Opinion
Join The Times' book club. This month's selection: "Cadillac Desert"
Opinion Editorial

Strict scrutiny for fracking

Gov. Jerry Brown has released draft regulations to govern fracking in California that very closely follow the lines of a bill passed this year by the Legislature. The problem is that the bill itself, though better than nothing, is not strong enough to ensure the safety of the state's air, water and ground stability in the face of this controversial and not-yet-fully-understood practice.

Neither the bill nor the draft regulations make it clear whether the state will require environmental impact reports for individual fracking projects under the California Environmental Quality Act. The author of the bill, Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), insists that it will. Representatives of various environmental organizations, including several that are generally supportive of the law, interpret the wording to mean that it won't.

That would be big mistake. We agree with Brown that CEQA has become too cumbersome a law and that minor, inoffensive projects are sometimes delayed or halted by specious lawsuits brought under its provisions. But if there were ever a practice that cried out for a clearly defined CEQA requirement, it's hydraulic fracturing, which involves the injection of chemically-treated water into the ground to fracture rock and release oil or gas. In California, oil companies are clamoring to get at 15 billion barrels of oil believed to be locked within the giant land formation called the Monterey Shale.

As large-scale fracking comes to California, there are understandable concerns about possible contamination of air and groundwater, and about the use of massive amounts of water in a drought-prone state. Another big concern is the link found in other states between earthquakes and the process of disposing of the wastewater from fracking by re-injecting it into the ground.

The proposed regulations at least would require a measure of monitoring and public information. Oil companies would have to disclose the chemicals they are using, though there are exemptions for trade secrets. They would also be required to monitor groundwater quality and make the information available to the public, and to notify neighbors before fracking begins.

In addition, the state will conduct two studies on fracking — a statewide environmental report and an overall safety report. Those are to be finished by the start of 2015.

We would have preferred a statewide moratorium on fracking, like the one in New York, until the studies were completed. Yes, fracking could create enormous numbers of jobs and billions in tax revenue, at least while the boom is on. But that would still be true in a couple of years, if the state ultimately determined the practice was safe. In the absence of a moratorium, the regulations should make clear that strict environmental scrutiny under CEQA is required before each fracking project begins.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Why Pitzer College decided to quit carbon

    Why Pitzer College decided to quit carbon

    Last month, the philanthropic Rockefeller Brothers Fund announced it would sell off the fossil fuel stocks that helped to enrich it. Pitzer College, one of the Claremont Colleges, had beaten the Rockefellers to the punch. Its decision to divest, in April, made it an early adopter in the movement...

  • Penguins offer U.S. a lesson in addressing climate change

    Penguins offer U.S. a lesson in addressing climate change

    It may seem unlikely, but penguins offer a crucial lesson for the United States' national security.

  • Obama didn't go far enough: The San Gabriel Mountains need more protections

    Obama didn't go far enough: The San Gabriel Mountains need more protections

    The environmentalists and other activists who had advocated for protecting the San Gabriel Mountains were shocked this month when President Obama created a national monument that was significantly smaller than they had expected and that excluded heavily used areas of the forest north of Los Angeles...

  • Is fake grass good for Los Angeles during the drought?

    Is fake grass good for Los Angeles during the drought?

    In an effort to convince Angelenos to rip out their water-hogging lawns, the Department of Water and Power has offered one of the most generous grass-removal incentives in the state -- $3 per square foot of lawn replaced by a low-water landscape. The new yard can include drought-tolerant plants,...

  • Just how bad is your dog for the environment?

    Just how bad is your dog for the environment?

    Who are you people? I never see you, though you must exist, because I witness daily what you leave behind: fetid brown piles of feces, which I hope issued from your dog and not from you (I live in Venice Beach; you never know).

  • As species decline, so does research funding

    As species decline, so does research funding

    As I rubbed the frostbite out of my hands on returning from a seal survey on Antarctic ice recently, I was informed that I had the dubious distinction of making the Top 5 in the 2014 list of wasteful scientists compiled by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). According to Coburn's “Wastebook,” I had egregiously...

Comments
Loading