This important legislation would repeal an exemption in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for an oil and gas technique called hydraulic fracturing. It would also require public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids.

Signatories to letter in support of the FRAC Act include (among others): American Rivers, Center for Food Safety, Earthjustice, Environmental Working Group, Food & Water Watch, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen’s Energy Program, and the Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc.

Oil and gas production is present in over 30 states, and a consistent national standard is needed for this practice. Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of fluids into oil or gas wells at very high pressure in order to crack open the underground formation and allow oil or gas to flow out more easily. These fluids often contain toxic chemicals, some of which remain underground. The pressure places stress on the oil or gas well and can lead to unpredictable consequences.

Reports of drinking water contamination come from Colorado, Texas, Arkansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Alabama and Wyoming.

While states regulate oil and gas production, state rules vary widely and a federal floor is needed. As stated in a study by the Hastings College of the Law, “many of the state regulatory schemes date from earlier waves of resource extraction, and have not kept pace with changed technologies, nor with a deepening concern for public health and the environment.” For example, a recent report issued by the Ground Water Protection Council found that some states do not require a well’s surface casing to be set through the deepest ground water zone.

Protection of drinking water is a national concern that should not be left to a patchwork of state regulations.

In 2005, Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing from the SDWA to the benefit of Halliburton and other oil and gas companies. It is time to close the Halliburton Loophole and hold the oil and gas production industry to the same standards as any other industry.

Please support the efforts to keep our drinking water safe. For ideas on how to make a difference around the FRAC Act, visit Nuprana’s Advocacy section.

Click here to read the full letter in support of the FRAC Act.

The Obama administration may be poised to reverse another Bush administration decision on toxic chemicals.

Under President Bush in 2008, the Environment Protection Agency decided not to regulate perchlorate, a chemical used to make rocket fuel that has been found in drinking water and has been linked to thyroid hormone disruption in young children. Now, it looks like the agency is reconsidering that stance.

In California, perchlorate used in manufacturing has seeped into groundwater. High levels of the chemical in drinking water has caused alarm in Rialto and Santa Clarita. The chemical has also turned up in tainted lettuce. In the absence of federal regulations, California moved to set state standards for perchlorate in drinking water in 2006. Massachusetts was the only other state with an enforceable standard on the chemical.

That same year, the EPA drew a response from scientists at its the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, who said the agency’s recommended standard on perchlorate failed to protect infants and children.

Now, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has said the organization will take another look at the chemical and accept public comments.

“It is critically important to protect sensitive populations, particularly infants and young children, from perchlorate in drinking water,” Jackson said. “As we re- re-evaluate the science around perchlorate, we will seek public input before making a regulatory determination based on the best science.”

The chemical is used to make fireworks, flares and rocket propellant.

Learn more about perchlorate and its impact on fertility and child development.

Read original article

Source: LA Times

In 2001 and 2006, the Supreme Court issued decisions that have been interpreted to mean that the Clean Water Act — which protects America’s water bodies from unregulated industrial pollution, oil spills and destruction by filling — might not apply to many water bodies that are “isolated” from others, that are located far from “navigable” waterways or that are dry for portions of the year. The wetlands and streams affected by these decisions are vital to communities and the environment: we rely on these waterways to replenish drinking water supplies, lessen flood damage, purify water and support wildlife habitat.

Since the first Supreme Court ruling in 2001, government agencies have declared thousands of water bodies unprotected by the Clean Water Act. More lose protection all the time, and the government’s ability to enforce the law has been hamstrung by questions about which waterways remain protected and which ones do not.

The Clean Water Restoration Act would ensure that Clean Water Act protections once again apply to all water bodies that were covered by the law before the Supreme Court’s misguided rulings. By clearly outlining what water bodies the law protects, Congress can ensure that the Clean Water Act will comprehensively guard against polluted rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands. While campaigning, President Obama indicated that he would support and sign legislation fixing this problem.

What to do:
Send a message urging your senators to co-sponsor the Clean Water Restoration Act (S. 787).  Click here to take action.

Learn more at NRDC

Anne Stausboll, the recently-appointed chief executive of Calpers, on Thursday welcomed a new report that calls on companies to measure their water “footprint” in the way that some are now meauring their greenhouse gas impact, and to take steps to address and measure potential risks.

“Some companies are becoming transparent about reporting on water, but the marjority are not reporting on water risk,” she said. “We think this report is a really important step in highlighting” the issue.

The report, produced by the Pacific Institute and funded by Ceres, a group backed by investor and environmental groups, argues that many companies, from energy producers to clothing and computer brans, are failing to account for their dependence on raw materials whose costs can be affected by water shortages and political decisions.

It cites the example of Dell and Hewlett-Packard, which it says fail to acknowlege their exposure to water risk in regulatory filings, despite the heavy consumption of water in the manufacturing of semi-conductors.

In the garment industry, it argues that no companies are properly assessing the dependence of cotton production on heavy use of irrigation, and highlights the costto water suppliers posed by the recent boom in the exploitation of Canadian tar sands.

Several Wall Street research firms have also issued reports in recent months highlighting water risk, with a JP Morgan analyst saying in March last yeat that “these risks are difficult for investors to assess, due both to poor information about the underlying supply conditions and to fragmentary or inadequate reporting by individual companies.”

Read full article

Source: Financial Times

Decreasing water availability, declining water quality, and increasing water demand are creating major new challenges for businesses and investors who have historically taken clean cheap water for granted, says the report. It warns of water shortages in many areas of the world in the coming decades and urges companies and investors to examine business’s exposure to water scarcity risks to prevent them from eating into revenues and harming corporate reputations.

“This report makes clear that companies and investors can no longer take water for granted,” says Anne Stausboll, chief executive of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest U.S. public pension fund, with approximately $170 billion in assets. CalPERS is a member of Ceres. “For many years, CalPERS has advocated for corporate disclosure of environmental risks, and it’s clear that this disclosure must include water-related risks and opportunities.”

Read full article

Source: BusinessWeek

While negotiations about the stimulus bill’s details are continuing, the JMS report outlined some key water-related items to be found in different versions of the bill now under consideration by the House and Senate. Those items, and the amounts each house in Congress is proposing to spend so far, include, according to the analysts:

● EPA revolving loan funds for use by states in financing new public drinking water and wastewater projects: House is proposing $8 billion, Senate is proposing $6 billion.

● Rural water projects: House, $1.5 billion; Senate, $1.4 billion.

● US Army Corps of Engineers water resources projects: House, $4.5 billion; Senate, $4.6 billion.

● Water supply projects in western US: House, $500 million; Senate, $1.4 billion. The House bill also includes $400 million for conservation/watershed programs that are not mentioned in the Senate bill.

● Cleanup of US Department of Energy nuclear weapons production sites: House, $500 million; Senate, $6.4 billion. The House also includes $300 million for cleanup of closed military bases and $400 million for habitat restoration projects not mentioned in the Senate version.

● EPA environmental cleanup programs, including Superfund: House, $1.1 billion; Senate, $1.4 billion.

The JMS analysts so far see more water spending proposed by the House than by the Senate in the stimulus bill, but the analysts note that the bill is still subject to change and that negotiations between the two houses of Congress and among the Obama administration, Democrats and Republicans are continuing.

Meanwhile, over the weekend of January 24-25, the Obama administration released some additional detail about proposed water spending. According to the JMS report, the administration’s “21st Century Infrastructure” portion of the stimulus bill would include 1,300 new wastewater projects, 380 new drinking water projects, and 1,000 rural water and sewer systems, providing new or improved water/wastewater service for 1.5 million people.

Other infrastructure portions of the stimulus bill include new spending on clean energy technology, energy transmission, energy efficiency, computerization of health records, and the upgrading of 10,000 schools.

The JMS analysts note that lobbying and governmental groups in recent weeks have been compiling “long lists of ‘shovel-ready’ projects” that could benefit from the stimulus package. However, they also say the manner in which stimulus-bill funds will be administered for specific projects “is still somewhat murky.”

One criticism of the bill has been that allocation and spending of money for infrastructure projects like new water systems will take too long to have a beneficial effect. Administration officials have responded by saying that 75 percent of the bill’s money will be spent within 18 months of enactment, and that, in any case, the recession is expected to last long enough to require longer-term as well as nearer-term stimulus spending.

The administration and its congressional allies are pushing to have the $825 billion stimulus bill approved by both houses of Congress and ready for Obama’s signature by mid-February.

Read full article

Source:  Water Technology Online

Read full article

Source:  San Francisco Gate

For more information on water conservation, visit www.nuprana.com

Hundreds of them descended on the state Capitol to urge lawmakers to do something about the current water crisis. Waving signs in Spanish and English that said “Water Means Jobs,” “Fix the Delta,” and “Water Is Food,” most of them came from the parched San Joaquin Valley, where reduced water deliveries have forced some farmers to cut their work force and lay off employees.

The July 23 rally was organized by the California Latino Water Coalition, which supports a $9.3 billion water bond proposal that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein unveiled last month. The plan calls for new water storage, conservation, improved conveyance and other updates to the state’s water system.

Joining other legislative and community leaders on the Capitol steps, the governor told the farmworkers that their voices are being heard “loud and clear.”

“Every one of us knows how important water is to everything that we do in California,” Schwarzenegger said. “This is why it is important that we work and fight for water for our farms, for our families, for our environment, for our future, for our developments, for our businesses and the list goes on and on and on.”

California’s current water system is no longer working, he added, and the state has not been able to provide an adequate water infrastructure. Two consecutive dry years and court-ordered restrictions on water pumping in the delta have caused the state’s reservoirs to be 50 percent to 75 percent lower than they should be, he said.

“Our farmers are cutting back and letting fields sit empty because they can’t guarantee adequate water,” said Schwarzenegger. “Developments can’t move forward, prices are going up on water and we are now water rationing all over the state of California.”

Water shortages have also damaged the state’s economy. Whole communities have suffered because of lack of irrigation water for Central Valley farms. Crop losses totaled $245 million as of July 11, with Fresno County suffering the largest amount at $73.5 million and Kern County at $69.5 million, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Read full article

Source: California Farm Bureau Federation

For more information on water conservation, visit www.nuprana.com