There has been a great deal of discussion, both in these pages and elsewhere, on the impact of natural gas drilling on water quality. Another topic of perhaps equal importance that has not been widely discussed is its impact on water quantity. The Susquehanna River Basin Commission’s (SRBC) recent approval of large withdrawals from the watershed for natural gas drilling brings this issue to the fore.
In principle, when the rate of pumping water (for any purpose) from any watershed is increased, groundwater levels are drawn down. The only question is, how much.
The SRBC just approved a limit of about 30 million gallons a day for 34 gas wells, or an average of a little under one million gallons a day per well, though there can be significant variation. We have heard that in one section (a little under one square mile) there could be as many as six wells. Of course, not every square mile of the watershed will be drilled. But evidence from other parts of the country where natural gas drilling appears to have caused significant groundwater depletion suggests that we need to be vigilant about the impact of large withdrawals, such as this, on groundwater levels.
Why should we care? First, groundwater depletion means that the water level in drinking wells drops. This makes pumping more energy intensive and increases the cost of running the well. Or, the yield of the well may drop below the rate of use of the residence or other facility served. And in the worst case, the groundwater level may drop below the bottom of the well, meaning the well will have to be re-drilled to access the water table.
Groundwater depletion can also cause ground subsidence, cracking foundations and endangering the soundness of buildings. And it is not only manmade structures that suffer: natural springs can also dry up, lowering or eliminating flow in streams and wiping out fish populations—and with them, tourist appeal. Groundwater depletion can also lower groundwater levels below the depth that streamside or wetland vegetation needs to survive, destroying wetlands and wildlife habitat.
Currently, it is hard to estimate just how big the impact of natural gas drilling on our area will be, because there are a variety of water protocols that could be used in drilling. At one extreme, all the water to be used could be trucked in from outside the watershed, and all the effluent trucked out to be treated elsewhere, resulting in no impact on groundwater levels here. At the other extreme, all of the water to be used could be pumped from the watershed, and all the effluent trucked out, never to return. This would result in the loss of 100 percent of the millions of gallons of water used. A number of variations in between could, and our guess is will, be used by individual companies. However, it is important to note that even if used fracking fluids are treated and returned to the watershed here?which would mean trucking the tainted water out and bringing the treated water back as there are no waste-water facilities in the watershed that are equipped to handle the toxicity?about 40 percent of any quantity of water pumped from our watershed will be lost, because that is about how much fluid is left deep underground, far below the aquifers we use.
We asked both the United States Geological Survey and the Delaware River Basin Commission if they had any idea of what the limits might be on the rate of withdrawal from our watershed that could occur without causing damaging groundwater depletion, but as of press time, had not received responses. What complicates the matter is the fact that the impacts of depletion presumably have to be considered on a local basis; one rate of withdrawal might damage wetlands and dry up streams in area A but cause no damage in area B. This probably makes it difficult to give a sensible answer with regard to the aggregate.
Nevertheless, some set of guidelines as to water quantity has to be set up, and the public needs to know the reasoning behind the decisions made on those guidelines. The regulatory agencies are now in the process of working on these water issues. We hope that they make the process transparent, and let us know not only how they intend to protect the quality of our water, but also make sure the drillers leave us enough to keep our drinking wells full, our streams running and our surrounding habitat healthy.
Dr. Punnybone
Home Sweet Tome
Letters to the Editor
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The River Reporter welcomes letters
on all subjects from its readers. They must be signed and include
the correspondent's phone number. The correspondent's name and
town will appear at the bottom of each letter; titles
and affiliations will not, unless the correspondent is writing
on behalf of a group.
Letters are printed at the discretion of the editor.
It is requested they be limited to 300 words; correspondents may
be asked to cut longer letters. Deadline is 1:00 p.m. on Monday.
If you think it’s acceptable that two members of the Bethel Democratic Committee, Ted Yeomans and Victoria Simpson, elected to serve the registered Democrats of Bethel, NY, have signed out official petitions (you can check with the Board of Elections) for Ted Yeoman’s Independent candidacy while still remaining on the Democratic Committee, great.
If you think it’s just a coincidence rather than a coordinated effort that the wives of two other committee members, Dina Sturm and Carol Abramson, have also signed out petitions for Ted Yeomans, while their husbands, Dan Sturm and Allan Abramson, remain on the Democratic committee, wonderful.
If you think that Democratic chairperson Colleen Cunningham’s silence and lack of action in this matter does not equal her tacit approval, fantastic.
If you’re comfortable with all this, then we get what we deserve.
