download awra julyimpact - campanastanaquadoc.typepad.com/files/awra-julyimpact.pdf · 22689 awra...

American Water Resources Association

July 2011 | Volume 13 | Number 4July 2011 | Volume 13 | Number 4

Hydraulic fracturing: tHe concerns and

consequences of resource development

Hydraulic fracturing: tHe concerns and

consequences of resource development

22689 AWRA JulyImpact.qxd:IMPACT.11.JULY.FINAL 6/20/11 6:00 PM Page 1

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: THE CONCERNS ANDCONSEQUENCES OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

N. EARL SPANGENBERG ~ [email protected]

Hydraulic fracturing to enhance fluid and gas flow in tight geolog-ical formations has opened more than the formations. States andcommunities overlying gas-bearing formations have greeted the in-flux of exploration and development by energy companies with ex-citement about economic growth on one hand, and dread for thesafety and health of human communities and the environment onthe other. We have opened a door onto new challenges far enoughto recognize that the problems ahead are more complex than theymay have seemed at first.

FEATURE ARTICLES

3 Hydrofracting, Water, and Melange: An IMPACT Op-Ed... Richard A. EngbergHydraulic fracturing is the preferred method of extraction ofnatural gas from deep, dense deposits. The high pressures andchemical and physical materials required in the techniquehave raised questions about drinking water safety.

6 HYDROFRACKING: Uncertain Decision-Making in aValue-Laden Conflict ... Richard H. McCuen

While human values and the associated emotional biases arecentral to the hydrofracking debate, the difficulty in reachinga consensus is compounded by the uncertainties in technical,legal, and value issues.

8 Background: Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources... Tim SmithEPA’s draft plan of study of the Potential Impacts ofHydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources includesRetrospective Case Studies to investigate reported instancesof drinking water resource contamination and ProspectiveCase Studies involving sites where hydraulic fracturing willoccur after the research is initiated.

10 Hydraulic Fracturing in Wyoming ... Thomas E. DollThe Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission revisedand added new rules and regulations on hydraulic fracturingin September 2010. The rules addressed well operation andlocation and required industry to disclose all chemicalcompounds used in well simulation.

12 Drill, Maybe, Drill ... Benjamin H. GrumblesAn expanded scientific review of fracking risks is importantas much more informtion has become available since thepractice was first employed, including complaints aboutmethane migration and contaminated water supplies. Statesand interstate organizations in Shale Gas regions are alsostepping up efforts to study, regulate, and monitor theimpacts of natural gas drilling and fracking and the manage-ment of “flowback” fracking fluids.

14 Wells or Woods: The Natural Gas Industry Meets thePennsylvania Wilds ... Kevin HeatleyThe natural gas infrastructure requires a widespreaddispersed distribution pattern of wells, roads, and pipelines.This will convert intact forest systems into woodlots surroundedby industrial systems, fragmenting and disrupting both theecological functioning and benefits of the forest.

16 Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) For Real-TimeSituational Awareness of Hydrofracking Operations... Sterling S. Rooke and Peter L. FuhrThe sensor and measurement capabilities of technologiessuch as Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) offer significantopportunities to maintain control of potential environmentalcontamination from hydraulic fracturing operations.

Other features in this issue ...

� AWRA BUSINESS

13 Highlights of June 2011 JAWRA Papers

25 President’s Message

27 AWRA 2011 & 2012 CONFERENCESMark Your Calendars | Submit an Abstract |

27 Water Resources IMPACT ... 2011Scheduled Topics for Future Issues

28 Advertising Opportunities in IMPACT

28 Send Us Your Feedback

28 Donations for Annual Campaigns

29 AWRA Membership Application for 2011

� OPINION COLUMNS

21 The New Economy of Water ... TheControversial Alberta Water Exchange... Skye Root and Clay J. Landry

22 What’s Up With Water ... Elijah, theMurray-Darling, and Henery Hawk... Eric J. Fitch

24 Could We Do Better? ... The BP Gulf OilSpill: The Diminishing Returns ofComplexity ... Laurel E. Phoenix

(Opinions expressed by our columnists are their ownand do not represent the opinion or position of

AWRA.)

� WATER RESOURCES PUZZLER . . . . . . 20

Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

� ADVERTISERS

Hach Hydromet . . . . . .Inside Front Cover

Campbell Scientific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Fondriest Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Join AWRA on Facebook, Linkedin,and Twitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

GoldSim Technology Group, LLC . . . . . .11

Think JAWRA When Publishinga Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Engineering & Science CareerNetwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Back Cover

CommunityConversationConnections®

VOLUME 13 • NUMBER 4 • JULY 2011


2 • Water Resources IMPACT July • 2011

AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

4 West Federal Street • P.O. Box 1626Middleburg, VA 20118-1626

(540) 687-8390 / Fax: (540) 687-8395E-Mail: [email protected] • Homepage: www.awra.org

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

N. EARL SPANGENBERGCollege of Natural Resources

University of Wisconsin-Stevens PointStevens Point, WI 54481

(715) 346-2372 • Fax: (715) 346-3624E-Mail: [email protected]

(Support for Dr. Spangenberg is provided by theCollege of Natural Resources

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point)

TO PLACE AN AD IN THIS PUBLICATION CONTACT

CHARLENE E. YOUNG

Phone/Fax: (256) 650-0701E-Mail: [email protected]

Water Resources IMPACT is owned and published bi-month-ly by the American Water Resources Association, 4 WestFederal St., P.O. Box 1626, Middleburg, Virginia 20118-1626, USA. The yearly subscription rate is $80.00 domesticand $95.00 for international subscribers. For the Interna-tional Priority Shipping Option, add $50.00 to the interna-tional subscription rate. Single copies of IMPACT are avail-able for $15.00/each (domestic) and $20.00/each (interna-tional). For bulk purchases, contact the AWRA Headquartersoffice.

IMPACT is a magazine of ideas. Authors, Associate Editors,and the Editor-In-Chief work together to create a publica-tion that will inform and will provoke conversation. Theviews and conclusions expressed by individual authors andpublished in Water Resources IMPACT should not be inter-preted as necessarily representing the official policies, eitherexpressed or implied, of the American Water Resources As-sociation.

Mention of any trademark or proprietary product in workspublished in the Water Resources IMPACT does not consti-tute a guarantee or warranty of the product by the AmericanWater Resources Association and does not imply its approvalto the exclusion of other products that may also be suitable.

Contact the AWRA HQ Office if you have any questionspertaining to your membership status. For information onadvertising rates and deadlines, contact Charlene Young atthe e-mail address or phone number given above.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Water ResourcesIMPACT, American Water Resources Association, 4 West Fed-eral St., P.O. Box 1626, Middleburg, VA 20118-1626. Copy-right © 2011 by the American Water Resources Association.

• VOL. 13 • NO. 4 • JULY 2011 •ISSN 1522-3175

A Bi-Monthly Publication of theAMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

JOE BERG(www.biohabitats.com)

Biohabitats, Inc.Baltimore, Maryland

ERIC J. FITCH([email protected])Marietta CollegeMarietta, Ohio

MICHELLE HENRIE([email protected])

MHenrie | Land Water LawSanta Fe, New Mexico

JONATHAN E. JONES([email protected])Wright Water Engineers

Denver, Colorado

CLAY J. LANDRY([email protected])

WestWater ResearchBoise, Idaho

RICHARD H. MCCUEN([email protected])University of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland

LAUREL E. PHOENIX([email protected])University of WisconsinGreen Bay, Wisconsin

RICHARD A. ENGBERG([email protected])

American Water Resources AssociationMiddleburg, Virginia

SKYE ROOT([email protected])

WestWater ResearchBoise, Idaho

AWRA . . . Community,Conversation,Connections®

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT

SUBSCRIPTION RATES ~ WATER RESOURCES IMPACT

DOMESTIC ...........................................................$80.00

FOREIGN .............................................................$95.00

INTERNATIONAL PRIORITY SHIPPING OPTION ................$50.00

COVER PHOTOS: From istock photo.com.


INTRODUCTION

In his seminal science fiction work, “Dune,” pub-lished in 1965, the late Frank Herbert created a desertplanet Arrakis (Dune) in a far away galaxy. Arrakis was aplanet almost completely devoid of water but was theonly source of melange that just happened to be the mostvaluable substance in the galaxy. Before his death, Her-bert wrote five sequels to “Dune” and his son, Brian, to-gether with co-authors, has continued the Dune series tothe present.

While melange was but a figment of Herbert’s cre-ative imagination, there are some interesting parallelsand comparisons between his imaginary planet Arrakisand present day Earth. Unlike Arrakis, water is abun-dant on Earth although adequate freshwater resourcesare not available to everyone. On the other hand, known,easily available supplies of oil and natural gas are dwin-dling on Earth. Oil and natural gas might be consideredanalogous to Herbert’s melange as valuable substancesto the human race. They are not renewable resources, atleast not in real time, and it is fate that our more readi-ly available supplies of oil and natural gas will run out.Therefore, we must hope that other supplies can be lo-cated and tapped before the inevitable happens. As his-tory tells us, such progress sometimes is accompanied byunexpected and sometimes unpleasant consequences.

As it turns out, widespread oil-saturated or naturalgas-entrapping shale and other deposits in the UnitedStates (U.S.) and elsewhere, some at great depth belowland surface, represented until recently a generally un-tapped source of both resources. Although these depositswere identified early during exploration for oil and gas,they were for many years not seriously considered as re-alistic sources because of the density and often the depthof the deposits. This led to technical difficulties in ex-traction and hence high cost. But dwindling productionof North American oil fields, increasing price of bothgasoline at the pump and heating oil available for homedelivery, together with unstable political conditions inmiddle eastern oil producing nations have caused U.S.production companies to take a better look at these de-posits as major sources for oil and natural gas, and atpossible methods of removing oil and gas, Earth’smelange, from these deposits. This article will focus on

natural gas deposits in shale, hereafter referred to asshale gas.

EXTRACTION OF SHALE GASFROM DENSE DEPOSITS

Presently, the preferred method of extraction of shalegas from dense deposits is a technique called hydraulicfracturing that was first proposed almost 100 years ago.Hydraulic fracturing (also known as hydrofracking orfracking) is not a household term but recently has be-come well known with the release of the film documen-tary “Gasland.” The movie deals with concerns caused byhydrofracking of natural gas wells drilled in the Marcel-lus Shale in Pennsylvania. Hydrofracking is not uniqueto the Marcellus Shale but also is used in other locationsin the U.S. The filmmakers asserted that hydrofrackingincreased the potential for contamination of groundwaternear the well sites by toxics, carcinogens, and heavy met-als. “Gasland” also presented an example of methane gasproduced in the process entering private wells used fordrinking water. It documented home owners turning on aspigot and actually lighting on fire the methane that wasproduced with their drinking water supplies. This is anexample of an unintended but altogether unpleasantconsequence. Admittedly the film has been controversialwith natural gas producers downplaying it and environ-mentalists emphasizing it.

So what is hydrofracking? Quite simply, it is a tech-nique used to increase or create fractures in source rocksto increase the rate of recovery of shale gas. The practiceis to introduce a slurry (mixture) of chemicals, sand, andwater into a well that is drilled into a formation contain-ing natural gas. The action of the slurry is to create frac-tures in the formation to facilitate the release of gas andbring it to the surface. Typically, some but not all of theslurry is recovered with the shale gas. This techniquewas first used commercially in the U.S. in 1949 by Hal-liburton.

Hydrofracking is only one step in the process of re-covering shale gas. In order, the steps are: preparingthe surface site for drilling; drilling the well; hydrofrack-ing (preparing the well for production of shale gas);production of shale gas; and management of producedformation water and recovered hydrofracking fluids.

Volume 13 • Number 4 Water Resources IMPACT • 3

HHYYDDRROOFFRRAACCKKIINNGG,, WWAATTEERR,, AANNDD MMEELLAANNGGEEAAnn IIMMPPAACCTT OOpp--EEdd**

RRiicchhaarrdd AA.. EEnnggbbeerrgg

Fate and hope only rarely speak the same language ... from “Dune – House of Corrino” by Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson

*Editor’s Note: At the author’s request, we present this as an opinion piece. However, we have moved it from the “tradi-*tional” opinion slot at the back of the issue to the front because it provides a broad introduction to the hydraulic frac*turing debate,


When production is exhausted, the well should be closedand the site restored. Problems that could lead togroundwater or surface water contamination can poten-tially occur during each of these steps if proper surfacepreparation, drilling practices, and well construction andclosure practices are not followed. For example, ground-water used for drinking water supplies is usually derivedfrom shallower formations than the shale gas formations.Proper well construction and casing cementing/ groutingcan prevent the migration of hydrofracking fluids andshale gas into the aquifers that supply drinking water.

The expanding energy needs of the U.S. are the dri-vers for the development of hydrofracking and most cer-tainly are legitimate reasons for the use of the process.A 2004 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reportconcluded that hydrofracking presented little or no riskto groundwater used for drinking water supplies and wasthe impetus for Congressional action the following year.The Energy Policy Act passed by Congress and signedinto law in 2005 granted an exemption to wells used forhydrofracking from being classified as injection wells.Many question whether the exemption is appropriate.Additionally, drilling companies were not required to dis-close the chemicals they used in the hydrofrackingprocess. This changed in 2010 in one state, Wyoming,when the legislature adopted a rule requiring drillingcompanies to disclose the chemicals used.

CHEMICALS USED IN THEHYDROFRACKING PROCESS

Sierra Crane-Murdoch, in the February 21, 2011,issue of High Country News, reported the “chemical cock-tail” used in hydrofracking by Encana Corporation inshale gas wells it drills in Wyoming. According to Crane-Murdoch, Encana is the first company to publicly dis-close the chemicals used in hydrofracking since theWyoming rule was enacted.

The reported Encana “cocktail” contains 28 organicand inorganic chemicals. For each well, drillers mix near-ly 12,000 gallons of the “cocktail” with more than a mil-lion gallons of water and “a heavy dose of sand,” and in-ject it underground. The pressure of this slurry causesnew fractures in the shale gas-bearing formation or ex-pands existing fractures, releasing the entrapped gasthat is recovered by the company. According to Crane-Murdoch, 30 to 70 percent of the hydrofracking solutionre-emerges along with wastewater produced from the for-mation and is routed or trucked to evaporation pits.

The ten chemicals, all but one organic, most used byEncana in percent of volume, comprise 91 percent of the12,000 gallons of the “cocktail.” For the most part, thesechemicals as well as most of the other 18 are not wellknown to the public. They are:

• Diammonium peroxidisulphate• Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light• Guar gum• Tetramethylammonium chloride

• Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer• Methanol• 1,2,3 – Propanetriol• 2,2’,2”-nitrilotriethanol• Sorbitol• Sodium tetraborate decahydrate

POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS OFHYDROFRACKING CHEMICALS

Known potential health effects have been associatedwith each of these chemicals used in the Encana “cock-tail.” These effects are dependent not only upon the con-centration of the chemicals, but also upon the degree androute of exposure. In undiluted concentrations, mosthave skin and sensory organ effects, several have respi-ratory, gastrointestinal or liver effects or cardiovascularand blood effects, and some have brain and nervous sys-tem effects. Four may potentially affect the immune sys-tem, four may potentially affect the kidneys, three mayaffect the reproductive system, three are endocrine dis-ruptors, two are mutagens, and one is a carcinogen. Theother 18 chemicals may have similar potential health ef-fects.

The Encana cocktail is probably unique to the com-pany and possibly may vary from well to well. Other com-panies may use some of the same chemicals as well as alarge variety of others and the mixtures may vary with lo-cation. Also, the 30 to 70 percent hydrofracking solutionrecovery reported by Encana is considerably higher thanreports of recovery from wells in the Marcellus Shalewhich can be in the 5 to 10 percent range.

“Dilution is the solution to pollution” is a well knownand overused expression. In the Encana case, the 12,000gallons of the “cocktail” is diluted with a million gallonsof water. Still there are questions. Does dilution of the“cocktail” with the large amounts of water render thesechemicals relatively harmless? Are there possible syner-gistic effects involving the chemicals in the mixture witheach other or with naturally occurring constituents inthe dilution water? Does the “cocktail” release other con-stituents of concern from the formation into which it isinjected? What are the impacts of the concentratedchemicals on the workers that mix and inject the chemi-cals? What are the impacts of accidental spills of hy-drofracking chemicals at the well site?

There are other questions/concerns. Formationwater released by the hydrofracking process that flows tothe surface during shale gas production can be as saltyor many times more salty than sea water and often is attemperatures exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit. If rout-ed through water treatment plants, the high salinity con-tent could adversely impact the treatment plant. If dis-posed of in streams, both the temperature and salinitycan seriously impact freshwater ecosystems.

To date, there are no documented incidents of inject-ed hydrofracking fluids migrating into drinking supplies.That said, there have been multiple cases of surfacewater contamination as a result of spills of hydrofracking


HHyyddrrooffrraacckkiinngg,, WWaatteerr,, aanndd MMeellaannggee ...... AAnn IIMMPPAACCTT OOpp--EEdd .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..


chemicals. There also have been documented events ofshale gas migration into groundwater due to poorly con-structed or cemented wells.

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

There is a delicate balance between the positive im-pact of hydrofracking, the shale gas production that isbadly needed, and the potential human and environmen-tal impacts. Recognizing this, the EPA at the bidding ofCongress has undertaken a new study of hydrofrackingthat may reflect on the fate of the process. The report isdue in 2012. One can hope that the report addressessafety measures to assure that shale gas can be safelyextracted using hydrofracking, while, in the meantime,puts in place measures that protect humans and the en-vironment. We need the natural gas and the oil, theEarth’s melange, that hydrofracking can produce. Wealso need a safe and healthy environment and cleanwater. Let us hope that unlike the quote that began thisarticle, fate and hope can, indeed, speak the same lan-guage.

Richard A. EngbergTechnical DirectorAmerican Water Resources Association 4 West Federal StreetP. O. Box 1626Middleburg, VA 20118-1626(540) 687-8390 /Fax: (540) 687-8395

[email protected]

www.awra.org

Richard A. Engberg is Technical Director of the Ameri-can Water Resources Association. He has over 45 yearsexperience in water resources, serving previously asManager of the National Irrigation Water Program of theDepartment of Interior and prior to that as U.S. Geological Survey District Chief, Iowa City, Iowa. Heis a Fellow Member of AWRA and winner of the Henry P.Caulfield, Jr. Medal for Contributions to National WaterPolicy.

� � �


Hydrofracking, Water, and Melange ... An IMPACT Op-Ed . . . cont’d.

E-MAIL

WEBSITE

AUTHOR LINK


Hydrofracking is a value-laden issue about which deci-sion making is made difficult by the conflict betweenemotions and legal issues. Decisions are difficult becauseof both a lack of empirical evidence supported by rigor-ous statistical analysis and a relevant theoretical base.The nonhomogeneity of aquifer characteristics even with-in a small region is just one confounding factor. Untilmore data are collected, analyzed, and used to improveour understanding of the processes involved, it is unlike-ly that competing stakeholders will find common ground.

One group of stakeholders (i.e., a local community)experiences the problems of the recent growth of hy-drofracking. They believe that hydrofracking in their areais increasing the noise pollution, air pollution, the vol-umes of eroded soil, surface overflows of flowback storedin treatment ponds, and, of course, ground water conta-mination. Additionally, they believe the laws and thoseparties involved in the hydrofracking activities are insen-sitive to their concerns. Thus, to support their positioncommunity stakeholders cite values of public health andwelfare, environmental sustainability, aesthetics, ac-countability, and fairness, but these values are difficultto assess.

Those involved in gas production also cite values tosupport their position. Public welfare, environmentalhealth, and the liberty to make a profit within currentlaws and regulations are just a few of the values cited.They contend that the process is environmentally posi-tive when viewed from a national perspective. Specifical-ly, the use of the natural gas obtained from fracking iscleaner than the coal that would otherwise be used if thefracked gas was not available. Additionally, companiesimply that they use “green” fracking chemicals that min-imize the problems cited by their adversarial stakehold-ers; however, the composition of the chemicals used inthe fracking process is not divulged, so verifying the po-tential damage cannot be assessed until after a healthproblem is shown conclusively to have resulted.

Uncertainty is a condition to which both sides pointto bolster their position. Community stakeholders con-tend that chemicals injected into the aquifer used as acommunity water supply are the cause of health prob-lems. The industry counterargues that the concentra-tions in the aquifer meet state and local standards, andtherefore, are acceptable, and that the source of thechemicals has not been conclusively traced to the frack-ing compounds. The uncertainty clouds the argumentsmade by the local community. Thus, they stand on theinnocent-until-proven-guilty position. Good decisionswill depend on investigations, analyses, and data collec-tion that reduce uncertainty. Arguments based on eitheremotions or a not-violating-the-law stance will not move

the conflict towards a decision that is acceptable to theopposing stakeholders.

Values-based uncertainties are much more difficultto incorporate into decision making than are technical-based uncertainties. Attempts have been made to assessand incorporate values in decision making (Smardon andFabos 1983). Freeman (2003) tried to systematize the as-sessment of environmental values. Sagoff (1985) dealtspecifically with quantifying public safety and health,which is a principal point of conflict in the fracking de-bate. Attempts such as these are often criticized basedon the argument that values cannot be quantified. How-ever, without some quantitative evaluation, resolvingvalue-laden issues will be difficult, especially when theissues are burdened by uncertainty in the concomitanttechnical details. McCuen and Gilroy (2011) make a pre-liminary effort to treat value issues in a benefit-costframework, which might lessen the combative environ-ment that often pervades open discussions where frack-ing is a dominant theme. Even with a quantitative ap-proach, conflict will arise when the selection of weights isdiscussed.

All of the conflicting issues are not subject to thesame level of uncertainty. In fact, some issues that arepart of the overall debate could be resolved using currentknowledge. For example, the overflow of flowback mater-ial from on-site storage ponds could be modeled in muchthe same way that bioretention and retention ponds arecurrently modeled. Where overflow regularly occurs froma storage pond, it is reasonable to conclude that the pondwas underdesigned. Inexact, but sound, estimates of sur-face inflow volumes could be combined with the less reli-able estimates of flowback volumes to provide storagepond designs that enable reasonably accurate estimatesof overflow probabilites to be made. Similarly, manage-ment issues related to erosion caused by the trucking ofwater from local water supply streams to the well sitesare inexact, but sufficiently well understood that reason-able erosion control practices could be mandated. Re-solving these issues will allow the debate to focus on themore uncertain and value-laden issues.

Conflicts can be lessened if the elements about whichsome knowledge is adequate are separated from the ele-ments where the uncertainty is greatest. The extent towhich a certain pressure level will cause fracturing is al-most impossible to predict. Thus, the likelihood of cracksdeveloping that will allow seepage of the fracturing fluids


HHYYDDRROOFFRRAACCKKIINNGG:: UUNNCCEERRTTAAIINN DDEECCIISSIIOONN MMAAKKIINNGGIINN AA VVAALLUUEE--LLAADDEENN CCOONNFFLLIICCTT

RRiicchhaarrdd HH.. MMccCCuueenn

Values-based uncertainties are much moredifficult to incorporate into decision makingthan are technical-based uncertainties


into water supply aquifers cannot be known. Debate willcontinue about such issues. At any location, a planshould be required to collect data throughout the dura-tion of the fracking operation. Real-time measurementscould, at least, reduce the likelihood of leakage and pro-vide a better understanding of the unwanted leaking offracking materials.

If the competing issues cannot be resolved, then de-cisions will likely be based on political factors, which willlikely be less than satisfactory to most stakeholders.Therefore, it is important to attempt compromise basedon a reasonable decision model. In the framework of benefit-cost decision making, the elements of decisionmaking that are significantly influenced by values shouldinclude at least the following: (1) a weight to be applied toeach value; (2) a measure of the likelihood that the valuewill be important to the decision; and (3) a net worth as-sociated with the value. Hopefully, an attempt to system-atize the assessment of alternatives will reduce the influ-ence of emotions on the decision. Thus, value issues canbe incorporated into decision making without weightsbeing controlled entirely by emotional biases. By sepa-rating the analysis into these three principal compo-nents, it will be easier to identify and address the uncer-tainties.

The frack-or-not-to-frack debate will not be easily re-solved. The value issues are significant, as are the con-sequences to the larger society that has an insatiableneed for cheap energy. The pathway to a more amicablesolution is currently blocked by the inability to balancehuman values and dollars, both of which are uncertainand the unwillingness of the stakeholders to compro-mise. Attempts to reduce the uncertainties would be thefirst step in bringing warring parties closer together.

REFERENCES

Freeman III, A.M., 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values (Second Edition). Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.

McCuen, R.H. and K.L. Gilroy, 2011. Ethics and Professionalism in Engineering. Broadview Press, Peterborough, Ontario.

Sagoff, M., 1985. Risk-Benefit Analysis in Decisions Concerning Public Safety and Health. Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa.

Smardon, R.C. and J.G. Fabos, 1983. A Model for Assessing Visual-Cultured Values of Wetlands. In: The Future of Wet-lands, R.C. Smardon (Editor), Chapter 9. Allenheld, Osmun & Co., Totowa, New Jersey.

Richard H. McCuenThe Ben Dyer ProfessorDepartment of Civil & Environmental

EngineeringUniversrity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742-3021(301) 405-1949 / Fax: (301) 405-2585

[email protected]

Richard H. McCuen is the Ben Dyer Professor of Civiland Environmental Engineering at the University ofMaryland, College Park, where he has taught for 40years. His research interests include hydrology and sta-tistical analysis, but his primary interest is in helpingstudents become knowledgeable professionals.

� � �


HYDROFRACKING: Uncertain Decision-Making in a Value-Laden Conflict . . . cont’d.

AUTHOR LINK

E-MAIL


Environmental

Water quality, weather, and hydrology data collection with real-time cellular, radio, and satellite communication.

Contact an Applications Engineer 888.426.2151

fondriest.com

TO: SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES PARTICIPANTS

Re: Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources

Here are two important sources for information about theeffect of hydraulic fracturing on water resources.

FIRST: There was a hearing on April 12, 2011, of theSenate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Tosee this hearing go to http://epw.senate.gov. Roll backthe calendar to April 2011, and click on April 12. You willsee a list of hearings, and the one you want is about Nat-ural Gas Drilling, Public Health and Environmental Im-pacts. You can view the testimony, plus there is anarchived video of the hearing itself. During this hearing,at least two senators asked about the effect of drilling ondrinking water resources. The answer they got was thereis no verified impact.

The witnesses in this hearing included:

Robert Perciasepe, EPA Deputy AdministratorConrad Daniel Volz, Director, Center for Healthy Environments and Communities

Jack Ubinger, Senior Vice President, Pennsylvania Environmental Council

Robert Summers, Acting Secy. of the Environment, Maryland Dept. of the Environment

Jeff Cloud, Vice Chairman, Oklahoma Corporation Commission,

David Neslin, Director, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

In opening remarks, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin made anumber of points:

The U.S. has as much natural gas as Saudi Arabiahas oil.

Hydraulic fracturing is now being used to extractnatural gas from shale formations in thousands of newwells.

Possible problems arising are that New York andMaryland have imposed moratoria on fracking; New

Jersey is considering a ban on the practice; the City ofPittsburgh has enacted a ban on fracking within city lim-its; Mountain Lake Park, Maryland, has adopted an ordi-nance making the drilling for natural gas illegal withinthe town limits.

The industry has failed to meet minimally acceptablelevels for protecting human health and the environment.

The natural gas industry argues that there has neverbeen a documented case of drinking water contaminationfrom fracking.

The record is replete with cases of contaminationfrom improper cement jobs, cracked drill casings, drillpad spills, and seismic disturbances releasing naturalgas.

In June 2010 the Pennsylvania Land Trust Associa-tion identified a total of 1614 violations accrued by 45Marcellus Shale drillers, dating to January 2008.

Up to 5 million gallons of water combined with thou-sands of gallons of special chemicals can be used in asingle fracking operation, much of this returning to thesurface.

Municipal wastewater treatment plants are notequipped to handle these contaminants.

Contaminants include chloride, benzene, and bro-mide.

Although EPA could regulate all underground injec-tions of fluids under the Safe Drinking Water Act, a loop-hole exempts fracking except where diesel fuel is used.

Federal violations have occurred concerning injec-tions in 19 states. EPA has not taken action under theSafe Drinking Water Act or the Clean Water Act.

SECOND: EPA has published a report in February 2011,Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of HydraulicFracturing on Drinking Water Resources. This report canbe found at:


BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD HHYYDDRRAAUULLIICC FFRRAACCTTUURRIINNGG AANNDD WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS

TTiimm SSmmiitthh

(Editor’s Note: This email was circulated to people on the Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable list serve. It providesa timely update of the status of federal action on the question of hydraulic fracturing. According to their web site, “TheSustainable Water Resources Roundtable (SWRR) serves as a forum to share information and perspectives that will pro-mote better decision making in the United States regarding the sustainability of our nation's water resources.” Since2002, the Roundtable has brought together federal, state, corporate, nonprofit and academic sectors to advance under-standing of the nation’s water resources and to develop tools for their sustainable management. Tim Smith, retired fromthe U.S. Geological Survey, serves as the volunteer coordinator of the SWRR. The email is used with permission. Therehas been some minor textual editing and any errors resulting from this are the Editor’s, not the author’s.)


http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/upload/HFStudyPlanDraft_SAB_020711.pdf

This report covers the concerns about risks to drinkingwater supplies from the hydraulic fracturing process.EPA is now undertaking studies to determine the effects.There will be Retrospective Case Studies to investigatereported instances of drinking water resource contami-nation or other impacts in areas where hydraulic frac-turing has already occurred. Three to five sites across theU.S. will be investigated. A report of interim research re-sults will be completed in 2012, mostly focusing on theRetrospective Studies.

Prospective Case Studies will involve sites where hy-draulic fracturing will occur after the research is initiat-ed. Sampling will be done before, during, and after theprocess is carried out. Two to three sites in different re-gions of the U.S. will be included. A second report in2014 will include more information about the long-termresults of the research.

The draft study plan will be submitted to the EPA ScienceAdvisory Board for review before being finalized. Stake-holders and the public will have an opportunity to pro-vide comments to the Board during the review.

This information will be posted on the Archive Web Siteat http://sites.google.com/site/sustainablewaterre-sources/, on the 2011 Reports and Publications page.

Tim SmithSustainable Water Resources

Coordinator

[email protected]

Tim Smith, Ph.D., is now retired from the Water Re-sources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, after 36years of federal service. Since retirement, he has carriedout a program of research in Sustainable Water Re-sources, often in cooperation with such professional as-sociations as the Water Environment Federation, theAmerican Water Resources Association, the American So-ciety of Mechanical Engineers, and others. He hasworked for many years in the areas of water resourcesconditions and trends, interagency coordination, watermodeling, and environmental dispute resolution. Heholds a B.S. (physics), Masters of City and Regional Plan-ning, and Doctor of Planning and Policy Development.Results of ongoing work in Sustainable Water Resourcescan be found at http://sites.google.com/site/sustain-ablewaterresources/.

� � �


Background: Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources . . . cont’d.

AUTHOR LINK

EMAIL


Search for American Water Resources Association on these social networking sites & add AWRA to your network!


®

Hydraulic fracturing has been in use in Wyoming forover 60 years to stimulate wells. This practice is criticalto Wyoming as nearly 100 percent of oil and natural gaswells require hydraulic fracturing to be commercial.Wells that are not hydraulically fractured are the shallowcoalbed natural gas wells in northeast Wyoming. InWyoming during 2010, 704 wells were stimulated and5,974 individual stimulations were performed. In 2009,746 wells were stimulated and 5,675 individual stimula-tions were performed. Approximately 68% of Wyoming'stax income is generated from oil and natural gas produc-tion.

Directional and new horizontal well drilling technolo-gies and well stimulation techniques have been appliedsuccessfully in Wyoming. Multiple hydraulic fracturingtreatment technology is crucial to horizontal wells drilledin Wyoming. Tight gas sands of southwest Wyoming,such as those in the Jonah, Pinedale, and Wamsutterfield areas, require multiple hydraulic fracture stimula-tion treatments as the gross pay zone may be hundredsto thousands of feet thick. The new development areaswith horizontal wells drilled in tight oil sands and oilshales in the eastern half of the state also require multi-zone stimulation treatments from the toe to the heel ofthe several thousand foot length horizontal leg.

The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commissionrevised and added new rules and regulations, which wereadopted June 6, 2010, and which went into effect onSeptember 15, 2010. The rules now address well stimu-lation in detail. Four major issues were addressed:

1. The protection of groundwater and the identifica-tion of permitted water supply wells within one-quartermile of the drilling and spacing unit or Commission ap-proved drilling unit.

2. Clarification of requirements for well integrity,casing setting depths, casing design, and cementingproperties.

3. Requirements for disclosure of well stimulationfluid chemical additives, compounds and concentrationsor rates.

4. Requirements for the handling of the well stimu-lation load fluid recovered.

Of significance are requirements for industry to pro-vide disclosure of all chemical compounds used in wellstimulation by chemical compound name, Chemical Abstracts Number, type, and concentration or rate – pos-sibly the first disclosure regulation of its kind from anyoil and gas producing state. The operator must submit a plan detailing the chemical additives and receive approval of the well stimulation chemistry prior to doing

well stimulation. More importantly, post-stimulation, theoperator must disclose what chemical compounds, types,and concentrations or rates were actually injected intothe well. In addition, the operator must track the stimu-lation flowback fluids and account for the reuse, storageor disposal of the fluids.

You may view the rules at http://wogcc.state.wy.usby clicking on "Rules and Regulations" in the right handcolumn of the home page. Click on the Bucking HorseIcon "Download Rules and Regulations." Click on"Agency," scroll down to "Oil and Gas Conservation Com-mission" then select "Current Rules" then click "Search"to view the new rules. Chapter 3, Sections 8, 22, and 45address the requirements. Wyoming has no documentedcases of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulicfracturing.

The Commission does not publish a listing of chemi-cal compounds used in well stimulation as the chemicalsare injected in a diluted solution, are recovered as a di-luted solution of injected fluid that is further diluted byreservoir fluids, and those chemical compounds are wellspecific. The chemical compounds used will be posted onthe Commission webpage on the Application for Permit toDrill (Form 1), or Sundry Notice (Form 4), for the plannedwell stimulation chemicals. The Well Completion Report(Form 3) is scanned for the actual chemicals injectedmaking that information available for view by the publicvia the Commission web page. The scanned informationis available by individual well API number, by 1/4-1/4Section, Township, and Range, and by Operator.

All chemical manufacturers supplying well stimula-tion chemicals are required to comply with Chapter 3Section 45(d) of the Commission rules. If the chemicalmanufacturer is unwilling or not able to divulge thechemical compound name and Chemical Abstracts Ser-vice (CAS) number and type and concentration or rate,and the chemical compound is not known to be a "tradesecret" approved by the Commission, then that chemicalsupplier and that chemical product is not in compliancewith the disclosure requirement. A company may providethe information directly to the Commission, however itwill be made available to the public on the Commissionweb page unless the product is known to be a "trade se-cret" approved by the Commission and disclosed to theSupervisor by each chemical compound by name and by CAS number. The Commission cannot recognize "propri-etary" as a requirement for confidentiality.

The Commission requires a letter requesting "tradesecret" status for product(s), which can include a "familyof compounds" but sufficient detail must be provided on what makes up the family. That letter must provide, as


HHYYDDRRAAUULLIICC FFRRAACCTTUURRIINNGG IINN WWYYOOMMIINNGG

TThhoommaass EE.. DDoollll

(Editor’s Note: The following is the text of an email sent in response to a request for information about Hydraulic Frac-turing in Wyoming. The email is used with permission. There has been some minor textual editing and any errors re-sulting from this are the Editor’s, not the author’s.)



Hydraullic Fracturing in Wyoming . . . cont’d.

Attachment 1 to the letter, sufficient justification for a determination to be madeby the Commission for trade secret status within Wyoming statutes. Accordingto the rules, a company must provide the Commission Supervisor, for eachchemical compound, the name, Chemical Abstracts Number, and chemical typethat makes up the product. That information, submitted as Attachment 2 to theletter, will be held confidential under the Wyoming Public Records Act by the Su-pervisor should "trade secret" status be granted.

If "trade secret" status is not granted and the product is to be used by wellstimulation service companies in Wyoming, it will be required to be disclosed bythose entities or by the operators, with each product chemical compound name,Chemical Abstracts Number, and chemical type becoming part of the publicrecord. If a product is not a "trade secret" and is not disclosed, the product willnot be approved to be used in Wyoming.

Thomas E. Doll, Wyoming Oil and Gas SupervisorWyoming OIl and Gas Conservation Commission2211 King BoulevardCasper, WY 82604-3165(307) 234-7147

[email protected]

http://wogcc.state.wy.us

Thomas E. Doll, P.E., assumed the position of Supervisor of the Wyoming Oiland Gas Conservation Commission on May 23, 2009. He is a Registered Profes-sional Engineer in Wyoming. Tom is Wyoming’s official representative to the In-terstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

� � �

AUTHOR LINK

E-MAIL

WEBSITE


Think JAWRA First! Do u’re look ?

Do you want t plinary audience a d the world? you have a manuscript yo ing to publisho reach a large, multi‐disci rounConsider these important JAWRA advantages:

Current Impact Factor: 1.618 TimetoFirstDecision: 84 days on average Distribution: 6,000 institutions worldwide Easy Online Submittal System: ScholarOne Manuscripts

Automated Proofing Process: WileyBlackwell PLUS tion! , online manuscript tracking from submittal through publica

Visit http://w uthors.htmlww.awra.org/jawra/instructionsfora to read our instructio it your manuscript. ns for authors and learn how to subm

Questions? Contact [email protected]

When it’s time to publish your next work, think JAWRA first!

The friction over “fracking” (specifically hydraulic frac-turing for natural gas) underscores the growing need forenergy security and environmental sustainability to be inbalance rather than in battle and to keep water in mindthrough it all.

Most agree natural gas has a bright future as a"bridge" fuel to cleaner, renewable energy. It makes senseto develop home-grown energy, such as natural gas, par-ticularly when it has a smaller carbon footprint than im-ported oil or coal (although debated by some) and it’s inlarge supplies under our feet, although sometimes 5,000to 9,000 feet under our feet.

But the “Shale Rush,” prompted by technologybreakthroughs in horizontal drilling and hydraulic frac-turing over the last decade or so, can raise significantquestions about the drilling boom’s large footprint on thelandscape and the cumulative impact of operations onair, water, wildlife, and public health. Water is a particu-lar concern since as much as five million gallons may beused at each site to fracture the organic-rich, tightly-compacted shale to recover valuable natural gas. Largeamounts of water, mixed with sand and chemicals, andinjected under intense pressure (10,000 psi), can meanpotential issues down under, downstream, or downwind.

The Marcellus Shale, the Saudi Arabia of natural gasto some, exists under much of southern New York, Penn-sylvania, West Virginia, eastern Ohio, western Maryland,and even a portion of western and southwestern Virginia.USGS estimates the shale rock could include as much as500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. A recent Pennsylva-nia State University study reports the Marcellus gas in-dustry generated $3.9 billion in total value added rev-enue, more than 44,000 jobs, and $389 million in stateand local taxes. For 2011, the estimated potential is morethan $10 billion in total value added revenue, 100,000jobs, and nearly $1 billion in state and local tax revenuesin Pennsylvania.

EPA is no stranger to fracking and its legal and envi-ronmental issues. A 1997 court in Alabama ruled for thefirst time that EPA should be regulating coal bedmethane fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act’sUnderground Injection Control program. This createdlegal uncertainty. EPA then sought to reduce scientificuncertainty, overseeing a study on potential risks offracking to ground water. A commission of experts, in-cluding several from industry, reviewed existing litera-ture and concluded in the final 2004 report that fracking presented “little or no risk” to underground drinking water. As EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water at the

time, I signed off on the report and testified to Congressabout the findings. EPA, however, never intended for thereport to be interpreted as a perpetual clean bill of healthfor fracking or to justify a broad statutory exemptionfrom any future regulation under the Safe DrinkingWater Act.

In 2005, Congress cited the report in justifying a fair-ly broad statutory exemption from the Safe DrinkingWater Act’s underground injection control regulatory pro-gram. The exemption does not include a sunset or “re-capture clause.” It does, however, stipulate that dieselfluids not be used in the process. This has prompted alively debate over exactly what type of chemicals andpropping agents go into the fracking fluids and what arethe proper boundaries and differences between a com-munity’s right to know and a competitor’s right to knowthe special ingredients of a fracking company’s product.

A lot has happened since 2005 and, in my view, itmakes sense to review the Safe Drinking Water Act land-scape as well as the relevance of Clean Water Act pro-grams. Political and legal battles have been growing instate and federal courts and agencies, with particular at-tention to fracking for shale gas, which is different fromfracking for coal bed methane, the primary subject ofEPA’s 2004 report.

EPA is now developing a more complete, up-to-datestudy on fracking risks to ground water and seeking up-front input from its Science Advisory Board. An expand-ed, scientific review is important as much more informa-tion exists, including complaints about methane migra-tion and contaminated water supplies. The Agency is alsoreviewing surface water impacts, such as from total dis-solved solids (salts and minerals) and naturally occurringradioactive materials. EPA is probing current and poten-tial new Clean Water Act requirements for onsite pre-treatment and permitting responsibilities at publiclyowned treatment works and centralized waste treatmentfacilities, including the testing and handling of biosolidsfrom facilities treating frack water.

States and interstate organizations in Shale Gas re-gions are also stepping up efforts to study, regulate, andmonitor the impacts of natural gas drilling and frackingand the management of "flowback" fracking fluids. Salts,bromides, radionuclides, and biosolids seem to be gettingsome of the greatest attention, in addition to the “feder-alism” question of whether EPA regulations are needed ifstate agencies are acting to oversee the industry and pro-tect the public.


(Editor’s Note: the following commentary was published in the “Presidential Pipeline” on the Clean Water America Allianceweb site on May 17, 2011. It is published here by permission of the author. According to its web site, the Clean WaterAmerica Alliance “is working today to explore the complex issue of water sustainability and plan for the future by im-proving public awareness that advances holistic, watershed-based approaches to water quality and quantity challenges.”With this, as with all our commentaries and articles, we welcome our reader’s reactions and opinions.)

DDRRIILLLL,, MMAAYYBBEE,, DDRRIILLLL!!

BBeennjjaammiinn HH.. GGrruummbblleess


It’s hard to know where all of this is going, as the de-bate intensifies and the Administration and Congression-al committees take differing sides on environmental, en-ergy, and economic impacts. Nonetheless, here are someeasy predictions to make: more disclosure to the publicand/or regulators of previously undisclosed chemicals infracking fluids (e.g., www.fracfocus.org), increased onsiterecycling of the frack water by industry, and more de-tailed monitoring by drinking water and wastewater offi-cials of frack water and biosolids, especially radioactiveconstituents. These are all good steps in my view.

The Clean Water America Alliance does not have apro-frack or anti-frack view or official position and noth-ing I write in this column should be construed as such.We are, however, well-positioned to bring facts and poli-cy choices to the table and use collaboration to keep wa-tersheds and communities healthy into the future.

In my view, “drill, maybe, drill” means more reviewalong a more thoughtful path, one that can include frack-ing, even in large amounts, but in the right place, at theright time, with the right amount of government over-sight, and with water running through the policymakingfrom beginning to end.

Benjamin H. GrumblesPresidentClean Water America Alliance1816 Jefferson Place, NWWashington, DC 20030(202) 223-2299

[email protected]

http://www.cwaa.us

Ben Grumbles is President of the Clean Water AmericaAlliance (CWAA), a not-for-profit educational organiza-tion committed to uniting people and policies for watersustainability throughout the country. CWAA is based inWashington, DC. Mr Grumbles has a long career in waterand environmental policy, serving the public and teach-ing law students and environmental professionals overthe last 25 years. He has a Masters degree in environ-mental law from George Washington University LawSchool, a J.D. degree from Emory University Law School,and a B.A. degree from Wake Forest University.


DDrriillll,, MMaayybbee,, DDrriillll!! .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..

AUTHOR LINK

E-MAIL

WEBSITE

�� HHIIGGHHLLIIGGHHTTSS OOFF JJAAWWRRAA TTEECCHHNNIICCAALL PPAAPPEERRSS •• JJUUNNEE 22001111 •• VVOOLL.. 4477 •• NNOO.. 33

FEATURED COLLECTIONNONSTATIONARITY, HYDROLOGIC FREQUENCY ANALYSIS, AND WATER MANAGEMENT

An underlying assumption of traditional hydrologic frequency analysis is that climate, and hence the frequency of hydro-logic events, is stationary, or unchanging over time. The 13 papers in this featured collection explore the implications ofpossible nonstationarity on hydrologic frequency analysis and water management. Has nonstationarity been detected inhydrologic time series, such as peak flow time series, and if so, what are appropriate methods for including this informa-tion in frequency analysis and water management? What are the limits of our existing methods, and what alternatives areavailable?

Some of the topics include:• The importance of both empirical and modeling based approaches.• Characterization of the flood-generating mechanisms and tests for changes in flood magnitudes over time.• The difficulties in interpreting results of statistical analyses to detect trends.• Using a Hurst-Kolmogorov framework to explicitly consider the long term persistence in hydrologic time series.• How to approach flood frequency analysis given the difficulty in interpreting trend analyses.• Alternative planning methods to incorporate increased uncertainty.• Moving science forward with a common language and more collaborative efforts.

The featured collection is based on papers first presented at the Workshop on Nonstationarity, Hydrologic FrequencyAnalysis, and Water Management, held in Boulder, Colorado, from January 13-15, 2010. All have gone through the fullJAWRA peer review process, with appropriate revisions and updates.

OTHER TECHNICAL PAPERS

Johnson et al., examine the effects of wells screened across multiple aquifers.

Leidner et al., look at the water market for the middle and lower Rio Grande.

Bucci et al., look at the population dynamics of Escherichia Coli in surface water.

A full Table of Contents may be viewed at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/jawr/47/3

JAWRA ~ Journal of the American Water Resources Association


INTRODUCTION

Article I, Section 27, of the Pennsylvania Constitutionprovides as follows:

The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to thepreservation of the natural, scenic, historic and estheticvalues of the environment. Pennsylvania's public naturalresources are the common property of all the people, in-cluding generations yet to come. As trustee of these re-sources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintainthem for the benefit of all the people.

The recent, explosive growth of natural gas extrac-tion in Pennsylvania, a combined result of technologicalchange, market forces, and political manipulation, hasresulted in significant challenges to the constitutionalrights of Pennsylvania residents. With the refinement ofhorizontal fracturing, the fossil fuel industry is now ableto economically recover natural gas trapped within deepshale formations such as the Marcellus and Utica strata.Both the Marcellus and the Utica underlie significantsections of heavily forested and rural countryside locatedwithin the headwaters region of the Susquehanna water-shed, often referred to as Penn’s Woods. While the politi-cal talking points of “jobs” and “national security” areoften cited by elected officials, yet rarely critically evalu-ated, understanding the probable impact of this indus-trial activity upon the landscape is a vital component todeveloping a fully informed cost/benefit analysis andmaking rational land use choices as a society.

As a professional restoration ecologist who scratchesout a living attempting to repair damaged landscapes, Ican provide an informed projection as to how the defin-ing characteristic of the northern Pennsylvannia region –the forest – will change, and change it will. There aremassive ecological consequences associated with the de-cision to convert one of the largest unbroken expanses offorest cover in the eastern United States (U.S) into an in-dustrial zone. While technological innovation has the po-tential to reduce, but not eliminate, the negative air andwater quality issues associated with shale gas extraction,the ultimate landscape footprint from this dispersed in-dustrial activity is unavoidable.

As citizens concerned with the long term sustainabil-ity of our communities, it is critical that we understand,and weigh, the full cost/benefits associated with allowingthis activity. When the Marcellus extraction is finished ina few short decades will the land be in better or worsecondition? This is not a mere esoteric question or matterof aesthetic preference, as the forest resource is an eco-nomic engine that, if managed properly, actually appre-ciates in value over time.

So let’s take a quick look at what makes Penn’sWoods so special and how the forest system will changeif the Marcellus is developed to capacity.

Once completely forested, Pennsylvania currentlyhas over 16.6 million acres of forest. Covering approxi-mately 58% of the State’s land area, this woodland is notthe same wilds that met the European colonial. That vir-gin forest, once composed of massive trees over 400 yearsold, was liquidated during the late 19th and early 20thCenturies during a period of nonsustainable industriallogging. This ecological holocaust made millions for ahandful of folks and impoverished the landscape and re-maining communities for generations. A lesson learned?Well maybe, maybe not.

After almost 100 years of post-logging recovery, anew forest has emerged from the burned logging slashand debris. This resource has a high degree of what ecol-ogists call “ecological integrity” as it is largely contiguous.Large, nonfragmented areas of woodland have an inher-ent ability to maintain sustainable levels of forest-depen-dent species and the ecosystem benefits upon which oursociety is dependent – air and water purification, climateregulation, soil stabilization, groundwater recharge, car-bon sequestration, wood fiber, etc. While other regions ofthe eastern U.S. have scattered and isolated patches orstrips of forest, northern Pennsylvania has an exception-al level of increasingly rare “core” forest. Core forest canbe thought of as that area of the woodland that is not im-mediately adjacent to a nonforest land use such as hous-ing, roads, shopping malls, or industrial sites.

How far from a nonforest land use does the woodlandhave to be before it is considered “core” forest? That de-pends upon the species of plant or critter you are con-sidering. However, a basic rule of conservation biology isthat the larger the area of core forest, the greater numberof species it will support. Quite simply, this is one of thekey aspects of Penn’s Woods that makes it so valuable.Literally millions of nature-starved people live less than adays’ drive from this landscape experience, an experiencethey are not going to find anywhere else in the mid-Atlantic region.

How will the shale gas industry change the Pennsyl-vania woodlands? As there is no comprehensive regionalland use plan guiding this landscape conversion, fullbuild-out projections are difficult to model. However, thePennsylvania Chapter of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) performed a spatial analysis in 2010 of the likely futuredistribution of well pads based upon several key land-scape attributes. Their projections are for at least 60,000wells. They also anticipate that two-thirds of these wellpads will be located within existing forests. The industryitself projects an approximately five-acre well pad spacedevery mile. At that level of development over 100,000


... to maximize economic extraction, the naturalgas infrastructure requires a widespread disperseddistribution pattern of wells, roads, and pipelines

WWEELLLLSS OORR WWOOOODDSS::TTHHEE NNAATTUURRAALL GGAASS IINNDDUUSSTTRRYY MMEEEETTSS TTHHEE PPEENNNNSSYYLLVVAANNIIAA WWIILLDDSS

KKeevviinn HHeeaattlleeyy


wells are quite probable. While a pad every mile might, atfirst glance, appear relatively minimal, it is important toremember that each pad is linked by a network of accessroads and the connecting pipeline right-of ways. From anecological perspective, this is problematical as each lin-ear mile of road or right-of- way impacts an area well be-yond the actual physical footprint. Research has demon-strated that this “road effect zone” can penetrate deepinto adjacent woodlands. For instance, noise from high-traffic volume roads (a factor in hydraulic fracturing aseach well drilled requires thousands of tanker trucktrips) has been shown to reduce the breeding densitiesand distribution of many bird species within a 40 to1,500 meter zone. Wetland species have been found to benegatively impacted up to 2 kilometers from paved roads.

Roads and right-of–ways change the light and mois-ture levels on the forest floor creating cascading effectson the entire forest system. The fragmented forest alonga roadside frequently displays lower productivity thanundisturbed woodland. Populations become restricted tosmall areas as roads often become barriers. This isola-tion puts many species at risk of local extinction whenany additional stress occurs in the system.

We should also anticipate massive incursions of non-native invasive species with the fragmentation of thePennsylvania woodlands. Invasive species are estimatedto cost the American economy approximately $120 billiondollars per year in damages and control costs. They tendto follow disturbance corridors such as roads and right-of–ways. The proposed Marcellus build-out is a perfectrecipe for their invasion. The mix – remove existing plantcover, stir up the soil, increase light levels, and add fre-quent movement of vehicles from miles away carrying in-vasive seeds and plant parts on their tires and undercar-riage and Presto! instant biological invasion! Once estab-lished, invasive organisms will rapidly penetrate into theadjacent woodlands displacing native species and dis-rupting forest regeneration.

Now we have created a different ecosystem, one pri-marily dominated by “edge” habitat, a place where thewoods meets the nonwoods. The loss of core forest willopen up new opportunities for generalist species likegroundhogs, starlings, and deer ticks. The promotion ofgeneralist species often results in ecological cascadesacross entire ecosystems, unintended consequences thathave direct economic and social costs for generations.While edge habitat can be biologically productive, it is im-portant to remember that it is also ubiquitous in theeastern U.S. Every subdivision, every new roadway, andeach agricultural field is dominated by edge habitat. Edgeis cheap and easy to create. Core forest representsdecade’s worth of accrued intergenerational equity andhas significant economic and scientific value as a resultof its very scarcity.

To provide a specific example – The Nature Conser-vancy projects that nearly 80% of the regions watershedsthat currently harbor native eastern brook trout will seeMarcellus well development within the next 20 years.These sensitive populations are likely to become extir-pated given the fragile headwaters they inhabit and thelimited ability of these organisms to recolonize damaged

waterways. Exceptional value streams – the highest qual-ity designation given by the Penn Department of Envi-ronmental Protection could see up to 300 to 750 wellpads according to the TNC. Current regulations in Penn-sylvania only prohibit wells within 100 feet of a water-way. Wells pads, what are in effect heavy industrial oper-ations, are openly allowed within the floodplains of highquality streams. The resulting disruption of ecologicalfunctioning and surface contamination is assured giventhese minimal standards.

Unlike some of the other negative impacts of the nat-ural gas industry, the landscape footprint is largely un-avoidable. In order to maximize economic extraction, thenatural gas infrastructure requires a widespread, dis-persed distribution pattern of wells, roads, and pipelines.This network of infrastructure will convert intact forestsystems into woodlots surrounded by industrial systems.As such, it is inherently incompatible with forest sus-tainability, as it will fragment and disrupt both ecologicalfunctioning and benefits. Penn’s Woods becomes Penn’sWoodlots. The choice is clear. Surrender the forest, thecentral defining characteristic of the region, or place amoratorium on all new gas drilling in the state of Penn-sylvania. You cannot, as many politicians would haveyou believe, have both the woods and the wells.

If you are interested in learning more about thisand/or other critical issues associated with the Marcel-lus Shale natural gas play, please read the TNC report(http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/pennsylvania/explore/the-energy-equation.xml) or contact the Responsible Drilling Al-liance, a citizen’s informational group in Williamsport,Pennsylvania (http:// responsibledrillingalliance.org/).Their goal is to assure that the citizens of our state aresupplied with the full information that they need to makeintelligent decisions regarding the future of our commu-nities. The natural gas plays are transformative threatsto the future of both our land and water resources. It isthe responsibility of each and every citizen who is inter-ested in a sustainable society to stay informed and addtheir voice to the discussion.

Kevin HeatleySenior Scientist, Biohabitats Inc.2081 Clipper Park RoadBaltimore, MD 21211(410) 554-0156

[email protected]

Kevin Heatley is a senior scientist with Biohabitats Inc.His professional focus includes landscape sustainability,invasive species suppression, and conservation biology.He also serves as a technical scientific consultant to thenonprofit Responsible Drilling Alliance in Williamsport,PA. The RDA is committed to understanding the full ram-ifications of the Marcellus natural gas industry, both forPA and for the nation. As a function of that position, hehas conducted numerous public educational sessionsthroughout the Marcellus Shale region. Kevin is a gradu-ate of Penn State, with a Masters in Environmental Sci-ence.

� � �


WWeellllss oorr WWooooddss:: TThhee NNaattuurraall GGaass IInndduussttrryy MMeeeettss tthhee PPeennnnssyyllvvaanniiaa WWiillddss .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..

AUTHOR LINK

E-MAIL


INTRODUCTION

Within the coffee shops and town halls across NorthAmerica, fear and mistrust has reached a crescendo. The“Frack Attack,” as some local Pennsylvania residentshave called it, has personified this complex divide be-tween the energy aspirations of a nation, corporate prof-its, jobs, and public health. Fracking has dramaticallyimproved the efficacy of shall gas extraction and hasplayed a major role in dramatically driving down naturalgas prices from their recent 2008 heights of $10.79 perthousand cubic feet (well head price) to around $4.00 percubic feet today.(http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3m.htm) Due to advances in fracking technolo-gy, some estimate that 1,000 trillion cubic feet of natur-al gas is recoverable in North America – this representsenough gas to supply our nation’s energy needs for thenext 45 years (Jaffe, 2010).

Natural gas is indeed domestic and abundant; how-ever, is it also as clean as the America’s Natural Gas Al-liance ad campaign claims? While natural gas emitsmuch less carbon dioxide, sulfur, mercury, and otherharmful species during combustion vs. coal on a con-stant BTU basis, is it better for the environment of localresidents?

While there is no doubt that fracking must be a partof our nation’s energy solution, the process should bedone with the least environmental impact possible. Whilesome impacts on air quality result from fracking, this ar-ticle will exclusively focus on water resource concerns.Fracking presents four water resource concerns of vary-ing risk: contamination from fracking fluid, gas intru-sions into potable aquifers, radium leaching, and waterresource depletion.

CONTAMINATION FROM FRACKING FLUID

On May 3, 2011, Halliburton took the seminal step ofpublishing a qualitative representation of its fracking fluids (http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html).Rooke performed an analysis of each chemical disclosedon the Halliburton fracking fluid site (Table 1). For sim-plicity, many chemicals were disregarded due to their ob-vious harmless and inert nature at such low concentra-tions (e.g., ethanol and sodium chloride). The most im-portant column of the chart is the chemical concentra-tion in parts per million (ppm). These calculations origi-nated from the median concentration of each chemicaldisclosed on the Halliburton site. It is important to notethat several fracking fluid components contain multiplechemicals and, therefore, are listed in several rows in thetable. While the concentrations in ppm may appearsmall, it is important to realize that on average, onefracking well can consume 14 million liters of fluid of

some kind over its lifespan with only 50% of that return-ing to the surface. So, about 7 million liters of some com-bination of these fluids remains below ground for everyhydrofracked gas well. To be clear, these formulationswere taken from the disclosure of Halliburton frackingoperations in four states (Colorado, North Dakota, Penn-sylvania, and Texas). So it follows that different geologicconditions call for varying formulations. Table 1 repre-sents a composite list of formulations; however, it is rec-ommended that you visit the Halliburton site as refer-enced for a complete picture.

Even though their formulations are protected bytrade secret and the “Halliburton Loophole” (EditorialStaff, New York Times, 2009), Halliburton thankfully re-leased this information. Surprisingly, the loophole ex-empts the EPA from full scrutiny of fracking fluid com-position. In the past, fracking fluid users have said thatfluid safely passes though the well bore where it is usedthousands of feet below aquifers. Moreover, layers of rocktypically separate the aquifer and fracking zone. If it werethat simple, it would be “case closed.” However, rock lay-ers often exhibit geologic “edge cracks” and thus it is stillpossible for fracking fluid to enter the aquifer if it isdrawn up with fugitive methane or released through wellcasing failures.

GAS INTRUSIONS INTO POTABLE GROUNDWATER

This problem has literally gone up in flames in themedia, including the now famous movie GasLand. How-ever, America’s Natural Gas Alliance (www.anga.us), whoobviously has a political and financial interest, is pro-moting a flashy commercial complete with Hollywood-style voice overs and toddlers running on a pristinebeach. Their attempt to rebuke the claims in the moviepoint to a January 21 Huffington Post article (EditorialStaff, The Huffington Post, 2011) that states the following:The Durango Herald quoted Debbie Baldwin, an environ-mental manager for the oil and gas commission, as say-ing “[w]e certainly can’t say that oil and gas operationsnever impact groundwater because, in fact, it does hap-pen. But some of the information about the state of Col-orado was incorrect in that film” (GasLand). To be fair,this statement does not totally debunk the movieGasLand but rather highlights the uncertainty and thusthe need for better sensor and measurement capabilitiesthrough technologies such as Wireless Sensor Networks(WSNs). Without distributed measurements, confirming


It should now be obvious that a pressing needexists for area-wide intelligent sensors infracking operations

WWIIRREELLEESSSS SSEENNSSOORR NNEETTWWOORRKKSS ((WWSSNNss)) FFOORR RREEAALL--TTIIMMEESSIITTUUAATTIIOONNAALL AAWWAARREENNEESSSS OOFF HHYYDDRROOFFRRAACCKKIINNGG OOPPEERRAATTIIOONNSS

SStteerrlliinngg SS.. RRooookkee aanndd PPeetteerr LL.. FFuuhhrr


or identifying a problem becomes much more difficult. Asthe late President Reagan said, “Trust but verify.”

RADIUM LEACHING

For water resource professionals, this is literally a“hot topic.” Research performed by the New York Depart-ment of Conservation, revealed that return wash fromfracking fluid has radioactivity levels more than 267times above the safe discharge limit set by the EPA(Hopey, 2011). The most sinister part about this is that

often, this water is trucked off to municipal treatment fa-cilities that are not equipped to remove radioactivespecies such as radium (226Ra half-life=1601 years) andthus radioactive water is simply cleaned of standard con-taminates and discharged into our waterways. It is im-portant to note that radium is a naturally occurring ele-ment in shale deposits; however, the fracking and ex-traction process leaches and draws it out.

Wireless Sensors could provide a distributed gestaltprospective of radium concentrations across all fracking


WWiirreelleessss SSeennssoorr NNeettwwoorrkkss ((WWSSNNss)) ffoorr RReeaall--TTiimmee SSiittuuaattiioonnaall AAwwaarreenneessss ooff HHyyddrrooffrraaccttiinngg...... .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..

Table 1. Chemicals and Their RespectiveConcentrations in Halliburton Fracking Fluids.

OverallConcentrationof Chemical

ACGIH TLV-TWA OSHA PEL-TWA Fracking FluidChemical (exposure safety) (exposure safety) (parts/million)

EDTA/Copper chelate 1 mg/m3 02.0

Diethylenetriamine 1 ppm (S) 00.2

Zirconium, acetate lactate 5 mg/m3 02.7oxo ammonium complexes

Ammonium chloride 10 mg/m3 10 mg/m3 00.8

Triethanolamine zirconate 5 mg/m3 5 mg/m3 02.6

Propanol 100 ppm 200 ppm 00.7

Glycerine 10 mg/m3 15 mg/m3 00.7

Hydrotreated light petroleum 200 mg/m3 01.2

Heavy aromatic petroleum 5 mg/m3 5 mg/m3 03.5

Naphthalene 10 ppm 10 ppm 00.5

1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene 25 ppm 00.1

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha- Not listed but likely toxic Not listed but likely toxic 00.4(4-nonylphenyl)-omega-hydroxy-,branched

1-(Benzyl)quinolinium chloride Not listed but likely toxic Not listed but likely toxic 11.3

2-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol Not listed but likely toxic Not listed but likely toxic 00.1

Naphtha, hydrotreated heavy Not listed might be toxic Not listed might be toxic 19.1

Tributyl tetradecyl Not listed. No evidence Not listed. No evidence 00.6phosphonium chloride of mutagenicity. Not of mutagenicity. Not

considered a carcinogen considered a carcinogen

2-Monobromo-3-nitrilopropionamide Likely nontoxic Likely nontoxic 00.05

2.2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide Dow Chemical Company Dow Chemical Company 01.2


wells and the discharge outflows of treatment plants.Thus, the public could be rest assured that radiationcontributions from fracking operations are not overlyburdening the ecosystems of our rivers and streams.

WATER RESOURCE DEPLETION

Fracking operations are prolific users of fresh water re-sources. Over the lifetime of a typical well, 14 millionliters of water will be consumed with only half thatamount returning to the surface to be trucked off to atreatment facility or evaporation pond. Some fracking op-erations have considered and even deployed water reuseprograms onsite. These measures should be expandedsince the thousands of fracking wells per deposit havegreatly impacted regional water supplies. Depending onthe particular circumstances, water is often drawn fromgroundwater supplies that cause unknown shifts and de-pletion of underground aquifers. It is unclear how re-flow/replenishment of underground water will affect thepossible intrusion of fracking chemicals into the ground-water supply. Fortunately, other investigators have useda form of Wireless Sensor Networks to monitor wide-areawell water sites in previous research (Xue, 2010).

WIDE-AREA WIRELESS NETWORKS

It should now be obvious that a pressing need existsfor area-wide intelligent sensors in fracking operations.Due to the massive expanse of a typical fracking field(often covering portions of states), a wireless solution isthe only feasible mythology for complete real-time sensorcoverage of these expansive areas.

A detailed explanation of Wireless Sensor Networks(WSNs) is beyond the scope of this water resource fo-cused article. However, the merits of wireless accesspoint technology such as IEEE 802.11 will be highlight-ed and its application to the environmental friendlydrilling (EFD) and fracking industry explained. Simplystated, the IEEE 802.11 standard comes in several fla-vors but is most widely recognized as the home or officewireless access point where it typically obeys 802.11 g/nusing a nominal frequency of 2.4 GHz. It just so happensthat this frequency is the same frequency used by mi-crowave ovens. This region of the radio frequency spec-trum was dedicated by the Federal CommunicationsCommission (FCC) for unlicensed broadcast and thusthere is no cost or requirement to notify the governmentwhen transmitting at “reasonable” power levels (+36 dBmor 4 watts) per channel in the 2.4 GHz frequency (http://www.air802.com/files/FCC-Rules-and-Regulations.pdf).Thus, what is free and useful quickly becomes overusedby everyone. Therefore, this frequency band is crowded(think of too many people talking at a party) and channelallocation and noise becomes a major performance issue.This is especially true in industrial environments. Thus,the prevalence of IEEE 802.11 system elements hasmade the probability of having multiple competing wire-less networks at a facility much higher (think people talk-ing at a party again). A number of issues are associatedwith spatially overlapping wireless signals, and thereforethe associated networks arise in terms of clients associ-ating with the “appropriate” network as well as manage-

ment of the networks to optimize their system perfor-mance level.

Of extreme importance to the environmentally friend-ly drilling (EFD) and fracking industry is the vast ex-panse of coverage required to implement a unified wire-less network. As previously stated, the IEEE 802.11standard provides wireless connectivity in a limited geo-graphic area (due to previously highlighted FCC powerlimits). However, when configured properly, several Ac-cess Points (APs) can be organized into a network topol-ogy capable of covering the entire hydrofracking area. Indetail, additional measures such as Medium Access Con-trol (MAC) management and time division multiple ac-cess (TDMA) coordination can help to facilitate a fault tol-erant wireless network – the details of which extend farbeyond the scope of this article.

Why go with IEEE 802.11 anyway? Since the IEEE802.11 can be introduced into almost any sensor or de-vice (almost all smart phones have 802.11g), it can serveas the basis for a full-coverage wireless sensor network(WSN) for an entire fracking area. However, this may leadto the inevitable case of having the previously mentionedcoexisting problem with other wireless systems all collo-cated physically (overlapping signals) and potentiallyusing the same frequency bands.

THE SENSORS

A wireless network is of limited use without sensorsfor measurement. What parameters should be mea-sured? For a focus on water resources and the hydro-fracking industry, the four issues previously highlighted(fracking fluid intrusion, methane intrusion, radium con-tamination, and water resource depletion) will be thefocus of our measurements. As highlighted earlier,methane intrusion of potable water and wells is a con-troversial topic. Thus, having real-time wireless sensornetworks deployed at the fracking site and throughoutwater wells in the region would help end the methane –water contamination blame game between corporationsand the consumer. One possible solution to this problemis the deployment of subterranean methane monitoringprobes. These probes would only require a borehole acouple of inches in diameter and maybe 1,000 feet deep(until the water table has been probed). Methane con-centrations could be monitored over long periods of timefor historical analysis. Surface solar panels and a wire-less access point would supply the power and connectiv-ity. The same probes could be placed in water wells forlong-term recordation and real-time comparison withother methane probes in the wide-area sensor network.

The sensor shown in Figure 1 is a hydrocarbon probe(Methane sensor) that iscommercially available at(http://www.contros.eu/products-hydroC-CH4-OG.html) and is currently usedin the oil and gas industry.In scientific literature, it isshown that biogenic gas de-posits chiefly consist ofmethane while gas deposits



Figure 1. SubmergibleMethane Sensor.


extracted from frackingprocesses have a large con-stituent of ethane withother higher chain hydro-carbons such as propaneand butane. There are alsoethane sensors availableand thus, it is possible todiscriminate between bio-genic methane (bacteriaproduced) that corpora-tions implicate as thesource of gas in domesticwell water pipes and gasintroduced by fracking.This information will helpresolve the “inflammatory”controversy of fizzing andburning well water asshown in Figure 2.

Methane is one thing,but what about all thosechemicals? This researcherhas calculated the concentration of each chemical pur-ported to be in Halliburton’s fracking fluid formulations(http://www.hall iburton.com/public/projects/p u b s d a t a / H y d r a u l i c _ F r a c t u r i n g / f l u i d s _disclosure.html). There are a lot of chemicals here, andthus, employing automated gas chromatography or someother chemical identification technique would be prohib-itive on a massive scale. While it is difficult to performqualitative or for that matter quantitate analysis for eachchemical listed in Table 1 on a wireless sensor network,following fugitive methane holds the key. In other words,understanding the spread of fracked methane throughunderground aquifers would go a long way to eliminatingthe possibility of fracking fluid intrusion into aquifers orwater wells. If you remove the possibility of a surfacechemical spill, this researcher contends that sincemethane (low viscosity, low cohesion, low adhesion, nohydrogen bonding) is much more mobile than (waterbased) fracking fluid, you have a classic case of neces-sary but not sufficient. Stated differently, where there isno fracking produced methane the chances of leakedfracking fluid can be eliminated; however, the presence ofmethane alone far from guarantees fracking fluid conta-mination in the same water well or aquifer.

As for sensing the real-time implications of radiumcontamination, a similar configuration could be arrangedto operate alongside the methane probes. However, therewould be one major difference, radium concentrationsfrom fracking wells would be compared with dischargeoutflows from treatment plants. This would provide real-time verifiable information concerning the true impact ofradium leaching from hydrofracking operations. Thus,the public could rest assured that radiation from frack-ing operations is not overly burdening the ecosystems ofour rivers and streams.

For water resource depletion concerns, historicalmeasurement of water levels in wells of the surroundingarea in conjunction with information taken from watertrucks could provide an accurate picture of water deple-

tion issues. Specifically, water trucks could be mobilenodes in the Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) and thusprovide real-time information of water usage volumeswith added details such as, pickup and discharge sites.This information could be a valuable factor in water de-pletion calculations for the wider area. More interesting-ly, does water depletion from aquifers affect the migra-tion of fracking fluid or fugitive methane underground?With the “total-view” that wide-area WSNs provide, thesequestions can be answered in conjunction with properdata fusion and analysis.

In summary, WSNs are powerful solutions to almostany wide-area, real-time measurement requirement. In-formation can easily be fused and complied to under-stand operational system performance in real-time forautomation or just to enhance the decision makingprocess. In general, better measurements result in in-creased safety and higher profits.

REFERENCES

Editorial Staff. The Huffington Post, 2011. Shareholder Groups Press Gas Drillers on Fracking. The Huffington Post,http:// www .hu f f i n g t onpos t . c om/2011/01/21/gas l and -documentarys-clai_n_812147.html.

Editorial Staff, The New York Times, 2009. The Halliburton Loophole. The New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/ 2009/11/03/opinion/03tue3.html.

Hopey, D. and D. Malloy, 2011. Radiation in Fracking Fluid is a New Concern. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11060/1128778-455.stm.

Jaffe, A.M., 2010. Shale Gas Will Rock the World. The Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052702303491304575187880596301668.html.

Xue, Y., et al., 2010. A Two-Tier Wireless Sensor Network Infrastructure for Large-Scale Real-Time Groundwater Moni-toring. 5th IEEE International Workshop on Practical Issues in Building Sensor Network Applications, SenseApp 2010, Denver, Colorado.

Sterling S. RookeDept. of Civil and Environmental Engr. 1173 Glenn L. Martin HallUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742Google Voice: (202) 656-8737

[email protected]@ornl.gov

Sterling S. Rooke is a Ph.D. Candidate within the Civiland Env. Engr. Dept. of the Univ. of Maryland, CollegePark. He is also a DoD contractor and Air Force ReserveOfficer in the Washington D.C., area. Most recently, hefounded the Baltimore-Washington-N. Virginia Chapterof the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Societywhere he currently serves as Chair. Mr. Rooke is also Co-Chair of the Secure Infrastructure Controls Society,tSICS.org, which is a nonprofit organization charted topromote infrastructure controls and systems security. Heis also a member of the IEEE – Technical Committee onSecurity and Privacy in Complex Information Systems.

� � �



AUTHOR LINK

E-MAIL

Figure 2. Jessica Ernstof Rosebud, Alberta,Canada, Lights Her

Fizzing, Gas ImpregnatedWell Water on Fire (2005).


ACROSS

1 inherent capacity for growth

8 European capital

15 part of a house

16 too

17 Peter or Annette

18 mischievously

19 nonstationary

20 broiling rod

21 container for a lubricant

23 last word in a book

24 “_____ Girl” (TV)

25 to make used to

27 almost failing grade

28 ribbed fabric

30 breakfast options

33 loc. of Cheyenne R.

34 10 needed for a first down

35 assaults

37 alien of filmdom

39 helped

43 soldier’s weapon

46 each

47 of atoms gaining electrons

50 chewy candies

51 having a red-to-yellow color

53 public disturbances

54 a protective organ

56 to stagger

57 Southern and Blyth

58 H.S. subj.

60 sinless

61 golfer’s aid

62 removed windshield coating

64 a vain person

66 more weird

68 wife of Zeus

70 3.14

71 a file

73 anagram of seal

75 fact gathering org.

76 nausea

77 bets


�� WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS PPUUZZZZLLEERR ((aannsswweerrss oonn ppgg.. 2233))

DOWN

1 uncorrupted

2 spirited vigor

3 a shrub garden

4 sent out

5 western lake

6 tributary of the Miss. R.

7 a sanctuary

8 _____ and behold

9 Titan or Io

10 wilderness transport

11 police acronym

12 clothed in a gown

13 sickness

14 contracted

19 violent whirlpool

22 section of a hockey rink

26 method of surveying

29 sacred songs

31 180 deg. from WNW

32 unit syst.

36 saunters

38 student

40 bishop’s office

41 county seat in England

42 RCO-radical (chem.)

44 presser

45 _____ Domino

48 an assault

49 engineering org.

50 holes

52 at. no. 37

55 double curves

58 concise

59 loc. of Pawtuxet R.

60 loc. of Delaware R.

62 campus figure

63 to haul

65 prejudice

67 irritate

69 loc. of Coosa R.

70 apple or cherry _____

72 letter ender

74 Sgt. or Cpl.

75 at. no. 17� � �

6

27

3

31

19

7

15

44

26

29

40

28

18

1 12 1411

17

45

23

5 9 10

16

42

37

47

54

59

3534

52

56

49

63

51

53

65

8 13

22

30

2524

74

20

33

46

7371 72

76 77

32

39

43

57

42

21

62

41

48

75

68 69

61

70

55

64

38

53

36

50

6766

60


Water is a contentious issue in many parts of the worldand Alberta, Canada, is no exception. As a precursor tonext month’s AWRA IMPACT edition, which takes a worldview of the emerging concept of water markets, thismonth’s column looks at a controversial proposal to cre-ate an exchange for Canadian water.

Recently, the chairman of Nestle, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, suggested to Reuters that Alberta is an idealplace for the creation of a water exchange to commodifywater along the same lines as selling barrels of oil. Healso spoke about the benefits of giving water a price thatreflects the true cost of treating and transporting it. Inaddition to his comments, a major report by a govern-ment-appointed economic panel entitled “Shaping Alber-ta’s Future” recently recommended the Province adopt amarket system that would allow water allocations to besold or leased at a price determined by the forces of sup-ply and demand. The report is clear that trading wouldbe governed by strict rules to ensure environmental andresidential requirements are met first.

Political chaos was the immediate result, as manyconstituents voiced concern about the potential powergrabs associated with formally trading water as a com-modity. Yet Alberta’s waters are poised for political battleas an expanding oilsands industry and booming ag sec-tor place further demands and dollars on the alreadyscarce resource. The market proposals were intended toprovide a release valve for growth pressure in reallocat-ing existing water rights.

Alberta’s water rights system is based on the “first-in-time, first-in-right” principle which many argue is con-trary to changing economic and demographic patternswithin the region. In fact, senior license holders in Alber-ta have created informal trading arrangements, especial-ly in times of severe shortage, and the government islooking to create a more robust system fashioned afterthese informal transactions.

Brian Mason, Alberta’s New Democratic Party (NDP)leader, was one of the first to predict impending marketdoom for the Province’s water right holders. “In a marketfor water, those with the deepest pockets will be able tocontrol the water. That means companies like Nestle andcompanies in the oil business will be able to outbid farm-ers for scarce water.” The fundamental illusion underly-ing this comment suggests farmers will be involuntarilyand unjustly forced to sell. On the contrary, informalwater markets in Alberta are voluntary where the farm-ers do not need to sell their water unless they want to,and negotiable compensation is provided in exchange forthe water. While there would undoubtedly be transfers ofwater from agricultural to urban or industrial uses, it isunlikely that all agricultural water would disappear in Al-berta.

Rob Renner, Minister of the Environment, acknowl-edged that an emerging debate about a water exchange is long overdue. He said, “I think there will come a day, atsome point in time, where we need to value water.Whether that means in the form of a regulatory regime orwhether it means in some form of a market to be seen.”Another option is combining both elements into the cre-ation of a regulated market that protects the public ac-cess and use of water while allowing for trading based onhighest and best use. The “Shaping Alberta’s Future” re-port outlines a plan to create an independent water au-thority sanctioned to facilitate information, plan waterinfrastructure, and oversee the water market.

The report explains, “The Alberta Water Authority willoversee an Alberta water allocation exchange, It will alsoadvise on policy changes to give holders of water licens-es more opportunity to sell, lease, or trade some or all oftheir right to draw water.” In many ways this proposedwater authority sounds much like the Southern NevadaWater Authority (SNWA) or the Metropolitan Water Dis-trict of Southern California. Both are quasi-governmen-tal organizations tasked with managing water, developinginfrastructure, and wholesaling water. The primary dif-ference is that the agencies in the United States (U.S.)have not also been associated with managing formalwater exchanges. In fact, in the western U.S. these quasi-governmental organizations tend to be the larger buyersin most water markets.

The idea for an internal trading system is clearly inthe works, but it’s a far cry from being fully-functional.The Albertan government is understandably concernedby large corporations wanting to move too fast in devel-oping an exchange, but the Alberta Water Authority willbe an interesting development to continue to follow.

Read More: http://alberta.ca/acn/201105/RPCES_

ShapingABFuture_Report_web2.pdf

[email protected]@waterexchange.com

� � �


TTHHEE CCOONNTTRROOVVEERRSSIIAALL AALLBBEERRTTAA WWAATTEERR EEXXCCHHAANNGGEE

SSkkyyee RRoooott aanndd CCllaayy JJ.. LLaannddrryy

The New Economy of Water ... OPINION

E-MAIL CONNECTION

� � �

DON’T MISS ANY OF AWRA’SFUTURE MEETINGS

SEE A COMPLETE LISTINGON PG. 27

� � �


In ancient days the ‘wrath of god (or the gods’) was in-ferred from the impact of relatively short lived naturaldisasters: floods, fires, earthquakes, storms, etc. If theDivine wanted to teach a lesson, they seemed to prefer tosend droughts. In the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., the Chris-tian Old Testament), God uses a drought to demonstrateto King Ahab the error of his ways; under him and hisqueen Jezebel, Israel had turned away from the worshipof God (Adonai) to worshiping Ba’al. In the story from 1Kings, God declares that as punishment for their sins norain shall fall on Israel during the service of his prophetElijah. After three years of drought, in a showdown ofepic proportions, Elijah calls out King Ahab to witness aconfrontation between him, the Prophet of Israel, and theprophets of the foreign gods especially Ba’al. The test wasboth simple and dramatic: each side was to build a sac-rificial pyre that was to remain unlit. The priests of Ba’alwere to pray to their gods to light the sacrificial fire. Theyfailed. Elijah had a trench built around his sacrificialpyre and had the sacrifice, the wood and kindlingdrenched with water to the point that the trench becamea moat around the whole holocaust. At that point, Elijahprayed for God to light the sacrifice and divine fire raineddown from heaven lighting it into a blaze. Seeing thismiracle, at his orders, the people of Israel fell upon theforeign prophets and massacred them. With this, therains finally came again to Israel ending a three yeardrought. After a few last tasks and miracles includinganointing his successor Elisha, Elijah was taken up intoHeaven. Unfortunately, there were too many in Israelwho were stiff necked and Elisha and succeedingprophets remained very busy. Even the drought and itsend plus the other miracles were not enough to turn thepeople to God. Lesson: even miracles, heavenly fire, anddrought are sometimes not enough to get people to per-manently ‘straighten up and fly right,’

From the Old Kingdom of Egypt to the Akkadian Em-pire in Mesopotamia, to the Sicans of ancient Peru, onecivilization after another has succumbed to the ravagesof drought. Others such as the Ancient Pueblo Peoples ofthe American Southwest (aka the Anasazi), the dry andremote nature of their lands helped to protect the peoplesfrom their enemies until the relentless drying climatedrove them to abandon their cliff cities and leave behindmore mysteries than answers. What is now the expanseof the Sahara desert had a five millennium period(~12,000 to ~7,000 years ago) where monsoonal cyclesmade the desert bloom into grasslands and aided in cre-ating a diasporatic wave of emigrants outward from theNile Valley. After that period, things again dried out andextended the desert into the vast wasteland it is today. Inhumankind’s histories, legends and from modern scien-

tific inquiry, stories of the downfall of civilizations andcultures from the progress of drought paint stark pic-tures. Conversely, civilizations and cultures have sur-vived and recovered in some form in the areas whereleadership had the foresight and skill to either adapt tothe changes or retreat from them in time to retain at leastpart of the culture. For example, we know what we knowof the Anasazi in part because of stories handed down inthe cultures of other Native American groups in theSouthwestern United States (U.S.). Translations of theword Anasazi itself indicate these peoples as being “notus” or “the enemy,” Bottom line, the impacts of drought,long term drying, and desertification are well known andlessons learned point us toward sustainable adaptationor migration being the only two long term strategies. Thisbrings us to two of the most critical areas experiencingthese phenomena today: Australia and the SouthwesternU.S.

Australia is the driest continent in the world. Hu-mans have inhabited the continent for 40,000 to 50,000years, with some evidence pointing towards the earliesthumans arriving as early as 125,000 years ago. For al-most all of this period to the present era, indigenous Aus-tralians (previously referred to as Australian Aborigines)existed in varied hunter gatherer groups living off theland and sea with limited populations in dynamic equi-librium with the land. European explorers “discovered”and mapped Australia in the 1600s and 1700s with ac-tive colonization beginning in the late 1700s. These set-tlers largely displaced the indigenous Australians andthough direct and indirect means devastated their popu-lations. Over three centuries, the dominant land andwater management regimes were transformed into anEnglish European model, with significant additional in-fluences on law and policies from the U.S. as the countrymoved towards autonomy. It became clear that therewere lands that seemed to be well suited to Western agri-cultural practices, but that the land was very prone todrought. No region was immune with multi-yeardroughts from Western Australia through Southern Aus-tralia, Victoria, New South Wales, and even into Queens-land. Droughts were recorded on an ongoing basis fromthe mid-1800s when a reliable meteorological service wasestablished. Still while national and state populationswere relatively modest, water supply from surface fea-tures, especially the Murray-Darling River System,helped buffer some of the worst effects of drought.

The last decade of the of the old millennium and thefirst decade of the new brought different circumstances:a drought that continued over 18 years in certain regionsand over a decade in key agricultural regions in thesouth. The prolonged drought exhausted water suppliesand fertile farm and ranchlands became unproductive.


EELLIIJJAAHH,, TTHHEE MMUURRRRAAYY--DDAARRLLIINNGG,, AANNDD HHEENNEERRYY HHAAWWKK

EErriicc JJ.. FFiittcchh

What’s Up With Water ... OPINION

Those who fail to plan, plan to fail . . . Anon proverb

If you are going through hell, keep going . . . Winston Churchill


Major tributary rivers completely dried up and collapsed.Dust Bowl conditions arose and dust storms coveredmajor areas of the continent. The Murray-Darling Systemwas so depleted that the mouth of the Murray River wasregularly filled in with sand by the wave and tide actionof the Great Southern Ocean. Fresh water lakes, theCoorog, which have been used by indigenous Australiansfor millennia became salt laden. Conservative and Liber-al governments agreed that drastic action needed to betaken if the integrity of the system was to be preserved.

A system of national controls on the Murray-Darlingand the development of an integrated water managementplan to be implemented by a federal board were estab-lished. The board had been meeting for the last few yearsand progress at developing and implementing the planhad been made. Then this year, in 2011, a combinationof monsoonal rains off of the Pacific Ocean (that hasrecord temperatures offshore of Australia and into thecentral Pacific) flooded Queensland and set record rain-falls throughout eastern and southern Australia in Jan-uary. Then, Cyclone (Hurricane) Yasi, one of thestrongest Category 5 storms on record slammed intoQueensland adding more moisture into already saturat-ed systems. In eastern and southern Australia, the Mur-ray Darling River system is finally once again filled to itshistorical floodplain levels.

Observation of the meteorological patterns of Aus-tralia combined with predictions on the impact of climatechange would, under a rational planning model, lead oneto treat these recent phenomena as a reprieve in a longerchain of events. This should compel a redoubling of ef-forts to manage supply and demand of water knowingthat a return to dry conditions is inevitable. (Note thatWestern Australia did not benefit from any of these rainsand is still in a severe drought.) Instead, the half of theMurray Darling Board representing agricultural interestshas resigned in an effort to secure greater allocation ofwater resources in the long run for their constituents.The national government has stepped back on the ur-gency for action on supply and is considering looseningsome limits on supply especially those concerning immi-gration. Old patterns come back into play. The raincomes, even for a short time, and the planning goes outthe window.

The backsliding on planning by those in positions ofauthority and responsibility in Australia might give riseto some smug reactions on this side of the Pacific Rim ex-cept for the fact that in many key U.S. water resourcebasins under increasing water stress, the powers that beare not working towards long term adaptive solutionsany better. It has taken decades for the partners in theColorado River watershed (catchment) to reach even themodest management plan in operation today, and even itdoes not fully address current hydrologic realities muchless climate adaptation. Instead of putting limits on pop-ulation growth or at least managing demand to addresslimited supply, communities are still relying on high lev-els of growth and ever increasing demand. Long term demands are addressed with unrealistic “solutions” thatrely on intensive inputs of energy, external (federal)

funding or some other rabbit in a hat approach that evenunder current restraints are unfeasible.

Stiff necked behavior is not limited to ancient Semit-ic peoples, modern day Australians, or Americans. Somedays it would be so nice to have the world operate on theprinciples of cartoon physics and biology; to look at back-sliding decision-makers and be able to send in a minorbut favorite Warner Brothers cartoon character ,,, HeneryHawk. Henery is a diminutive chicken hawk who carriesa big chip on his shoulder and his trusty club. In a re-cent insurance commercial, Henery takes his club andknocks some sense into his braggadocio filled nemesis,Foghorn Leghorn. Today we may not be able to burn upthe bull like in the days of Elijah, but we should still beable to knock sense into leaders to have them care formore than the latest campaign donation or the currentcampaign cycle and for business men to care for morethan the current fiscal year. Let’s hope that some arche-ologists a thousand years from now are not digging upthe ancient lost cities of Vegas, Phoenix, or Tulsa andwondering how this generation could let things becomeas bad as they did.

[email protected]� � �


EElliijjaahh,, tthhee MMuurrrraayy--DDaarrlliinngg,, aanndd HHeenneerryy HHaawwkk .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..

E-MAIL CONNECTION

Editor’s Note: Somehow the “e” in Aeolus was trans-posed into a “c” in the title of Eric’s column for May,pgs. 1 and 30 (Aeolus, The Kobayashi Maru and“What the Frak (Frack)?” We regret any problems thismay have caused anyone.

Solution to Puzzle (pg. 20)


Societies grow in complexity over time to address newproblems and maintain the status quo of the ruling class-es. These problems could be the rise of a new enemy, thediscovery of a new natural resource, the lack of a criticalresource, or the occurrence of a major natural disaster,to name a few. Societies continue this trajectory evenwhen investments in increasing complexity begin to pro-duce diminishing returns. The anthropologist JosephTainter initially wrote his 1988 book, The Collapse ofComplex Societies, to provide a unifying theory explainingwhy apparently different societies collapsed (e.g., Roman,Minoan, Mayan, Harrapan). Later, he wrote an excellentchapter entitled Complexity, Problem Solving, and Sus-tainable Societies in his 1996 book, Getting Down toEarth: Practical Applications of Ecological Economics(http://dieoff.org/page134.htm). Here he gave many ex-amples of how the “low-hanging fruit” of science andtechnology have already been picked (and consumed) inregards to achieving sustainability through technology,and that each advance in complexity requires more ener-gy subsidies, leaving us to face decreasing returns if weexpect to solve our problems through more complexity.

In the last issue I addressed how British Petroleum(BP) and the federal government reacted to the unantici-pated emergency of the BP Gulf oil spill. In this issue Iwill introduce how Tainter’s model can be applied toUnited States (U.S.) energy policy regarding oil (this ap-proach also applies to fracking for natural gas), where wecan view policy as “anticipating and/or responding to fu-ture emergencies.” As the U.S. hit peak oil production in1970, and the world hit peak oil (conventional liquids)several years ago, government policy has been to addresstightening global supplies with less energy-efficient andhigher risk oil exploration domestically. This applies notonly to the deepwater drilling currently being used in theGulf of Mexico, but the proposed Arctic Ocean drilling offthe Alaskan coast.

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATIONAND COMPLEXITY

Advances in science and technology have allowed usto move from shallow to deep wells on land, and thenfrom shallow to deep wells offshore. With each move ver-tically or horizontally, we were able to tap into additionaloil, but at a higher capital and energy cost. EROEI, ener-gy returned on energy invested, doesn’t look at the dollaramounts required to get a new well producing (althoughclearly we have had to pay more for oil through the

decades), but looks at the decline in net energy gainedfrom wells tapping harder-to-access oil. So although thepublic diverts more of its income to oil, this in itself doesnot prove the sustainability of the public’s capability tocontinue paying higher prices. Moreover, as new wellsdrilled also take more energy to produce each final barrelof product, we are approaching the downward slope to-wards using a barrel’s worth of oil to produce a barrel ofoil! This is clearly unsustainable and demonstrates thattechnological advancement in accessing new oil fieldsdoesn’t translate into being able to produce historicamounts of oil. Societally, investment in oil has alreadyreached diminishing returns

COMPLEXITY OF POLITICAL OVERSIGHTREGARDING OIL EXPLORATION

We can generally categorize federal agencies respon-sible for the Gulf oil spill under permits, monitoring, andresponse. The former Minerals and Management Service(MMS), now called the Bureau of Ocean Energy Manage-ment, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE), gave thepermit for the Macondo well without verifying the infor-mation BP produced. The MMS was also supposed tomonitor offshore leases, but the federal General Ac-counting Office had already reported in 2009 that MMSwas “lax” in this regard. Once the spill happened and thegovernment had to admit the MMS was in shambles, itwas given to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration (NOAA) to monitor the spill. NOAA only hassatellites and research boats, so the Coast Guard was re-sponsible for helping to contain the spill. None of theseagencies were organized to have strong linkages betweenthem, all of these agencies compete for funding in the an-nual federal budget, and none of them are answerable toeach other. Consequently, we see the MMS (and nowBOEMRE) is able to give deepwater permits without theresponsibility of having to use their own budgeted alloca-tion to fix what goes wrong. The consequences of permit-ting deepwater drilling are not felt by the decisionmakingagency but dispersed among the other agencies power-less to veto permits, the public, and the terrestrial andmarine environment. We have a system that looks likethere is an agency to address every issue, and yet thefundamental core of responsibility that would inform pre-cautionary permitting is missing. This small and incom-plete example of government agencies exemplifies Tain-ter’s theory that more complexity (in bureaucracy,


TTHHEE BBPP GGUULLFF OOIILL SSPPIILLLL::TTHHEE DDIIMMIINNIISSHHIINNGG RREETTUURRNNSS OOFF CCOOMMPPLLEEXXIITTYY

LLaauurreell EE.. PPhhooeenniixx

Could We Do Better? ... OPINION

... while we have a greater opportunity than the people of any previous era to understand the long-term reasons for ourproblems, that opportunity is largely ignored. Not only do we not know where we are in history, most of our citizens andpolicy makers are not aware that we ought to. ... Tainter, 1996

cont’d. on pg. 26


FLOODS

In my last missive I said: “I’mhoping that you’re getting a good-ly amount of spring runoff, butnot in unmanageable amounts.”And then we know what happenedin the Mississippi River basin andelsewhere.

Paul VanDevelder, an awardwinning Oregon writer, wrote anOp-Ed in the May 25, 2011, LosAngeles Times, “Mississippi flooding: Let the river run”.Some may find it disturbing, and there is no question itis provocative. You can find it at this link:http://is.gd/5PnSJy.

One thing’s for sure: I will finally get around to read-ing John Barry’s Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Floodof 1927 and How It Changed America.

Perhaps by the time you read this the rains will havestopped here in western Oregon. As I write this on the eveof the Memorial Day weekend, the forecast calls for rain.

ANNUAL WATER RESOURCES CONFERENCE

Planning for our 47th Annual Water Resources Con-ference in Albuquerque, New Mexico, November 7-10,2011, is progressing nicely. We had a meeting in Albu-querque on June 13 to go over details. Nearly 370 ab-stracts were received. The keynote speaker will be au-thor/journalist Cynthia Barnett from Gainesville, Flori-da. Those of you who attended the Albuquerque 2007Annual Conference will remember her as the keynoter.She is a reporter for Florida Trend magazine and wrotethe wonderful book Mirage, which focused on water andland issues in Florida and the Eastern United States. Hernew book, Blue Revolution, will be published in Septem-ber 2011. Here is the blurb from her WWW site(www.cynthiabarnett.net):

“In Blue Revolution, award-winning journalist Cyn-thia Barnett reports on the many ways one of the mostwater-rich nations on the planet has squandered its wayto scarcity, and argues the best solution is also the sim-plest and least expensive: a water ethic for America.”

“From backyard waterfalls and grottoes in Cali-fornia to sinkholes swallowing chunks of Florida, Blue Revolution exposes how the nation’s green craze largely missed water – the No. 1 environmental con-cern of most Americans. But the book is big on in-spiration, too. Blue Revolution combines investigative reporting with solutions from around the nation and the globe. From San Antonio to Singapore, Barnett shows how local communities and entire nations have come together in a shared ethic to dramatically reduce consumption and live within their water means.”

The first book to call for a national water ethic, BlueRevolution is also a powerful meditation on water andcommunity in America. I like the part about calling for anational water ethic. I am anxious to read it. Both mywife Mary Frances and I reviewed several chapters.

So let me give another plug for Albuquerque in No-vember – come hear Cynthia speak, meet your old friendsand make new ones, and recall that the Fall is especiallybeautiful in New Mexico.

KOREA WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

Past President Ari Michelsen and I visited SouthKorea in May to attend the KWRA’s Annual Conference inDaegu (aka Taegu), a city with a metropolitan area ofabut 2.5M. AWRA has a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) with KWRA, which Ari and Ken Reid executed atlast year’s conference.

Ari’s trip was sponsored by the Korea Water Forumand mine by the KWRA. We both gave presentations andI also gave a brief description of the Spring 2011 Missis-sippi River flood and some of the lessons that we mightlearn. My formal presentation was the keynote address,which they have at the end of the meeting. I spoke onwater and energy in the South Caucasus, which wasabout as close to South Korea as I could get.

Ari and I discussed some joint ventures, and whatmay come out of the KWRA conference is a featured col-lection of papers in JAWRA and/or IMPACT. And perhapswe will see some of their officers in Albuquerque this fall.

We both had a great time; the South Koreans wereextremely hospitable. As I am an airport junkie, I wasanxious to see Incheon International Airport, reputed tobe the world’s best. It’s got my vote. What someone toldme was true: you can eat off the floor. It was spotless andefficient. When I got to immigration, there were only twolines for foreigners. Just as I was envisioning a long wait,six young immigration inspectors raced out to occupymore booths. As one inspector ran past me she turnedand said, “I’m sorry.” Such was my introduction to SouthKorea, an impression that will remain with me forever.More international airports and customs/immigration of-ficials should realize that for almost all foreigners, theairport is their first impression of a new country. I don’texpect every airport to look like Incheon, but visitors canbe treated courteously and efficiently.

The South Koreans are actively seeking to host the7th World Water Forum in 2015, and they were anxiousto show off the new convention center in Daegu, which isabout two hours south of Seoul via bullet train. It will beinteresting to see if they are successful.

UNPROFESSIONAL CONFERENCE CONDUCT

Some recent behavior at the 2011 Spring SpecialtyConference has prompted me to pen this section, whichhas been incubating for quite some time. This may ap-pear to be somewhat of a rant. Let me run down my petpeeves regarding conference conduct:


�� MMEESSSSAAGGEE FFRROOMM TTHHEE PPRREESSIIDDEENNTT ...... MMiicchhaaeell EE.. CCaammppaannaa,, 22001111


1. Registering for one day and then trying to attendfor more than one day;

2. Not registering at all but freeloading;

3. Demanding that someone be admitted to theconference gratis because they are ‘an important person’;

4. Being a no-show for your session/presentation(yes, I realize that emergencies arise, but an explanationafter the fact would be a nice gesture);

5. Calling up right before the conference to say thatyou won’t be attending to present your paper/poster orattend your panel session because you don’t want to paythe registration fee; and

6. Dashing in one minute before your presentation,loading your Power Point, then scurrying off for severalminutes expecting the moderator and everyone else towait for you and then acting indignant when the moder-ator doesn’t give you extra time.

There are probably some more but I can’t think ofthem right now. If you can, please add a comment.

Another one comes close to being classified as ‘un-professional conduct’ but can just be classified under the‘annoying conduct’ category: excessive complainingabout the cost of the conference registration.

Many attendees don’t realize how much it costs toput on a conference. Most hotels and convention centerscharge a king’s ransom for just about everything andusually won’t let you bring your own stuff. Coffee at thebreak? Try $84 per gallon. Figure out the cost per cup;it’ll make Starbucks seem cheap. The power strip thatthe nice young man rushed in to provide you? Maybe $15for a rental. Another wireless microphone? Don’t ask.And so on.

Our AWRA conference registrations are quite reason-able compared to other professional meetings. And thisobservation comes from someone who pays his own way.My devilish wish is that those who complain excessivelyhave a chance to chair or plan a conference of their ownsome day.

STATE SECTION STUFF

My plans to attend the Indiana Section’s meeting inearly June were sidetracked by a Bay-Delta committeemeeting in Sacramento. I do plan to attend the FloridaSection’s meeting in Key West at the end of August.

Here in Oregon we had our first section conference,held in conjunction with the Oregon Section of the Amer-ican Institute of Hydrology (AIH). The Oregon Water Con-ference 2011 (www.towc2011.org) attracted more than200 registrants and featured two full days of three con-current sessions. I doubt we will do this each year; everytwo years is more likely. You can view the abstracts andprogram here: http://bit.ly/kFQlml.

ON THE HORIZON

By the time you read this I hope our first Webinar willhave been scheduled and a decision to hold the FifthWater Policy (or Vision) Dialogue will have been made.This will provide me with an impetus.

And I hope the Summer Specialty IWRM Conferencewill have been a resounding success.

The road to help is paved with good intentions. . . Tracy Baker

[email protected]

� � �


PPrreessiiddeenntt’’ss MMeessssaaggee .. .. .. ccoonntt’’dd..

“Could We Do Better”... The BP Gulf Oil Spill: TheDiminishing Returns of Complexity ... from pg. 24

technology, and expansion of the military, which re-quires more energy subsidies as well) reaches the pointof diminishing and ultimately negative returns.

Contemporary American society, like many formersocieties, has become accustomed to new discoveriesand new conquests (e.g., deepwater and Arctic offshoredrilling) to solve problems of supporting bigger popula-tions, supporting them at a higher level of consumption,and supporting neoliberal economic theories of perpetu-al economic growth. The status quo of the ruling classes(powerful government officials and the corporations thatown them) is maintained by adding complexity to gover-nance while allowing corporations such as BP to usetheir complex but inefficient technology to delay the timeof reckoning when the American public finally realizes weshould have reduced our oil dependence (even on do-mestic oil) long ago.

[email protected]� � �

E-MAIL CONNECTION

E-MAIL CONNECTION

Have Questions About IMPACT?Contact AWRA HQ

By Phone • (540) 687-8390By Fax • (540) 687-8395By E-Mail • [email protected]

Check Out Our Home PageAt www.awra.org

� � � � �



�� AAWWRRAA FFUUTTUURREE MMEEEETTIINNGGSS ...... AADDDDIITTIIOONNAALL IINNFFOO ...... WWWWWW..AAWWRRAA..OORRGG

2011

NOVEMBER 7-10, 2011AWRA’S ANNUAL WATER RESOURCES CONFERENCE

HYATT REGENCY ~ ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

2012

MARCH 26-28, 2012AWRA’S SPRING SPECIALTY CONFERENCE

GIS AND WATER RESOURCES VIISHERATON NEW ORLEANS ~ NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NOVEMBER 12-15, 2011AWRA’S ANNUAL WATER RESOURCES CONFERENCE

HYATT REGENCY JACKSONVILLE RIVERFRONT ~ JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

�� SSCCHHEEDDUULLEEDD TTOOPPIICCSS FFOORR FFUUTTUURREE 22001111 IISSSSUUEESS OOFF IIMMPPAACCTT

SEPTEMBER 2011WATER MARKETS

CLAY J. LANDRY

(ASSOCIATE EDITOR)AND

SKYE ROOT

(IMPACT BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT)[email protected] / [email protected]

NOVEMBER 2011WATER HISTORYRICHARD H. MCCUEN

(ASSOCIATE EDITOR)[email protected]

The topics listed above are subject to change. For information concerning submitting an article to be included in theabove issues, contact the designated Editor or the Editor-in-Chief Earl Spangenberg at [email protected].



HAVE SOME COMMENTS ABOUTTHIS ISSUE OF IMPACT?

SEND US YOUR FEEDBACKWater Resources IMPACT is in its 13th year of pub-lication and we have explored a lot of ideas. We hopewe have raised some questions for you to contemplate.“Feedback” is your opportunity to reflect and respond.

We want to give you an opportunity to let your col-leagues know your opinions ... we want to moderate adebate ... we want to know how we are doing. For this issue send your letters by e-mail to:

Earl Spangenberg([email protected]

Please share your opinions and ideas. Please limityour comments to approximately 350 to 400 words. Ifpublished, your comments may be edited for length orspace requirements.

SUBSCRIPTION RATESWATER RESOURCES IMPACT

DOMESTIC ..............................................$80.00

FOREIGN ................................................$95.00

FOREIGN AIRMAIL OPTION..........................$50.00

CONTACT THE AWRA HQ OFFICE FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR TO SUBSCRIBE

The American Water Resources Association is a professional association dedicated to the ad-vancement of water resources management, research, and education. AWRA has two campaignsto help achieve these goals – an Annual Campaign for unrestricted contributions and a FundDrive for contributions to the Richard A. Herbert Memorial Scholarship program. All donationsto AWRA are 100% tax deductable.

We invite you to support our efforts to solve today’s critical water resources challengesusing a balanced and multidisciplinary approach in candid, open discussion among our diversemembership.

Donating is easy. You can give online at www.awra.org, call us with your credit card information,or send a check to:

AWRAP.O. Box 1626

Middleburg, VA 20118

Be sure to indicate where you would like your donation to be directed.

ADVERTISE YOUR PRODUCTSAND SERVICES IN

A BI-MONTHLY NEWS MAGAZINEOF THEAMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

REACH A WORLD-WIDE WATERRESOURCES AUDIENCE

CONTACT THEAWRA PUBLICATIONS OFFICE

FOR SPECIFICATIONS ANDPRICING INFORMATION

ADVERTISING SPACE AVAILABLE FOR

1/6, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, AND

FULL-PAGE ADVERTISEMENTS

CCAALLLL:: ((225566)) 665500--00770011EE--MMAAIILL:: iinnffoo@@aawwrraa..oorrgg

oorrcchhaarrlleennee@@aawwrraa..oorrgg

AWRA’S unique multidisciplinary structureprovides your company the opportunityto advertise to readers representingover 60 professions and living in over

65 countries around the world!



AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION – 2011MAIL THIS FORM TO . . . AWRA • C/O MIDDLEBURG BANK • P.O. BOX 2217 • LEESBURG, VA 20177-2217FOR FASTEST SERVICE . . . FAX THIS FORM (CREDIT CARD OR P.O. ORDERS ONLY) TO (540) 687-8395

QUESTIONS? . . . CALL AWRA HQ AT (540) 687-8390 OR E-MAIL AT [email protected]

�� COMPLETE ALL SECTIONS (PLEASE PRINT)

LAST NAME FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL

TITLE

COMPANY NAME

MAILING ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP+4 COUNTRY

IS THIS YOUR � HOME OR � BUSINESS ADDRESS?PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER

E-MAIL ADDRESSRECOMMENDED BY (NAME) AWRA MEMBERSHIP #

�� MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES REGULAR AND STUDENT MEMBERS� REGULAR MEMBER...............................................................$165.00� REGULAR (HALF-YEAR: JULY 1-DECEMBER 31) .......................$82.50� STUDENT MEMBER (FULL YEAR ONLY) ....................................$30.00REGULAR AND STUDENT MEMBERS RECEIVE ONLINE ACCESS TO 40 YEARS OFRESEARCH IN JAWRA (REGULAR MEMBERS RECEIVE A PRINT VERSION ASWELL), ONLINE ACCESS TO CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS, ONLINE AND PRINTVERSIONS OF WATER RESOURCES IMPACT, AND DISCOUNTS ON PUBLICATIONSAND CONFERENCE REGISTRATIONS.

ASSOCIATE MEMBER – SINGLE OFFICE� FULL YEAR ..........................................................................$500.00� HALF-YEAR (JULY 1-DECEMBER 31)......................................$250.00

ASSOCIATE MEMBER – ENTERPRISE OFFICE� FULL YEAR .......................................................................$2,000.00� HALF-YEAR (JULY 1-DECEMBER 31)...................................$1,000.00

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS RECEIVE PROMINENT VISIBILITY ON AWRA’S WEB-SITE, DISCOUNTS ON EXHIBIT OPPORTUNITIES AND AWRA JOB POSTINGS, ANDWATER RESOURCES IMPACT ONLINE AND IN PRINT (SEVERAL COPIES, IFREQUESTED).

� AWRA MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE..............................................$11.00

DEMOGRAPHIC CODES(PLEASE LIMIT YOUR CHOICE TO ONE IN EACH CATEGORY)

JOB TITLE CODES EMPLOYER CODES WATER RESOURCES DISCIPLINE CODESCF Consulting FirmEI Educational Institution (faculty/staff)ES Educational Institution (student)LR Local/Regional Gov’t. AgencySI State/Interstate Gov’t. AgencyIN IndustryLF Law FirmFG Federal GovernmentRE RetiredNP Non-Profit OrganizationTG Tribal GovernmentOT Other

EDUCATION CODESHS High SchoolAA AssociatesBA Bachelor of ArtsBS Bachelor of ScienceMA Master of ArtsMS Master of ScienceJD Juris DoctorPhD DoctorateOT Other

AG Agronomy GI GeographicBI Biology InformationCH Chemistry SystemsEY Ecology HY HydrologyEC Economics LA LawED Education LM LimnologyEG Engineering OE OceanographyFO Forestry PS PoliticalGR Geography ScienceGE Geology OT Other

JT1 Management (Pres., VP, Div. Head,Section Head, Manager, ChiefEngineer)

JT2 Engineering (non-mgmt.; i.e., civil,mechanical, planning, systemsdesigner)

JT3 Scientific (non-mgmt.; i.e., chemist,biologist, hydrologist, analyst,geologist, hydrogeologist)

JT4 Marketing/Sales (non-mgmt.)JT5 FacultyJT6 StudentJT7 AttorneyJT8 RetiredJT9 Computer Scientist (GIS, modeling,

data mgmt., etc.)JT10 Elected/Appointed OfficialJT11 Volunteer/Interested CitizenJT12 Non-ProfitJT13 Other

PLEASE NOTE YOUR SELECTED CODENUMBERS FROM ABOVE

JOB TITLE CODE ......................................EMPLOYER CODE .....................................WATER RESOURCES DISCIPLINE CODE ............

EDUCATION CODE ....................................

� STUDENT MEMBERS MUST BE FULL-TIME AND THE APPLICATIONMUST BE ENDORSED BY A FACULTY MEMBER

PRINT NAME SIGNATUREANTICIPATED GRADUATION DATE (MONTH/YEAR):FACULTY SIGNATURE ENDORSEMENT:

� FOREIGN AIRMAIL OPTIONS: CONTACT AWRA FOR PRICING.

�� PLEASE NOTE∗∗ MEMBERSHIP IS BASED ON A CALENDAR-YEAR (JAN. 1-DEC. 31); AFTERJULY 1, REGULAR AND ASSOCIATE MEMBERS MAY ELECT A SIX-MONTHMEMBERSHIP FOR ONE-HALF THE ANNUAL DUES.

∗∗ STUDENTS DO NOT QUALIFY FOR HALF-YEAR MEMBERSHIP.∗∗ REMITTANCE MUST BE MADE IN U.S. DOLLARS DRAWN ON A U.S. BANK.

�� PAYMENT MUST ACCOMPANY APPLICATIONPAYMENT MUST BE MADE BY CHECK OR ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CREDIT CARDS:

� VISA � MASTERCARD � DINERS CLUB � AMEX � DISCOVER

CARDHOLDER’S NAMECARD # EXP. DATE CSC #SIGNATURE (REQUIRED)

�� YOUR PRIMARY REASON FOR JOINING? (CHECK ONE)� TO RECEIVE INFORMATION THROUGH JAWRA AND IMPACT� NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES� TECHNICAL COMMITTEE INTERACTIONS� CONFERENCE DISCOUNT� EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES� OTHER:

�� HOW DID YOU LEARN OF AWRA? (CHECK ONE)� PROMOTIONAL MAILING� INTERNET SEARCH� JOURNAL (JAWRA)� IMPACT� BOSS/FRIEND/COLLEAGUE� EMAIL RECEIVED� OTHER:



Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage

P A I DTwin Cities MN

Permit No. 932454 West Federal St., P.O. Box 1626Middleburg, VA 20118-1626 USATelephone: (540) 687-8390

ISSN 1522-3175

AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

DDAATTEEDD MMAATTEERRIIAALL EENNCCLLOOSSEEDD

®

2011 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATIONPRESIDENT

MICHAEL E. [email protected]

PRESIDENT-ELECT SECRETARY/TREASURERWILLIAM A. BATTAGLIN DAVID R. WATT

[email protected] [email protected]

PAST PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENTARI M. MICHELSEN KENNETH D. REID, [email protected] [email protected]


download awra julyimpact - campanastanaquadoc.typepad.com/files/awra-julyimpact.pdf · 22689 awra...

Documents