For Native People, Fighting Trump's Repeal of Fracking Regulations Is Personal

Photo: AP
Photo: AP

Navajo Nation member Mario Atencio has seen the ways oil and gas can divide people. His cousins work for the industry out in New Mexico, and his grandmother lives in the unincorporated town of Counselor, not far from Chaco Canyon in the northwest corner of the state.

Advertisement

Now, Atencio sits on the board of Diné CARE, a Navajo-led environmental organization, which is suing the Trump administration for its repeal of an Obama-era fracking rule, which would have implemented better protections for people like Atencio’s grandmother.

Advertisement

This region, as well as the state’s southwest corner, sees the highest concentration of drilling for natural gas in New Mexico. Natural gas activity happens to fall near the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation, as well as the Pueblo of Zuni, the Pueblo of Laguna, and the Mescalero Reservation. Former President Barack Obama tried to provide these groups—as well as everyone else who lives on or near public or tribal lands within the United States—with more transparency surrounding the hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) process used to extract the region’s natural gas, but now that effort is being threatened by President Donald Trump.

Under Obama, the Bureau of Land Management passed a fracking rule in 2015 requiring oil and gas companies on public and tribal lands to disclose what chemicals they were using during the drilling process. It also created safeguards against groundwater contamination, by improving well infrastructure and requiring wastewater be stored in tanks instead of pits.

The federal government never got to implement the rule, which was officially repealed by the Trump administration in December. But people aren’t letting Trump off that easily.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announcing the lawsuit January 24, 2018. Photo: AP
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announcing the lawsuit January 24, 2018. Photo: AP
Advertisement

Native groups like Diné CARE and Fort Berthold Protectors of Water and Earth Rights, as well as larger environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity, filed a joint lawsuit Wednesday against the administration for this move. So did the state of California.

Both suits are arguing pretty much the same thing: that the repeal was illegal and should be vacated.

Advertisement

“Once again, President Trump and Interior Secretary [Ryan] Zinke didn’t let the law or facts get in their way in their zeal to repeal the 2015 Fracking Rule,” said Attorney General Xavier Becerra, in a press release. “The Interior Department’s own factual record shows that the risks to our health and environment are real.”

Study after study has highlighted the risks that can accompany fracking: groundwater contamination, earthquakes, and unhealthy newborns. Now, this Obama-era rule wasn’t going to protect everyone from potential health threats, but it would have helped protect anyone who lives on or near the millions of acres of public or tribal lands. That includes 56 million acres of Native American land entrusted to the federal government.

“We’re scared that the volatile organic compounds coming from those wells are not being monitored,” said Atencio to Earther.

Advertisement

Fracking wells also give off methane. This greenhouse gas is 30 times more effective at capturing heat than carbon dioxide, making it an even deadlier climate change contributor.

Ultimately, the groups leading the lawsuits aren’t saying fracking must stop. For now, they just want more protections and transparency. Fractracker Alliance, which works with local residents to map oil and gas drilling around the country, has tried to give people that transparency in the past and has researched who bears these impacts across the country.

Advertisement

“These aren’t places that are uninhabited by any means,” said Kirk Jalbert, the manager of community-based research and engagement at Fractracker, to Earther. “In many ways, they are places that have traditionally been considered sacrifice zones for extraction—from historical oil and gas mining, uranium mining, coal mining—that are already marginalized in many ways, and the rules would have protected them from another layer of industry.”

Chaco Culture National Historic Park, where Mario Atencio’s grandmother lives nearby. Photo: John Fowler / Flickr
Chaco Culture National Historic Park, where Mario Atencio’s grandmother lives nearby. Photo: John Fowler / Flickr
Advertisement

These places can look like the communities Atencio knows, where some choose money and others choose their health. Or like the community living in the Fort Berthold Reservation, where spills related to fracking operations seemingly happen every day, as put by Nicole Donaghy, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe who works as a community organizer with the Fort Berthold Protectors of Water and Earth Rights.

“The ultimate goal is to have the [Bureau of Land Management] acknowledge what fracking’s done to these communities and the people living there,” said Donaghy to Earther. “We want them to be aware that there is harm being inflicted on people who live in these communities, and they can’t leave their ancestral lands. They should have the right to clean water, clean air, and clean land.”

Advertisement

Yessenia Funes is climate editor at Atmos Magazine. She loves Earther forever.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

dnapl
Dense non aqueous phase liquid

This is what happens when you question a regulation workaround written up by the oil patch. From Boulder Weekly published around 2012:

Fracking and academic freedom: Fired researcher paints pattern of pressure from oil and gas industry

Quoting from the link...

Thyne, who began working at Mines as a research faculty member in 1996, made some controversial remarks about fracking in 2005. He was reviewing the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2004 report on hydraulic fracturing at the request of Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project, and he says the EPA study’s conclusion was essentially that because there was no data on water impacts from fracking, there was no threat of contamination.

“Absence of proof is not proof of absence,” he says.

Just as Thyne was about to begin a research project to provide some of that data, he criticized the EPA report in interviews, and media outlets around the country printed his quotes. Thyne says the head of the Mines institute where he worked warned him to be careful, because his comments made it seem like he was representing the school. It was a sensitive political climate, Thyne says, as fracking was about to become exempted from the Clean Water Act and as the Ward Churchill witch hunt was in full swing at the University of Colorado.

So when another of Thyne’s controversial quotes about fracking appeared in the media a short time later, he says “the tenor of the conversation changed” and his boss told him he was getting “pushback” from alumni and members of the board of trustees. Then, Thyne says, a vice president told him to drop the fracking research project he was starting, or else his contract would not be renewed. So he dropped the project.

He says he learned later from a Mines secretary that it was the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA), not just trustees and alumni, who had complained to school administrators about his comments. She reportedly told Thyne that she had scheduled the meeting between the trade group and Mines officials, and that she was asked to verify that he had dropped his fracking research project before the vice president would sign Thyne’s next contract.

You know kids, if things like stuffing a fresh litter of puppies in a bag and drowning them in a pond seems cool, you too can be the pivot man for a circle of oil patch lobbyists, executives and financiers. The technical term “viscous fingering” used to explain fracture patterns will take on a whole new meaning.