(This demonstration did not happen in New Hampshire.)
additional commentary by Rep. Timothy Horrigan; January 14, 2014 & March 12, 2013
|
HB 1608-FN – AS INTRODUCED 2014 SESSION 14-2243 05/10 HOUSE BILL 1608-FN AN ACT relative to hydraulic fracturing. SPONSORS: Rep. Horrigan, Straf 6; Rep. Gorman, Hills 31 COMMITTEE: Environment and Agriculture ANALYSIS This bill prohibits hydraulic fracturing for natural gas and oil production and the discharge of waste in this state from hydraulic fracturing. |
|
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics. Matter
removed from current law appears [ Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type. 14-2243 05/10 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Fourteen AN ACT relative to hydraulic fracturing. Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened: 1 New Chapter; Hydraulic Fracturing Prohibited. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 488 the following new chapter: CHAPTER 488-A HYDRAULIC FRACTURING PROHIBITED 488-A:1 Definitions. In this chapter: I. "Fluid" means any material or substance which flows or moves whether in semi-solid, liquid, sludge, gas, or any other form or state. II. "Gas" means all natural gas, whether hydrocarbon or nonhydrocarbon, including hydrogen sulfide, helium, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen, casinghead gas, and all other fluid hydrocarbons not defined as oil. III. "Hydraulic fracturing" means the process of pumping a fluid into or under the surface of the ground in order to create fractures in rock for the purpose of the production or recovery of oil or gas. IV. "Oil" means crude petroleum, oil, and all hydrocarbons, regardless of specific gravity, that are in the liquid phase in the reservoir and are produced at the wellhead in liquid form. V. "Oil and gas" means both oil and gas, or either oil or gas, as the context may require to give effect to the purposes of this chapter. 488-A:2 Hydraulic Fracturing; Prohibition. I. No person may engage in hydraulic fracturing in the state. II. No person within the state may collect, store, or treat wastewater from hydraulic fracturing. 488-A:3 Penalty. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if a natural person, or guilty of a felony if any other person. 2 Discharge of Sewage; Discharge of Waste from Hydraulic Fracturing Prohibited. Amend RSA 485:30 to read as follows: 485:30 Discharge of Sewage; Waste from Hydraulic Fracturing; Penalty. I. No person, association or corporation shall cause or permit the discharge of sewage or other deleterious waste from any dwelling, camp, factory, hotel, boardinghouse, or other commercial establishment into any stream, lake, pond, or river not previously polluted, without first submitting detailed plans of said proposed discharge to the department and securing the approval of the said department. II. No person shall discharge waste from hydraulic fracturing into or from a pollution abatement facility. In this paragraph: (a) "Hydraulic fracturing" means the process of pumping a fluid into or under the surface of the ground in order to create fractures in rock for the purpose of the production or recovery of oil or gas. (b) "Pollution abatement facility" means municipal sewage treatment plants, pumping stations, interceptor and outfall sewers, and attendant facilities to abate pollution of the waters of the state. III. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if a natural person, or guilty of a felony if any other person. 3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
|
|
LBAO HB 1608-FN - FISCAL NOTE AN ACT relative to hydraulic fracturing. FISCAL IMPACT: The Judicial Branch and New Hampshire Association of Counties state this bill, as introduced, may decrease state and county expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2014 and each year thereafter. The Department of Environmental Services states this bill will have an indeterminable fiscal impact on state, county, and local revenue and expenditures in FY 2014 and each year thereafter. METHODOLOGY: The Judicial Branch states this bill adds RSA 488-A, and amends RSA 485:30 to prohibit hydraulic fracturing; the collection, storage, or treatment of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing; and the discharge of waste from hydraulic fracturing into or from a pollution abatement facility. A violation of this prohibition would be an unspecified misdemeanor if a natural person, and an unspecified felony if any other person. The Branch has no information to estimate how many additional misdemeanor or felony cases may result from the proposed bill. The Branch does have information on the average cost of processing a class B felony case which is classified as a routine criminal case. An unspecified misdemeanor can be either class A or class B, with the presumption being a class B misdemeanor. The Branch estimates a class A misdemeanor will cost $66.17 per case in FY 2015, and $67.64 per case in FY 2016 and each year thereafter, and a class B misdemeanor will cost $46.99 per case in FY 2015, and $48.02 per case in FY 2016 and each year thereafter. The unspecified felony would be processed as an average routine criminal case which will cost $425.27 in FY 2015, and $433.34 in FY 2016 and each year thereafter. The possibility for a case to be appealed increases the cost. All costs are estimated based on case weight information from the last needs assessment completed in 2005. Since the last needs assessment studies there have been changes to the judicial system, such as the formation of the circuit court, more self-represented litigants and how cases are processed, that may impact the costs associated with processing cases. The New Hampshire Association of Counties states to the extent more individuals are charged, convicted, and sentenced to incarceration in a county correctional facility, the counties will have increased expenditures. The Association is unable to determine the number of individuals who may not be charged, convicted, or incarcerated as a result of this bill to determine an exact fiscal impact. The average annual cost to incarcerate an individual in a county correctional facility is approximately $35,000. There is no impact on county revenue. The Department of Environmental Services states it is unknown whether any hydraulic fracturing for purpose of production or recovery of oil or gas is planned, whether any activity will result in wastewater discharges to any state, county, or local pollution abatement facilities or the volume and characteristics of any wastewater to determine the impact of this bill on state, county and local revenue and expenditures. The Judicial Council states this bill will have no fiscal impact on the Council. The Council states it has no record of providing representation to an indigent defendant in connection with a criminal proceeding relating to hydraulic fracturing operations. The Council also states historically the indigent defense delivery system has not provided representation to defendants charged with crimes who have allegedly violated some aspect of a law regulating commercial activities. |
The Environment and Agriculture Committee received the following written testimony from me on January 21, 2014— and held a lively hearing. Two weeks later, everyone on the committee except Rep. Lisa Whittemore found this bill "Inexpedient to Legislate." Rep. Whittemore showed good judgement.
Testimony in Favor of House Bill 1608"AN ACT relative to hydraulic fracturing."House Environment & Agriculture Committee; January 21, 2014
Rep. Timothy Horrigan; Strafford District 6 |
|
I urge the Enviroment and Agricuture Committee to support House Bill 1608, relative to hydraulic fracturing. This bill is an essential first step towards protecting the people of New Hampshire from a dangerous practice which has caused massive harm in several of our sister states. I understand that we live in a petroleum-based economy, but this bill is about protecting an even more essential fluid: water. The practice of hydraulic fracturing has done serious damage to the water supply in several nearby states, and this bill is needed to protect our state's water supply. Even though the chemical in question was used to process coal rather than oil or gas, the recent disaster in Charleston, West Virginia shows how fragile our water supply is. A poorly-maintained storage tank leaked 7500 US gallons of a chemical called "4-methyl cyclohexane methanol" (MCHM) into the Kanawha River, just upstream from the main intake for a regional water utility which serves an area about the same size as our state's entire Merrimack Valley.
HB 1608 (as introduced) does two things, both of which were inspired by legislation passed recently in Vermont:
The fracking industry uses a wide variety of organic chemicals, which are very poorly regulated by the federal government. There is very little oversight of these chemicals, there is shockingly little objective data about those chemicals— and overly permissive federal and international trade secret laws make it easy for the fracking industry to get away without even disclosing which chemicals they are using. This process also produces a huge amount of wastewater which contains some very harmful pollutants, including the chemicals used in the fracking process as well as natural pollutants which get washed up from deep underground. That wastewater has to go somewhere. Much of this wastewater is trucked to whatever facility is willing to take it. Fracking's other dangers include an increased risk of earthquakes (and New Hampshire is a fairly active sesismc zone) and accidental leakage of methane and uncaptured natural gas. There is extensive fracking going on not far away in Upstate New York, which is underlaid by the Marcellus Shale formation. More recently, the oil and gas industry has taken an interest in the Utica Shale formation, which is at a much greater depth than the Marcellus Shale. The Utica formation extends far into Quebec's Saint Lawrence River valley. That valley is just a few miles north of our state. Quebec's provincial government has (at least temporarily) banned fracking, since they are not yet convinced that it would be safe to engage in this very dangerous practice. Why should we legislators ban something which no one is doing in New Hampshire? Aside from the symbolic importance of protesting a dangerous and misguided practice which has done massive damage to our neighbors, there are some practical considerations. Admittedly, there are no known oil- or gas-bearing shale deposits in New Hampshire: we are the Granite State and not the Shale State. However, this bill doesn't just ban fracking in shale, it also bans fracking in granite or any other rock. We do have some significant graphite deposits here in the Granite State, and graphite is pure carbon— so the areas where graphite mines once existed might be especially tempting targets for wannabe "wildcatters" looking for fossil fuels. There is no guarantee that no fuel-bearing shale will never be found in our state. Extensive gas/"tight oil" shale deposits have been be found on the west edge of the Appalachian Mountains: our White Mountains are part of that chain of mountains. The Utica Shale deposits just north of our border were only recently discovered, in the mid-2000's. The fossil fuels in those deposits are 450 million years old. The buried carbon in the Utica Shale is so old, it is older than the dinosaurs. It is even older than the first fish who crawled out of the sea onto dry land. Old carbon is no better or worse than new carbon, but the rise of fracking is a sign that that the era of fossil fuels is near its end. Fracking is not the solution to our energy needs: we need to make more use of the carbon which is already above ground, and we need to use more alternate energy sources.
|
(This demonstration did not happen in New Hampshire.)
And here is ,my prepared text for my March 12, 2104 floor speech (similar to the committee testimony, only shorter, since this time I am addressing an audience of 400 who are free to get up and walk out of the room):
Floor Speech in Favor of House Bill 1608"AN ACT relative to hydraulic fracturing."Rep. Timothy Horrigan (Strafford District 6); March 12, 2014 |
|
This bill is an essential first step to protecting the people of New Hampshire from a dangerous practice which has caused massive harm in several of our sister states and Canada. We live in a petroleum-based economy. But, this bill protects an even more essential fluid: water. Hydraulic fracturing has done serious damage to the water supply in several nearby states, such as NY and PA. This bill is needed to protect our state's water supply. HB 1608 would do two things, based on VT law:
The fracking industry uses a wide variety of organic chemicals, not subject to disclosure and for which there is very little objective data. This process also produces a huge amount of wastewater which contains some very harmful pollutants, which get washed up from deep underground. Much of this wastewater is trucked to whatever facility is willing to take it. Fracking's other dangers include an increased risk of earthquakes (and New Hampshire is an active sesismc zone) and accidental leakage of methane and uncaptured natural gas. There is extensive fracking going on not far from here in Upstate New York, mostly related to the Marcellus Shale formation. More recently, the oil and gas industry has taken an interest in the Utica Shale formation, which extends far into Canada's Saint Lawrence River valley. That valley is just a few miles north of our state. Quebec's provincial government has (at least temporarily) banned fracking, since they are not yet convinced that it would be safe to engage in this dangerous practice. Aside from the symbolic importance of protesting a dangerous and misguided practice which has done massive damage to our neighbors, there are some practical considerations for banning this misguided and dangerous practice. Admittedly, there are no known oil- or gas-bearing shale deposits in New Hampshire: we are the Granite State and not the Shale State. However, this bill doesn't just ban fracking in shale, it also bans fracking in granite or any other rock. We do have some significant graphite deposits here in the Granite State, and graphite is pure carbon— so the areas where graphite mines once existed might be especially tempting targets for wannabe "wildcatters" looking for fossil fuels. There is no guarantee that no fuel-bearing shale will never be found in our state. Extensive gas/"tight oil" shale deposits have been be found on the west edge of the Appalachian Mountains: our White Mountains are part of that chain of mountains. The Utica Shale deposits just north of our border were only recently discovered, in the mid-2000's. The fossil fuels in those deposits are 450 million years old. The buried carbon in the Utica Shale is so old, it is older than the dinosaurs. It is even older than the first fish who crawled out of the sea onto dry land. Old carbon is no better or worse than new carbon, but the rise of fracking is a sign that that the era of fossil fuels is near its end. Fracking is not the solution to our energy needs: we need to make more use of the carbon which is already above ground, and we need to use more alternate energy sources. |
See Also:
|
|
