We must have clean freshwater to grow our crops and food. These actions convinced the county supervisors to start crafting an interim public process for resolving land-use conflicts. The committee complained to the county supervisors of the oil industry’s encroachment on their farmland without notice and polluting their groundwater, soil and air. The oil companies’ impunity has united Kern County farmers, who have formed the Committee to Protect Farmland and Clean Water. Oil companies’ encroachment onto prime farmland has soured the mutual existence of the oil and agriculture industries. He suspects a nearby oil field as the cause, and fears oil wells on his property will only cause further contamination. His cherry orchard is dying because of high levels of toxic chloride in his groundwater. Hopkins does not own his mineral rights and claims DOGGR exempted CEQA requirements for Veneco Inc. Kern County farmer Mike Hopkins is suing the California Division of Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). Aera contaminated Starrh’s groundwater with frack wastewater, and now he is suing Aera for $2 billion in punitive damages to clean up his aquifer. The investigation will probably take years to prove, just like farmer Fred Starrh’s eight-year, $8.5 million judgment against Aera Energy. He suspects the oil field tank farm and disposal well next to his property. Keith Gardiner is a third-generation Kern County farmer whose three 50-year-old deepwater wells were contaminated with chloride. owns his mineral rights and proceeded to drill and frack a well without even notifying Lyons. For example, a municipality that depends on tourism arising from its pristine natural resources, such as trout streams and forests, should not be compelled by a state-level law to permit an activity that could put its resources and the local economy in jeopardy.Vintner Steve Lyons of Santa Barbara County was stunned when he found an oil well in his vineyard in 2011. Specifically, municipalities should be able to ban fracking when the decision is based on how it will affect the character and nature of a town. This Note concludes by establishing that, while the prevailing theories tend to support state regulation of the technical aspects of fracking, these theories in no way support state preemption of local bans based on traditional land use considerations. Using this background, this Note asks whether state statutes preempting local fracking bans make sense in the context of prevailing environmental preemption theories. This Note considers the environmental costs and economic benefits of fracking and examines the trends in legislation and litigation regarding municipal fracking bans. In response, statutes that preempt these bans, and thereby require towns to permit fracking within their borders, have emerged as a recent trend in state-level legislation. Concerned about these dangers, municipalities across the country have enacted ordinances banning fracking within their borders. While oil companies minimize or deny the environmental effects of fracking, water and air contamination, health effects, and the impending threat of climate change are all difficult concerns to ignore. But these profits do not come without a price-fossil fuel extraction also means big environmental concerns. The effects of these profits have been felt across the country-fracking is responsible for lower gas prices and drilling is taking place in regions that were previously untapped. As has been true for some time, fossil fuels mean big profits. Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” a process of removing embedded oil or natural gas from rock, has greatly increased since the early ‘90s when horizontal drilling made previously economically inaccessible fossil fuels a profitable resource.
0 kommentar(er)
