Tag: Regulation

Local Government Regulation of Large-Scale Hydraulic Fracturing Activities and Uses

Ross Hammersely and Kate Redman, attorneys with the Traverse City law firm, Olson, Bzdok & Howard, have done a marvelous service for local government officials, planners, administrators, property owners, industry, and the public in publishing a cogent, objective article on the scope and nature of local government regulation, including zoning and police power ordinance tools, to address oil and gas development, including recent large-scale hydraulic fracturing. This is a must read for those interested in land use planning, local government, proper development, and the protection of neighborhoods, farms, recreational lands and uses, and the environment and quality of life in Michigan. – Jim Olson Click here to view and download the article as a PDF, or read on below. See original article also at michbar.org.

Local Government Regulation of Large-Scale Hydraulic Fracturing Activities and Uses

The development of oil and natural gas resources using high­volume hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has become an increasingly politicized and controversial issue in re­cent years. The attention is due to a profound industry shift from the relatively shallow, vertical wells used for several decades in Michigan to significantly deeper well bores requiring unprece­dented volumes of chemically treated water and sand, as well as other support activities and uses.1 The intensified scale of this type of well has resulted in nearby communities experiencing new and greater effects from fracking operations including increased noise levels, traffic volumes, water use, and hazardous chemical trans­portation, among others. As a result, whether a community wel­comes or opposes fracking, local governments have a growing in­terest in exercising regulatory control over fracking and its ancillary activities, uses, and effects. This article explores the extent to which local governments have authority to exercise police power and zoning approval to regulate fracking in light of evolving state and federal regulation.

State and federal regulation of fracking

Local governments in Michigan may only exercise powers dele­gated by statute or the Michigan Constitution, and powers that can be fairly implied from those sources.2 Once granted, a power should be liberally construed in favor of local governments but is subject to preemption by state or federal law.3 An important thresh­old question in determining local authority to regulate fracking is the extent of federal and state regulation.

Federal regulation of fracking

Federal regulation of fracking could have the effect of preempting state or local regulation under the Suprem­acy Clause of the United States Constitution.4 However, oil and natural gas development via fracking is largely exempt from major federal environmental laws and reg­ulations including the Safe Drinking Water Act,5 Clean Water Act,6 Solid Waste Disposal Act,7 Clean Air Act,8 and the Emergency Planning and Community Right ­to ­Know Act.9 Accordingly, regulation of fracking and its related activities and uses falls primarily to the states.10

State regulation of fracking

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is the primary agency regulating fracking in the state, and issues permits under authority of Part 615 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act and its associated regulations.11 Part 615 grants authority over the “administration and enforcement of all matters relating to the prevention of waste and to the conser­vation of oil and gas,” as well as jurisdiction over per­sons and things necessary to enforce this authority.12 The MDEQ asserts authority to regulate many components of fracking under this provision, including well location and spacing, drilling/construction timetables, certain production operations, waste and emissions management, well plugging, and site resto­ration.13 A permit holder under Part 615 is exempted from certain other regulations, including soil erosion permits and the water withdrawal statute.14 The water withdrawal statute also expressly preempts local governments’ authority to regulate large water withdrawals to the extent provided in the statute.15 Some commentators have suggested that the MDEQ’s authority preempts all local regulatory authority,16 but the Michigan Su­preme Court has rejected this conclusion. State law preempts local ordinances when the ordinance directly conflicts with a statute or the statute “completely occupies the field that [the] ordinance attempts to regulate” either explicitly or by implication, which can be assessed by looking at factors such as pervasive state regulation, legislative history, or a need for uniformity. Applying these standards to Part 615, the Michigan Supreme Court held that “the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supervisor of Wells applies only to oil and gas wells and does not extend to all aspects of the production process,” and affirmed the ability of local governments to regulate other aspects of oil and gas development if not ex­pressly preempted by another statute.17 Under this precedent, there is a role for local regulation of oil and gas wells and ancillary activities, facilities, and uses, and water withdrawal wells, as long as the regulation does not directly con­flict with Part 615 and is not limited or preempted by Part 615 or another statute.18

FAST FACTS: The development of natural gas resources by high-volume hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is exempt from most federal regulation under environmental laws. Fracking regulation is left primarily to the states. In Michigan, the supervisor of wells has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and control the drilling, completion, and operation of oil and gas wells. Subject to statutory limits, local governments retain police power and zoning authority to regulate certain ancillary activities and effects related to fracking, including truck traffic, unsafe material transportation and storage, certain types of pipelines, and other similar effects.

Permissible scope of local regulation of effects of fracking

Michigan’s oil and gas regulations do not address many of the effects of fracking and its ancillary activities, facilities, and uses that would ordinarily be issues of local concern subject to local regulation. For example, fracking requires the transport, storage, use, and disposal of large volumes of water, sand, and potentially unsafe chemicals, resulting in perhaps as many as 100 additional truck trips a day per well during certain active periods,19 with at­tendant noise, pollution, wear and tear on roads, and environ­mental risk. The scope of local authority to regulate in these areas under (1) the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (zoning act) and (2) the police power to control for the public health, safety, and welfare is subject to both the usual reasonableness constitutional limits on police power authority20 and some limits unique to oil and gas wells. However, there is likely still ample room for care­fully designed and reasonable local regulation of these types of activities, facilities, and uses.

Zoning regulation

The zoning act delegates broad authority to local governments to regulate land use for public health, safety, and welfare pur­poses, including the expressly stated authority to zone and regu­late land use related to energy and transportation based on a mas­ter plan that includes consideration of energy uses.21 However, the act limits this authority when it comes to oil and gas wells.22 First, the act states that “[a] county or township shall not regulate or con­trol the drilling, completion, or operation of oil or gas wells… and shall not have jurisdiction with reference to the issuance of permits for the location, drilling, completion, operation, or aban­donment of such wells.”23 It’s notable that, on its face, this limi­tation does not apply to villages or cities, extends only to wells themselves, and does not include zoning of all ancillary activi­ties, facilities, and uses associated with fracking or zoning of water wells and pipelines. Second, the statute does not allow local gov­ernments to exclude or ban a land use if there is a demonstrated need for it in the area unless an appropriate location for the use does not exist; fracking or its ancillary uses cannot be banned without meeting this stringent test.24 The Michigan Supreme Court has af­firmed that, subject to Part 615 preemp­tion, the zoning act provides limited authority for a local government to adopt zoning regulations for fracking and par­ticular ancillary activities, facilities, or uses not otherwise regulated by Part 615.25 The Court has not provided further guidance on the scope of this author­ity or the preemptive effect of the water withdrawal statute, but there are a few particular areas that likely remain subject to local regulation, both in terms of the subject areas of regulation and special zoning tools provided by the zoning act.

Areas of Regulation. First, local gov­ernments could address ancillary frack­ing facilities and uses not included in the definition of the “operation” of a gas well by Part 615 regulations.26 A court may not agree with the MDEQ’s defini­tion of this term, but it is at least a safe starting point and might include, for example, transportation of certain materials to and from the well pad, the use of roads other than the access road to the well pad, and regulation of ancillary storage tanks and other facilities. Local governments can likely place zoning regulations on water withdrawal wells and pipelines as long as they do not regulate the withdrawal quantity or the adverse effects on sur­face water regulated by the water withdrawal statute.27 Second, the Part 615 regulations themselves incorporate provisions of lo­cal zoning codes that authorities could better inform and affect through local zoning regulations. For example, Part 615 regula­tions provide that a person shall not cause a “nuisance noise” in the production or handling of gas, and take into account an area’s environmental values. As such, the definition and measurement of what constitutes nuisance noise and environmental value could be informed by the local government’s clear development of these concepts in its zoning and master plan.28 Finally, land uses in zoning districts with oil and gas resources can be limited to uses compatible with the noise, pollution, traffic, and risk of hazard­ous spills generated by fracking.

Tools for Regulation. The zoning act provides useful tools unique to a local government’s zoning authority. Most notable are (1) amending a master plan to identify the environmental re­sources and the location of natural gas resources relative to other land uses that might be inconsistent with fracking and its ancil­lary facilities and uses, such as residential areas, parks, and natu­ral areas;29 (2) identifying ancillary fracking facilities and uses and nonexempt water well uses as “special land uses” subject to a more rigorous review of traffic flows and other public health, safety, and welfare effects of the activity;30 and (3) imposing con­ditions and escrow requirements on the approval of these special uses in a manner designed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from the identified risks of the activity.31

Police power regulation

It is fundamental that local governments have broad authority to adopt ordinances for the benefit of the public health, safety, and welfare, and there is a presumption in favor of the constitu­tionality of an ordinance exercising police power.32 Subject to the specific state­level preemption detailed previously, fracking effects may be subject to regulation under this broad police power. For example, police power regulations might be adopted to address truck traffic, hazardous material transport, and various pipelines. The sharp increase in roadway activity and the pos­sibly hazardous nature of the cargo carried on many of those trips present risks and concerns that a local unit of government could regulate by designating certain allowable routes for ship­ments of specific chemicals regulated as hazardous by the U.S. Department of Transportation to avoid and protect high­risk areas in the jurisdiction such as schools, residential areas, and commer­cial districts. Designating such routes and allowable truck staging and parking areas could also ensure that supporting infrastruc­ture is available in the event of an accident. Local governments could also apply the requirement in Michigan’s Fire Prevention Code (Act 207) that any company handling hazardous chemicals provide the local fire chief certain information on written request, including a list of the hazardous chemicals on site, a material safety data sheet for those chemicals, and disclosure of the quan­tity and location on site of any such chemicals.33 Further, local governments would arguably be permitted to adopt ordinances governing “flow” or “gathering” lines, water or certain gas trans­mission pipelines, compressors, and other processing and asso­ciated equipment, as well as the construction, installation, relo­cation, alteration/modification, operation, or closure of pipelines off the well pad and over surrounding lands. Finally, emergency contacts and other locally focused accident planning require­ments could potentially be adopted and implemented.

Moratorium power

Inherent in the police power and zoning authority, courts have recognized that local governments may adopt temporary morato­riums for a reasonable period pending research and adoption of regulation in that subject area.34 Local governments may use this authority to allow time to carefully design practical fracking reg­ulation as described in this article.

Part 615 grants authority over the “administration and enforcement of all matters relating to the prevention of waste and to the conservation of oil and gas,” as well as jurisdiction over persons and things necessary to enforce this authority.

Conclusion

Police power and zoning tools remain available to communi­ties and officials interested in exercising local decision­making authority to regulate the increasingly localized effects of expand­ing fracking; its ancillary activities, facilities, and uses; and wa­ter withdrawal wells in Michigan. However, any local regulations should be carefully crafted and designed to reasonably address specific risks imposed by fracking operations and to fit within the scope of local authority not otherwise limited or preempted by state law.

Ross A. Hammersley is an attorney with Olson, Bzdok & Howard, P.C., an environmental and municipal law firm in Traverse City, where his practice focuses on land use and zoning matters, oil and gas leasing and development issues, energy policy and utility regulation, environmental conservation, and Brownfield redevelopment. He is a co-chair of the Great Lakes and Inland Waters Committee of the SBM Environmental Law Section.

Kate E. Redman is also an attorney with Olson, Bzdok & Howard, P.C., where her practice focuses on land use, local government, small business, non-profit, and appellate law. Kate assists local governments throughout the state with developing and implementing zoning and police power ordinances.

ENDNOTES 1. Crawford, Fracturing Rocks to Unlock New Oil, 135 Mechanical Engineering 27 (December 2013), available at asme.org (accessed May 15, 2014). 2. See City of Taylor v Detroit Edison Co, 475 Mich 109, 115–116; 715 NW2d 28 (2006). 3. Const 1963, art 7, § 34; Ter Beek v City of Wyoming, 495 Mich 1, 8; NW2d (2014). 4. See generally Ter Beek v City of Wyoming, 495 Mich 1; NW2d (2014). 5. 42 USC 300h(d). 6. 33 USC 1362(24) and 1342(l)(2). 7. 42 USC 6921; see also 53 FR 25447 and 58 FR 15284. 8. Most fracking is unlikely to be subject to air quality regulation because oil and gas production sites do not qualify as “major source[s]” of hazardous air pollution. 42 USC 7412. 9. 42 USC 11023(b); 40 CFR § 372.23. 10. For a more expansive review of these exemptions, see Brady, Hydraulic fracturing regulation in the United States: The laissez-faire approach of the federal government and varying state regulations, 14 Vt J Envtl L 39, 43–52 (2013). 11. MCL 324.61501 et seq. and 1994 AC, R 324.101 et seq.; see also MCL 319.101–319.110; MCL 483.101–483.120; and MCL 483.151–483.162. 12. MCL 324.61505. 13. Rule 324.101 et seq. 14. Alcona Co v Wolverine Envtl Prod, Inc, 233 Mich App 238, 263; 590 NW2d 586 (1998); MCL 324.32727(1)(a). 15. MCL 324.32726. 16. Turrell, Frack off! Is municipal zoning a significant threat to hydraulic fracturing in Michigan?, 58 Wayne L R 279 (2012). 17. Addison Twp v Gout, 435 Mich 809, 813; 460 NW2d 215 (1990); see also Alcona, 233 Mich App at 263. 18. The Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Act has been held to preempt local governments from imposing stricter soil erosion requirements on the location of wellheads, access roads, pipelines, or processing facilities than is required under Part 615 because Part 615 is specifically exempted from the act. In contrast, Part 615 does not preempt a landowner from zoning regulations except to the extent specifically provided in the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. See Alcona, 233 Mich App at 263. However, it should be noted that an operator with a Part 615 permit is expressly exempted from certain state-level regulations in addition to the soil erosion permits, including an exemption from the statute regulating water withdrawals, unless the withdrawal is a “diversion” under the act, meaning it is transferred into another watershed. MCL 324.32727(1)(a). The water withdrawal statute also explicitly preempts local governments from regulation of large water withdrawals. MCL 324.32726. 19. The state of New York prepared a comprehensive review of the roadway impacts and costs imposed by heavy truck traffic as well as numerous other potential environmental impacts related to fracking, which is available at dec.ny.gov; (accessed May 15, 2014).(For truck traffic discussion, see Section VI, Part B, pp 6-300–6-315.) 20. Plymouth Twp v Hancock, 236 Mich App 197, 199; 600 NW2d 380 (1999). 21. MCL 125.3101(1) and 125.3203(1). 22. Notably, fracking is probably not affected by the recent codification of the “very serious consequences rule” because the rule applies only to mining activities, and fracking does not fit within the common definition of “mining” or the definition set forth in the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. MCL 125.3205(3)–(6) and 125.63201(g). 23. MCL 125.3205(2). Although not binding on a court for purposes of determining legislative intent, a court might look to the definition of these terms in the MDEQ regulations promulgated under Part 615, which provide that the “operation” of an oil and gas well includes production, processing, gathering, compressing, treating, transporting, conditioning, brine removal and disposal, separating, storing, injecting, testing, reporting, secondary recovery, and maintenance and use of surface facilities. See 1994 AC, R 324.103(c). 24. MCL 125.3207. 25. See Addison, n 17 supra. 26. See 1994 AC, R 324.102. 27. MCL 324.32723(c). 28. 1994 AC, R 324.504(4)(d) and 1994 AC, R 324.1015(1), (2), and (3)(c) and (d). These factors could include the identification of “quiet” as a primary consideration in use of public recreational sites near a well, or the identification of what level of noise will cause “injurious effects to human health or safety or the unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property,” specific to areas around a well. These determinations are not necessarily binding on the MDEQ but may be informative. See also 1994 AC, R 324.505, 324.506, and 324.507. 29. MCL 125.3203 and 125.3843. 30. MCL 125.3502 and 125.3504. 31. See Cornerstone Investments, Inc v Cannon Twp, 239 Mich App 98, 106; 607 NW2d 749 (1999) (interpreting equivalent language in earlier zoning act). 32. Home-rule cities and villages enjoy all powers not expressly prohibited by law, and townships’ powers are to be liberally construed and include those fairly implied and not prohibited by the Constitution. Detroit v Walker, 445 Mich 682, 690; 520 NW2d 135 (1994); Hess v Cannon Twp, 265 Mich App 582, 590; 696 NW2d 742 (2005); see also Austin v Older, 283 Mich 667, 674; 278 NW 727 (1938). 33. See MCL 29.5p. However, there are exceptions and exemptions. See MCL 29.5p(4) and (6). 34. See Cummins v Robinson Twp, 283 Mich App 677, 719; 770 NW2d 421 (2009).

Fracking: It’s All About the Water

Hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for oil and gas in Michigan is the subject of scrutiny in the recent Integrated Assessment report series from the University of Michigan’s Graham Sustainability Institute.  The report confirms that the future development of tight shale formations appears to be massive and intensive in size and scope and will require unprecedented quantities of water to explore and produce these reserves.

How are oil and natural gas wells are being developed in fracking?
First a large pad is cleared, then as many as 6 or more wells are drilled on this one pad known as a “resource hub,” Then, several of these “resource hubs” are developed within close proximity to each other. Clusters of these hubs are then widely developed across townships and counties. Over the next several years, just one oil and gas company, Encana, plans to develop as many as 500 hundred wells in Kalkaska County, Michigan. Each resource hub can consume 90 to 180 millions of gallons of fresh water or more. The most recent numbers in Kalkaska County, Michigan—where fracking operations of this intense nature are underway—show that a group of these hubs in close proximity are presently using or plan to use more than 618 million gallons of water. As fracking expands in Kalkaska, reports indicate that number will be in the billions.

How will these unprecedented water withdrawals impact the groundwater and the streams and lakes within the watershed where the fracking is occurring?
The answer is no one knows. Current Michigan DNR and DEQ procedures do not measure the cumulative impact of these numerous wells and resource hubs on a local watershed and the impact on the nearby streams and lakes in that watershed. Each well permit which includes the amount of water withdrawn is approved independent of each other and does not take into account the amount of water withdrawn by the other wells on the pad and nearby hubs. It’s as if the other wells did not exist.

This is deeply concerning when put in the broader context of Michigan groundwater withdrawals. Bridge Magazine recently reported that 12 Michigan counties are already facing groundwater shortages. In light of present groundwater availability concerns, the increased consumption of groundwater for fracking operations will likely exacerbate the situation. Under current DEQ procedures for oil and gas drilling permits, there is no assurance our government can or will adequately protect our groundwater, lakes, and streams from these current and future massive water withdrawals.

What happens to all this water?
To frack the shale gas or oil reserves deep underground, these massive quantities of water are mixed with a cocktail of chemicals, many hazardous and/or known carcinogens, and sand. In Michigan, after a well is fracked, the contaminated water (“flowback”) is not treated, but is transported and disposed of in deep injection wells. What this means is that such massive quantities of water will never return to to the water cycle. We consider this a “consumptive” use of water. Other major concerns include the handling of the contaminated water. And, fracking is exempt from key federal and state regulation, including the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In short, these massive quantities of water are gone forever after used in the fracking process.

What can be done?
FLOW’s Chairperson, Jim Olson, and Executive Director, Liz Kirkwood, submitted comments to the Graham Institute. To strengthen water resource protections, FLOW recommends that the State of Michigan:

  • Require development plan(s) and generic or cumulative environmental impacts and alternatives as required under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) before a lease or leases and permit or permits are finally approved or denied;
  • Refine and strengthen all aspects of the Michigan Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool (WWAT) and require baseline hydrogeological studies and pump aquifer yield tests; and
  • Encourage cooperation between state regulations and appropriate local regulation of land use, water use, and related activities to address potential local impacts.

To learn more about FLOW’s research and recommendations, please read our Executive Summary or our Full Recommendations submitted by Olson and Kirkwood to the Graham Institute.

For more about FLOW’s work on fracking, visit flowforwater.org/fracking

UPDATE: Township Fracking Regulation Ordinance Program

Click here to view and download the full press release PDF

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 14, 2013

Fracking Ordinance Development Program Continues in Cannon Township

Gun Plain Charter Township Program Launches

TRAVERSE CITY, MI – FLOW, the Great Lakes Basin’s only public trust policy and education center, will be traveling down state to both Cannon Township and Gun Plain Charter Township on June 19 to facilitate a three-part workshop on legal strategies to address the impacts of horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” FLOW will assist these townships, in Kent and Allegan Counties respectively, to develop protective ordinances to regulate activities and harms related to fracking. Additionally, on June 24, FLOW, in partnership with Dr. Chris Grobbel, will present a similar introductory program in Yankee Springs Township, Barry County; the event is open to the greater community and officials.

In the morning of June 19, FLOW will return to Cannon Township to lead the second of this three-part workshop series. FLOW will facilitate the discussion and decision-making process to help Cannon Township leaders identify the ancillary fracking activities that are most important for their community to regulate. Township authorities and participating citizens will work to identify existing ordinances and craft new ordinances that are protective of land, air, and water impacts associated with fracking. Read the MLive article about the first meeting in Cannon here.

In the evening of June 19, FLOW will launch the first of three workshops in Gun Plain Charter Township. In this workshop, FLOW will provide an educational overview about the process of fracking, potential risks, and what communities can actually do to protect against fracking. FLOW Executive Director Liz Kirkwood explains that the legal strategies in development through this program “include zoning and police power ordinances, moratoriums, bans, and Michigan Environmental Protection Act (“MEPA”), among others.”

FLOW was invited by the grassroots group Concerned Citizens of Barry County to give an educational introductory presentation about fracking to citizens and local leaders. Since the beginning of the year, FLOW has given more than half a dozen of these presentations to groups and communities throughout the state of Michigan. As more meeting and presentations emerge, FLOW is spreading information and legal strategies in an effort to protect the Great Lakes Basin’s communities from the potential water, air, and land-use impacts of horizontal fracking.

Horizontal fracking for oil and natural gas is exempt from many regulatory laws at both the federal and state levels, including the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts, the Great Lakes Compact and Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Act. These townships are setting a precedent by being the first in the state of Michigan to develop fracking regulation ordinances in consultation with FLOW. Despite zoning prohibitions to regulate drilling, construction production, and operation of oil and gas wells, townships still do maintain legal authority to regulate ancillary activities, including roads, truck traffic, pipelines, flow lines, gathering lines, location of wells, disclosure of chemical use, air pollution and more. Moreover, townships can rely on other sources of authority such as police power ordinances.

 

# # #

FLOW is the Great Lakes Basin’s only public trust policy and education 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Our mission is to advance public trust solutions to save the Great Lakes.

FLOW Local Ordinance Program Brings Fracking Protection to Two Michigan Townships

Click here to view and download the full press release PDF

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 23, 2013

FLOW Local Ordinance Program Brings Fracking Protection to Two Michigan Townships

Michigan Communities Seek Regulation of Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing for Natural Gas

TRAVERSE CITY, MI – Two Michigan Townships—Cannon Township and Gun Plain Charter Township—signed up with FLOW to develop regulatory ordinances on horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” FLOW is the Great Lakes Basin’s only public trust policy and education center.  These townships, in Kent County and Allegan County respectively, are taking the lead in protecting their community from the industrial land-use impacts and potential risks of fracking.

Fracking for oil and natural gas is exempt from many regulatory laws at both the federal and state levels, including the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts, the Great Lakes Compact and Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Act. These townships are setting a precedent by being the first in the state of Michigan to develop fracking regulation ordinances in consultation with FLOW. Despite zoning prohibitions to regulate drilling, construction production, and operation of oil and gas wells, townships still do maintain legal authority to regulate ancillary activities, including roads, truck traffic, pipelines, flow lines, gathering lines, location of wells, disclosure of chemical use, air pollution and more. Moreover, townships can rely on other sources of authority such as police power ordinances.

Last week, Cannon Township enacted a fracking moratorium and will not consider any requests for fracking activities for a period of six months, so that the township has an opportunity to study potential impacts. On Wednesday, May 22, FLOW held the first of three educational meetings with Cannon Township officials and community members to facilitate the development of a fracking ordinance there. In this process, FLOW works with the township to determine what areas of concern are most pertinent to the community to regulate. FLOW will facilitate this same fracking ordinance development program in Gun Plain Township, and the first meeting there is scheduled for June 19.

“Whether you are for or against fracking, the important things for communities to know are the impacts we face with this high-impact and water-intensive technology, and be prepared in advance to handle it,” remarks FLOW’s founder and chair, Jim Olson.

Gun Plain Township was one of several townships present at the March 18 Allegan County Supervisors meeting at which FLOW was invited to present an educational overview of legal strategies and tools for local communities to regulate fracking. FLOW has delivered a similar educational overview program a dozen times throughout Michigan in the past three months. This informational presentation is based on FLOW’s November 2012 report, “Horizontal Fracturing for Oil and Natural Gas in Michigan: Legal Strategies and Tools for Communities and Citizens.” FLOW’s report highlights legal strategies and policies designed to assist local governments in safeguarding their communities against the unprecedented and cumulative impacts of fracking.

Horizontal fracking requires injecting a cocktail of up to 21 million gallons of water and over 750 chemicals under high pressure into wells in order to fracture deep shale formations and release oil and natural gas. A review of literature on fracking and its associated risks reveals several concerns: (1) massive water withdrawals; (2) groundwater contamination; (3) surface spills and leaks; (4) wastewater management; (5) land-use impacts; (6) truck traffic and burden on infrastructure; (7) lack of public disclosure.

The Collingwood/Utica deep natural gas shale formation spans across Michigan’s Lower Peninsula; since May 2010, around 752,260 acres of Michigan’s state land has been leased for oil and gas development. Grassroots and citizen organizations throughout the state have expressed their concern about fracking in their communities. While there are no producing fracking wells in either Cannon or Gun Plain Townships, most state lands in both counties and a significant portion of private lands have already been leased for exploration.  In response to concerned citizens, these townships are taking preventative action with FLOW’s assistance. FLOW encourages other concerned citizens and coalitions to alert their township Supervisors and examine the need for similar regulatory ordinances to protect against the industrial impacts of fracking.

For more information:
Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director, FLOW, (231) 944-1568
liz@flowforwater.org | @FlowForWater | www.flowforwater.org

# # #

FLOW is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose mission is to advance public trust solutions to save the Great Lakes. Through its law and policy work, FLOW is raising public awareness about the public trust doctrine and its principles as a unifying framework to protect the commons and address the systemic threats to water, public lands, and the environment throughout the Great Lakes.