(MintPress) – Despite protests from students and environmentalists, the University of Tennessee is moving forward with plans to frack on more than 8,000 acres of land owned by the school in the eastern portion of the state, on roughly 13 square miles of property.
The state’s Building Commission unanimously approved the leasing of the land to oil companies — a request that was made by the University of Tennessee itself, despite widespread concern regarding water contamination among students, environmentalists and those living near the site.
It’s an unlikely move for a university, but it’s one University of Tennessee administrators see as generating revenue for the college — $300,000 a year, plus 10 percent for all oil sold from the site.
To dodge accusations that researchers are selling out to big oil, professors within the college are claiming it is being done in the name of science, to study the impacts hydraulic fracturing has on the land, without the interference of oil companies.
University accepting money from oil companies: conflicting interests
William F. Brown, dean of research and director of the agriculture said to the New York Times that the benefits to the university and general public outweigh the concerns of those opposed to the project.
“We’re just trying to conduct unbiased, scientifically sound research,” Brown said. “We’re hearing more questions about the environmental impact of natural gas extraction. We feel like we have an obligation to be able to answer those questions.”
But for environmental organizations, including Tennessee’s branch of the typically moderate Sierra Club, the risks are far too great. Scott Banbury, the conservation chairman for the state’s Sierra Club, told the Times Free Press, a local publication, that the move would be “opening the door for an industry that will be coming into the area in a big way.”
That’s a concern shared among many. At a meeting held before the approval of the university’s right to lease the land for mining purposes, dozens of environmentalists and those living near the soon-to-be fracking site raised their concerns.
Proponents of the project have also pointed to the fact that oil companies are entering into contracts that mandate them to operate in “good faith.” What that means remains to be clarified. Rules in Tennessee regarding fracking essentially are nonexistent, according to the Tennessee Clean Water Network.
A green university takes two steps back
The University of Tennessee has been in control of the forest land since 1947. Its agricultural department worked hard to restore the forest after decades of clear cutting and mining. As reported by the New York Times, administrators have been seeking to lease the land since 2001.
Now, those living near the site will see it destroyed all over again. What’s even more troubling for residents is the industry’s waiver on regulations, including the federal Clean Water Act and the federal Drinking Water Act.
According to Water Defense, an organization dedicated to the protection of water supplies, there have been more than 1,000 documented incidents of groundwater contamination cases.
Even when not spilling into groundwater supplies, there’s concern that wastewater generated at fracking plants is too radioactive for sewage plants to clean.
In 2011, the New York Times reported, based on documents obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency, that wastewater produced at hydraulic fracturing sites was not able to be fully broken down at sewage plants. This caused such plants to dump what was thought to be “clean” water into area rivers — instead, they were dumping water that had higher rates of radioactive chemicals, all caused by the fracking process.
This caused environmentalists to shake their heads, wondering why an industry known for its damage to water supplies would be exempt from federal clean water standards.
Dating back to December 2004, legislation known as the “Halliburton loophole” was pushed through, allowing the industry to skirt around the Clean Water Act, specifically portions that would regulate the industry to disclose chemicals used in the fracking process.
Since then, individual states have adopted model legislation, primarily through the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) that appears to be in favor of water protection, but actually acts in favor of oil companies.
ALEC is a lobby organization funded by large corporations that draft legislation favorable to the companies they represent. In turn, that “model legislation” is distributed to conservative lawmakers throughout the country. Already drafted, ALEC bills are easily introduced, lobbied for on behalf of corporations, and, all too often, passed into law.
In fact, as reported by DesSmogBlog, ALEC legislation regarded as fracking chemical disclosure bills are drafted by big oil executives, including those representing EXXONMobil. The model bill, most recently introduced in Florida (the fourth state), allows oil companies to withhold listing chemicals they deem to be “trade secrets.”
Essentially, under the legislation, they can list any chemicals they want — unless they don’t want to.
This is what Tennessee activists and community members fear — and they no longer have Nashville’s academia on their side.