Opposition Letter to HR 2728

8/13/2019 Opposition Letter to HR 2728

1/4

1

PROTECT COMMUNITIES

AND KEEP THE NATIONAL IN OUR NATIONAL LANDS!

VOTE NO ON H.R. 2728

November 18, 2013

Dear Representative,

We write today in opposition to H.R. 2728, the Protecting States Rights to PromoteAmerican Energy Security Act. This over-reaching and vaguely worded bill would undercutsound, consistent federal management of our nations lands by placing the oversight of oiland gas development on federal lands under a widely varying and largely inadequatepatchwork of state regulations. Because it also includes the language of H.R. 2850, it wouldalso delay and undercut EPAs ongoing, Congressionally-mandated hydraulic fracturingstudy. If these bills are enacted, our federal wildlands, habitats, waters, and recreationareas - and the many economic benefits and jobs they provide - would be inconsistentlymanaged and in too many cases greatly harmed. Further, communities nationwide will

continue to be kept in the dark about the risks fracking poses to essential drinking waterresources.

Title I of H.R. 2728 explicitly prohibits the federal government from regulating hydraulicfracturing operations including associated operations such as chemical and wastewaterstorage and disposal on federal lands even if states have issued only hydraulic fracturingguidance or have developed ineffective regulatory programs. The bill is completelyindifferent to how well or poorly state regulatory programs protect surface andgroundwater, wildlife habitat, recreational areas, and the public.

In addition, the bills vaguer provisions could be interpreted as precluding the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) from enforcing any federal regulation with any relationship to oil,gas, or geothermal energy, simply because states have guidelines or regulations regardinghydraulic fracturing. This could gut the application of federal regulations issued pursuant tothe Mineral Leasing Act and other acts, including the Federal Lands Policy Management Act(FLPMA).

H.R. 2728, therefore, flies in the face of longstanding law and policy and threatens thefundamental principle that federal lands which are owned by all Americans and held intrust for future generations should be carefully protected for the benefit of all at equivalentlevels throughout the country. The federal government, unlike the states, hasCongressionally-mandated stewardship requirements under FLPMA and trustresponsibilities for Indian lands. BLM must ensure that:

public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic,historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeologicalvalues; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their naturalcondition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; andthat will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.

The federal governments important stewardship responsibilities for federal as well as Tribal


2/4

2

lands must be maintained, not undercut. The federal government must ensure adequateregulations are in place for industrial activities occurring on the lands it manages whileproviding states with the ability to exceed those requirements or to address atypicalconditions. This regulatory model where baseline federal standards are applicable acrossthe country has been a common feature of our nations approach to ensuring that allAmericans enjoy protection from harm from industrial activities. The Clean Air and Clean

Water Acts, for instance, are structured to provide minimum federal standards, whileallowing states to impose more stringent or specific requirements. A benefit to thisapproach, which has remained in place on a bi-partisan basis for decades, is that it bringsneeded consistency for companies operating in multiple states. For states, this approachsaves governmental resources because each state can rely on the federal government withits greater capacity to develop an adequate set of minimum regulatory requirements.

In its proposal to address important issues that have arisen around hydraulic fracturing offederal energy resources underlying federal lands including National Forests and NationalFish and Wildlife Refuges, the BLM is attempting to fulfill its legal responsibilities to ensure abaseline level of regulatory protection and consistency for the American public. BLMs

proposed hydraulic fracturing rule would allow states the flexibility to exceed federalrequirements to meet state-specific technical needs or public desires for increasedprotection. On federal lands, there are strong technical, policy and stewardship reasons forfederal baseline requirements to ensure sound, equitable standards throughout thecountry. If states are allowed to undermine federal requirements, our organizations believeour federal lands will be exposed to degradation and contamination problems that willadversely affect communities, regions, and the nation as a whole.

As if these damaging provisions were not enough, H.R. 2850, the EPA Hydraulic FracturingStudy Improvement Act, has now been added to H.R. 2728 (Title II), under the guise ofpromoting scientific integrity. As Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson said at theScience, Space and Technology Committee markup, This bill is at best a piece of politicalmessaging, and at worst, something that could seriously delay or undercut thecongressionally mandated study. This legislation would expand the EPA hydraulicfracturing study parameters while setting an unrealistic deadline that sets the EPA up forfailure. The additional data collection and analysis could take years, leaving families with oiland gas drilling in their backyards without this much-needed information. The CongressionalBudget Office estimated that the study could take an additional 5 years at an additional costof $1 million a year. H.R. 2850 also requires EPA to follow guidelines that it already plans tofollow for the study, in an attempt to cloak the true intent of the legislation.

Our public lands and drinking water resources are critically important to health andwellbeing of our nations communities and environment. They must be carefully managed

and safeguarded to protect their availability and use for present and future generations. Weurge you to oppose H.R. 2728 and vote against this damaging bill.

Sincerely,

Sierra ClubAmerican RiversGreenpeaceEnvironment America


3/4

3

League of Conservation VotersEarthworksEarthjusticeNatural Resources Defense CouncilTWSFood & Water Watch

Clean Water ActionClean Air Task ForceCenter for Biological DiversityBreast Cancer ActionProgressive Democrats of AmericaCenter for Health, Environment and JusticeRiverkeeper, Inc.Western Organization of Resource CouncilsSouthern Environmental Law CenterWestern Environmental Law CenterClean Air Council

Wild SouthAthens County Fracking Action Network.Network for Oil and Gas Accountability and ProtectionLos Padres ForestWatchDamascus Citizens for SustainabilityPrairie Rivers NetworkBuckeye Forest CouncilCalifornians for Western WildernessWest Virginia Highlands ConservancyPennsylvania Forest CoalitionCitizens Coalition for a Safe CommunityBerks Gas TruthGrassroots Coalition (CA)United Mountain DefenseSan Juan Citizens AllianceMissouri Coalition for the EnvironmentCoalition for a Frack-Free TennesseeCumberland Green Bioregional CouncilCornucopia Network/NJ/TN ChapterCaney Fork Headwaters AssociationCumberland Countians for Peace & JusticeSouthEast Communities Against Pollution (SECAP)Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility Of United Church of ChristFriends of BlackwaterOhio Environmental CouncilDelaware Riverkeeper NetworkHeartwoodLicking County Concerned Citizens for Public Health and EnvironmentPeople's Oil & Gas Collaborative OhioFrackfree Mahoning ValleyEnvironment Arizona


4/4

4

Environment CaliforniaEnvironment ColoradoEnvironment ConnecticutEnvironment FloridaEnvironment GeorgiaEnvironment Illinois

Environment IowaEnvironment MaineEnvironment MarylandEnvironment MassachusettsEnvironment MichiganEnvironment MinnesotaEnvironment MissouriEnvironment MontanaEnvironment NevadaEnvironment New HampshireEnvironment New Jersey

Environment New MexicoEnvironment New YorkEnvironment North CarolinaEnvironment OhioEnvironment OregonEnvironment Rhode IslandEnvironment TexasEnvironment VirginiaEnvironment WashingtonPenn EnvironmentWisconsin Environment

Documents

Opposition Letter to HR 2728