Saturday 17 November 2018

Waterkeepers Chesapeake Calls on MDE to Prohibit Fracking in Maryland

The EPA has reversed it’s earlier conclusion of it’s 5-year fracking study and now concludes that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances and identifies factors that influence these impacts.

The report identified several vulnerabilities to drinking water resources, including water withdrawals for fracking in drought-stricken areas; inadequately cased or cemented wells resulting in below-ground migration of gases and liquids; inadequately treated wastewater discharged into drinking water resources; and spills of hydraulic fluids and wastewater.

The EPA removed the “widespread, systemic” language because it “could not be supported due to data gaps and uncertainties” and “did not clearly communicate the topline finding of the report.” The EPA had inserted the earlier statement about “no widespread systemic” contamination under pressure from the oil and gas industry.

Waterkeepers Chesapeake issued this statement:

“We applaud the EPA for basing the conclusion of their 5 year study on science, instead of oil and gas industry spin. The EPA now concludes what we have known all along: our drinking water sources have been contaminated with toxic compounds from fracking activities.

This conclusion would not have happened without all of the public feedback and participation on the report, especially from the impacted people from across the country who shared their stories with the Science Advisory Board. This highlights the increased need for citizen engagement and enforcement to hold regulators and polluters accountable.

In our recent comments on Maryland’s draft fracking regulations, we called on the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to prohibit fracking. Under state law, MDE has an obligation to protect public health and the environment. By adopting the proposed regulations despite increasing scientific evidence documenting the risk fracking presents to public health and the environment, MDE will fail to meet this legal obligation.

EPA’s conclusion along with mounting evidence from other states demonstrates that no amount of regulation is capable of preventing harm from fracking. Thus, the only way MDE can fulfill its legal obligation to keep its citizens safe and to protect the State’s environment is to prohibit fracking in Maryland.”

For more information on the campaign to ban fracking in Maryland, go to

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Dec. 8, 2016): We at Waterkeepers Chesapeake, a coalition of 19 Riverkeepers, Coastkeepers and Shorekeepers from around the Chesapeake Bay watershed, ask the U.S. Senate to scrutinize and reject the selection of Scott Pruitt as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the incoming Trump administration.

The appointment of Pruitt, a self-confessed climate change denier and mouth piece for the oil and gas industry, is an insult to Americans who not only deserve, but have a right to clean air for breathing and clean water for drinking. This appointment will take America in the wrong direction. We urge the United States Senate to block confirmation of this appointment.  

The science of climate change is clear. With the rise of fake news, it is easy to muddle facts and confuse the public. Alongside the scientific community, the U.S. military has acknowledged and is preparing for a future with conflicts resulting from rising seas, population migration, severe drought, increasingly violent storms and more. 

“Our Waterkeepers are on the front lines seeing the impacts of pollution, rising sea levels and climate change,” said Betsy Nicholas, executive director of Waterkeepers Chesapeake. “The leader of the EPA should be someone who believes in the core mission of the Agency. Pruitt is not the man for the job.”

We recognize that most Americans want to be proactive when faced with threats. In the 1950s, we worked to beat back smog and air pollution by passing the Clean Air Act. When faced with significant impairment of our nation’s waterways, we passed the Clean Water Act. We banned HFCs to protect the ozone layer and even retrofitted major American cities with public sewer and water to eliminate public health threats of diseases like typhoid and cholera.

The fact is, EPA is our top pollution-fighting agency. Unfortunately, the president-elect has selected a fox to be in charge of the EPA henhouse. We strongly believe that the person administering the agency should not only understand and acknowledge the threats of fossil fuels, pollution and climate change, but be willing to administer the laws that he is sworn to uphold. 

Waterkeepers throughout the Chesapeake and coastal bays watershed have remained vigilant to enforce local, state and federal laws. We work with citizens across five states to monitor watersheds and hold polluters accountable. We have significant work to continue to clean up the Chesapeake Bay from both point and non-point sources of pollution.

We will continue to do our job. 

We urge the Senate to do theirs. 

Contact: Mitchelle Stephenson, Communications Manager • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Earlier this year, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) released a five-year report, as required by the Maryland legislature, on the success of oyster sanctuaries. The draft report said that biomass and oyster populations in sanctuaries were going up while oysters in private fisheries were declining. 

While the report came with a disclaimer that the findings were preliminary, they showcased that sanctuaries show signs of progress.

Oysters are hard little workers. Each one of these amazing bivalves can filter pollutants out of up to 50 gallons of water per day. Unfortunately, they are at just one percent of their historic population in the Chesapeake Bay. 

Waterkeepers on both shores of the Chesapeake Bay are seeking public policy that balances the needs of restoration with commercial fishery interests. 

Even with information gleaned from the five-year study — and a requirement from the General Assembly (in the form of 2016 legislation) — to follow the science on oyster fisheries management, the commission responsible for managing oysters may be unfairly tipping the scales toward industry. 

Oysters are a keystone species. Without a healthy oyster population, it is nearly impossible to restore the health of the Bay. 

The Oyster Advisory Commission (OAC), which determines and manages both public sanctuaries and private fisheries, is dominated by representatives of the seafood industry and watermen groups. There are scientists and researchers involved, but they aren’t permitted to take an advocacy position. As far as people representing the Bay and the environment, there are only two spots for our voice. 

Moving forward on their charge to manage oyster fisheries, the OAC has set out three near-term tasks:

  1. Make a recommendation on the oyster restoration work in the Tred Avon that had been stopped by the Hogan administration;
  2. Pick the next tributaries where oyster sanctuaries would be placed; and
  3. Suggest changes in management to the sanctuary program. 

The committee quickly arrived at a decision on issue one – the work in the Tred Avon would continue. Unfortunately, it came with a caveat that is nearly insurmountable. The watermen on the OAC would not let the work move forward using rock as a substrate on which to grow the oysters. They want the sanctuary to be created using oyster shell, which is scarce. Everyone knows that there is more shell leaving the Chesapeake Bay than coming in. There isn’t enough shell to build an adequate sanctuary. 

The commission skipped over the second issue and asked for comments on changes in management. The industry proposed taking areas out of the 24 percent sanctuary, reducing it to 20 percent and restoring no other areas. 

 “The five-year report showed us that the sanctuaries are working. Why change it?” said Matt Pluta, Choptank Riverkeeper. “In addition, all of the proposed areas are Tier I top production areas” 

The recommendation from environmentalists to the Maryland Department of the Environment can be found in the slideshow presented at the January 9, 2017 meeting.