Army Corps Against Fracking?

Who said the following about fracking and drilling the watershed of another river that serves as a primary drinking water supply?

• “Safe water supply is essential to life . . .”
• “Our needs for a safe, reliable water supply involve both issues of water quantity and quality.’
• “Long-standing interstate agreements for the . . . Watershed, to which we have been a signatory, have addressed water quantity and quality protection as essential to properly managing this key natural resource.”  “[A]ny action that could vitiate the effects of these agreements would be unwelcome.”
• “[S]trongly supports the selection of an Alternative that prohibits the use of horizontal fracturing (hydrofracking) for natural gas development . . .”
• “[E]nough study on the technique has been done and information has been published to give us great cause for concern about the potential for degradation of the quality of our raw water supply as well as impact to the quantity of the supply.”

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers!

 

Neversink River, just below NYC drinking water reservoir

The Washington Aqueduct, a division of the Army Corps’ Baltimore District, made these statements on October 17, 2011 when responding to a request for comments on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the George Washington National Forest.  The Washington Aqueduct is a federally owned public water supply providing drinking water for approximately one million people living in and around the District of Columbia.  The drinking water supply for the Aqueduct, and therefore Washington, D.C., begins in the George Washington National Forest.

The Army Corps made these comments to inform the decision about whether or not to open the George Washington National Forest up to drilling and fracking.

Why is the Army Corps so committed to protecting Washington, D.C.’s drinking water supply yet it sits on the fence when it comes to our Delaware River? The Army Corps has gone so far as to suggest that economic claims for drilling in our watershed could be more important than protecting the water 17 million people drink.

What do I think is the difference?

1.  The Washington Aqueduct is the President’s water.

2.  Damage to the Washington Aqueduct water supply will be blamed directly upon the Army Corps.

The Army Corps clearly knows drilling and fracking aren’t safe for communities and water — let them act like an army and stand in defense of all of the waters we as a nation drink, rather than let the water be poisoned by an invading industry that is happy to sacrifice U.S. citizens, residents and visitors just to make another dime.

Here is the key text drawn from the letter for those who would like to see more:

“Promoting and engaging in watershed protection efforts is as important to Washington Aqueduct as is selecting the best treatment technologies.  Our needs for a safe, reliable water supply involve both issues of water quantity and quality.  Long-standing interstate agreements for the Potomac River Watershed, to which we have been a signatory, have addressed water quantity and quality protection as essential to properly managing this key natural resource.  As a result, any action that could vitiate the effects of these agreements would be unwelcome.  Safe water supply is essential to life; the needs of the water treatment and supply utilities that rely on the Potomac River for source water must be given primary consideration.”

“Washington Aqueduct strongly supports the selection of an Alternative that prohibits the use of horizontal fracturing (hydrofracking) for natural gas development within the Forest.  Although studies on the technique are still needed in order to fully understand the potential impacts on drinking water, enough study on the technique has been done and information has been published to give us great cause for concern about the potential for degradation of the quality of our raw water supply as well as impact to the quantity of the supply.”