefit? 17 What about the people that made a decision? 18 "Because the State allowed this to happen, we 19 all thought: Hey, if the State's okay with it, I 20 guess we're okay." 21 And, you make a decision. And, next thing 22 you know, your next-door neighbors are becoming 23 millionaires, and you're considered an idiot. 24 Now, guess what? When you sign at fifty an 25 acre, you have to have production or you make no 1 money. 2 So they are -- these neighbors are saying: 3 Shut up and sit down, Craig, because we want our 4 money. 5 And, I say: Guess what? When you make the 6 decision to create -- to have generational suicide 7 on your property, and you decide to use a nuclear 8 bomb and take out the entire community, that's not 9 your right to do, even though you're trying to do 10 something on your private property. 11 I will not allow my neighbors' decisions to 12 affect the future of my family and my children on my 13 own property. 14 SENATOR BALL: But -- I mean, and that is 15 what's happening. 16 I mean, in Pennsylvania, I mean, you have 17 individuals who have, their entire lives been 18 destroyed, and the fracking is not even happening on 19 their property. 20 And I think, in New York State, it's so 21 important that we understand that. 22 And I see that you have, I'm pretty sure 23 that's a Tea Party Patriot's, uhm -- 24 CRAIG STEVENS: I had to start my own group, 25 called "The Marcellus Patriots For Land Rights." 1 That flag flies on my front porch. And so 2 does the Alamo flag, that they flew over the Alamo 3 when they were attacked with 5,000 soldiers. 4 And the reason I put that on is, every driver 5 from Texas and Oklahoma that drives by knows what 6 that flag means. 7 I'm not going anywhere. I'm staying. I will 8 go right down with the ship. I'm not leaving my 9 ancestral home. 10 And they know that. 11 SENATOR BALL: Can we just drill down, and 12 just -- I think it's important to have it on the 13 record, as far as: When you're talking about tying 14 up property for $3 a foot, okay, or $3 an acre -- 15 CRAIG STEVENS: $3 an acre. 16 SENATOR BALL: -- what people need to 17 understand, is that -- and correct me if I'm 18 wrong -- but, that, once that property is tied up, 19 those families, those farmers, those private 20 property owners, don't see any benefit, until, or 21 if, there is active fracking, there's drilling, and 22 they're making money off of the royalties. 23 CRAIG STEVENS: Correct. 24 And, even worst, Chesapeake, in New York 25 State -- I'm talking New York State now -- with 1 reality, a $3-an-acre lease expires in 2009. They 2 extend it on one word in that five-page contract. 3 It says "Option." 4 It's an "options" clause; that they can bump 5 it for another ten years for the same money. 6 They send you a check, you put it in the 7 bank, you're locked in for ten years. 8 They -- if they put a stake in the ground 9 that says "Chesapeake" on it, they consider that, 10 they're starting production, and they now lock it 11 in. And, there is no money required that locks in 12 the lease. 13 SENATOR BALL: So, just to make sure it's 14 very specifically laid out: So, once that property 15 is tied up -- and this gets into the details of 16 why -- how we need to protect the private property 17 owners here in New York. 18 CRAIG STEVENS: Yes. 19 SENATOR BALL: Once that property is tied up, 20 the company itself can then, basically, renew that 21 grand slam of a deal that they made with your 22 95-year-old grandmother, simply by putting a stake 23 in the ground? 24 It may be somewhat of an overstatement. 25 CRAIG STEVENS: A truck there. 1 Or, they will drive a John Deere little 2 four-wheeler across your property. They have a GPS 3 on them. 4 So, they just drive across your property. 5 That's what a guy's job is, is to drive on 6 everybody's property. 7 And when you say, "You've never been here," 8 they'll give you a stack of GPS sheets that show 9 that they were across your property every day for 10 the last three years. 11 They didn't do anything. They just drove 12 over, and ran over, your land. But, that's the 13 game. 14 The game is: Hold on to the lease. 15 Because, if you think that Chesapeake or 16 Cabot or Exxon can afford to go back, when they paid 17 $3 to tie up property, and pay the current rates, 18 which is six to eight thousand dollars an acre, they 19 can't do it. 20 Chesapeake is $14 billion in debt, last time 21 I checked. And they have $5 billion in California. 22 And when you try to sue them, you have to sue them 23 in California. 24 They hide everything. They move it around. 25 This is the biggest Ponzi scheme that will 1 ever hit the United States of America, and we're all 2 falling for it. 3 But, I'm not. 4 [Applause.] 5 SENATOR BALL: Okay. Thanks, Craig. 6 I hope I have the name right: Dr. Dyrszka. 7 DR. LARYSA DYRSZKA: Honorable Senators, 8 thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 9 My name is Larysa Dyrszka, and I'm a medical 10 doctor. 11 New York is at a critical juncture: To 12 address and avert a potential public health crisis. 13 Or, do nothing, and allow the SGEIS process to 14 continuous proposed by the Governor and the DEC, the 15 result of which will be a rapid industrialization of 16 a part of rural New York with tens of thousands of 17 gas wells. 18 The state is not prepared for this. Our 19 health system is not prepared for this. 20 And moving forward will cause environmental 21 and public health casualties. 22 Following are some of the things that we know 23 about health and gas drilling. And, I've included a 24 CD in your packet, that includes -- that all of the 25 documents that I mention are on that CD, to peruse 1 at your leisure. 2 The studies on human health impacts related 3 to the extraction and production of natural gas are 4 limited. 5 And I have provided what we do know on the 6 CD. It includes a few peer-reviewed studies, as 7 well as two health-impact assessments, that I'll get 8 into a little bit later. 9 And why is there not more peer-reviewed 10 literature on health impacts related to natural-gas 11 exploration and production? 12 In order to do a scientific study, data is 13 needed. That data is not being generated, nor 14 compiled, nor initiated, nor funded, by the federal 15 government or by the states. 16 Surveys are not being taken. 17 Human health complaints are ignored. 18 Industry continues to parlay the mantra, 19 that: Drilling is safe. That, there's never been a 20 case of contamination from hydrofracking. And, 21 non disclosure agreements are common. 22 To further complicate matters, in 2005, the 23 federal government granted the oil and gas industry 24 exemptions from key provisions of really excellent 25 environmental and public health laws. 1 So, the EPA and the federal government public 2 health agencies are not maintaining oversight. 3 The exemptions include key parts of the 4 Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the 5 Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and 6 Recovery Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response 7 Compensation and Liability Act, 8 National Environmental Policy Act, and the Toxic 9 Release Inventory Under Emergency Planning and The 10 Community Right-To-Know Act. 11 And there are a couple of documents that I've 12 included, that give you the explanations of which 13 provisions, which parts, of those environmental laws 14 are -- there are exemptions to. 15 Despite the lack of peer-reviewed papers, 16 doctors who have looked at this in any detail have 17 expressed concern. And there are health issues, 18 uhm -- that there are health issues which have not 19 been properly and adequately addressed. 20 Industry and governmental agencies, both 21 federal and state, deny causality. 22 Note the eerie similarity to Love Canal, 23 where, at first, industry and government agents 24 denied citizens' claims of illness, and scientific 25 studies didn't conclusively prove at that time that 1 the chemicals were responsible for the residents' 2 illnesses. 3 And that caused scientists to be divided on 4 the issue, even though there were known or suspected 5 carcinogens already identified. And, one of those 6 was benzene. 7 At that point, the precautionary principle 8 was ignored. 9 So, what have we observed in areas where gas 10 drilling has occurred? 11 For one, air pollution, causing numerous 12 cases, for example, of odor events associated with 13 respiratory problems, burning eyes and throats, 14 neurological problems, and other issues, in areas 15 where gas drilling is already developed. 16 Just one example, from the other day: In 17 Texas, people reported odor events from two separate 18 areas. And, they called the Texas Commission on 19 Environmental Quality: "Please come and check 20 this." 21 It's so haphazard, whether something is going 22 to be checked or not. It just depends on, if 23 somebody takes the complaint with any seriousness. 24 And, even then, it's not recorded and 25 documented. 1 So, it's -- there's no consistency. 2 There are no provisions for this systematic 3 monitoring of air contaminates. And definitely no 4 cumulative projection of air impacts of many wells, 5 processing plants, and compressors. 6 Another problem that we'll see, for sure, is 7 water contamination. 8 As the residents who have testified 9 previously have mentioned, there are water buffaloes 10 on many roads. You can see them from the roads 11 of -- in Pennsylvania. 12 And, the non-disclosure agreements, you will 13 see -- you won't see the documentation because 14 they've signed non disclosure agreements. So, 15 that's another issue that really needs to be 16 addressed by you. 17 Recently, a document surfaced which showed 18 that, in fact, water contamination that occurred in 19 1984 was documented by the EPA in 1987. And, just 20 recently was reported by the "New York Times." 21 So, it has happened. 22 And, consider the chemicals; the contaminants 23 that are used in the drilling fluids. And, then, 24 also consider what comes up from down below the 25 earth, which, in and of itself, has hazardous 1 components. And that includes radioactive elements, 2 as well as heavy metals. 3 And, then, industry repeatedly cites its 4 right not to disclose proprietary chemicals in all 5 of the operations, even if they are toxic. 6 There's absent, or at best, inconsistent 7 chemical testing for contaminants in property 8 owners' water. 9 Exposure of workers to chemicals occurs 10 routinely. 11 You don't see very much of that. But, if you 12 go to the NIOSH site -- "National Institute of 13 Occupational Safety" -- you will find numerous 14 citations from the, uhm -- you'll find fines paid by 15 the -- by gas industry. It's one of the unsafest 16 jobs. 17 There are accidents. There's health 18 infrastructure. 19 And, the anticipated profits from gas 20 drilling don't take into account the significant 21 costs of illness, the losses of -- of health losses, 22 and death, associated with this industry. 23 Most gas-drilling sites are occurring in 24 rural areas with small community hospitals. 25 And, just recently, there was a testimony 1 from a nurse, named Stacey Covey (ph.); a nurse, who 2 also was -- is an administrator at a small hospital 3 in Troy, Pennsylvania. 4 And she recalls, and documents, the 5 inadequacy of her hospital to treat all of the 6 issues that have -- the new issues that have come 7 across the horizon at their hospital. And that the 8 problems include, accidents, you know, that -- 9 severe trauma. That also includes accidental 10 spills, for which they're not qualified to address. 11 And, also, the alcohol- and drug-related issues. 12 [Off-the-record comment is whispered to 13 the speaker.] 14 DR. LARYSA DYRSZKA: All right. 15 There are also psychosocial stressors. Local 16 residents are promised jobs and money. The skilled 17 jobs, they are routinely filled by the trained 18 personnel. 19 So, there are many issues. 20 So, in order to address this, a health-impact 21 assessment must be done. We must have a study of 22 the potential health impacts by an independent 23 agency before any further drilling occurs. 24 And until this is done, and a determination 25 made whether human health should be placed at risk, 1 there should be no permitting for gas drilling in 2 New York State. 3 And, if the government decides to proceed 4 with the SGEIS process without a health assessment, 5 then the health and safety of New Yorkers depends on 6 you. 7 What I would suggest, I would ask you to do, 8 is: 9 Review the federal laws and the oil and gas 10 exemptions, and reverse them on the state level; 11 Clarify that towns can prohibit 12 gas-extraction activities, if they want to protect 13 themselves, if the state does not; 14 Prohibit the use of toxic chemicals; 15 Prohibit waste disposal from the industry in 16 New York municipal treatment plants or deposition in 17 landfills. We're not prepared to handle those; 18 And, prohibit high-volume slick-water 19 hydraulic fracturing until such time as appropriate 20 health studies are done, and evaluated, to determine 21 if the risk is worth it. 22 Let the people decide if they want to take 23 that risk. 24 And, it must be addressed now. 25 And, then, the precautionary principle: 1 Please follow that which -- which states that -- 2 when human health -- "When human activities may lead 3 to unacceptable harm that is scientifically 4 plausible, but uncertain, actions shall be taken to 5 avoid or diminish that harm." 6 It's -- this principle is the socially and 7 morally responsible choice when there is a risk of 8 harming the public and environment. 9 Thank you so much. 10 SENATOR BALL: Thank you, Doctor. 11 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Thank you. 12 SENATOR KRUEGER: Just, quick. 13 Thank you. 14 Oh, I'm sorry, I do have one question, 15 Doctor. 16 Just to highlight: So -- you reference 17 non disclosure agreements. And I think they were 18 referenced by some of the other testifiers. 19 So, if we're all concerned about the public 20 health impacts of fracking, the chemicals that could 21 be being used without disclosure, basic concepts of, 22 what's called, "community right-to-know laws," how 23 does that -- how do we allow non disclosure 24 agreements to take place, when that can, through an 25 individual settlement of one landowner with a 1 company, translate into a potential public health 2 problem for an entire surrounding county, not being 3 ever able to be learned about? 4 Don't you see there's a conflict between a 5 non disclosure agreement and public health and 6 safety? 7 DR. LARYSA DYRSZKA: Yes, I do. 8 I think one of the problems -- issues here is 9 that health has not been addressed. It's not been 10 part of the scoping. 11 For example: In New York State, part of the 12 SGEIS scoping, human health was not included as one 13 of the issues. 14 And that's why it's imperative that we expand 15 that scope to include human health impacts. 16 So, human health might trigger a different 17 response. 18 For example: If it's necessary for public 19 health issues, if it's a crisis situation, then I 20 believe that that information can be obtained by 21 doctors, or the public health agency that's charged 22 with the -- gathering that information. 23 However, because there's been that mantra of, 24 "There is never been a case of water contamination, 25 no health problems," they have been able to get 1 away -- industry has been able to get away with not 2 addressing human health. And, since there are no 3 problems, then why shouldn't they have 4 non disclosure agreements as part of their 5 contracts -- or, as part of the contract when they 6 provide the water. 7 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 8 SENATOR BALL: Thank you. 9 Thank you, Doctor. 10 SENATOR BALL: Okay, Jim Northrup. 11 JAMES NORTHRUP: Thank you, Senator. 12 I'm glad to know that you have a flag of -- 13 the Alamo flag flying over your house, because, so 14 do I. My wife and I, Nancy, spend half of our time 15 in Texas at a ranch outside of San Antonio. 16 SENATOR BALL: Where? 17 JAMES NORTHRUP: Near Bandera. 18 SENATOR BALL: Yeah, sure. 19 JAMES NORTHRUP: Between Boerne and -- 20 SENATOR BALL: Cowboy Country, yeah. 21 JAMES NORTHRUP: Yeah. 22 SENATOR BALL: I love Llano County. 23 JAMES NORTHRUP: It's beautiful. 24 It is. It hasn't been totally fracked. 25 And the other part of the time is -- which is 1 less than six months, I want to assure the 2 Revenue Service, is here in -- up in Cooperstown, up 3 in New York. 4 So, got that cleared up. 5 Let me say, too, that I'm grateful, you know, 6 to be here with all of these experts. And I think, 7 maybe, I'm the closest thing you're going to get to 8 an industry expert. 9 I was in the oil-and-gas investment business 10 for about 30 years. Went to Brown. Went to 11 Wharton School of Finance. And I worked for 12 Atlantic Richfield for a couple of years, as a 13 planning manager. 14 So, I know a little bit about the business. 15 We live kind of on the southern edge of the 16 Barnett in Texas. And, we live on the east -- well, 17 almost in the middle of the Marcellus/Utica here. 18 So, we drive through it in Texas. 19 A couple of things. 20 One quick point: Most of the industry 21 experts here locally, are -- they're actually not, 22 in fact, from the industry. What you'll find is, is 23 there is a lot of, sort of, camp-following 24 geologists, and whatnot, from local universities, 25 that really don't have a whole lot of industry 1 expertise; meaning, people that go around and make 2 presentations, you know, in Upstate. 3 To get somebody from the industry to actually 4 come to one of these hearings and, more or less, 5 halfway tell the truth, you're going to have to 6 subpoena them. You're going to have to put them 7 under oath or they will not tell you the truth. 8 And, they know a lot more about this, 9 frankly. Certainly, horizontal hydrofracking. 10 I never horizontally hydrofracked a well. 11 But, they know more a lot more than I do, but they 12 will not tell you. And they won't -- certainly, 13 they won't tell you unless they've been put under 14 oath. 15 So, I would -- you know, next time you want 16 to talk to one, you're going to have to subpoena 17 them. 18 The -- I'm going to diverge from some of my 19 remarks a little bit to address some of the things 20 that have come up. 21 You know, this shale gas; or, actually, 22 horizontal hydrofracking, is been likened to a bit 23 of a Ponzi scheme. And that's probably a misnomer. 24 Certainly, a discredit to dear Mr. Ponzi. 25 But, it is -- it has been -- 1 [Laughter.] 2 JAMES NORTHRUP: It has been -- it has been, 3 routinely, since it was discovered, developed 4 really, commercialized, in the Austin Chalk about 5 30 years ago, it is very easy to overstate the 6 wealth of these wells. 7 It's also very easy to overstate, both, 8 temporally, in terms of how long they last; I mean, 9 overstate to the SEC, to shareholders, to the press, 10 to the politicians, to whatnot, and, also, to -- and 11 also to the extent of which they would be 12 productive. 13 Most of the testimony you have from -- you 14 know, from Pennsylvania comes from just a few 15 counties, whereas the Marcellus is pretty much under 16 most of the state of Pennsylvania. 17 That's kind of something to keep in mind. 18 The other thing is, is that you have heard a 19 lot of testimony about water. 20 Well, the problem in Upstate New York and in 21 Pennsylvania, is that the groundwater wells are so 22 shallow, as opposed to the water wells out west, in 23 Wyoming and Texas, Colorado, New Mexico. And that 24 presents particular problems to those people's 25 water; meaning, their -- because their water source 1 is something very close to the ground, they're 2 basically drinking rain water. And, so, it's 3 particularly prone to pollution, both, from the 4 surface, and it's also prone to being gassed, as 5 they point out. 6 And this is something that industry kind of 7 downplays, but they've known about for years; and 8 that is, is when you spud one of these wells, it is 9 going to -- it is very likely going to introduce the 10 drilling mud into the groundwater. And it's also 11 going to introduce methane into the groundwater. 12 The reason why that's not a problem out in 13 San Angelo is because people aren't drinking 14 groundwater. There is no groundwater. 15 They're not -- in other words, the wells out 16 there are not tapping water that's being polluted. 17 So, the fact that you haven't seen a problem 18 with that in Texas or Colorado or New Mexico, 19 doesn't mean that it's not a problem here. 20 SENATOR BALL: Jim, do you know the depth 21 'neath in the -- in the central of the 22 Edwards Aquifer? 23 JAMES NORTHRUP: Yeah, we'll, for instance, 24 on our end, Bandara County, our well is about -- 25 we'd be lucky if we got 20 GPM, you know, at 1 1,000 feet. 2 So, in other words: Literally, the, quote, 3 water table -- and that's a misnomer -- for those 4 water wells is 1,000 feet down. It's not surface 5 water. In fact, it's not even communicating with 6 surface water. It's not being recharged on a daily 7 basis by groundwater. 8 So, if there's a spill in central Texas, it's 9 going to -- I mean, literally, it would take 10 thousands of years for it to get down there if the 11 well was properly sealed. 12 So, that's -- that is a problem inherent with 13 the topography, the hydrology, of this area. And, 14 frankly, there is no easy solution, because 15 everybody that knows this industry, anybody that 16 will talk about it, they know that, like, for 17 instance, Schlumberger did a study in 2005, that, of 18 the wells that they study, and they were all shore 19 wells, by the fifth year, 25 percent of them were 20 leaking gas. I mean, that's just the -- that's the 21 nature. It's not a matter of whether they leak, 22 it's a matter of how much they leak. 23 So they know that, you know. 24 So, as again, you're -- but nobody is going 25 to tell you that, except me or Lou Allstadt or 1 Tony Ingraffia, unless you put them under oath. 2 Now, the other company -- just, I want to 3 race through a bunch of stuff -- 4 Quit flashing that thing at me. 5 [Laughter.] 6 JAMES NORTHRUP: -- is that -- is there's a 7 couple of things -- you know, people talk about how, 8 you know, everything is wrong -- everything's been 9 done wrong in Texas, and whatnot. Well, I'm not 10 going to argue with that. But, there are a few -- 11 there are sort of some minimal things that are 12 common out west that are not -- that are not 13 established law here. 14 And it's been mentioned earlier, but, there 15 is, in fact, no production tax on gas in this state. 16 You know, this state and Pennsylvania are two of the 17 only states, are the only two places on the planet 18 that don't tax gas at the wellhead; meaning, the 19 state doesn't. 20 That's something -- you know, that's 21 something that needs to be corrected. That's 22 something that you -- that the legislature could 23 correct. 24 It's not -- it's not something that the 25 industry really would balk at because they pay that 1 tax everywhere else they are. Everywhere else on 2 the planet, they pay a tax on the gas at the 3 wellhead. No big deal. It's just a matter of what 4 the number is. The number should be something north 5 of zero. 6 The other thing is, is that it's very common 7 out west, in Texas, for -- in fact, it is the norm, 8 for local land-use laws to control well permitting. 9 In fact, you know, we mentioned some of these 10 companies, like Cabot -- I heard Cabot; Chesapeake, 11 I heard that one; Range Resources, XTO; all of those 12 companies are in states where local land-use 13 controls, whether a well can be permitted. 14 So, in other words: If XTO or Range had to 15 go get a well permit in their hometown in their home 16 state, they would have to go to the city of 17 Fort Worth to get it. 18 Now, that means there's sort of dual control; 19 in other words, there's a state agency, like the 20 DEC, that would permit the well, but it's also 21 subject to local control. 22 You know, they call it, a sort of catch 23 phrase here, "home rule." 24 Senator Seward, my senator, even though I 25 don't pay taxes in this state, is -- he's introduced 1 a bill, a home rule -- a, quote, home-rule bill, to 2 clarify-up the wording. It would be of -- it's, as 3 a minimum -- these are minimum things, the 4 severance tax home-rule bill. There's a minimum. 5 Those are the kinds of things this state 6 needs to have, because, you know, to put this -- so 7 you would -- so you at least come up through the low 8 standard of New Mexico, and Texas, in that regard. 9 So, I would urge you, those two things, to 10 put on your shopping list, and to help 11 Senator Seward out with that Bill. 12 If you have any questions, I would be happy 13 to answer them. 14 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you very much. 15 And I appreciate, in your testimony, your 16 highlighting that. 17 You know, we're new to this drilling stuff 18 here in New York, so we're learning the bad lessons 19 from Pennsylvania. And, hopefully, we can also 20 learn good lessons from states who have thought it 21 through. 22 Specifically around this issue, the last 23 point you made, so, how does this home-rule concept 24 work? 25 Because, I know that there are towns 1 throughout the state who are already saying we're 2 passing no drilling laws at the local level. 3 Is it your understanding we would need state 4 law to ensure localites can do this? 5 JAMES NORTHRUP: Well, no. Actually, what 6 you need -- you'd need -- I would refer you to 7 Seward's home-rule. 8 In fact, I just gave Jay a copy of it -- or, 9 sent him a copy of it, Jay Coleman. 10 Is that, what it does, is it clarifies the 11 state, the DEC, regulations relating to a locality's 12 powers to zone vis-a-vis well locations. 13 And, that -- what I'm saying is, is it -- if, 14 that, when that clarification is made by the Seward 15 bill, then the State of New York would be clear on 16 that, the enabling legislation. 17 And what that, in fact, would do is, is that, 18 if you wanted to go drill a well in, you know, 19 Binghamton, or whatnot, that you would have to go to 20 the city zoning to get that. 21 The way it reads now is a little fog -- it's 22 a little unclear. It needs to be clarified; 23 meaning, it's, in theory, the DEC could issue a well 24 permit in Buffalo, or in Binghamton, and that that 25 well-permit site would not be subject to local 1 zoning. 2 That would -- I can guarantee you, that would 3 be a real mess, to -- you know, to -- to not be able 4 to have local zoning control; that sort of thing. 5 SENATOR KRUEGER: Another follow-up question, 6 because you know drilling, and I don't. 7 So, in the State-proposed model, they're not 8 allowing drilling in the New York City watershed, 9 because New York City, where I represent, is 10 8.5 million people dependent on clean water from 11 two reservoir systems. 12 But, somebody gave me a warning, that, even 13 the way we've written it in our draft, environmental 14 impact statement, that, because drilling can go, 15 sideways, underground for miles and miles, that, 16 actually, we probably haven't written that in a way 17 that actually prevents drillers from going down 18 awfully close to our aquifer and into our reservoir 19 watershed system. 20 JAMES NORTHRUP: Right. Well, first of all, 21 I think all New Yorkers deserve the same level of 22 protection as people from New York City. 23 SENATOR KRUEGER: Yes. 24 JAMES NORTHRUP: I mean, as -- not as an 25 official resident of the state, but -- you know. 1 So -- but, to answer your question: You can 2 run a lateral -- one of these horizontal wells -- a 3 lateral, I mean, easily up to a mile. 4 So, in theory, what the DEC has proposed is a 5 setback beyond the New York City watershed of 6 4,000 feet, to sort of anticipate the fact that you 7 couldn't -- you couldn't be beyond the boundaries of 8 the watershed, and still, quote, drill into the 9 watershed by running a lateral into it. 10 Now -- but, I think the problem -- what you 11 addressed, though, is it's -- that's a ministerial 12 act of the DEC. And, I mean, to -- to -- which they 13 could change; in other words, the different -- they 14 could come along and have... 15 So, it all -- to really clarify that, you'd 16 almost have to get an act -- the legislature would 17 have to act on that, to make it law that they 18 couldn't, if, in fact, that was, you know, what you 19 wanted to do. 20 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 21 JAMES NORTHRUP: Yes. 22 Yes, ma'am. 23 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 24 SENATOR BALL: Okay, I want to come to Texas 25 in December. We'll go to the Lowake Steak House, 1 okay, outside of San Angelo. 2 JAMES NORTHRUP: Okay. 3 SENATOR BALL: I'll take you. 4 Okay, thank you for being here today. 5 JAMES NORTHRUP: Thank you. 6 SENATOR BALL: A pleasure. 7 [Applause.] 8 SENATOR BALL: Okay, next up: Josh Fox. 9 JOSH FOX: Hi. How are you? 10 SENATOR BALL: Good. How are you? 11 JOSH FOX: Nice to see you again. 12 First of all, I wanted to say, thank you very 13 much, to Senator Ball, and to the New York State 14 Senate for this opportunity. 15 I'm honored, and grateful, to be able to 16 appear here today to testify. 17 I also very much appreciate the fact that you 18 went on a tour of Pennsylvania. I think it was a 19 very brave act, I think a very important act, for a 20 person that comes from your party. 21 And I think that you've seen here today the 22 power and the importance of citizen testimony. 23 I have been asking congressmen and senators 24 in Washington, D.C. to please hold citizens hearing. 25 And I don't think any of us can speak as loud 1 as the experience of Victoria Switzer, or Craig and 2 Julie Saunter. Or -- and I want to put that in 3 context. 4 For the last 3 1/2 years, I have gone all 5 across the United States, to Europe, to Africa, and 6 to Australia, and I have investigated this form of 7 drilling. 8 As a result of, many people know the story of 9 being offered a gas lease on my family's property in 10 the Upper Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania, just 11 across from the New York border. 12 And, that has taken me all across the world. 13 And I have heard hundreds of those stories, if not 14 thousands. 15 And, I would encourage you to continue the 16 process of citizen hearings as you go through this 17 continued inquiry. And, to get people from Wyoming, 18 to get people from Colorado, and to get people from 19 far-flung places, because I think what that does, is 20 it points to the inherent contamination of this 21 process, and how it's failing everywhere it goes. 22 So, my testimony is in fierce and passionate 23 opposition to permitting large-scale industrial gas 24 drilling by means of hydraulic fracturing anywhere 25 in New York State. 1 The health and character of New York State 2 will be significantly and forever compromised by 3 this inherently unsafe and untested process. 4 The process will destroy property value, as 5 you heard; fragment and fracture the land, 6 contaminate water resources, pollute air quality, 7 create a public health crisis. It will 8 significantly harm the tourism and agriculture 9 industries in the state and the region, and make 10 areas that are heavily developed unfit to live in 11 for generations to come. 12 I will state at the outset, that to truly 13 relate my experience in testimony would take several 14 hours, if not several days, and I may not get 15 through all of this, but I would appeal to the 16 Senator, and other senators' staffs, to please use 17 me as a resource on any questions you have, going 18 forward. 19 I'm at your disposal. 20 So, I'm the filmmaker of the 21 Academy Award-nominated documentary "Gasland." 22 I'm a resident of the Delaware River Basin in 23 Montville, less than five miles from the New York 24 border. And I'm also a resident of Brooklyn, 25 New York, and I drink my tap water. 1 I've been living with the stress, that the 2 stream and the woods just across from my property in 3 Pennsylvania will be turned into an industrial 4 drilling zone, and that my New York tap water will 5 become unreliable, for 3 1/2 years now. 6 I've investigated fracking, traveling to 7 34 states in the U.S.; Europe, Africa, Asia and, 8 Australia. And I have yet to see this industry do 9 anything but harm to the areas it occupies. 10 I have toured Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, 11 Wyoming, New Mexico, Arkansas, and far away 12 Australia, extensively; all places which claim to 13 have tough regulations on natural-gas drilling. All 14 places that have been dealing with drilling for many 15 years, and which I've had the chance to improve upon 16 their regulatory framework while drilling is 17 occurring. 18 And I must report, that even though these 19 places boast tough regulations, I have yet to visit 20 any place on earth where a regulatory approach to 21 drilling made the activity safe to live near. 22 I, therefore, must conclude that the argument 23 that tough regulation of natural-gas drilling will 24 make fracking safe to live near is unfounded and 25 unsupported by any legitimate study of the practice 1 as it is happening in the world-at-large. 2 And that's the bulk of what I'm saying here: 3 A regulatory approach does not work. 4 And I must caution the lawmakers of 5 New York State, present company excepted, many of 6 whom continue to insist that, quote, New York can 7 get it right, by imposing a tough regulatory 8 framework of the pitfalls of political hubris and 9 braggadocio. 10 Such statements are wishful thinking at best, 11 and at worst, criminally negligent, in the face of 12 the disastrous track record in other states. 13 Texas and Pennsylvania also claimed, that all 14 they needed to do was adopt a tough regulatory 15 stance and drilling could be done right. 16 But, the record shows hundreds of 17 contamination cases, as documented in my film, and 18 documented in the "New York Times," and in the 19 Pulitzer prize-winning stories found on the 20 ProPublica website, and hundreds of citizens. 21 What follows is, widespread suffering, 22 degradation, and general disillusionment with the 23 political process in the drilling areas in those 24 states. 25 In case after case, the gas industry, once it 1 has established itself, proves to be more powerful 2 than the state that seeks to regulate it. 3 And this is exactly what you heard from 4 the -- Cabot contesting the DEP's determination that 5 they had, in fact, polluted the groundwater of 6 Dimock. 7 They said: We don't believe you. Take a 8 hike. We're more powerful than you. 9 And there are many ways in which that 10 happens, and I can elaborate. 11 So, when someone says to me, "I believe that 12 we can drill safely," I always ask the same 13 question: On what grounds do you believe that? 14 Based on what scientific-proven study? 15 Which one of the methods do you believe can 16 be done safely, that have never been tested by a 17 rigorous independent peer-reviewed testing process 18 for safety in the long or the short term? 19 I could as easily substitute the sentence, 20 "I believe I can go over Niagara Falls in a barrel 21 and survive." 22 So, simply put: I have no confidence 23 whatsoever in the gas industry's ability to drill 24 for gas while maintaining the quality of life. 25 I want to go through a few of the things that 1 I have observed. I made a list off the top of my 2 head. 3 It's about 66 things that haven't been 4 tested; that, if you were to say, "Well, we believe 5 this could be done safely, by creating a regulatory 6 framework," you would have to, I guess, begin a 7 rigorous scientific study of each of these areas 8 over a period of years, to make sure that those 9 regulations actually were based in scientific fact 10 and trial-and-error. 11 One: No regulation should be approved 12 without a proper cumulative impact study of the 13 effect of 100,000 gas wells, and the corresponding 14 pipelines, compressor stations, refineries, truck 15 trips, injection wells, waste impoundments, and 16 access roads will have on New York State, because 17 the projection is around 100,000 gas wells. 18 There is no conceivable way -- 19 SENATOR BALL: Josh -- 20 JOSH FOX: Yeah? 21 SENATOR BALL: -- so, the projection is, 22 100,000 gas wells in New York? 23 JOSH FOX: Well, based on spacing bills, and 24 based on the gleeful projections of the DCNR in 25 Pennsylvania, of 180,000 gas wells in Pennsylvania, 1 I would estimate, yes. 2 That, no one knows, for sure, how many gas 3 wells the industry is projecting. It's certainly to 4 inflate these projection. It advances their credit 5 line. 6 A lot of this has to do with valuing their 7 company based on reserves, rather than on actual 8 amounts of gas, that we don't know. But, the 9 figures are very, very high. 10 100,000 gas wells in New York State, compared 11 to, what you would say, 180,000 Pennsylvania, I 12 think, is -- 13 SENATOR BALL: And out of 180,000 in 14 Pennsylvania, how many active wells are there right 15 now in Pennsylvania? 16 JOSH FOX: It's about 3,000. 17 SENATOR BALL: Right. 18 JOSH FOX: Marcellus wells. 19 So, only 3,000 wells out of a projected 20 180,000 have caused the amount of problems that 21 you're seeing in every single county where drilling 22 is happening. 23 There are -- Dimock is not an exception. 24 Dimock is the rule. 25 Dimock is happening in Susquehanna County. 1 Dimock is happening in Bradford County. Dimock is 2 happening in Fayette County, in Green County, in 3 Washington County, in Potter County -- in every 4 county they're drilling in Pennsylvania. 5 The drilling is also -- the same scenario is 6 also being played out in Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, 7 Australia -- across the board. 8 And I want to submit here, my film "Gasland," 9 which tells a lot of these stories on behalf of the 10 citizens, it's honest reporting, it's been vetted by 11 the science. 12 And I also wanted to submit this flash 13 drive -- which is in the shape of Texas, as a 14 reminder of, perhaps, where not to go with this -- 15 which includes a number of different studies; and, 16 also, our rebuttal to the fierce industry smear 17 campaign against the film, which is facetious and 18 untrue. 19 And there is a 39-page PDF in there, with 20 100 different references, that combats the 21 industry's PR campaign against the film, and against 22 people like Craig and Victoria. 23 So, just going through these, there is no 24 long-term study of human health risk. There is no 25 enforcement capability within the New York DEC, 1 local law enforcement, or citizen or federal groups 2 adequate of handling the amount of oversight needed 3 for that many wells. 4 There is no adequate inspection capability 5 for gas wells in the long term or the short term by 6 the State. 7 There can be no adequate standards for 8 well-casing depth because there's been never -- 9 never been a scientific study taking a look at this 10 particular geology. And, natural fractures vary in 11 depth and length and -- in these different 12 geologies. 13 There is no tested and no proven solution to 14 the industry-wide problem of casing failure. 15 By the industry's own admission, 1 out of 16 every 20 casings will experience an immediate 17 failure upon drilling. Not upon fracking, 18 "an immediate." 19 So that means, you're going to have a problem 20 5 percent of the time. 21 If you take a look at Dimock -- and I'm 22 skipping around here, just for time -- 1 out of 23 32 wells, according to the DEP, caused a 24 9-square-mile contamination area in Dimock. 25 If you take that figure, and multiply it by 1 100,000 wells at that contamination rate, 1 out 2 of 32 -- which is generous, it's probably more -- 3 you've contaminated every square inch of the 4 Marcellus Shale covering New York. 5 And you have to go by the statistics. This 6 is the way these things play out. 7 There is one in a thousand chance of a 8 blowout in Pennsylvania. We've had two blowouts. 9 All right. 10 So, there are no proven standards for 11 well-casing cement that have been scientifically 12 tested. 13 There are no proven standards for well-casing 14 pressure tests. 15 There are no proven standards or limitations 16 on frack pressures, or pressure-testing the 17 materials involving, including casing or pipes. 18 The reason that I'm going through this 19 laundry list, is because, the truth is, that no one, 20 except perhaps the industry, actually knows what is 21 going on, and why this is all failing so much. Why 22 we're having so many cases of water contamination. 23 It could be service contamination. It could 24 be casing failures. It could be the fracks. 25 Are the fractures going all the way up to the 1 surface? -- as I've heard from industry people, who 2 said, "Come here, I got to tell you something." 3 And I said, "Will you testify in Congress?" 4 And they said "No." 5 You know, it could be the fact that you have 6 natural fractures, that the frack fluids migrate up. 7 It could be the fact that you have an old 8 orphaned gas well or coal mine or oil well somewhere 9 in that geology that isn't accounted for, that you 10 hit when you frack. 11 It could be that you frack the next well, 12 when you have "this" well being fracked. 13 See what I'm saying? 14 So, there's many, many possibilities, and 15 this would take a study. 16 I've asked Weston Wilson of EPA to take a 17 look, and say: Well, what would this be? How would 18 you actually take a look at this? 19 And he said: Well, it would be about a 20 $30 million study just to do one geology. So, you'd 21 have to do five or six different wells, frack them 22 all, figure out where all of those fluids were 23 going. And take a look at that in many, many 24 different instances. 25 You'd, essentially, have to replicate the 1 scale, the drilling, to find out what is going on, 2 with any reliable scientific credibility. 3 Does it make sense? 4 So, therefore, any regulatory framework is 5 speculative. 6 I can keep going. I'm on Number 12. 7 But, you know what I'm saying? 8 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Uh-huh. 9 JOSH FOX: Companies that have -- I can go on 10 here. 11 Companies have not been, and are not 12 required, to report drilling logs, drilling-mud 13 records, frack-chemical records, depths, 14 frack pressures, directional drilling locations, to 15 the public, so there are no records of significant 16 parts of this technology open for public review. 17 There are no proven studies of how 18 drill-cutting disposal or storage affects water 19 quality. 20 There are no studies of the effects of the 21 disposal of drill-pit lining. 22 There is no history of the proven safety of 23 synthetic drilling muds which are injected before 24 wells are cased. -- which Mr. Northup pointed out, 25 drilling muds are injected before the wells are 1 cased. Those are going directly into the aquifers. 2 They're turning up at people's water wells. 3 Drilling muds are often synthetic and are 4 petroleum -- and/or are petroleum products which are 5 drilled directly into aquifers before the casing 6 process. 7 This can go on and on. 8 SENATOR BALL: Josh, you can submit the 9 testimony. But, if you think -- 10 JOSH FOX: I think I will. 11 SENATOR BALL: -- I think that, you know, in 12 the Air Force, you use so many acronyms, that, you 13 know, we get into a meeting, and it's as if, when 14 somebody new comes in, they should be handed a sheet 15 with all the acronyms. 16 I think, during this hearing, if you don't 17 mind, just speaking a little bit about: The process 18 of fracking; what you have seen firsthand, and when 19 you talk about the residents who came here today, 20 and the devastation that they a saw in their wells. 21 And, then, the industry itself, and the shell game 22 that they play, where they're actually providing the 23 water, but they've not taken responsibility. 24 JOSH FOX: Sure. 25 SENATOR BALL: They do a test, but they're 1 not testing for what's in the fracking fluid. 2 If you can just kind of put it in a nutshell, 3 and explain the process -- 4 JOSH FOX: The fact is, this process is so 5 technically complicated, it works in the industry's 6 favor, because they can do a lot of 7 smoke-and-mirrors games. 8 But, basically, what happens is: This is a 9 lie, from the very beginning, to the very end of the 10 process. 11 When they come to you, to lease your land, 12 the first thing that they will tell you is, "This is 13 perfectly safe, and you're going to make lots of 14 money"; both of which cannot be true. 15 So, they're coming in, as you heard Craig's 16 testimony, and basically selling you a bill of 17 goods. It says: This is what you're going to get 18 out of the process. 19 And if you sign that lease, you're -- 20 you're -- and they show you a picture of a 21 Christmas tree-like. A little thing in -- it looks 22 like a fire hydrant in the middle of the field. 23 And when you -- when this process goes on, 24 your land is rapidly industrialized. 25 You have pipelines, you've got compressor 1 stations, you've got well pads themselves. 2 There are, inevitably, problems with some of 3 the people's water, that start to become reported, 4 or they're not reported. 5 If you go ahead and complain, the company you 6 lease from will say: Well, that was the 7 contractor's fault. That wasn't our fault. So, you 8 have to call the contractor. 9 And, you know, so you end up going through a 10 series of hoops. 11 And if you go and, perhaps, complain to 12 Pennsylvania DEP, they'll take a long time to come 13 out, depending on what the Governor -- if it's 14 Rendell or if it's Corbett -- has decided. Your 15 tests will either be processed there, by the people 16 you're working with; or they'll end up in Harrisburg 17 for six months, for some reason, and you won't get 18 those water tests back. 19 And a lot of people are complaining about 20 that kind of thing. 21 Then, you're basically faced with a 22 situation, where you are forced to prove what 23 happened 8,000 feet under the ground, as a 24 landowner, on your own, with limited ability to pay 25 for water testing. 1 I mean, you have the possibility of 2 600 different possible fracking chemicals that could 3 be used. And with no reporting requirements, you 4 have to invent -- well, the EPA and Region 8 -- 5 Pavillion, Wyoming, which is featured in the film -- 6 when they went in and -- to try to find out what 7 these -- what had gone wrong with these people's 8 water, they, literally, had to invent the tests, to 9 figure out what chemicals were there, because the 10 drilling companies weren't going to tell them what 11 they were using. 12 And these -- and tests did not exist for some 13 of these chemicals, so they were really doing a 14 serious detective mission. 15 This has been going on for three years. 16 Every year, their findings are worse and worse. 17 Every year, they're telling those people in 18 Pavillion: Don't bathe in your water. Don't drink 19 in your water -- uhm, don't drink your water. Don't 20 use it. 21 And those people have no arrangements with 22 the companies to deliver water. They're buying 23 water at Wal-Mart. 24 So, this is going on and on all across the 25 nation. 1 And, time and again, the industry is --. 2 SENATOR BALL: Josh, just so people 3 understand -- 4 JOSH FOX: Yeah. 5 SENATOR BALL: -- sorry for -- when we're 6 talking about supplying water to a household, can we 7 talk a little bit about monthly costs. 8 JOSH FOX: Sure. 9 SENATOR BALL: Because, it's not just picking 10 up two jugs and, you know -- 11 JOSH FOX: Well, it varies from place to 12 place. It depends on how much water you're going to 13 get. 14 John Fenton, out in Pavilion, Wyoming, who's 15 featured in the film, was driving 60 miles to get 16 his water from, a friend, or a relative, that he 17 knew their water was okay. 18 Crystal Stroud, who you visited -- you and I 19 visited with on this tour, had contaminated water. 20 She had radioactive water. She had barium in her 21 water. 22 And, she ended up with barium in her blood, 23 and in her four-year-old son's blood, without 24 knowing that she was drinking this contaminant, 25 until her hair started falling out in the shower. 1 Her water supply, I believe she said, it was 2 $2,500 for two months. 3 SENATOR BALL: Right. 4 JOSH FOX: And a friend was paying it, as a 5 favor, because, uhm, felt sympathy for her, and she 6 wouldn't have been able to do that. 7 That's what it costs to, bathe in, and drink, 8 water. 9 A lot of people will still be bathing in 10 their water, or bathing in water from a water 11 buffalo, which you wouldn't normally think of as 12 potable. And then be drinking bottled water. 13 So, the expense is huge. 14 And, you know, I've heard many tales of gas 15 companies entering into agreements with people, in 16 Western Pennsylvania especially, that were 17 non-disclosure agreements, in exchange for 18 delivering water. 19 So, people were exchanging their 20 First Amendment Rights for the ability to have water 21 delivered that was substandard. But, that that was 22 the position that they were in. 23 I can speak very, very clearly, also, to 24 something that I'm seeing as a trend, and something 25 that I fear greatly myself, if this process were to 1 come to the Delaware River Basin; which is, that 2 people in these areas are forced to move. They must 3 leave. 4 Before you had arrived on the tour, we 5 visited Crystal Stroud's house. 6 When I visited her just three months ago, it 7 was a vibrant home. Her son was playing on the 8 porch. Her husband was there. Beautiful furniture. 9 Something that they had really cared for. 10 When we walked in two weeks ago, or a week 11 ago, it was empty. She had been forced to move. 12 Calvin Tillman, the mayor of Dish, the mayor 13 of the town; who has two young sons, he knows 14 exactly what the air pollution is that's coming into 15 his windows because he has the air monitors. He is 16 the mayor. 17 He had to move out of his own town, for fear 18 of his son's health. 19 Stephanie Hallowich, out in 20 Western Pennsylvania, another person who I've 21 interviewed, who's been very outspoken, had 22 acrylonitrile in her water well and benzene in her 23 air, had to move out of her house. 24 And when I called her up a few weeks ago, and 25 said, "Steph, how's it going?" she said, "I'm sorry, 1 I can't talk to you anymore." 2 She had signed a non-disclosure agreement. 3 This was one of the most -- she had to. She 4 was cornered. 5 Same thing happened with Amee Ellsworth, the 6 person in my film who could light her water on fire. 7 I called her up one day, and said, "Amee, 8 how's it going?" 9 She said, "Sorry, I can't talk you to about 10 gas anymore. We can talk about Facebook, we can 11 talk about video games, but we can't talk about gas 12 drilling." 13 Because, when you're in that position, and 14 your home is valueless, your water is flammable or 15 your water is poisoned, every ounce of value in your 16 home has disappeared. And, you are there, forced, 17 as a landowner, with, you know, two options. 18 You might be able to go the media, if you 19 feel like that kind of person. And not everybody 20 is. 21 Right? 22 Or, you can go ahead and try to sue that 23 company. And, you know, the odds are stacked 24 against you. 25 So, most likely, you're going to settling out 1 of court, with a non-disclosure agreement, and your 2 case history will disappear from the record unless, 3 perhaps, I have a copy of it. 4 And I do have Amee Ellsworth's water tests on 5 this flash drive, for you. But, if I didn't have 6 them, those records would be sealed, unless there 7 was a Congressional subpoena. 8 So, this is the kind of replicating over and 9 over again. 10 SENATOR KRUEGER: Josh, is there any state 11 that's done non-disclosure prevention laws? 12 JOSH FOX: I -- you know, I have been -- I'm 13 trying to find out the answers to, what exactly the 14 legality of a "non-disclosure agreement" is. 15 I think that -- my belief is that they're 16 unconstitutional. You should not be able to sign 17 away your First Amendment Rights because you're 18 being cornered by a huge corporation for everything 19 that you have. 20 I mean, I find them un-American. 21 And they're certainly the mortal enemy of the 22 documentary filmmaker, right, or any scientist, 23 because you're trying to find out this evidence. 24 You're on this trail. 25 SENATOR KRUEGER: Right. 1 JOSH FOX: You're -- and, all of a sudden, 2 you run into roadblock after roadblock. 3 And I could point to something very 4 significant with regards to this. 5 John Fenton, whose wife, Kathy, has lost her 6 sense of smell, who is suffering health effects, and 7 so is his mother-in-law that lives right near him, 8 and himself. They're all experiencing health 9 problems. 10 Five years ago, his neighbor's water was 11 contaminated with an odorless and colorless 12 contaminant. He didn't know about it, because his 13 neighbor had settled with the gas company, and 14 signed a non-disclosure agreement, and moved away. 15 If he had known five years previously, if 16 that had been part of the public record, he might 17 have -- he and his wife and his mother-in-law might 18 have not become ill. 19 And, so, you have a situation, where these 20 companies are cornering residents who have been 21 contaminated, making the records disappear from the 22 public so that, you can't access them, I can't 23 access them. And so that you can continue to say 24 this mantra of, "There's never been a proven case of 25 water contaminated by hydraulic fracturing," because 1 those are -- literally, disappeared. 2 And the point of all of this, this long list 3 of things here, is that, there has never been a 4 proven instance where hydraulic fracturing is safe. 5 It has never been proven. It has never been 6 subjected to any scientific rigor. So when you're 7 talking about a regulatory framework, you're doing 8 guesswork. 9 And, basically, that's more motivated by 10 politics than it is by -- or greed, than it is for 11 the actual concern of the citizens of the state. 12 You wouldn't be issuing drugs with these many 13 chemicals in them to the general public, and go: 14 Oh, well, we think they're safe. I believe it's 15 safe. 16 SENATOR KRUEGER: Right. 17 JOSH FOX: Your first impulse would be: 18 Well, did the FDA -- does the FDA also believe it's 19 safe? 20 You wouldn't get on an airplane, where the 21 pilot would say: Well, I think it's safe. 22 You know? 23 "I'm pretty sure it's safe" -- would you? 24 [Laughter.] 25 JOSH FOX: "I'm pretty sure it's safe. Step 1 on Bob's Airline." 2 You know? 3 And the FAA operates to a 99.69 record of 4 safety. That, is safe. 5 Not 95 percent, not 5 percent, of well 6 casings are going to fail. 7 And that's just one of the possible many 8 hundreds of problems that can go wrong that can 9 contaminate water, and can make your situation 10 unlivable in those areas. 11 So, you know, for a long time, New York was 12 the centerpiece of sanity on this issue, until we 13 opened this back up again. 14 I was just in South Africa, and I heard the 15 same line from the people who would like to drill: 16 "I believe it can be done safely." 17 And I said, "On what grounds?" 18 Well, luckily, the South African government 19 renewed their that six-month moratorium. They 20 didn't buy it. 21 We did not have that happen in this state. 22 And, in fact, I believe, that, based on all 23 these citizen testimony, we have enough information, 24 now, to say: No, we're not going to do this. We're 25 not going subject our citizens to this kind of 1 terror. 2 Because, oftentimes, that is the word that 3 people use when they discover their water is -- 4 (unintelligible) -- I was terrified. I couldn't 5 sleep." 6 Amee Ellsworth, who was silenced, remind you, 7 was showering in the dark, because she was afraid 8 that her light bulb would spark, and it would blow 9 up her shower while she was in it. 10 You know? 11 This is -- these are the conditions that 12 people were living in: to not understand if the 13 ground underneath you, and the water that's coming 14 through your house, is safe. 15 And this is a very legitimate concern. 16 If your water is flammable, you have coming 17 through your pipes unfiltered natural gas, which 18 includes all of the things that you might refine out 19 of it: benzene, toluene, xylene. 20 So, you're being exposed, through your water 21 pipes, to gas that would be considered illegal to 22 use in the home in any other context. 23 So, when you're dealing with this proposal, 24 the gas industry would like you to believe that 25 you're in some kind of a life raft, you know. That, 1 here we are in the middle of the ocean, you know, 2 and we're going to drown and die unless we start 3 eating each other. 4 You know? 5 But we're not in a life raft. 6 There are so many other ways that New York 7 can develop energy resources that are clean, that 8 are renewable, that are proven, that are tested that 9 work, that are twenty-first century, not 10 eighteenth century, technologies. 11 And, New York State has always been a very, 12 very bold leader in moving in that direction. 13 So, when you consider this proposal, you 14 can't just consider it a proposal of: We have to do 15 this drilling thing or die. Or, we have to do this 16 drilling thing or we'll have economic ruin. 17 We're talking about -- because the industry 18 will use those arguments to hold them over your 19 head. 20 What we're talking about here, is choices 21 about where the twenty-first century is going to go 22 in terms of energy. 23 And, this is one that makes the least sense 24 to do. 25 It makes the most sense for antiquated 1 fossil-fuel industries, who are dying, to make 2 money, but the least sense for the health and the 3 welfare of the state, and for the progress of the 4 human race. 5 So, there are many other things in this 6 testimony. I will submit it, formally, on this 7 Texas-sized flash drive, and in the film. 8 And I will also remind the panel that I am in 9 the process of making "Gasland II." 10 You may turn up in it -- 11 [Laughter.] 12 JOSH FOX: -- because the camera is right 13 over there [indicating.] 14 And, that, that's just a reminder that this 15 is happening on the world stage. 16 That, this debate, which I think is extremely 17 important, and I really commend you for holding it, 18 will determine policy, not only for New York, but 19 around the country, and around the world. 20 And that has been my experience talking to 21 people from Colorado, saying: Go find out what can 22 happen in New York. Maybe we can get some help. 23 Same thing in Australia. Same thing in 24 France, and Quebec, South Africa. 25 All eyes are here, and you guys are in the 1 lead. 2 And I really appreciate that. 3 SENATOR BALL: Thanks, Josh. 4 [Applause.] 5 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you, Josh. 6 Josh -- I'll just say, Josh, as you're 7 leaving, that an industry spokesman, when I 8 mentioned your movie, told me -- an industry 9 lobbiest told me: Well, methane gas comes out of 10 people's taps all the time. I don't know what the 11 issue is. 12 JOSH FOX: You know -- 13 SENATOR KRUEGER: It lights on fire, 14 actually. 15 JOSH FOX: -- I'm sorry, I know I'm over 16 time. 17 But, this "naturally occurring methane" 18 argument is a little bit -- 19 SENATOR KRUEGER: Yes. 20 JOSH FOX: -- I just want to put one thing in 21 your mind. 22 SENATOR KRUEGER: Yes. 23 JOSH FOX: The tobacco industry said that 24 lung cancer was naturally occurring. It did that 25 for decades. They hired a firm called 1 "Hill & Nolton," a PR agency, to promote that idea. 2 The gas industry hired Hill & Nolton to 3 attack my film. 4 Same agency, same argument: You can light the 5 water on fire naturally. 6 SENATOR BALL: Josh, it's not just methane. 7 Methane, in many instances -- 8 JOSH FOX: Oh, right. 9 SENATOR BALL: -- is the least of these 10 family's problems. And that that "naturally 11 recurring" argument is something that we absolutely 12 have to deal with. 13 JOSH FOX: Thank you. 14 SENATOR BALL: Natalie Brant. 15 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: And children. 16 SENATOR BALL: Okay, Natalie, you can begin. 17 NATALIE BRANT: Hello. My name is 18 Natalie Brant. I live about 30 minutes south of 19 Buffalo in Springville, New York, with my husband 20 and eight children. 21 My story begins in 2008, when my landlord 22 leased the land I live on to a gas company: 23 U.S. Energy. 24 I didn't -- I didn't really know the details 25 of drilling. I thought that it was going to be a 1 great thing and the gas would be cheaper for me. 2 I remember that they had an open frack waste 3 pit, but they never explained that it was just 4 dangerous. I thought it was normal -- uhm, I 5 thought it was normal in how they processed work, 6 and it was just muddy water. 7 I didn't think that it was anything unsafe, 8 because I didn't think that they were allowed to do 9 anything that was unsafe or risky. 10 They ended up just bull dosing over the pit. 11 Soon after drilling began, we started getting 12 really sick, and we didn't know what was going on 13 for 2 1/2 years. 14 Then, in July 2010, my husband watched 15 "Gasland," and realized that everything that was 16 happening in the film was going on in our life too. 17 So, my husband wanted to see if our water 18 actually started on fire. And it did. 19 He woke me up, and I had thought he was 20 goofing around, uhm, to -- I just couldn't believe 21 that he was lighting the water on fire. 22 I thought to myself, that's not normal. And 23 I was scared, shocked, and very disturbed. 24 We called the DEC to ask for their help. 25 They said they would call us back; but, 1 instead, U.S. Energy, the drilling company, called 2 us back. 3 Later, the DEC came to our house, but did 4 nothing but videotape our water starting on fire out 5 of the faucet. They never even took a water sample. 6 The gas company then came to our home. They 7 decided to put my neighbor's and I and my children 8 in a hotel for a night. They gave us six rooms 9 there, and threw several hundred dollars at us for 10 food. 11 The next morning, I talked to a 12 Mr. Chad Leonard from U.S. Energy, and he said it 13 would be safe to come home, and that they had put a 14 separation tank in, to separate the gas from the 15 water. 16 But, he said we shouldn't drink the water. 17 He called it "technical water." And that we could 18 clean the house with it only. 19 They also put us on a six-month water supply 20 with Culligan water. 21 We ended up getting about three deliveries 22 from Culligan, and that was it, because they had 23 found out I had hired an attorney. 24 At that point, U.S. Energy did nothing else 25 for us. 1 U.S. Energy officials started to say that the 2 gas in our water is coming from a nearby septic 3 system. They said it's sewer gas. 4 We know now that that -- that, after a water, 5 that it isn't true. 6 The DEC has done nothing for us. 7 When the DEC came to our home, they just told 8 us to make sure that, when we took showers, we kept 9 a window open, keep the bathroom door open, and put 10 a regular fan in the bathroom. 11 They said not to use the exhaust fan in the 12 bathroom because the levels of methane gathering in 13 that area had potential to blow up. That our house 14 could actually blow up also. 15 The DEC were the first ones to tell us that. 16 Then, later on, others stated that as well. 17 We shut off the water for the house because 18 we were frightened of a spark sending off methane. 19 I don't use the water at all. 20 I leave the windows open, even during the 21 winter, for fresh air. 22 The DEC put out a final report after claiming 23 they investigated. 24 In the report, they took the word of the gas 25 company, who claimed that a neighbor said he had 1 been lighting his water on fire for the last 2 15 years, and that they'd been doing it as a joke to 3 entertain people. 4 The neighbor said that he never said that. 5 That neighbor came over, and signed paperwork 6 saying that that was a lie, and that the gas company 7 had -- what the gas company had said wasn't true. 8 I have an affidavit from that neighbor. And, 9 I have an affidavit from the gas company, claiming 10 that the neighbor said it. And the neighbor is 11 saying something totally different. 12 SENATOR BALL: Jimmy, you can grab that 13 testimony, okay? 14 [Documents provided to Senator Ball.] 15 NATALIE BRANT: And another neighbor too. 16 I'll put that there. 17 Okay, so, the neighbor came over, and he 18 signed the affidavit, saying it was a lie, and that 19 the gas company had -- what was said wasn't true. 20 Another neighbor also said the same thing. 21 And, I have two notarized affidavits, which I 22 just gave you, stating this. 23 The DEC based the results and findings on the 24 word of the gas company, which, they were all lies. 25 The DEC has been, in my eyes, a disgrace. 1 What are they good for? What did they do for 2 me? "Nothing." 3 They drove an hour and a half to my home to 4 videotape my water setting on fire? 5 After all -- after that, all they did was 6 release a report, saying that they had investigated; 7 which they didn't. The DEC never tested the water, 8 but created a report somehow. 9 To this day, they have never taken a water 10 sample. 11 I also called Erie County's Health 12 Department. 13 First, they sent a technician over, just to 14 test for bacteria, which, at that point, before the 15 separator was installed, there was none. 16 The Department of Health told us, we were 17 only to take one-minute showers. 18 I contacted the Attorney General's Office 19 here in Albany. 20 Then, an engineer from the 21 Health Department -- from Erie County Health 22 Department came to look at the water, inspect the 23 water well, and separating system set up by 24 U.S. Energy. 25 At the time, he ruled out septic 1 contamination. 2 The Health Department also said that we 3 needed to disconnect the separation tank, because 4 the bacteria levels were getting outrageous, and the 5 separator wasn't working on the methane. My water 6 was still setting on -- starting on fire. 7 If anything, the installation of the 8 separator made the water worse. 9 The chief engineer for Erie County could not 10 even describe the odor of the water, which was murky 11 and filthy. 12 That's what's coming out of our faucets. 13 He did not take a water sample because the 14 County Health Department does not have the required 15 resources or expertise. 16 The Health Department told me that private 17 drinking wells are not regulated in New York State. 18 Also -- so he couldn't -- so, he couldn't do 19 anything about that. 20 We'd been drinking the water for almost 21 2 1/2 years before we knew that there was something 22 wrong with it. 23 I started to connect the dots back to 24 unexplained illnesses, and it all started about 25 three weeks after the drilling began in 2010. 1 When we stopped using the water, we noticed 2 that some of the sicknesses began to somewhat 3 subside. 4 It started to sink in that the ailments we've 5 been having for the past couple of years were 6 connected to the drilling. 7 All the children, my husband, and myself were 8 getting severe recurring headaches. 9 My kids and husband were getting nose-bleeds. 10 One of my daughters got an unexplained virus, 11 and missed so much school. 32 days of school in a 12 row at one point, that a doctor thought she had 13 mono. But, blood work came back negative for mono. 14 She had fatigue, felt weak, was pale, had no 15 appetite, running a fever, muscle aches, and had 16 a very upset stomach. 17 It seems like all of our stomachs were always 18 upset. 19 My-then 17-year-old son was diagnosed with 20 asthma. He had been healthy up until this point. 21 And, then, all of a sudden, at the age of 17, he got 22 asthma. He couldn't even participate in gym, and 23 even running laps. 24 I had excruciating body aches to the point 25 where painkillers didn't even work, and you couldn't 1 sleep. 2 There were so many upper-respiratory 3 infections that I can't even tell you how many times 4 we went to doctors and to the emergency room. 5 I remember a time, I was doing one-minute 6 showers, like the Health Department advised, when 7 the water appeared to be clearer. 8 One night, I got into the shower, and not 9 even 30 seconds later, my skin started burning. I 10 started getting stinging welts and hives like my 11 skin was just like on fire. 12 I jumped out of the shower and yelled for my 13 husband. 14 He took picture of my arms and legs. 15 He turned the water back on, and asked if I 16 had looked at it -- because it was filthy brown -- 17 when I began my shower. 18 And I told him, it did not look like that 19 when I started the water. 20 All of us would get headaches so bad that our 21 eyes would get bloodshot, and would actually vomit 22 from the headaches. 23 I remember one instance, when my husband, 24 Gino, was outside, and I was in the house, and my 25 head started to feel like it was going to explode. 1 I could barely see or stand, or even reach to a 2 telephone to call my husband's cell phone for help. 3 It was so frightening. 4 My children have gone through brain scans as 5 well. 6 High levels of methane exposure can lead to 7 lack of oxygen to the brain. Every six months, they 8 have to go for brain scans. 9 Doctors aren't able to do accurate blood 10 tests because nobody has a clue as to what chemicals 11 they are dealing with. 12 It makes me sick to my stomach, scared, and 13 horrified, to think of my children becoming sick 14 from this drilling. 15 I don't think that there is any parent out 16 there that wants to think about their child getting 17 cancer, or dying. 18 When your children have been exposed to 19 something purposely, because a gas company injected 20 these chemicals into the ground and your water 21 becomes contaminated, and the children bathe in it, 22 swim in it, it is a crime, in my eyes. It makes me 23 furious. 24 I can't believe they are allowed to do it. 25 If you or I were to contaminate someone's 1 water and poison them, it would be considered a 2 crime. 3 How are these companies getting away with it? 4 I'm still shocked. 5 I worry so much about the long-term health 6 consequences on my family. 7 Our water was crystal clear before the 8 drilling. Now we don't know what's going to come 9 out of our faucet. 10 Sometimes the water comes out cloudy; yellow, 11 green, gray. When the water sits for an extended 12 period of time, sediment settles to the bottom. 13 Somewhere -- wait a minute. I'm sorry. 14 Okay. 15 Sometimes the water looks almost clear, but 16 hazy. 17 The water always starts on fire, though. 18 That's the one constant in my home. 19 Our live are so different now. 20 Now that we don't have clean water, we buy a 21 lot of water for bathing, cooking, and drinking; 22 somewhere between 50 and 100 gallons we purchase of 23 water a week. And, my husband also goes to his 24 mom's house, which is about 45 minutes away, to fill 25 up 100 gallons of water also. 1 I warm the water on my stove and we use it to 2 sponge bathe. 3 Other than sponge bathing, the children and I 4 have to travel to my father-in-law's house to take 5 showers, an hour a way, twice a week, so the kids 6 can take regular showers. 7 I don't even wash dishes anymore. I have to 8 buy throw-away plates, spoons, cups, and forks. I 9 don't trust the water coming from the tap. I can't 10 afford to buy water to clean dishes. 11 Laundry is really hard because there's ten of 12 us. There's a lot of laundry. 13 So, when the water starts to look clearer, I 14 begin to do laundry. 15 My machine is a front-loader without an 16 agitator, but I noticed it started shredding and 17 ripping the clothes apart. Holes would start 18 popping up in towels or in the middle of a shirt. 19 Why? I don't know. 20 I try to go you to the laundromat, but I 21 can't always afford it. It's extremely hard. It's 22 extremely expensive. 23 Any kind of savings we had is totally 24 depleted. We're lucky to be making it month to 25 month. 1 If it weren't for the help from my dad, I 2 probably wouldn't be able to feed my children. 3 We've been trying to find a place to move, 4 but nobody wants to rent to somebody with 5 eight children. 6 My husband and I have even thought about 7 getting two apartments and split our family up for 8 safety reasons. But, we can't even do that because 9 we can't afford it. We can't afford two rent 10 payments, two electric bills, two phone bills, 11 two garbage bills. 12 We just can't afford that, so we keep looking 13 until we can find a place to move. I'm constantly 14 looking for a place. 15 Originally, I had moved to Springville to get 16 away from the city. I thought I was protecting my 17 children. 18 Now we're away from the city and we're in a 19 good school district, but we're not in a safe home. 20 A lot of other people in my area are not in a 21 safe -- are not in safe homes either. Other people 22 in my area have abandoned their homes. Sometimes 23 they put gas bills right next to their house. 24 No one wants drilling where I live. 25 Hydrofracking needs to be banned in 1 New York State, and my neighbors would agree. 2 It's already devastating New York State, and 3 will only do more damage. 4 I pray to God that New York State bans 5 hydrofracking. 6 My life has been turned upside down and 7 inside out. 8 I never would have imagined that my water 9 would start on fire. My water would never put a 10 fire out. It's an accelerant, in my eyes. 11 My life has been changed in every negative 12 way possible. It has caused us to, financially, 13 really struggle, and emotionally struggle, because 14 we're constantly worried about our children, and if 15 they are going to come down with cancer, or other 16 illnesses, because of what they have been exposed 17 to. 18 I have no idea what all the other things are 19 that are in the water. I can't get an honest answer 20 from anybody. 21 The only thing I am positive is, is that the 22 gas company broke our water table and contaminated 23 my drinking water. 24 It's enormous amounts of stress on our lives. 25 We just wanted to live a simple life, and raise our 1 children. 2 Now we have to deal with flammable water, a 3 lying gas company, and having to worry about our 4 children's health and future. 5 I don't know if we're going to blow up in 6 that house. 7 Who wants to live their life that way? No 8 one should have to. This should not be going on 9 anywhere in the United States. 10 I am not an activist. I am just a mom. 11 I'm a mom who will live in fear of always 12 wondering if my children will come down with cancer, 13 or some other horrible illness. 14 Who could imagine that letting my children 15 drink tap water would put their lives in danger? 16 This is why I have decided to go public and 17 speak out, so that nobody else will have to go 18 through this nightmare. 19 I traveled ten hours to come here to this 20 hearing, because I want you to know that vertical 21 fracking is happening in New York State, and I am a 22 victim of it, along with my husband and my 23 eight children, and a lot of neighbors in my area. 24 We cannot trust the gas industry with our 25 future; nor can we trust the DEC who is turning a 1 blind eye to the devastation hydrofracking causes. 2 Who do the DEC work for: us or the gas 3 industry? 4 Thank you. 5 SENATOR BALL: Thank you so much for driving, 6 and for your courage. 7 [Applause.] 8 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Thank you very 9 much. 10 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 11 NATALIE BRANT: I also have, if you would be 12 interested, in my area, right where I live, in my 13 backyard, these are all of the gas wells, in the 14 circles. And I have pictures of open frack pits. 15 SENATOR BALL: And this water here, do you 16 want to show the water that you brought? 17 NATALIE BRANT: Yes, yes, yes. 18 [Mrs. Brant approaches the Senators' 19 table.] 20 [Off-the-record conversation commences.] 21 [Video of a local television news 22 channel report is played.] 23 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 24 SENATOR BALL: We'll follow up. 25 NATALIE BRANT: Thank you. 1 SENATOR BALL: Thank you so much. 2 Do you want to keep this with me, or -- make 3 sure we get a copy of it. 4 I mean, we can either get a copy -- okay, 5 make sure we keep a copy of it. 6 NATALIE BRANT: Thank you. 7 SENATOR BALL: You pulled that off the DEC 8 website? 9 Okay. 10 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 11 SENATOR BALL: Claire. 12 Hi, Claire. 13 CLAIRE SANDBERG: Hi, Senator. 14 SENATOR BALL: How are you? 15 CLAIRE SANDBERG: I'm good. 16 I'm really happy to be here. And, I just 17 want to thank you so much for holding this hearing, 18 and really approaching this issue with an open mind. 19 I think it's really incredible. 20 So -- and thank you, Senators Stewart-Cousins 21 and Krueger, for also being here and listening to 22 this today. 23 SENATOR BALL: Thank you. 24 CLAIRE SANDBERG: I just want to address, 25 head on, the issue of perceived support for this 1 industry, because it's easy to hear stories like 2 Natalie's, and think that that is the exception and 3 not the rule. 4 And I think it's really difficult for people 5 in your position to see the level of very passionate 6 support for this industry, and reconcile that with 7 all of these devastating impacts that you're hearing 8 about, especially when polls are showing that there 9 are a number of New Yorkers who believe that some 10 level of environmental or health damage is justified 11 if the rewards, jobs, energy, royalty checks, are 12 great enough. 13 So, the natural-gas industry is, very 14 obviously, selling the public on a level of reward 15 beyond anything that we ever could have imagined was 16 possible. 17 "Right below our feet," the story line goes, 18 lie, not one, but two Saudi Arabias of natural gas, 19 that will make America energy independent and revive 20 our struggling rural economies." 21 "A pot of gold on every field," is the kind 22 of story that we're hearing. 23 But, are these wild promises actually 24 supported by the facts? I think is the important 25 question. 1 Much has recently been made about whether the 2 gas companies have misled their investors about the 3 economic and energy benefits of shale gas. But, 4 uncovering the truth is even more critical to the 5 landowners and communities who have staked their 6 future on the claims of these gas companies. 7 In the Southern Tier, the narrative about 8 people becoming overnight "shaleionaires" has been 9 told, and retold, for several years now. 10 And the gas industry enjoys relatively strong 11 support among many residents, most of whom have a 12 perceived financial self-interest in this industry. 13 With the standard royalty rate of 14 12.5 percent on most leases, many large landowners 15 are banking on receiving $32,000 per acre, per year, 16 over a period of 50 years; or, 2.5 million per well, 17 over 50 years. 18 So, with numbers flying like -- numbers like 19 that flying around, it's not hard to understand why 20 people convince themselves that the risks are 21 overstated or justified; that they'll be one of the 22 lucky ones; or, that if contamination does occur, 23 that they can just move away. 24 And, people are making those calculations. 25 So, unfortunately, the promises are not borne 1 out by the facts. 2 First, it's important to note, that most 3 leaseholders in this region, when it comes down to 4 it, royalties is where they would be getting 5 compensated. It's not from signing bonuses. 6 Although there have been a few highly 7 publicized stories of leaseholders receiving signing 8 bonuses of $4,000 an acre, most people who sign 9 leases receive far less than that, with people 10 signing away their mineral rights for $5 an acre, 11 commonly. Or, even $1 an acre. Or, even, just free 12 gas. 13 There are actually a lot of people who sign 14 for just free gas. Most of those people were some 15 of the early signers. They thought that this was 16 just the same conventional drilling that had always 17 happened. And, they thought it sounded like a good 18 deal. 19 Also, a number of the landmen who initially 20 came around, told people: All of your neighbors 21 have already signed, so you might as well get 22 something out of it. 23 And they're very persistent. And they manage 24 to get the best deal. 25 And, then, perpetually, that ceiling went a 1 little higher, and then you have a few people who 2 ended up really getting a windfall. 3 But, that's not common. 4 So most people were not making the money, 5 up-front, on those signing bonuses. 6 And, when the gas actually starts to flow, 7 what happens then? 8 To begin with, many leaseholders in 9 Pennsylvania have discovered that a large portion of 10 the production costs are subtracted directly from 11 the royalty payments that they would receive, with 12 the industry granting itself enormous control for 13 creative accounting, with no transparency on when 14 the company actually begins to make a profit. 15 So, costs, like rebuilding county roads, 16 which appear to be a service for the community, 17 donated by the industry, are actually deducted 18 directly from leaseholder royalty payments 19 oftentimes. 20 But, more importantly, many of these wells 21 are not performing the way the gas industry promised 22 that they would, to their leaseholders or to 23 investors. 24 As in the "Times" recently documented, 25 there's a growing sense of a rational exuberance 1 about the shale-gas market. 2 In the Barnett Shale in Texas, companies 3 released glowing reports of production at early 4 wells drilled at the confirmed sweet spots, and 5 extrapolated that production data to assess the 6 value of the entire formation. 7 We know that the industry also did this in 8 the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, with the two 9 sweet spots of, Dimock, in south -- south -- sorry, 10 in northeastern Pennsylvania, and, Hickory, in 11 southwestern Pennsylvania, being the places where 12 the industry started off. 13 Based on data from the Barnett Shale and, 14 increasingly, from the Marcellus in Pennsylvania, 15 we've seen that the overall performance of the shale 16 deposits is not uniform across the formation; and, 17 largely, does not match the early predictions based 18 on production in those sweet spots. 19 We also know that, contrary to the promises 20 of this industry about a continuous flow of gas 21 profits and royalties over 50 years, gas production 22 declines dramatically after the initial rush. 23 The average life of a Barnett Shale well was 24 7.5 years. And, data have shown that production at 25 high-volume hydraulically fractured wells has 1 declined about, 75 percent in year one, 35 percent 2 in year two, 25 percent in year three, and 3 12.5 percent in year four, and 10 percent in 4 year five. 5 So, that's a precipitous decline in the 6 amount of gas that's coming out of these wells. 7 And, with the 2008 Securities and Exchange 8 Commission rule change, written about in the series, 9 allowing gas companies to keep secret the methods 10 they use to actually calculate the size of those 11 reserves, it's no wonder that insiders are now 12 calling shale gas a Ponzi scheme. 13 So, it all adds up, when you realize that the 14 major drilling companies are not actually even 15 holding the risk themselves. They are passing the 16 actual lease rights on to third-party investors. 17 These companies, like Halliburton, 18 Schlumberger, Chesapeake, primarily make their money 19 on two things: financial speculation, and drilling 20 services. 21 In other words: They make money whether or 22 not gas is actually produced. 23 An analogy that was recently described to me, 24 was, that: The gas companies have, essentially, 25 told everyone that there is gold in the beach, and 1 they're selling everyone metal detectors. 2 "They're not in the gold business, they're in 3 the metal detector business"; which, I think is a 4 really helpful analogy. 5 So, what all of this tells us, is that this 6 industry, and their entire basis of support in rural 7 communities, is built on a house of cards. 8 The natural-gas propaganda machine has 9 convinced the public that shale gas will power 10 America for 100 years while making us all rich. 11 But the gas industry's record in other states 12 calls into question: How much gas can actually be 13 extracted, and whether this industry is, in fact, 14 profitable. 15 And that's extremely important to weigh 16 against the fact, that, by moving forward with this 17 industrial project, on any level, in New York, we 18 can expect to see massive environmental and 19 public-health impacts, a steep decline in property 20 values, devastation to agriculture, tourism, small 21 businesses -- the life blood of truly sustainable 22 economies in Upstate New York -- as other speakers 23 have talked about. 24 So, I don't think it's accurate for this 25 debate to be characterized as "risk versus reward." 1 It's been characterized as: Risk versus 2 reward; economics versus environment. 3 But, in reality, this is a lose-lose prospect 4 for environment and economy. 5 The rewards, when it comes down to it, are 6 minimal, and not widely shared. 7 And the risks are not hypothetical. They are 8 inevitable. 9 This industry has proven problems that have 10 not been solved. 11 As was mentioned before, Anthony Ingraffia, 12 of Cornell, has said that industry documentation is 13 showing 5 percent of well casing is failing 14 automatically. 15 That's 1 in 20 wells failing, with 16 groundwater becoming contaminated with methane and 17 chemicals, automatically. 18 So, it's not surprising that Duke University 19 did find that water contamination, at dangerous 20 levels, is occurring in a majority of water wells 21 near active gas-drilling sites in Pennsylvania. 22 A majority. 23 And, over time, we know that all well casing 24 will eventually fail. It's just a question of, how 25 long? 1 And we don't know what the long-term impacts 2 of that will be. 3 As has already been said today, that, you 4 know: Groundwater contamination; not just a risk, 5 but a certainty. And, then, above-ground 6 contamination; not just a risk, but an immediate 7 certainty. -- the problem of disposing of millions 8 of gallons of this toxic, radioactive wastewater. 9 And then, of, also, venting and evaporating, 10 that same water into the air poses enormous threats 11 to the -- to public health. 12 And, as Josh mentioned earlier, along with 13 this wide-spread and certain contamination -- 14 [Off-the-record comment is whispered to 15 the speaker.] 16 CLAIRE SANDBERG: Okay. 17 -- threat of catastrophic accidents and 18 blowouts. 19 So, I just want to say: All of this adds up 20 to a very different outcome, obviously, than what is 21 presented in some of the slick Exxon ads that we see 22 over and over again on television. 23 And, I know that you're in a very difficult 24 position of having to say, "no," or "not yet," to 25 people who are very passionate, and have a perceived 1 economic self-interest. 2 But I think, when it comes down to it, I 3 encourage you to go, as Senator Ball did, to 4 Bradford County, and meet the people. It's not very 5 hard to find people who lease their land for $5 an 6 acre. 7 It's a little bit more difficult to find some 8 of the shaleionaires. 9 And, meet the people who going through this, 10 and see whether we want to bring this industry here 11 into New York. 12 Because, when all is said and done, you know, 13 if we move forward; if we say, Okay, we've studied 14 this long enough in New York State, let's march 15 ahead. We've looked at the risks and the 16 rewards. -- and, then, everything is devastated, and 17 the perceived -- all of the perceived benefits, the 18 jobs and the royalties, don't come rolling in as 19 people were promised, I think some of the same 20 people who are very supportive of this industry are 21 going to start looking around, wondering: Who know 22 knew about this beforehand? And, why didn't 23 anything happen to protect them? 24 SENATOR BALL: Thank you, Claire. 25 [Applause.] 1 SENATOR KRUEGER: One question, Claire, and 2 perhaps you don't know, but maybe one of the other 3 testifiers: Nobody's yet talked about concerns 4 about seismic activity and earthquakes. 5 And I'm just wondering, is that because, when 6 we did the original scope of what to study, nobody 7 even knew that was something that we should worry 8 about? 9 Have you done any research into that? 10 CLAIRE SANDBERG: Well, some of the seismic 11 impacts in Arkansas were related, actually, to 12 deep-well injection; disposal of the wastewater. 13 And that was actually near an active fault line. 14 So, from what I understand, some of the 15 earthquakes declined dramatically -- and I think 16 Josh actually went to Arkansas and investigated 17 this -- after they stopped doing the deep-well 18 injection near those fault lines. 19 So, some people did think: Well, this wasn't 20 related to fracking. This is related to wastewater 21 disposal. 22 But, there was recently another report of an 23 earthquake in England, near an actual fracking site. 24 So, I think that there are a lot of questions 25 that remain to be answered on that issue. 1 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 2 SENATOR BALL: Okay. 3 Thank you, Claire. 4 All right, Adrienne Esposito, 5 Citizens Campaign for the Environment. 6 [Comments, and discussion, off the 7 record.] 8 SENATOR BALL: Adrienne. 9 ADRIENNE ESPOSITO: Good afternoon, Senators. 10 First off, I have to give you a heartfelt 11 "thank you" for being the three senators who are 12 here. 13 You're listening. You're still here. 14 I have been to many of these hearings. Many 15 senators stay for the first 15 minutes, and leave. 16 So, you're terrific. Thank you. 17 The purpose of -- 18 [Applause.] 19 ADRIENNE ESPOSITO: The purpose of a Senate 20 legislative hearing, I believe, is twofold. 21 One, is to educate, but the other is also to 22 give you ideas of what you can do, and what needs to 23 be done. 24 We have some suggestions for you. And I'm 25 going to be very quick, and I'm not going read my 1 comments. 2 You'll also be happy -- he's shaking his head 3 vigorously. 4 SENATOR BALL: I love it. 5 ADRIENNE ESPOSITO: Number one is: We would 6 strongly urge you to suggest to our -- 7 Governor Cuomo, and also to DEC Commissioner 8 Joe Martens, to take the trip you did, because it's 9 one thing to evaluate policy, to evaluate 10 environmental impact, to evaluate the scientific 11 impact. It's another thing to understand the human 12 experience that results from that analysis. 13 That's what you've done, and that's what I 14 believe has compelled you to hold this hearing. 15 That's what "they" need to do; they need to 16 understand how their policy translates into our 17 lives. 18 So, we would ask you to take that message 19 back. 20 The second thing has been said before, but it 21 is worth saying again: We need, We want, 22 We deserve, 180 days to evaluate this policy. 23 The first draft environmental impact study 24 generated 15,000 public comments. 25 15,000 members of the public, got up out of 1 their seats, they read an EIS, and they commented. 2 Why? Because we care. That's why. 3 We care about losing what it is we love about 4 New York State. 5 We deserve that then -- we deserved it then. 6 We deserve a longer comment period now. 7 Another thing which has not come up yet 8 today, which I'll happily bring up, is that, what 9 you can do, is you can eliminate, what's called, 10 "compulsory integration." 11 "Compulsory integration" is when homeowners 12 are forced to sign away their land to the energy 13 company. 14 But, please, don't take my word for it. This 15 will be the one time I do read. 16 This is directly from the DEC website. 17 "Effective August 2, 2005, an applicant for a 18 permit to drill an oil or gas well in New York State 19 must include, in the permit application, a map 20 showing the area that will be assigned to the well. 21 This area, called the 'spacing unit,' may include, 22 some, or all, of your acreage, even if you haven't 23 signed an oil-and-gas lease." 24 This practice does not allow the public to 25 make the decision of whether or not it will allow 1 gas drilling on private lands. 2 If a majority of landowners, in any given 3 area, allow for gas drilling, then the remaining 4 landowners are integrated. 5 This is not a New York policy. This is not 6 an American policy. 7 You can help us to fix this policy. And, we 8 are hereby requesting that. 9 The second thing: We've heard a lot about 10 treatment of the wastewater. 11 But, did you know, that the DEC, before, or, 12 have nothing to do hydrofracking, has estimated that 13 our wastewater upgrading needs in New York State 14 are, currently, 36 billion, with a B, dollars? 15 We need that money just to upgrade and 16 modernize our antiquated sewer infrastructure so 17 that we can actually treat the water up to new 18 standards. 19 And, we need it, to make sure our public 20 health is protected, and for increased capacity 21 needs. 22 So, what will we do with this additional 23 hydrofracking fluid waste? 24 Apparently, we're going to discharge it to a 25 list of pre-approved sewage-treatment facilities 1 that have pre-treatment industrial-waste treatment 2 abilities. 3 Where will it go? 4 Well, apparently, all over New York: 5 Great Lakes, Onondaga Lake, Hudson River, estuaries 6 of national significance, like, the Long Island 7 Sound, Jamaica Bay. 8 Is this good planning? I don't think so. 9 The problem here, is that, do these treatment 10 facilities take out those radionuclides? No. 11 Do they take out the massive number of brine 12 that is generated? No. 13 Will they treat the volatile organic 14 chemicals down to zero? No. 15 Does this seem to bother the DEC? No. 16 That's a lot of nos. 17 [Laughter.] 18 ADRIENNE ESPOSITO: One of the problems is, 19 is that, these -- you know, this waste product has a 20 suite of VOT -- of VOCs, called "B techs (ph.)." 21 That's a short way of saying: benzene, toluene, 22 ethyl benzene, and xylene. 23 And what we'll do, is, we'll treat them down 24 to standard. So, we're just going to poison those 25 water bodies a little bit. And, then, we have no 1 way of treating for the radionuclides. And the 2 brine is going to be a big problem. 3 Let's talk about those radionuclides, shall 4 we? 5 I know you heard a lot about it today, but 6 let's remember, after all, I was just told this just 7 the other day by a DEC person: Adrienne, those are 8 norms; naturally occurring radioactive materials. 9 I was waiting for the soft glow to come over 10 me and make me feel all warm and fuzzy about it. 11 And, it didn't actually come. 12 Yes, they are naturally occurring, two miles 13 down in the earth. 14 They are unnatural to be, drinking, and 15 breathing. 16 Let's be clear: Uranium 235, Uranium 228, 17 Uranium 238, radion -- Radium 228; we're not meant 18 to drink it. 19 Uranium is an alpha emitter. 20 Alpha radiation, when it is ingested, either 21 through drinking water or inhalation, is one of the 22 most dangerous substances known to our species. 23 It doesn't belong in our drink water. 24 So, even though these are naturally 25 occurring, it is not natural for us to drink them. 1 What can you do, you might ask? 2 We can tell you. 3 This wastewater is now, as we said earlier, 4 treated as non-hazardous. 5 You can change the law. 6 We ask you: Change the law. It should be 7 hazardous. 8 It's a miracle, what happens. 9 The cocktail of chemicals arrives on the 10 trucks to the site. It says "hazardous waste." 11 Then it's mixed in with the water. It's shot 12 two miles down. It comes up, abracadabra, it's no 13 longer hazardous. 14 The earth is a miracle, apparently. We know 15 that's true. 16 But, in this case, classification is a lie. 17 We're asking you to change the law. 18 It's hazardous. Let's treat it as hazardous. 19 The energy company doesn't need one more 20 break, and the public needs your protection. 21 Couple of last things, real quick. 22 No one talks about cumulative impact. 23 We like to talk about that. 24 How many leases are in New York State? 25 Nobody knows. 1 We said to the DEC, for instance: How many 2 leases are in the Finger Lakes? 3 They said: We don't know. We can't do 4 cumulative impact, Adrienne. We don't know. 5 We said: All right, well, we're going to 6 find out. 7 18 months it took us. 8 See that beautiful map there? 9 As it turns out -- as demonstrated by your 10 staff -- there are over 20,000 leases in the 11 8 counties that we evaluated. 12 There are over 600,000 acres in the 13 Finger Lakes leased already to gas interests. It 14 represents approximately one-third of those 15 counties. 16 What is the cumulative impact? It's not in 17 the DEIS, because the DEC didn't know. 18 It took us 18 months. Sent out an army of 19 people, to go to every Podunk little community and 20 look up the leases, and then map them using GIS. 21 Big project. 22 This hasn't been done for many of the areas 23 in the state. 24 What we don't know, can't hurt us. 25 Ignorance isn't bliss. Ignorance is 1 dangerous. 2 The other thing that we feel is very 3 important here to know, is that -- it was said 4 earlier by that wonderful pediatrician who 5 testified -- the health impact hasn't been assessed. 6 Well, that's amazing, considering, it is 7 supposed to be assessed under state law. It's 8 called "SEQRA"; State Environmental Quality Review 9 Act. 10 We're supposed to look at the health impacts. 11 Lastly, I just want to add, that the energy 12 industry not being here is a message to you guys. 13 It speaks loud and clear. 14 I'm an environmentalist. I show up in many 15 industry hearings. Sometimes I'm the only one, but 16 I show up. 17 Why? Because the truth seeks to be heard. 18 Lies seek to be hidden. 19 That's what happened here today. And that's 20 what you're seeing. 21 If I'm a, you know, five-foot-three, 22 middle-aged woman working for a non-profit, and I 23 show up, they damn well can show up also. 24 [Applause.] 25 ADRIENNE ESPOSITO: The last thing I'm going 1 to say is, and, Senator Ball, you said it best 2 earlier, "This is New York." 3 So, we have a message for the energy 4 industry. 5 We will not be intimidated. 6 We will not be hunted down by industry thugs. 7 We will not allow our water resources to be 8 contaminated, nor our neighbors to be poisoned. 9 And we sure as heck will not be silent. 10 We will not allow what the poor Pennsylvania 11 community has gone through to occur here. 12 So, that's a message I think that needs to be 13 heard loud and clear by the energy industry: "This 14 is New York, and we're not going be silent." 15 I just want to tell you this one quick story. 16 I was part of the -- of Governor Cuomo's 17 energy and environmental transition team. 18 And, as part of that, we actually had a very 19 long conversation with John Hanger. 20 Now, the folks in Pennsylvania are 21 probably -- their hearts are beating faster right 22 now, they're getting nervous. 23 John Hanger was the DEP commissioner in 24 Pennsylvania when a lot of this hydrofracking 25 occurred. 1 And, so, as part of this interaction, I asked 2 him: What can you say you learned? What is the 3 greatest lesson you learned from allowing 4 hydrofracking to go forward in your state, that 5 New York can know? 6 And he, like, hemmed, and he hawed, as if he 7 was reaching deep into his memory banks, and finding 8 something that maybe they didn't do so well. 9 He said: Well, there is one thing. We 10 wouldn't do it without the regulatory staff. You 11 need regulatory staff to make sure it's done right. 12 That was the one thing he came up with. 13 Not all the people he poisoned, but, that's a 14 second story. 15 [Laughter.] 16 ADRIENNE ESPOSITO: So, I said, you know -- 17 so, here we are. We heard testimony. 18 The DEC has been cut by 20 percent. We keep 19 cutting it. We don't have the regulatory staff. 20 Senators, what we're asking for you to do, is 21 to help us. 22 What we're asking you to do, is to protect 23 our greatest asset in the state; and that's our 24 water resources. 25 Albert Einstein said, "Intelligent people 1 solve problems, and brilliant people prevent them." 2 We're asking you to be brilliant for us. 3 Thank you so much for your time today. 4 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Thank you. 5 [Applause.] 6 [No audio and video; technical 7 difficulties.] 8 SENATOR KRUEGER: I have a quote from 9 Commissioner Joe Martens, the head of our DEC, 10 that's -- it was fairly recently. 11 "Currently, no wastewater treatment plants in 12 New York are equipped to treat, or permitted to 13 accept, wastewater with the range of contaminants 14 expected to be in the fluids produced by high-volume 15 hydraulic fracturing." 16 So, if he's on record as saying, we don't 17 have plants that can handle this, how do we have a 18 list of the plants this wastewater is going to go 19 to? 20 ADRIENNE ESPOSITO: The list is an appendix 21 from the draft EIS, of sewage treatment plants that 22 have, what's called, "a pre-industrial 23 waste-treatment ability." 24 So, this is a list. Its called 25 "Appendix 21," right from the DEC. 1 "Publicly Owned Treated Waterworks With 2 Approved Pre-Treatment Programs." 3 Rolls right off your tongue. 4 And, this is, again, the: Supplemental 5 Generic Environmental Impact Statement, Revised 6 Draft. 7 This is, that appendix. 8 So, I'm happy that he says that verbally; 9 however, what the paper trail says is something a 10 little bit different. 11 SENATOR KRUEGER: That was the point I wanted 12 to get. Thank you very much. 13 ADRIENNE ESPOSITO: Oh, see, I'm so happy 14 that I could clarify that with you. 15 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you so much. 16 Thank you. 17 SENATOR BALL: Okay. 18 ADRIENNE ESPOSITO: Thank you. 19 SENATOR BALL: Thank you so much. 20 Okay, Paul? 21 Paul Gallay, from Riverkeeper. 22 PAUL GALLAY: Good afternoon, Senators. 23 I've learned one thing today: I have to be 24 nicer to whomever on the staff put me after 25 Adrienne. 1 [Laughter.] 2 PAUL GALLAY: My name is Paul Gallay. I'm 3 the president in Hudson Riverkeeper, at 4 Riverkeeper Incorporated. 5 I'm an environmental lawyer, and activist, of 6 about 25 years' standing. 7 I was a DEC manager, for ten years, in their 8 regional office in New York City. 9 For three years before that, I represented 10 the DEC at the Attorney General's Office. 11 So, I don't make any of my following comments 12 lightly, but I do make them with some sense of what 13 it's like to be a regulator, and what proper 14 standards are for regulation. 15 I have handed up two documents. 16 One is a copy of our Fractured Communities 17 report, which certifies, what you heard in abundance 18 already, how real these impacts are. 19 And the other is a brief PowerPoint-style 20 presentation, that I should be able to take care of 21 well within 15 minutes. 22 Long story short: There are several things 23 about fracking that haven't gotten adequate 24 attention, even at the environmental-impact-analysis 25 level. 1 For example: We were told, at the beginning 2 of July, when this issue commenced, that there would 3 be socioeconomic impact. 4 And I'm sure one of the earlier speakers, if 5 not more, has said, we need to see, not just a 6 socioeconomic-impact analysis, but one that is 7 robust, and fearless, that analyzes: 8 What happens in communities to their tourism? 9 What happens in communities to their 10 agriculture? 11 What happens in communities when the boom 12 becomes a bust, as it has in West Virginia, as it 13 has in Wyoming? 14 If you look at studies by academic 15 institutions in drilling states, you will find that 16 counties that make a big proportion of their income 17 on natural gas or oil extraction do not do as well, 18 overall, over time, as communities that do not do 19 so. 20 The boom-bust cycle and the impact on other 21 industry has to be considered, because everyone 22 knows that, environmentally, this is a net loss. 23 But what people have to understand is, 24 economically, it is a net loss as well. 25 One of my screens that I have given you says, 1 that the Department of Transportation did a study in 2 2009, that said there may be as much as $375 million 3 in road costs that come directly from this sort of 4 exploitation of the shale. 5 You know, one of the other slides talks about 6 how many trucks there are that go in with water to a 7 typical well; 5 million gallons, which isn't even 8 the largest of the wells. 9 1,667 trucks, just for the water. 10 Another 750 trucks for the proppant, which is 11 the material that they use to wedge open the shale. 12 And, then, there's the return water which 13 also has to be trucked out. 14 SENATOR BALL: That's the fracking? That's 15 for fracking the well? 16 PAUL GALLAY: That's for the fracking. 17 And for the return water, it's, probably, 18 about a 30 to 40 percent of that. 19 So, you have road impacts. 20 Other speakers have mentioned the Duke study. 21 There's one very important thing to be 22 remembered about the Duke study, and I give you a 23 screen from their study, which shows the 24 astronomical numbers of methane concentrations 25 within 1,000 meters from a wellhead, and how much 1 higher it is. 2 You see, it's all up in the high range. And, 3 then, when you get out in the distance, it's all 4 down in the low range. 5 And what the industry says, is, 6 "It's naturally occurring." 7 Amazing, how it's naturally occurring 8 17 times more within a mile of a fracking well. 9 And, amazing, how, even if it's naturally 10 occurring, it has radiological elements and other 11 chemicals that are traceable down to 4,000 feet 12 below ground. 13 So, the fingerprint of this material is 14 different from what's naturally occurring shallower. 15 It is an out-and-out lie to say that this is 16 naturally occurring gas in the shallow areas. 17 Let me say that again: "An out-and-out lie." 18 It's different. 19 It's got a different chemical fingerprint, 20 and it's in much higher concentrations when it's 21 near a wellhead. 22 You guys do the math. 23 To move on, I'm sure that there has been 24 enough already discussed, in terms of the 25 radiological elements that are brought up from the 1 drilling. 2 But, remember, the screen that I have, which 3 is directly from "The New York Times" study back in 4 February, shows that it's not just a little above, 5 and then it will be diluted before it gets to a 6 water supply. It's as much as 1,500 times above 7 federal standards. 8 Remember, too, we learned from that 9 "New York Times" study, that the 10 American Petroleum Institute admitted, in a 11 confidential study in 1990, that, the amount of 12 radiation that comes up in these wells in the Gulf, 13 is quite likely to cause an elevated number of 14 cancers in people who eat fish from the Gulf. 15 They didn't think that study would see the 16 light of day. 17 It did. It was leaked to "The Times," and 18 now they have to wear it; they have to acknowledge 19 it. 20 One of things that I would like you to 21 understand, is that, the Department of Energy study, 22 which was released last week, was released by a 23 panel hand-picked by Secretary Chu. 24 And, of the seven members of that panel, six 25 were either consultants to the gas industry or board 1 members of the gas industry. 2 And I testified to that panel. 3 And I looked at Chairman Deutsche of that 4 panel, and I said, "I hear you talking about this as 5 if it's a public-relations problem." 6 He said, "Fracking has gotten out ahead of 7 public confidence." 8 And I said, "It's not a public-relations 9 problem. It's a public health and environment 10 problem. And until you and the industry treat it 11 that way, not only will you not solve your PR 12 problem, but you will not protect the people that 13 you are duty-bound to protect." 14 And I'm very happy to say, that when the 15 report came out last week, it told the industry: 16 You want to get this gas out of ground, you want to 17 stop using so much foreign oil, you want to make a 18 lot of money on this fuel, you better do a better 19 job of it. 20 And you know what the industry said back to 21 this panel that was made up of consultants and board 22 members and experts of grand standing? 23 They said, "They don't understand our 24 industry. That's why they've come to the 25 conclusions they've come to." 1 What Chutzpah! 2 A hand-picked panel of their own comes down 3 against them, and they say, "They don't understand 4 our industry." 5 So, I'm going to tell you what should be 6 done, and then I'm going to allow others to speak, 7 and for you all to wrap up. 8 Industry has got to change its stripes. It 9 all starts with the industry. 10 I regulated industry for 13 years, and I 11 could tell the good from the bad from the ugly. 12 And the ones who stayed in business, the ones 13 who did good community service, who served the 14 triple bottom line -- economics, environment, and 15 social -- they acknowledged the facts. They didn't 16 run from them. 17 And when you look at the page of my testimony 18 that says, "Industry, in denial about fracking 19 impacts," and you look at the head of the 20 Marcellus Shale Coalition, the lead industry group 21 for the Marcellus Shale, and she says, "People are 22 trying to draw a connection between Marcellus 23 drilling and water pollution." -- and you say, you 24 know, Is there no shame? 25 Then there's another great one, from the 1 Petroleum Association. 2 "Fracturing is one of the gas industry's 3 crowning achievements." 4 This is the same group that said, in 1990, 5 "We're probably giving people cancer from the 6 radiation we're bringing up from deep within the 7 ground." 8 So, that's the first thing. 9 And with the gas at $3.92 a million BTUs, 10 down 66 percent from just a year ago, do you think 11 that they're going to invest in what is necessary to 12 do this right? I don't think so. 13 So, I'm going to mention four or 14 five different things. That's only the first. 15 If you get four out of the five, and you 16 don't get the fifth, it's still not safe. 17 The second thing is, the DEC is -- it's on a 18 merry chase, if it thinks it can create this 19 environmental impact statement, and start 20 permitting. 21 You know, for both legal reasons and for 22 commonsense reasons, if they try to start 23 permitting, before they have regulations, just when 24 they have the environmental impact statement, it is 25 patently illegal. 1 The gas companies can challenge any permit 2 condition that's based on the EIS, but doesn't have 3 any regulatory backing, as beyond DEC's powers. 4 The public doesn't have the right to make 5 sure that the standards being implemented are 6 subject to proper rule-making and subject to 7 potential judicial challenge. So, we may not get 8 what we need. 9 Joe Martens issued a report on the 16th of 10 August to his new panel, that said: You know, we 11 don't have enough staff right now to do these, even 12 if we had good strong law or regulations. But, 13 we'll only process the permits we have staff to 14 handle. 15 Totally contrary to the 16 Uniform Procedures Act, which requires the agency to 17 process as many applications as they get, within a 18 timely fashion. And timely is not something where 19 it's a matter of opinion: 60-day timetables, 20 30-day timetables, 90-day timetables. 21 And, so, DEC is vastly underestimating the 22 number of applications that they're going to get, 23 because they don't have the staff to handle it. 24 I think it's a cry for help. And I hope that 25 the Governor's office is listening. 1 The pace of permitting will not be dictated 2 by the ability of the staff to handle those 3 applications, as that August 16th briefing from the 4 DEC says, but by their legal requirements to process 5 as many applications come in. 6 So, industry needs a new attitude. 7 Will we get it? Don't see it myself. 8 DEC has to realize that they cannot regulate 9 based on an environmental impact statement, and they 10 cannot just permit as many wells as they have to the 11 staff to handle. 12 It's been mentioned that we need legislation, 13 requiring fracking waste that is hazardous to, wow, 14 be treated like a hazardous waste. Pretty radical 15 concept. 16 We need 180 days' time to review, not only 17 the environmental impact statements, but as many 18 others have very eloquently put it, health impacts 19 and socioeconomic impacts as well. 20 Remember, boom-bust cycles, tourism, 21 agriculture. 22 You know, everyone knows, it would be great 23 if we could get this gas out of the ground safely. 24 Everybody knows, it would be nice to have a 25 sustainable energy future, that not only within the 1 U.S., but even within New York State. 2 But, just because you want the gas, doesn't 3 mean you get to have it. 4 If you can't do it right, if you can't do it 5 safely, don't do it at all. We are not so desperate 6 for this gas that we cannot find substitutes, so 7 that we don't poison the very people we're supposed 8 to be saving by providing for the state's energy 9 future. 10 Thank you. 11 SENATOR BALL: Thanks, Paul. 12 [Applause.] 13 SENATOR KRUEGER: Paul, like 14 Environmental Advocates, Riverkeepers is actually on 15 this committee that the Governor has created? 16 PAUL GALLAY: Waterkeeper Alliance is. I 17 know it's a fine-line distinction. 18 SENATOR KRUEGER: Oh, so it's not your 19 organization that is? 20 PAUL GALLAY: But, bobby Kennedy works with 21 us, as well as Waterkeeper Alliance. And whatever 22 Bobby does with Waterkeeper Alliance, we're proud to 23 own also at Riverkeeper. 24 SENATOR KRUEGER: So, what's your 25 recommendation to others who are on this panel, of 1 how they should be proceeding? 2 PAUL GALLAY: Everybody says: We hope 3 fracking can be fixed. We'd like it to be fixed, 4 'cause we'd like to get that fuel supply. 5 Don't get co-opted to accept a partial fix. 6 Or, what they used to call, "a Potemkin Front," 7 which looks like a fix, but then, when you walk 8 around to the side, there's nothing behind it. 9 SENATOR KRUEGER: Uh-huh. 10 PAUL GALLAY: Have high standards, and don't 11 diminish them. 12 SENATOR BALL: Thanks, Paul. 13 PAUL GALLAY: Okay, thank you all. 14 SENATOR KRUEGER: Paul, one more question. 15 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Well, I just -- 16 just to follow up on what you said, I mean, one of 17 our earlier speakers said that they didn't believe 18 there really was a fix. 19 What's your sense? 20 PAUL GALLAY: I don't see all of these 21 planets aligning in a way that this can be done 22 safely. But, while -- I give it a minuscule chance 23 of success. 24 I think we benefit, if we eventually sue to 25 challenge permit issuance, by keeping faith with the 1 process, and really bird-dogging it, and raising 2 every issue there is to be raised, as I have tried 3 to do here today, all along. 4 And, then, when a judge hears that we stood 5 in there, and we were the loyal opposition, I think 6 the judge will take our points that much more 7 seriously. 8 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Thank you. 9 SENATOR BALL: Thanks, Paul. 10 Okay, second, right now is, Katy Dunlap, from 11 Trout Unlimited. 12 KATY DUNLAP: Thank you, Senator Ball, for 13 hosting today's hearings. 14 And, Senators Krueger and Stewart-Cousins for 15 joining the Senator today. 16 My name is Katy Dunlap, and I am an attorney, 17 and I'm also the Eastern Water Project Director for 18 Trout Unlimited. We are the nation's largest 19 cold-water conservation organization, dedicated to 20 conserving, protecting, and restoring 21 North America's trout and salmon fisheries. 22 So, you have heard this morning about the 23 environmental and health impacts to humans and to 24 communities. 25 I would like to take a slightly different 1 tact today, and talk a little bit about the 2 sportsmen and -women's perspective, and our concerns 3 about this type of drilling on fish and wildlife. 4 To you, as a family member of the 5 Sportsmen Alliance for Marcellus Conservation, we 6 are a coalition representing more than a dozen 7 sportsmen conservation organizations and 8 60,000 members throughout the Marcellus Shale 9 region. 10 Both to you and the Sportsmen Alliance, 11 support responsible energy development, but, 12 obviously, we want to make sure that this drilling 13 is done properly. 14 At this point, we do not believe that any 15 state is adequately regulating and overseeing 16 Marcellus Shale drilling and hydraulic fracturing. 17 Together, to you and the Sportsmen Alliance, 18 are identifying the impacts of Marcellus Shale gas 19 development on hunting, fishing, trapping, other 20 outdoor-related recreation, as well as fish, 21 wildlife, forest, and water resources. 22 You've heard from experts today, talk about 23 some of the economic impacts, and the impacts to 24 particular economies. 25 We're concerned about the impact to the 1 recreational and tourism economy. 2 Hunting and fishing in the Marcellus Shale 3 region is not just a pastime. It's big business. 4 According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 5 Service, more than $3.2 billion is generated each 6 year in New York from fishing, hunting, and 7 wildlife-related recreation. 8 And a significant number of the more than 9 5.5 billion sportsmen and -women in New York spend 10 their time and money in the areas that overlie the 11 Marcellus Shale region; primarily, the Catskills, 12 the Delaware Basin, the Finger Lakes, 13 Central New York, and the Southern Tier. And, their 14 experience and health is at risk, as is the revenue 15 they generate for the local communities. 16 In the first seven months of this year, 17 Pennsylvania's DEP issued more than 800 violations 18 for Marcellus Shale-related pollution incidents and 19 illegal activities, with nearly all of those 20 violations related to impacts to water resources. 21 Accidents can happen, sure. But, proper 22 planning, oversight, and enforcement can help to 23 limit those impacts from such drilling-related 24 incidents. 25 The question becomes: Will New York conduct 1 the proper planning, and provide the proper and 2 necessary oversight and enforcement? 3 In order to protect New York's valuable fish, 4 wildlife, forest, and water resources, the State 5 must spend the necessary time planning for the 6 impacts on these irreplaceable resources, and 7 propose policies and laws that eliminate those 8 impacts. 9 Echoing earlier experts, New York must not 10 rush forward without a cumulative assessment and 11 build-out of all wells and related infrastructure, 12 such as pipelines, compressor stations, and the 13 such, as well as, water withdrawals, and anticipated 14 wastewater volumes and treatment plants in the 15 state. 16 And, this type of analysis should really be 17 done on a watershed-by-watershed basis. 18 In the revised draft document that the DEC 19 has put out, they claim to have addressed cumulative 20 impacts. But, by merely stating that -- for 21 example, they claim to have addressed the cumulative 22 impacts of the water withdrawals. 23 And, they merely state, that their proposed 24 stream-flow-analysis requirements addressed 25 cumulative impacts. 1 Well, they haven't looked at how much water 2 is going to be needed for the industry; and, also, 3 the water that's already being taken by the industry 4 for drilling in Pennsylvania. 5 That really needs to be assessed, as well as 6 the cumulative impacts on wildlife. 7 Again, the DEC recognizes that there will be, 8 direct, and indirect, cumulative impacts on wildlife 9 resulting from habitat fragmentation. They list a 10 number of best-management practices, but they don't 11 make these practices mandatory for all drilling 12 sites. 13 So, DEC's current draft document is not 14 meeting that standard of full assessment of 15 cumulative impacts. 16 I won't repeat what others have said, but 17 we're also very concerned about the DEC's stated 18 intention to issue permits before regulations, for 19 the various reasons that Mr. Gallay just 20 mentioned, and Mrs. Esposito and Mr. Moore, 21 earlier. 22 As you know, New York is fortunate to have 23 abundant water resources, with more than 24 60,000 miles of rivers and streams, and 7,000 lakes 25 and ponds. These resources are not infinite, and 1 should not be treated as disposable. 2 New York must adopt stringent regulations 3 that protect these streams from the impacts of gas 4 development. 5 Now, obviously, the Water Resources law 6 passed earlier this year, and signed by 7 Governor Cuomo last week, is a step in the right 8 direction. But, until regulations are developed 9 under that law, the DEC is proposing an interim 10 method for assessing water withdrawals, or for 11 managing water withdrawals, related to gas drilling. 12 And in that interim amount, that, they are 13 not actually considering existing withdrawals, or 14 impairments. So, there's really no way to know 15 whether or not the withdrawal that they're proposing 16 to allow is actually going to impact water 17 resources. 18 That needs to be looked at closely, and the 19 regulations under this new water-resources law must 20 be passed before drilling permits are issued for 21 water withdrawals. 22 Further, to protect streams and aquatic life, 23 there must be adequate setbacks. 24 Right now, the DEC is proposing a 150-foot 25 setback from an intermittent or a perennial stream. 1 And that protective measure can actually just 2 be waived, as long as the site-specific 3 environmental review is conducted. 4 So that, again, is not adequate. 5 And the State is the steward of our public 6 resources, including our fish and wildlife. And 7 before drilling is permitted, New York should 8 identify the special places that have high 9 ecological, social, and cultural value within the 10 state. And, you must establish special protections 11 or prohibit drilling in those areas to ensure that 12 future generations can enjoy New York's natural 13 assets. 14 I just want to provide with you a couple of 15 examples of impacts to wildlife, where -- that have 16 occurred, actually, in other states where drilling 17 is intense. 18 In June of 2010, Pennsylvania quarantined 19 cattle exposed to wastewater that leaked from a 20 containment pond, which, I think, actually killed 21 about 1,200 square feet of grass on a farm. 22 And the State agricultural officials said 23 that they acted to prevent the contaminated beef 24 from entering the food chain, since the water 25 contained heavy-metal strontium; which is, of 1 course, especially toxic to children, and one that 2 lingers long in an animal's system. 3 Now, the cows were drawn to the wastewater 4 because of the high salt content. 5 Well, there have also been reports of deer 6 drinking from wastewater ponds; again, likely 7 attracted due to the high wastewater -- I'm sorry, 8 due to the high salt content. 9 But, since deer and wildlife do not know 10 boundaries, and they are not regulated by the State, 11 this is of particular concern to sportsmen and 12 -women: the wildlife who may be consuming the 13 wastewater out there. 14 In parts of the Inner Mountain West, there 15 have been studies that have shown a 60 percent 16 decline in the mule deer population over a very 17 short 10-year period, since oil and gas development 18 really came underway. 19 So, there are going to be long-term impacts. 20 We know that there are -- that the chemicals 21 used in hydraulic fracturing and -- with 22 unconventional gas development, do impact aquatic 23 life. 24 And I can provide you with studies to 25 demonstrate that. 1 But, I just want to say that -- to wrap up, 2 by saying, that: Many of the impacts to fish and 3 wildlife will not be seen tomorrow; rather, these 4 effects will be felt in the long term. 5 And that is why it is critical that the State 6 really, truly, conduct a cumulative assessment of 7 impacts to these wild-life resources, and water 8 resources, to determine what level of extra 9 protections are needed. 10 I also just want to point out one other 11 glitch with the State's draft environmental 12 assessment. 13 At this point, their executive summary and 14 their revised preliminary draft statement, state two 15 different levels of protection for, specifically, 16 public lands. 17 In the executive summary, the DEC has said 18 that reforest station areas will be off-limits to 19 surface drilling. 20 In their revised draft, they state that, 21 forest areas will be off-limits to surface drilling. 22 There is a very fine distinction there, but, 23 if state forests are open to surface drilling, if 24 any part of the state forests are open to surface 25 drilling, that could include wild-life management 1 areas. And those are the areas that the state has 2 set aside for the public, for recreation, camping, 3 fishing, hunting, et cetera. 4 So, it's very important that conflict be 5 resolved, and that all state forests be off-limits 6 to surface drilling. 7 And, I just want to close by saying, that: 8 We, to you and sportsmen and -women, support the 9 180-day comment time frame. 10 And, we have called on the Governor, and DEC, 11 to commit to 180 days, as well as public hearings 12 across the state. 13 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Thank you. 14 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. 15 SENATOR BALL: And, Bruce Ferguson, from 16 Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy, will finish us 17 off. 18 BRUCE FERGUSON: Thank you, Senator, for 19 having us here. 20 And, thank you Senator Cousins [sic] and 21 Senator Krueger for attending. 22 I work with an all-volunteer grassroots 23 organization. We're centered in the Delaware Basin 24 in the Catskill region. 25 And, if the DEC and Governor Cuomo get their 1 way, I will soon be a second-class citizen. 2 I say that because, the plan for drilling in 3 New York State calls for certain areas being 4 off-limits for drilling: 5 Municipal water supplies, it's too dangerous 6 to frack. 7 Principal aquifers, even if they're not used 8 by large population centers, too dangerous to frack. 9 The rest of us, we are fair game. 10 This is not a decision based on science, it's 11 not a decision based on public health concerns. 12 It's a political decision based on where political 13 power lies. 14 And, it's un-American, and unacceptable. 15 I have been working on this issue for 16 3 1/2 years. And since day one, I have been told by 17 the industry side that, we, collectively, those of 18 us concerned about this issue, are holding up the 19 process. 20 That's not true. 21 The industry has been holding up the process 22 by interfering with peer-reviewed scientific 23 studies, as they did with the 2004 DEC study on 24 drinking watering -- on EPA's study of 25 drinking-water safety. They contaminated that study 1 with political interference. 2 And now we're waiting for 2012, for a study 3 that could have been completed in 2004. 4 Activists did not do that. 5 The industry did that. They are the ones 6 holding up progress here. 7 They have a wealth of information, they're 8 not sharing with you, or with the general public. 9 They're holding up this process by not disclosing 10 what they know, so rational decisions can be made. 11 They are holding up the process by 12 stonewalling what comes through very commonsense 13 regulations, like the Frack Act in Congress, which 14 would just simply require chemical disclosure of 15 what's used in fracking fluid, and require that 16 fracking be subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act, 17 like every other industrial activity in America. 18 They are stonewalling on that. They are the 19 ones holding up the time table here, not us. Lay it 20 all on industry where it belongs. 21 So, why the rush? 22 The rush is really not to have to do with 23 getting the gas out of the ground. As many other 24 people pointed out, the gas has been there tens of 25 millions of years. It will be there tomorrow. 1 The real rush is, get the wells in the ground 2 before we find out what's going on. 3 Everywhere in the world where they've done 4 hydraulic fracturing, they've gotten the wells in 5 the ground without the public really being educated 6 before they get there. 7 We're in a different station in New York. 8 We're the first place in the world that's had an 9 opportunity to study the process before drilling 10 gets underway. And this is an enormous advantage. 11 I know Governor Paterson has gotten a lot of 12 abuse for many reasons, but, to his everlasting 13 credit, he, in 2008, ordered a hold on high-volume 14 fracking until it could be studied. 15 And here we are, three years later, and it 16 still has not gotten underway. And, we've learned a 17 tremendous amount in that time. 18 And we've learned, really, that it, cannot go 19 forward, should not go forward. 20 If it does go forward, we're going to see 21 hundred of billions of gallons of toxic fluid 22 injected into the ground in New York State. Most of 23 that will remain underground forever. 24 There is absolutely no reason to think that 25 fluid will stay where you put it. 1 Once it's injected in the ground, you cannot 2 regulate it. It will do what it wants to do. And 3 it will probably, according to the expert testimony 4 we have so far, contaminate drinking-water supplies; 5 maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not this 6 year. Maybe, in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. 7 This could be an environmental nightmare for 8 your grandchildren, if not for you. 9 Here's a few figures that I think are worth 10 keeping in mind, why we're in the situation we're 11 in: 41 billion, and 141 million. 12 "Christian Science Monitor" recently 13 estimated that $41 billion is what the fossil-fuel 14 industry gets in taxpayer subsidies. 15 We're giving them, all of us, $41 billion a 16 year. They turn around, and spend $141 million of 17 that fungible money, buying legislation. 18 That's what they spend each year lobbying: 19 $141 million, out of the 41 billion we give them. 20 They spend hundreds of millions more on 21 advertising. 22 You can listen to any news program on NPR. 23 You'd think, the progressive NPR? 24 Every news program on NPR is now, "Brought to 25 you by the natural-gas industry." 1 "New Yorker Magazine," full-page color ads. 2 They're throwing money at this 3 public-relations campaign, and it's our money 4 they're throwing back in our face. 5 I'm going to touch on one of the three big 6 lies of the natural-gas industry. 7 One that's been talked about quite a bit is 8 the economic benefit, as Dr. Barth, and others, 9 have testified. 10 That's a charade. We know it will destroy 11 local economies. 12 It will destroy the economy where I live, 13 which is based on tourism and farming. It will be 14 wiped out. 15 I'm -- we have, 24 percent, second homes in 16 my county. The real estate market will die if 17 fracking comes our way. 18 The other lie is, that it's a clean fuel. 19 It's clean only if you consider the 20 consumption aspect of it. 21 The minute you start considering the filthy 22 extraction process, and the thousands of diesel 23 trucks for each and every gas well, the leaks and 24 transmission lines, the volatile organic compounds 25 released into the air at the well site, it's 1 actually dirtier than coal -- dirtier than dirty 2 coal. 3 And that's according to a Cornell 4 peer-reviewed study by Dr. Howarth, and others. 5 Now, the third lie, and I'm going to read 6 this -- this is the one part of my testimony I will 7 read, and I'll be brief. 8 "Is this have anything to do with energy 9 independence?" 10 And the answer is, "Absolutely not. 11 "Shale-gas formations are ubiquitous. The 12 United States has abundant shale-gas reserves; so 13 does Canada, South America, Europe, North Africa, 14 South Africa, Australia, India, China, and Pakistan. 15 "But, while many countries have shale gas, 16 not all of them are willing to extract it. 17 "The French legislature recently voted to ban 18 shale-gas extraction. 19 "Britain halted fracking after it was 20 suspected of causing quakes. 21 "Quebec is also suspending fracking 22 operations. 23 "And, South Africa has imposed a moratorium. 24 "The entire European Union may adopt a 25 prohibition on hydraulic fracturing if it heeds the 1 advice of a recent report commissioned by the 2 European Parliament" -- 3 [Off-the-record comment whispered to the 4 speaker.] 5 BRUCE FERGUSON: Okay. I'll just finish this 6 one section here. 7 -- it -- "that said, that, 'A time when 8 sustainability is the key to the future operations, 9 it can be questioned whether the injection of toxic 10 chemicals in the underground should be allowed or 11 whether it should be banned, as such a practice 12 would restrict or exclude any later use of the 13 contaminated soil." 14 And let me -- just one more line. 15 "So, while these countries are banning 16 fracking, we have sold our shale, here in the 17 United States, to Britain, France, both of which 18 have moratoriums or bans on it; Canada, which has a 19 partial ban in Quebec; Norway, which does not allow 20 fracking; Japan, India, and China." 21 We are becoming the third world. We are 22 becoming the sacrificial energy-extraction zone for 23 other countries. 24 Thank you. 25 SENATOR BALL: Thank you. 1 [Applause.] 2 SENATOR BALL: Okay, we'll wrap up. 3 Would you like to... 4 SENATOR KRUEGER: Well, I just want to thank 5 Senator Ball for sponsoring this hearing, and 6 everyone who came to testify today. 7 I found it so educational. It gave me so 8 much more ammunition about more things that I need 9 to look into as a senator; more laws that I think 10 the State needs to pass, to protect our citizens 11 from the risks that we're learning about. 12 I also -- I'm guilty of, I read a computer at 13 the same time -- and, I've learned that the industry 14 is busy watching us, plotting; how they try to say 15 that this was an illegitimate hearing. And, that, 16 they didn't attend because they knew where we were 17 all going. 18 But wouldn't it have been refreshing for them 19 to be prepared to come and testify, rather than 20 spending their time putting out press releases about 21 why none of this is relevant? 22 So, I think we've seen how important it is 23 for all of us to be here today. 24 SENATOR BALL: Senator. 25 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Yes, again, I do 1 want to thank you for having this hearing. 2 And, thank all of you for testifying. 3 I heard things that I didn't expect to hear. 4 I watched as people testified. 5 And, people who you couldn't see, you, who 6 testify, behind you, really being brought, frankly, 7 to tears, because of the level of concern, and the 8 unanswered question. 9 Now, we're New Yorkers; we're smart, we're 10 savvy, we're sophisticated. 11 And, we have to be all of those things 12 because, clearly, there is a need, if the industry 13 won't come to speak to us, at least for us to learn 14 from what has happened in our neighbor's backyards 15 and front yards and in their homes. 16 So, I don't doubt that there will be a 17 push-back. And, I only would have wished that that 18 push-back occurred here. 19 That, even those of us who came with one set 20 of facts, as we understood it, would at least be in 21 a position, because we heard the other side, to say: 22 Well, you know what? "Maybe." Maybe I was wrong. 23 Or, maybe this does deserve another look in another 24 way. 25 I was open for that. 1 And, unfortunately, that, has not happened. 2 So, again, I thank you. Thank everyone. 3 And I'll tell you -- well, I guess Adrienne 4 left, because, you know, it's -- we've been through 5 a lot of hearings. I can't imagine all of the hours 6 that we've logged in hearings over the years. 7 But, when you have a hearing like this, that 8 is just so important, to, not only our present, but 9 our future, in so many ways, there's no way that you 10 could walk away without hearing what every single 11 person had to say. 12 And, it was not just about emotions. You 13 came with facts, you came with data. 14 You came with other places where we could go: 15 peer-reviewed information, educational-institution 16 information. 17 This was not about emotion, and, "Just not in 18 my backyard." 19 This is something that if we don't pay 20 attention to, shame on us. 21 SENATOR BALL: Thank you so much. 22 [Applause.] 23 SENATOR BALL: I want to thank both of you 24 for taking the time, and -- out of your busy 25 schedules, because I know how finite time is. 1 And, I just want to say everybody who came 2 here, including the family that came ten hours away, 3 and others that traveled five hours to come here: 4 God bless you, and thank you so much. 5 As far as the industry itself, I think you 6 missed a great opportunity to let your voice be 7 heard, to let your side be heard. 8 This is a very tough issue. It's a 9 complicated issue. 10 I can tell you that the pain that I've seen 11 in the eyes here across table, that I've seen either 12 at this hearing, or the pain that I experienced 13 firsthand in communicating with families and 14 communicating with farmers in Pennsylvania, it will 15 be over my dead body before I allow that to happen 16 here in the state of New York. 17 And it's the -- 18 [Applause.] 19 SENATOR BALL: It's the industry that is on 20 the door of New York State that benefits, and is on 21 the precipice of benefiting greatly in the state. 22 To the industry: Shame on you for not being 23 here. 24 To the industry, to you, who, really, is on 25 the precipice of profiting a great deal: It's your 1 moral responsibility to engage in the conversation. 2 And, we're not going to away. We're going to 3 continue to ask these questions. 4 And I know that I don't stand alone. 5 So, I thank each and every one of you for 6 being here today. 7 [Whereupon, the New York State Senate's public 8 hearing concluded at approximately 1:46 p.m.] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25