It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Allentown, Pennsylvania - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency abruptly changed its mind Saturday about delivering fresh water to residents of a northeastern Pennsylvania village where residential wells were found to be tainted by a natural gas drilling operation.
Only 24 hours after promising them water, EPA officials informed residents of Dimock that a tanker truck wouldn't be coming after all. The about-face left residents furious, confused and let down - and, once again, scrambling for water for bathing, washing dishes and flushing toilets.
Agency officials would not explain why they reneged on their promise, or say whether water would be delivered at some point.
"We are actively filling information gaps and determining next steps in Dimock. We have made no decision at this time to provide water," EPA spokeswoman Betsaida Alcantara said in an email to The Associated Press.
Federal regulators are considering trucking fresh water to households in a Pennsylvania town where residents say wells have been polluted by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for natural gas.
Only a month after declaring water in Dimock safe to drink, the Environmental Protection Agency is reconsidering action after residents supplied the EPA with hundreds of pages of data that link water pollution to fracking.
Two residents of Dimock, a town of some 1,400 in the northeast corner of Pennsylvania, told Reuters that the EPA said water would be delivered on Friday, but the agency indicated it was still considering the issue.
"No decision has been made by EPA to provide alternate sources of water," an EPA spokeswoman said in an email on Friday. She added that the agency was trying to understand the situation in Dimock where state regulators recently halted deliveries of fresh water.
Originally posted by MeesterB
I want to see someone step up and put their money where there mouth is like this guy
www.guardian.co.uk...
Originally posted by pasiphae
that's awful! those people need water. i wouldn't want to bathe in that and certainly not use it for cooking. i would be LIVID if i lived there!
Any thoughts?
It's not clear how many wells in the rural community of Dimock Township were affected by the drilling. The state has found that at least 18 residential water wells were polluted.
Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Sounds to me like damage control. If the EPA delivers water, they are acknowledging a significant problem with fracking, which could be used against the energy industries. I bet some big energy folks stepped in to stop the EPA. How could one claim the practice is safe, yet have water delivered by the EPA at the same time? Tis a shame if this is the case, but regardless, more attention has been drawn to the issue and more folks are questioning the potential side effects of fracking.
Originally posted by babybunnies
Don't take it out on the EPA. Take it out on the drilling companies.
Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Sounds to me like damage control. If the EPA delivers water, they are acknowledging a significant problem with fracking, which could be used against the energy industries.
If the EPA delivers water to the village, it would be the clearest sign yet regulators are concerned about the effect of drilling on drinking water there.
Originally posted by MeesterB
I want to see someone step up and put their money where there mouth is like this guy
www.guardian.co.uk...
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
I might be missing something here, but why should the EPA be responsible for bringing them water, when it was the energy industry that poisoned it in the first place? Shouldn't THEY - being they are the ones profiting from the fracking - pay for, and ship in, fresh water?
The EPA is a tax-payer funded agency, so if they have to provide the water, then it's another form of subsidy to the energy industry, which already has enough subsidies courtesy of the tax payer.