I went for a run last week and my route took me out of
Tompkins County and into Tioga County in the Eastern Finger Lakes region of
Upstate New York. The land here is
beautiful. It is a mix of flatlands and
forested hills that pop up 800 or 1000 feet above the lowlands. The hills are covered in trees—many of the
trees where I was running (in the Caroline Hills) were planted by Civilian
Conservation Corps workers in the 1930s.
Aside from the natural beauty, I noticed two other things as
I ran. One was the obvious disparity in
wealth represented by some of the properties along my path. Close by the road there were trailers with
peeling paint and junk cars scattered through the yards. The word “Appalachia” came to mind right
away. The other was all of the signs in
favor of or opposed to fracking. The
Marcellus Shale runs under this area and contains a lot of natural gas. The method used to force this gas out of the
rock is called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.”
Fracking has become quite contentious in this area, (as in
many others), due to uncertainty about its long term environmental impacts,
including its effects on air quality, water quality, and climate change. Towns, counties, and states are working through
the tough process of coming to some agreement about the regulations they will
adopt regarding fracking. Drilling
companies are having their say, as are environmental groups and
landowners. In some places it is getting
nasty, with neighbor against neighbor.
On my run the way this played out was dueling lawn signs.
When I paid close attention I noticed a strong correlation
between the state of the house and the position on fracking. The worse off the house and property looked,
the more likely the sign on the yard would be in favor of fracking. The fracking debate reminded me of other
places I have lived and other discussions about natural resources.
Years ago I spent a summer in Heart Butte, Montana on the
Blackfeet reservation. The hamlet sits
at an altitude of 4,500 feet above sea level, exactly where the Great Plains
become the Rocky Mountains. It is a
pretty spectacular setting, with Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall
Wilderness close by. Heart Butte is
small and poor. In the 2000 census the
government counted 698 people living in Heart Butte, 45% of whom lived below
the poverty line and 93% of whom were Native Americans—mostly from the
Blackfeet tribe.
The reservation itself comprises 3000 square miles east of
Glacier National Park. This makes it
larger than Delaware but smaller than Connecticut. In the 1800s the reservation was more than
twice its current size, but US Government actions and policies shrunk it to its
modern-day boundaries while handing land to non-Indians. Today there are around 10,000 people living
on the reservation, with an estimated 69% unemployment rate and widespread
poverty. Deep below the Blackfeet
Reservation sits large deposits of natural gas trapped in shale. Members of the Blackfeet tribe are in sharp
disagreement about whether to tap this resource to bring jobs and development
to the reservation.
I have also lived on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in
the Southeastern corner of Montana. The
land there is very different from the land in the Finger Lakes and the land
near Glacier National Park. Southeastern
Montana is far dryer and less forested than either Glacier or Upstate New
York. There are exposed red rock buttes
and scrublands as far as the eye can see.
And under all of this 700 square miles of stark beauty lies an estimated
23 billion tons of coal. The Cheyenne
tribal members have not yet allowed any coal mining on the reservation, but
some members want that to change. Some
mining companies want that to change, as well.
Now that I live in Tompkins County, I am going to have to
come to a position of my own on fracking.
I do not own a few hundred acres of land here, so I am never going to be
offered a lease for fracking on my land.
But I can absolutely understand the attraction for landowners. Especially those who have no money and
limited prospects. A ban on fracking
might feel like the one thing of value I own has been taken from me. Just like a Blackfeet or Cheyenne tribal
member might feel like tribal reluctance to tap into the natural resources
available to them is equivalent to economic suicide.
It struck me while I was running that it is a luxury to be
able to think about the long-term health of the environment. Not everyone has that luxury. Some people are hungry. Some people worry about their ability to
provide for their children. Some people
just want some economic security, and fracking or mining look like viable ways
to get there. To these people it is
strictly an economic issue.
To the many people who do not stand to benefit directly from
resource extraction, it is an environmental issue. It is about poisoned water, truck traffic,
clear cuts, sludge ponds, and pollution.
It became clear to me on that run that fracking is one issue where the
opposing sides are not even speaking the same language. The only way to get to some sort of détente
on the issue is to have the appropriate state agency, in this case the
Department of environmental Conservation, complete a review of hydraulic
fracturing and then write regulations for how to go ahead with the permitting
process. No amount of talking is going
to change anyone’s opinion at this point.
It is a messy business, but the only solution is already
clear on an issue like this where two entrenched sides can’t even agree on what
the issue is about and talk past each other in lawn signs. There has to be a compromise and neither side
will like the final result. The cost of
banning all fracking is continued poverty for many rural landowners and
continued reliance on foreign sources of energy. The cost of allowing fracking to happen anywhere
is severe environmental degradation. What
we need is a process in place that will allow drilling to happen in the most
productive way possible while still protecting the air, water, and land of the
Finger Lakes. It won’t be pretty, but it
does have to happen.