Contains the keyword government

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) | Safe Drinking Water Act | US EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (2010)


The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of Americans' drinking water. Under SDWA, EPA sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards.

SDWA was originally passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the nation's public drinking water supply.

The law was amended in 1986 and 1996 and requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources: rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and ground water wells. (SDWA does not regulate private wells which serve fewer than 25 individuals.)

Web Article contains links to legal, scientific, and contact information.

See: Safe Drinking Water Act 101 | Online Training | Drinking Water Academy

Scalise: Cap-and-Trade Hinders Job Growth, Scalise, Steve , Congressman Steve Scalise Representing the 1st of Louisiana, (2010)


Congressman Scalise serves on the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. Cap-and-Trade Hinders Job Growth, By Rep. Steve Scalise, Published in Roll Call February 8, 2010.

"...our state has seen success onshore by using safe, responsible and environmentally sound energy production technologies such as hydraulic fracturing.

Recently, this new technology was used to produce oil and gas from shale rock in Haynesville, La. This project helped create 32,742 new jobs within the state and added $3.2 billion to our economy through lease and royalty payments."

Senators Want to Bar E.P.A. Greenhouse Gas Limits, Broder, John M. , The New York Times, (2010)

By JOHN M. BRODER, New York Times, January 21, 2010.  "In a direct challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, introduced a resolution on Thursday to prevent the agency from taking any action to regulate carbon dioxide and other climate-altering gases."


Ruth Fremson/The New York Times

Senator Lisa Murkowski is challenging the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Smitsky Letter, GasDrillingTruth , YouTube, (2010)

Virginia Smitske's son from Hickory PA narrates. Their water is tainted and government regulations have proven ineffective. They buy a lot of bottled water.

Here is a picture of the brown water. It's not always this brown, but its always full of toxins!

It's strange how people are so scared of the swine flu, but when you talk about how the gas drillers are poisoning our water, people think you're crazy, or they get mad because they think they can get rich off the deal the gas company is promising.

The money is more important to them than their health.

States taking a closer look at controversial natural gas drilling method, Gramlich, John , Stateline | Pew Center on the States, (2010)



Environmentalists have long contended that the natural gas drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing — or “fracking” — poses a danger to drinking water supplies for millions of Americans.

Alarming reports of water contamination in states where such drilling is common, including Colorado, Pennsylvania and Wyoming, have exacerbated their fears.

Environmentalists believe disclosure rules will help them prove that their long-held claims about the inherent dangers of fracking are true. If testing finds an unusual chemical in a private water well, for example, it is far easier to make a connection to a nearby drilling operation that uses the same chemical.

Gas firms, despite their concerns over revealing proprietary chemical formulas to government regulators, acknowledge that there is a “fear of the unknown” when it comes to fracking, and they have come under increasing pressure to be more forthcoming about their operations. Many, but not all, now view disclosure as a way to build public trust, and to prove what numerous state and federal studies have already found: that fracking isn’t responsible for water contamination.


Arkansas Rule B-19
By Robert Finne on Dec 17, 2010 11:03:56 AM

The new Arkansas rule, like the Wyoming rule, is a gift to drillers from state regulators. It allows drillers to publicly say they are disclosing while they have a gaping loophole that allows them to arbitrarily decide what to disclose.

What this means is a driller can pick chemicals in his mix and declare them "trade secret" at which point he can say its a "Biocide" without actually revealing which biocide it is. There are hundreds if not thousands of chemicals in the biocide family.

Some are harmless and some are known carcinogens. The reason these companies say they need to maintain "trade secrets" is so that other companies don't get their formulas but their logic is flawed.

Who extracts the gas depends on who has the lease for the minerals. It's not as if someone is going too get their gas if they have their formula. Thats pretty simple.

The act of declaring "trade secret" only prevents someone from physically stealing a formula through industrial espionage. If a company reverse engineers or discovers by trial and error they are free to use it. Only a patent would prevent a competitor from duplicating a formula.

The ONLY reason to hide behind "trade secret" is to prevent the information of what they are using from becoming public knowledge.

Supreme Court Restricts Clean Water Act, theGlobalReport , YouTube, (2010)

Thousands of the largest water polluters in the United States are outside the Clean Water Acts reach because the Supreme Court has left uncertain which waterways are protected by that law.

As a result, some businesses are declaring that the law no longer applies to them. And pollution rates are rising. About 117 million Americans get their drinking water from sources fed by waters that are vulnerable to exclusion from the Clean Water Act.

See: New York Times, February 28, 2010. "Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Foiling E.P.A. | Mixplex

"We are, in essence, shutting down our Clean Water programs in some states.  This is a huge step backward.  When companies figure out the cops can't operate, they start remembering how much cheaper it is to just dump stuff in a nearby creek."

--Douglas F. Mundrick, EPA Lawyer.

ToxFAQs™: Hydrogen Sulfide, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry , Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), (2010)

ATSDR Home Page

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control. July 2006. ToxFAQs™ for Hydrogen Sulfide (Ácido Sulfhídrico) In addition to methane, natural gas typically contains other hydrocarbons such as ethane, propane, butane, and pentanes. Raw natural gas may also contain water vapor, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide, helium, nitrogen, and other compounds.

ATSDR serves the public by using the best science, taking responsive public health actions, and providing trusted health information to prevent harmful exposures and diseases related to toxic substances. ATSDR is directed by congressional mandate to perform specific functions concerning the effect on public health of hazardous substances in the environment. These functions include public health assessments of waste sites, health consultations concerning specific hazardous substances, health surveillance and registries, response to emergency releases of hazardous substances, applied research in support of public health assessments, information development and dissemination, and education and training concerning hazardous substances.

ATSDR Home Page.

See: Dusty Horwitt. (2009). Drinking Water Threatened by Toxic Natural Gas and Oil Drilling Chemicals. Environmental Working Group.

See: Earthworks | Hydrogen Sulfide

U.S. Department of Energy - Homepage, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory , U.S. Department of Energy, (2010)


U.S. Department of Energy (DOE): E and P Focus: Summer 2009 Oil and Gas Program Newsletter. 28 pages.

Sample the Electronic Newsletter above featuring articles on industrial development of natural gas to gain a perspective on how government energy policy is crafted.



U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration. Report #:DOE/EIA-0484(2009).

Much of the increase in U.S. natural gas reserves results from expanded knowledge and exploration of shale resources.

World marketed energy consumption increases by 49 percent from 2007 to 2035 in the Reference case.

Total energy demand in non-OECD countries increases by 84 percent, compared with an increase of 14 percent in OECD countries.


NETL Oil & Natural Gas Technologies Reference Shelf. Recently released and in-demand reference materials are available directly from this page using the links on this website.

The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), part of DOE’s national laboratory system, is owned and operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). NETL supports DOE’s mission to advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Hydraulic Fracturing Study (2010-2012), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (2010)



Hydraulic fracturing is the injection of fluid under pressure to facilitate the production of oil and natural gas.

This page explains the process of hydraulic fracturing, how hydraulic fracturing is regulated, and EPA’s national 2010-2012 study on hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane.

Weston Wilson Whistle Blower Letter

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2002 Study was crticized by EPA Whistle Blower Weston Wilson in this letter written to Senators Allard and Campbell and Representative DeGette. Denver, Colorado. October 8th, 2004.

See New York Times Editorial on Halliburton Loophole.

See also the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

U.S. EPA, 2002. Study to Evaluate the Impacts to the U.S. Drinking Water Supply (USDWs) by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs.

The study of coalbed methane (CBM) wells involved interviews with approximately 50 state and local government agency staff members, communications with about 40 citizens who were concerned that CBM production had adversely affected their drinking water wells, and searches for confirmed incidents of drinking water well contamination.

EPA published a draft report in August 2002, requested public comment, and incorporated changes as appropriate in Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs; National Study Final Report (2004)

A summary is located here.

The EPA's guidance led Congress to pass the 2005 Energy Policy Act that included the "Halliburton Loophole" of 2005. Exemption to EPA regulations for safe drinking water was granted for fracking in 2005.

"EPA has preliminarily found that the potential threats to public health posed by hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane wells appear to be small and do not justify additional study. " (2002).

See: Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information

See: NYT Editorial: Questions About Fracturing

EPA's Current Hydraulic Fracturing Study (2010-2012)

In its Fiscal Year 2010 budget report, the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriation Conference Committee identified the need for a focused study of this topic. EPA agrees with Congress that there are serious concerns from citizens and their representatives about hydraulic fracturing’s potential impact on drinking water, human health and the environment, which demands further study.

More information on EPA's Hydraulic Fracturing Research Study.

Hydraulic Fracturing Research Study PDF (2pp, 343k)

See: USEPA. Hydraulic Fracturing EPA Public Informational Meeting. Binghamton, New York September 13, 2010. Afternoon Session. Summary of Public Comments

See: USEPA. Hydraulic Fracturing EPA Public Informational Meeting. Binghamton, New York September 13, 2010. Evening Session. Summary of Public Comments

See: USEPA. Hydraulic Fracturing EPA Public Informational Meeting. Binghamton, New York September 15, 2010. Afternoon Session. Summary of Public Comments

See: USEPA. Hydraulic Fracturing EPA Public Informational Meeting. Binghamton, New York September 15, 2010. Evening Session. Summary of Public Comments

See: Stakeholder Involvement Strategy

EPA Update. November 9-10 2010

On November 9, 2010, EPA announced that eight out of the nine hydraulic fracturing companies that received voluntary information requests in September agreed to submit timely and complete information to help the Agency conduct its study on hydraulic fracturing. However, the ninth company, Halliburton, has failed to provide EPA the information necessary to move forward with this important study. As a result, and as part of EPA's effort to move forward as quickly as possible, today EPA issued a subpoena to the company requiring submission of the requested information that has yet to be provided.

See: Letter sent by EPA to Halliburton PDF (2pp, 516K).

See: The subpoena sent by EPA to Halliburton PDF (11pp, 3.5M).

See: EPA Press Release on Results of Voluntary Information Request

See: Birth of EPA

Public Comments for Peer Review Panel Needed by November 22, 2010

On September 10, 2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office posted a List of eighty-five Nominated Candidates for a Panel under the auspices of the SAB that will provide independent expert advice on EPA’s draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan to investigate the potential public health and environmental protection research issues that may be associated with hydraulic fracturing. This List of Candidates is posted on the SAB Web Site. Public comments on this List of Candidates were received by October 1, 2010.

See: Natural Gas Drillers Protest Nomination of Fracking Critics for EPA Review Panel

See: Molly Ivins (2003). Bushwhacked : Life in George W. Bush's America

See: In Pursuit of Sustainability

See: EPA in the Crosshairs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Private Drinking Water Wells, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Private Drinking Water Wells, (2010)


EPA regulates public water systems; it does not have the authority to regulate private drinking water wells. Approximately 15 percent of Americans rely on their own private drinking water supplies, and these supplies are not subject to EPA standards, although some state and local governments do set rules to protect users of these wells. Unlike public drinking water systems serving many people, they do not have experts regularly checking the water’s source and its quality before it is sent to the tap. These households must take special precautions to ensure the protection and maintenance of their drinking water supplies.

See "What You Can Do"

"...Check the paper or call your local planning or zoning commission for announcements about hearings or zoning appeals on development or industrial projects that could possibly affect your water.

Attend these hearings, ask questions about how your water source is being protected, and don't be satisfied with general answers. Make statements like "If you build this landfill, (just an example) what will you do to ensure that my water will be protected." See how quickly they answer and provide specifics about what plans have been made to specifically address that issue."