07.15.15

Democrats Dismantle Flawed Republican and State Arguments Against BLM Fracking Rule, Highlight Intentional Misquotes

Washington, D.C. – At today’s Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearing on the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) final rule for hydraulic fracturing operations on Federal and Indian lands, Subcommittee Ranking Member Alan Lowenthal, Full Committee Ranking Member Raúl M. Grijalva and multiple witnesses rebutted fracking rule opponents’ misleading arguments and stressed that the rule would have no impact on states with stronger fracking standards.

“The oil and gas industry is making a big deal out of nothing,” Grijalva said ahead of the hearing. “State regulations in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and North Dakota are already stronger than BLM’s, as they pointed out in court arguments, so companies in those states can go on with business as usual. The BLM rule is so lenient that companies should be thanking BLM for issuing it. Our focus should be on the American people whose air and water are at risk of contamination, not on whether industry is getting enough special deals. House Republicans are looking out for fracking profits instead of public health and misrepresenting the debate to benefit corporate interests. It has to stop.”

States challenging the BLM fracking rule in federal court have argued that the BLM does not have the authority to regulate fracking because of the “Halliburton loophole” inserted by Republicans in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which exempts most hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. To make their case, states have pointed to remarks from Florida State University Professor Hannah Wiseman and then-Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

At today’s hearing, Wiseman said the states have taken a single line from one of her articles out of context and reiterated that the BLM’s fracking rule “has strong statutory authorization, is not precluded by other statutes, addresses known risks, and usefully complements state regulation.”

In a statement today, Sen. Markey also directly challenged the states’ interpretation of comments he made in 2005: “Only the oil industry could try to argue that the Halliburton loophole to exempt hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act is not large enough. Congress didn’t write a get-out-of-any-regulation-forever-free card for fracking. Any attempt to extract any other reading out of the Congressional Record clearly fractures credulity.”

In opening remarks at today’s hearing, Ranking Member Lowenthal stated that the BLM rule “is nothing but a modest modernization of longstanding BLM regulations to take into account how the industry currently operates. [. . .] On federal lands, BLM sets the floor. The states are free to put the ceiling wherever they want. And, yes, even on federal lands companies must meet those state standards.”

BLM Director Neil Kornze, a witness at the hearing, pointed to BLM’s longstanding authority to regulate oil and gas on public lands, which dates back to 1920, and stated in written testimony that BLM’s existing fracking rules “were last updated over 30 years ago, and had not kept pace with the significant technological advances in hydraulic fracturing techniques and the tremendous increase in its use.”

He pointed out that under BLM’s oversight, oil production from Federal and Indian lands is up 81 percent since 2008.