The SRBC Protects Water Quality According to Standards, While the DRBC Rests on Political Double-Standards
Guest Post by Jim Willis at Marcellus Drilling News.
The highly functional and responsible Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC), unlike its completely dysfunctional and irresponsible cousin, the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), continues to support the shale energy industry by approving water withdrawals for responsible and safe shale drilling. Yesterday, the SRBC board approved 14 new (or renewed) water withdrawal requests within the basin, four for water used in drilling and fracking shale wells in Pennsylvania. Coterra Energy received two water request approvals, and Expand Energy (Chesapeake Energy & Southwestern Energy) received the other two.
We bring you this otherwise routine and mundane news for two important reasons:
(1) To rub the nose of the DRBC in the fact that shale drilling has now happened in the Susquehanna River Basin, safely, for the past 15+ years, while no fracking has happened in the Delaware River Basin during that same time (to the DRBC’s eternal shame);
(2) Because new water withdrawals are an indicator of expanded and/or new drilling in a given area. It’s a signal of good things to come.
The PA Environment Digest Blog has the full details of the water permits approved for shale drillers yesterday:
On December 12, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission held its business meeting and approved a new fee schedule, water withdrawals, including four shale gas withdrawals, a contribution to abandoned mine drainage remediation project and proposed a new General Permit for Into-Basin Water Diversions.
The shale gas water withdrawal requests include —
— New: Project Sponsor and Facility: Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC (Susquehanna River), Sheshequin Township, Bradford County, PA. Application for surface water withdrawal of up to 4.000 mgd (peak day).
— Renewal: Project Sponsor and Facility: Coterra Energy, Inc. (Tunkhannock Creek), Lenox Township, Susquehanna County, PA. Application for renewal and modification of surface water withdrawal of up to 2.880 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20191201).
— Renewal: Project Sponsor and Facility: Coterra Energy, Inc. (Tunkhannock Creek), Nicholson Township, Wyoming County, PA. Application for renewal and modification of surface water withdrawal of up to 2.880 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20230903).
— Renewal: Project Sponsor and Facility: SWN Production Company, LLC (Susquehanna River), Great Bend Township, Susquehanna County, PA. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 2.000 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20191209).
SRBC has approved 27 new and renewed water withdrawal requests for shale gas operations so far in 2024. Read more here.
SRBC has also approved a total of 274 General Permits for individual water uses by shale gas well pads so far in 2024. Read more here.
Click Here to find more information on the water withdrawal applications.
The voting Commissioners and alternates were Suzanne Dorsey, Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment; Jill Whitcomb, Acting Deputy Secretary for Water Programs, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; and Lauren Townley, Chief, Water Assessment and Implementation Section, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
The SRBC announcement with the list of permit requests discussed at yesterday’s meeting:
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) held its quarterly business meeting in Harrisburg, Pa. on December 12th, 2024. Among its actions, the Commission:
adopted the 2025 regulatory program fee schedule;
approved a contribution to an abandoned mine drainage remediation project;
approved a motion to release a proposed general permit for public comment; and
acted on 16 regulatory program water projects, tabling two.
The voting Commissioners and alternates were Suzanne Dorsey, Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment; Jill Whitcomb, Acting Deputy Secretary for Water Programs, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; and Lauren Townley, Chief, Water Assessment and Implementation Section, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Project Approvals (includes new approvals, modifications, and renewals)
Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Bradford County, Pa.
Coterra Energy Inc. (Tunkhannock Creek), Susquehanna County, Pa.
Coterra Energy Inc. (Tunkhannock Creek), Wyoming County, Pa.
Dover Township, York County, Pa.
East Cocalico Township Authority, Lancaster County, Pa. Environmental Justice Area
Edgewood by Sand Springs, LLC, Luzerne County, Pa.
H&K Group, Lancaster County, Pa. Tabled
New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co., Inc. (Roaring Spring Quarry), Blair County, Pa.
New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co., Inc. (Shippensburg Quarry), Cumberland County, Pa.
Newport Borough Water Authority, Perry County, Pa.
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission, Centre County, Pa.
Schuylkill County Municipal Authority, Schuylkill County, Pa. Environmental Justice Area
Strasburg Lancaster County Borough Authority, Lancaster County, Pa. Environmental Justice Area
SWN Production Company, LLC, Susquehanna County, Pa.
Tallman Family Farms, LLC, Dauphin County, Pa.
Valley CC, LLC, Luzerne County, Pa. Tabled
More information on regulated projects can be found on our website through the Water Application and Approval Viewer (WAAV).
Editor’s Note: Thank you, Jim, for this post highlighting the great injustice done to Delaware River Basin landowners and others by this DRBC set of double-standards. The great irony, of course, is that the governing majority of the DRBC and SRBC are the same; New York, Pennsylvania and the Federal government. As such, they know full well how totally dishonest are the premises behind the DRBC fracking ban. Drilling has been taking place in the Susquehanna River Basin for a decade and a half and the SRBC’s water quality studies say the following:
Macroinvertebrate samples were collected routinely over a 10-year period at CIM stations. IBI scores and assemblage structure were examined in context to water quality trends. While small differences and natural variations were observed, none of the 43 streams showed clear evidence of biologic decline, despite the statistically significant water quality trends….
Of the 13 watersheds with greater than 1.0 well/mi2, eight of those streams showed a significant trend in specific conductivity, with seven increasing and one decreasing. However, a number of sites with well density greater than 1.0 well/mi2 showed no changes in any of the five parameters and sites with no drilling had multiple parameters with significant trends in both directions.
There is, in other words, no basis to conclude fracking has had any of the impacts speculated in justifying a DRBC fracking ban. It was all a lie. Yet, the DRBC, in a stunning exercise of raw bureaucratic power, chose to hide behind now overruled Chevron case authority, to interpret Article 5 of the DRBC Compact as somehow authorizing a ban on use of a particular technology, when all it truly allows is the setting of water quality standards. This is a matter ripe for a major lawsuit against the DRBC and, God willing, it will happen. It’s time to deep-six the DRBC!
#DRBC #SRBC #WaterQuality #Fracking #NewYork #Pennsylvnia #Marcellus DrillingNews
