Go with the flow

In a letter dated July 13, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) wrote a letter to the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) raising some concerns about the recent application of Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC to withdraw one million gallons of water a day from the West Branch of the Delaware River. The letter points out that while the amount involved in this one application is relatively small, the cumulative effect of many such surface withdrawals by a sufficiently large number of players could have an impact on the DEP’s obligation to maintain a certain minimum flow of water in the river at Montague, NJ.

The DEP also points out that, if the company withdraws water during a period of time when water is being released from the New York City reservoirs, such releases will mask any impact the withdrawal might be having on water flow. “In order for the Commission and other stakeholders to discern the potential impacts of such withdrawals,” the letter concludes, “DRBC should mandate, as a condition of approval, that Chesapeake Appalachia take water only at times that the River Master is not directing releases from New York City reservoirs to support the Montague flow target.”

The letter is interesting for a variety of reasons. First, it reminds us that a watershed is a vast and complicated thing, and that we cannot evaluate actions taken in one part of it without considering their consequences in entirely different parts. Second, though there have been plenty of concerns voiced by a number of parties regarding the impact of natural gas drilling on water quality, there has not been as much discussion of the potential impacts on water quantity; the DEP has now brought this issue into the conversation in no uncertain terms. Encouragingly, both these two points strike to the heart of the issue of cumulative impact and the need to evaluate drilling activity as a whole, and over time, rather than on an individual-pad basis.

The letter also means that New York City, a number of whose community boards have already passed resolutions opposing natural gas drilling in New York State, is upping the ante in terms of its input into the question of natural gas drilling activity in our area. And perhaps most important of all, it has brought into the public dialogue a major new player—the Supreme Court of the United States.

The DEP’s obligation to maintain a certain minimum flow in the river is dictated by the 1954 United States Supreme Court Decree that dictates how the Delaware River Basin is currently managed. It binds the decree parties, namely New York State, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New York City, to certain basic agreements, including the authorization of New York City to divert 800 million gallons per day (mgd) out of the basin, and the requirement that it make compensating releases from its reservoirs to keep the flow of the river at Montague, NJ, at no less than 1,750 cubic feet per second.

The DRBC has the intricate job of seeing to it that all the stakeholders of all the above decree parties are satisfied with the management of the water in the river basin, and for the past few years has been wrestling with a series of incredibly complex compromises represented by its still-controversial Flexible Flow Management Plan (FFMP). For the natural gas industry to waltz into the picture with multiple million-gallon withdrawals that could presumably occur at any time regardless of the carefully worked out schedules and criteria in the FFMP obviously stands to upset the entire applecart in a potentially disastrous way.

The letter as it stands is a cautious document; it is only asking that conditions be maintained so that the impacts of early natural gas drilling surface withdrawals can be studied accurately. But it is also clear that it is asking for such clarity because it foresees the possibility that, if sufficient withdrawal applications are granted, that might affect its ability to meet its Supreme Court-decree obligations. If that happens, the drilling companies may find that they have come across an obstacle to further expansion of their activities that even their lobbyists might have a hard time overcoming.

Also in this issue:

• Symptom of a deeper problem

Dr. Punnybone