Large crowd turns thumbs down on fracking rules

CULLOWHEE – Fracking would endanger the environment in Western North Carolina and proposed state rules are inadequate to prevent problems, speaker after speaker said at a public hearing here Friday.

About 600 people attended the four-hour hearing held by the state Mining and Energy Commission in Western Carolina University's Ramsey Center and hardly an encouraging word was heard for the practice or the regulations being considered.

"We do not want fracking in these mountains," said Julie Mayfield, co-director of environmental group Western North Carolina Alliance. The environmental damage that will result is "much too high a price for whatever short term gain might go to out-of-state energy companies," she said.

Speakers generally agreed with Asheville resident Jane Laphing, who said, "There is no environmentally safe way to frack."

Critics say environment fared poorly in legislature

The state General Assembly and Gov. Pat McCrory earlier this year approved legislation lifting a 2012 moratorium on what is also called hydraulic fracturing, a method of extracting natural gas from the earth by injecting water and chemicals. The first permits could be issued next year.

Areas in the state where using fracking to collect natural gas is considered most likely to be commercially viable are in the Piedmont and eastern North Carolina. The state had funded a preliminary study to determine whether fracking in a rock formation in seven of the state's westernmost counties would be feasible but an official recently said it is setting that aside for 2014-15.

Sentiment was overwhelmingly against fracking at Friday's hearing, which drew people from across WNC. The potential for water contamination was one of the most frequently mentioned concerns.

"Almost everyone in Clay County gets their water from wells so this has become a major concern," said Hayesville Mayor Harry Baughn.

"No one here wants to trades jobs for clean water," he said. "You can't buy your health."

Speakers said a proposed 650-foot setback proposed between fracking wells and homes would not be enough, that the rules do not require enough groundwater testing before and after fracking and prohibitions on disclosure of what chemicals a company uses to frack — based on mandates in state law — risk the public health. Others objected to allowing fracking beneath property even if its owners object.

Keeping the chemicals used secret amounts to "putting the confidentiality of oil and gas companies over the health of citizens," said Autumn Woodward of Asheville.

Dr. Terrence Clark said treating a patient potentially affected by exposure would be complicated by the restrictions.

Speakers cited academic studies indicating, as Cullowhee resident George Rector put it, "the closer one lives to a fracking well, the more likely it is that one will experience respiratory issues or skin problems."

Some said regulators' ability to grant exceptions to the rules should be removed.

"Don't give out any variances (to rules) at all. Set high standards and require the operators to stick to them," said Barbara Koenig of Tuckaseegee in Jackson County.

"We don't want favors given out. … We want set regulations," said Louise Heath.

Koenig said the rules would mean the Mining and Energy Commission would "rely too heavily on the fracking operators to police themselves. If your budget does not have enough resources to do frequent, thorough and unannounced inspections, then raise the rates" for fracking permits.