4 ms·

My partner works in civil engineering and water remediation throughout Wyoming. Most farmers and ranchers there aren't too keen on fracking, because they suffe

My partner works in civil engineering and water remediation throughout Wyoming. Most farmers and ranchers there aren't too keen on fracking, because they suffer from the practice more than anyone (runoff/polluted water tables). But, there's no chance for any sort of political opposition, because the vast majority of people simply won't vote blue, no matter what. Often times, on the city/county level, there is no alternative candidate, it's red vs. red and neither want to "take away jobs" by buying into "leftist tree-hugger" nonsense. It will only change when the "jobs" are cleaning up the mess, which has already started, but most roughnecks aren't qualified; cleanup requires educated city-folk from out of town, which widens the us vs. them gap even more. I'm generalizing, but the above is often exactly the case.

_delirium 11y ago
Red vs. red doesn't necessarily mean no debate on environmental issues. If there's enough disagreement among the state's population, it just gets moved to the primary. For example, Texas is almost exclusively GOP-controlled on a state level, and yet has implemented an extensive plan of government support for wind power development [1]. There are hardline small-government conservatives who thought that was a bad idea, but they didn't win enough primaries and lobbying battles to set policy. In this case the winning coalition was a mixture of environmentalists (who like wind energy), West Texas landowners (who like a new source of revenue), and state budget wonks (who like a new source of tax revenue that isn't an income tax). There aren't enough pure environmentalists in a state like Texas (or, I'd guess, Wyoming) to win only with their support, but if it can be aligned with preferences of a significant share of say, farmers, ranchers, and other landowners, it's possible to pass things. [1] http://www.texastribune.org/2013/10/14/7-billion-crez-project-nears-finish-aiding-wind-po/ http://www.texastribune.org/2013/10/14/7-billion-crez-projec...
- davidw 11y ago
  That's a good point, but in your example, wind energy is basically an 'extra', rather than the government regulating an industry. I'd be curious to hear examples of the latter in places like Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.
davidw 11y ago
My guess is that a lot of these places are going to be doubly screwed, because of the shakeout in that industry due to the falling oil prices: even in cases where a company is provably causing damage via bad practices, there may not be a company left to sue for damages.
- sudojudo 11y ago
  Dealing with this is a large part of the job. Picture a small community, or group of families, fighting a major corporation that just repeats "the science isn't conclusive" and "we worked within legal guidelines and can't be blamed". Outside firms have to be hired, by people whose livelihoods have been squashed, to do extensive, and expensive, testing. It's frustrating and sad.
barney54 11y ago
Farmers and ranchers don't need to allow oil and gas drilling if they don't want to. It's the point of private property.
- davidw 11y ago
  What happens on ranch X may affect the groundwater on farm Y or in town Z, a few kilometers away. I have no idea about the distances involved, and presumably they vary a lot depending on a number of factors that you'd have to ask scientists about. Ideally, you would be able to detect pollutants moseying off the property underground, just as you would cattle wandering off the ranch above ground, and your property system would work fine ("Bob, yer frackin' byproducts done cross over into mah property yesterday, an I cain't abide by that") , but presumably it's not easy.
- sudojudo 11y ago
  Wow, you just solved everything! Seriously though, water tables don't respect property borders, and runoff doesn't stop at fence lines. If that happened, there would be no issue. These people aren't stupid, and the last thing they want to do is ostracize themselves from their peers by raising environmental concerns. They're forced into these positions by a lack of alternatives.
- tunap 11y ago
  Property rights often do not include 'mineral rights' and they definately don't include neighboring properties' (mineral) rights. Edit: The owners of mineral rights may legally drill a well in your front yard, if they comply with current laws & ordinances.

_delirium 11y ago

Red vs. red doesn't necessarily mean no debate on environmental issues. If there's enough disagreement among the state's population, it just gets moved to the primary. For example, Texas is almost exclusively GOP-controlled on a state level, and yet has implemented an extensive plan of government support for wind power development [1]. There are hardline small-government conservatives who thought that was a bad idea, but they didn't win enough primaries and lobbying battles to set policy. In this case the winning coalition was a mixture of environmentalists (who like wind energy), West Texas landowners (who like a new source of revenue), and state budget wonks (who like a new source of tax revenue that isn't an income tax). There aren't enough pure environmentalists in a state like Texas (or, I'd guess, Wyoming) to win only with their support, but if it can be aligned with preferences of a significant share of say, farmers, ranchers, and other landowners, it's possible to pass things. [1] http://www.texastribune.org/2013/10/14/7-billion-crez-project-nears-finish-aiding-wind-po/ http://www.texastribune.org/2013/10/14/7-billion-crez-projec...

davidw 11y ago
That's a good point, but in your example, wind energy is basically an 'extra', rather than the government regulating an industry. I'd be curious to hear examples of the latter in places like Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

davidw 11y ago

My guess is that a lot of these places are going to be doubly screwed, because of the shakeout in that industry due to the falling oil prices: even in cases where a company is provably causing damage via bad practices, there may not be a company left to sue for damages.

sudojudo 11y ago
Dealing with this is a large part of the job. Picture a small community, or group of families, fighting a major corporation that just repeats "the science isn't conclusive" and "we worked within legal guidelines and can't be blamed". Outside firms have to be hired, by people whose livelihoods have been squashed, to do extensive, and expensive, testing. It's frustrating and sad.

barney54 11y ago

Farmers and ranchers don't need to allow oil and gas drilling if they don't want to. It's the point of private property.

davidw 11y ago
What happens on ranch X may affect the groundwater on farm Y or in town Z, a few kilometers away. I have no idea about the distances involved, and presumably they vary a lot depending on a number of factors that you'd have to ask scientists about. Ideally, you would be able to detect pollutants moseying off the property underground, just as you would cattle wandering off the ranch above ground, and your property system would work fine ("Bob, yer frackin' byproducts done cross over into mah property yesterday, an I cain't abide by that") , but presumably it's not easy.
sudojudo 11y ago
Wow, you just solved everything! Seriously though, water tables don't respect property borders, and runoff doesn't stop at fence lines. If that happened, there would be no issue. These people aren't stupid, and the last thing they want to do is ostracize themselves from their peers by raising environmental concerns. They're forced into these positions by a lack of alternatives.
tunap 11y ago
Property rights often do not include 'mineral rights' and they definately don't include neighboring properties' (mineral) rights. Edit: The owners of mineral rights may legally drill a well in your front yard, if they comply with current laws & ordinances.