Words can’t hide an impending mess – don’t believe the spin from the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) and the media coverage of the DRBC’s December 7, 2022 regulatory changes.

Yes, the media had to get coverage of the DRBC decision out quickly and it looks like they mostly depended on Executive Director Steve Tambini’s statements at the meeting and press release. Mr. Tambini, a former executive in the ‘water-for-profit’ industry, stretched things:

• The Feds abstained, so Director Tambini’s inclusion of them in his spin is wrong.
• “But the new rules do not apply to the storage and transportation of the water because those activities are regulated by state and federal agencies, and because the Commission’s ban on fracking itself means those risks are low,” the Commission said in a statement. (see footnote below)

In fact, DRBC has authority to control all aspects of these imports, but is choosing not to do so. It makes me wonder who is profiting by this? Why are they not fulfilling their mandate to protect the resources of the Basin, which includes the water?

PLEASE see my comments on the loopholes in the new rules. The public has a right to know the truth. If the conversation is deepened past the spin it will hopefully help avoid more harm. The DRBC’s December 7 action was NOT a ban (though it is being spun as one)!

For example:

• An AP article says: “[DRBC] moved Wednesday to ban gas drillers from dumping fracking wastewater in the Delaware River watershed and to make it difficult for them to take fresh water out.”
• And, a StateImpact article was entitled “Fracking wastewater is banned from watershed by Delaware River Basin Commission”. The title, though correct in reference to the spin put out by Mr. Tambini, just repeats the spin, without delving into the real world impacts of the new rules.

NO, it is absolutely not a ban. It is actually an invitation to import “conventional” waste. Who is going to decide if waste is from a conventional well? In PA, where fracking regulations are weak and enforcement is lax, conventional or unconventional is related to the target layers drilled, not the pressure or volume of water used, or if horizontal drilling is used. In addition, according to the U.S. Federal Energy Information Agency, over 90% of ALL new wells, including “conventional”, are fracked. Therefore, under the new regulations, frack waste can be imported if it is declared to be conventional and “conventional” waste, which is allowed to be imported, can contain the same toxins as frack waste.

This is deceptive: Agency officials minimized the threat, saying that they do not view the basin as attractive for fracking wastewater storage and that no energy company has applied to do so. The agency said it anticipates that “only low volumes” of fracking wastewater will be transported, stored or treated in the Basin.

Import of the waste, even in low volumes, can result in serious negative environmental and human health  impacts. How do they know it will be “only low volumes”? We know the industry is eager to find more places to dump its enormous volumes of toxic and radioactive waste. Low doses of many of the chemicals in the waste act as hormones, as endocrine disruptors, and can cause serious diseases in humans and in many other living things.

Director Tambini said, “While the commission has broad authority over the basin’s water resources, that authority is not unbounded.” In actual fact the DRBC has the authority to regulate wastewater, and even has rules about it in the ‘new’ regulations – see footnote^[1]

I was one of the speakers at the December 7 meeting who was horrified and spoke out about what the DRBC has done. We will fight this and continue to work to protect the Delaware River basin, our home.

^[1]Regarding the new regulations:

Rule 440.2 defines the discharge in question as “Discharge of wastewater from HVHF and HVHF-related activities.” However if a load of waste is labeled ‘conventional’, it can be imported into the Delaware River Basin, but is not required to be tracked because of exemptions, including from RCRA which would require manifesting and tracking.