Despite national lawmakers’ commitment to the party line, the debate over North American oil production isn’t red and blue.
Just ask North Carolina Rep. Chuck McGrady, a Republican who isn’t convinced that the hydraulic fracturing boom in his state is in the best long-term interest of his constituents.
“The facts are important and I do want to understand both sides of the issue,” he told North Carolina’s News Observer. “I’m trying to come with an open mind but I do have questions based on what others have told me about the fracking process.”
McGrady is among the local elected officials who are discovering their constituents aren’t clearly toeing the political line when it comes to hydraulic fracturing, as people from every political persuasion are raising concerns about the health and water supply impacts of the industry.
At the heart of concerns are methane emissions, fracking wastewater spills, fracking well spills and potential groundwater contamination stemming from a process that injects chemicals, water and silica sand into the ground to access deep deposits of otherwise-hidden oil. There also are issues associated with the decreased home values and heavy truck traffic the industry brings to once-peaceful communities.
“I think when you get to the state level, Republican governors and legislatures are being a little more in tune to local concerns … it is a little closer to the action, and they have to proceed cautiously,” David Jenkins of ConservAmerica, an organization formerly known as Republicans for Environmental Protection, told the Associated Press.
The same scenario is playing out with those living along the proposed Keystone XL pipeline route, with farmers and ranchers on the right side of the aisle pressuring their state and national lawmakers to stand up against a foreign company practicing eminent domain to take American farmland for an oil pipeline that ultimately aims to export North American oil to the global market.
A divide between congressional leaders and constituents
It’s a message that hasn’t been received as well among Republican congressional leaders, who have, so far, approached the issue with a pro-fracking attitude, pushing legislation that allows the industry to operate in an environment of relaxed standards. The common GOP line has been one that favors jobs, a boost to the economy and energy independence. The concerns of those on the ground have, at this point, been brushed aside.
The latest example comes from House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican who has come out swinging against the Environmental Protection Agency for a preliminary study that alluded to potential fracking risks.
While the report will not be released until 2014, Lamar and his fellow committee Republicans cautioned that, if the EPA’s study concludes there is a potential risk without providing widespread evidence, there could be congressional action to reverse the study’s influence.
In 2011, the EPA claimed there was a link between Wyoming’s contaminated drinking water and fracking. It published a draft report reflecting its finding, claiming fracking was the cause of aquifer pollution in Pavillion, Wyo.
Smith and other Republican congressional leaders slammed the report — and the EPA just recently threw out its study in Wyoming, to the dismay of environmentalists. The company that owns the wells, EnCana, is now tasked with carrying out the report.
This upset environmentalists and Wyoming residents who are concerned about water contamination. It also upset congressional leaders like Smith, who accused the EPA of turning its back on that portion of the study because of a flawed scientific method. He claims it reflects negatively on the entirety of the study.
“I’m concerned that the EPA has failed to include a risk assessment as part of this study, instead choosing to simply identify potential risk without providing any context or consideration of their likelihood,” Smith said in a joint hearing with Energy and Environment subcommittees, according to the New York Journal News. ‘The agency should base its work on sound science rather than regulatory ambition. However, if the agency fails to do this, a legislative remedy may be warranted to address the study’s deficiencies.”
Outside the Energy and Environment committees, Smith has plenty of Congressional allies.
House Speaker John Boehner, arguably the most influential Republican in Congress, is one of them. Energy Subcommittee Chairman Cynthia Lummis, a Wyoming Republican, is another, along with Environment Subcommittee Chairman Chris Stewart, a Utah Republican.
“EPA’s recent announcement that it is walking away from its attempt to link hydraulic fracturing to groundwater issues in Pavillion, Wyoming is the most recent example of the agency employing a ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ policy toward unconventional oil and gas production,” Stewart said in a press release.
Democrats struggling to appease labor unions, environmentalists
Republicans aren’t the only ones aiming to appease their base while sometimes missing the mark. Democrats have let down environmental advocates around the country who looked to the relatively environmentally conscious party as one that would stand up against the oil industry.
By and large, the Democrats haven’t. Leading the way, President Barack Obama has stood behind the fracking industry, claiming the importance of domestic oil production but opting for stricter regulations.
“The old rules may say we can’t protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time,” Obama said in his recent climate change speech. “Don’t tell folks that we have to choose between the health of our children or the health of our economy.”
Yet for those living in the midst of the fracking battle, regulations — now implemented by states — don’t always do the trick, as the trust in regulatory bodies and companies operating on and near their land has been lost along the way.
In Colorado, where there are 45,000 active oil and gas wells, there have been 2,070 spills since 2008, when the fracking boom began sweeping the state. This has led to communities taking up moratoria to battle against the industry. Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper has responded by vowing to take legal action against those communities that attempt to ban fracking from their land.
Political parties and Keystone XL
“Crippling someone’s water supply knows no party line.”
That’s a statement made in 2012 by Rita Beving, a consultant to the East Texas Sub-Regional Planning Commission, and it’s one shared by many living along the Keystone XL pipeline route, regardless of their political views.
As is the case in the fracking debate, the discussion surrounding the proposed Keystone XL pipeline — which would transport more than 800,000 barrels a day from the Alberta, Canada, tar sands to Texas — has united those who live along its route pipeline. Political views rarely matter.
In February 2012, just as Republicans in Congress were rallying for the Keystone XL pipeline, a combination of Tea Party, independent, Republican, Democrat and Green Party residents were rallying — together — against the proposed pipeline.
“Today we stand united, united against the tyranny of TransCanada, a private company bullying landowners,” Beving said at the 2012 rally. “We’ve got Tea Party folks, we’ve got Democrats, we’ve got Republicans, Independents, we’ve got people of all different religions and people of all different persuasions — and we don’t care. You can’t drink oil.”
A video of the protest in Paris, Texas, posted by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows the crowd that gathered to oppose TransCanada and the Keystone XL pipeline. Holding American flags and wearing typical Texas cowboy apparel, those at the rally called out the foreign company they claim is taking their land at the expense of Americans.
“The more people find out about the safety risks and that the oil will be exported, the more they are opposed,” David Daniel, a Texas landowner, told the Natural Resources Defence Council. “People in Texas are used to oil pipelines, but this one is different. It’s more toxic and more dangerous and threatens our groundwater. A lot of people feel they’ve been lied to.”
On Friday, more than 50 anti-pipeline advocates from around the country attempted to show the Obama administration how seriously opposed they are. Demonstrators created a blockade near the Environmental Resources Management Office, a consulting company working with the State Department to create an environmental assessment of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
Considering the depth of the coalition, it’s unlikely advocates standing against the oil industry are likely to quit. The question now is how the diverse constituent base will impact state and national political parties, as lawmakers hit the campaign trail aiming to please those whom they have long considered faithful constituents.