What an embarrassment.

The average citizen in Maryland's First Congressional District might be excused for not knowing what hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" is all about. It is taking place mostly a couple of hundred miles away in the mountains of Pennsylvnia. Gas companies are trying like the devil to tap into the Marcellus and Utica Shale Formations, which, taken together cover portions of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland and West Virginia.

A few years back I found myself in Pinedale, Wyoming, which is nowhere near the Eastern Shore. The air was thick with the acrid smell of oil and gas development. I saw with my own two eyes how an intact sage-brush ecosystem could seemingly overnight be converted into an industrial complex. I heard from biologists how the Green River Mule Deer herd had been hammered, with losses at the time estimated at 50%. I heard how the tall oil rigs, located in a valley where the highest natural thing was a hip-high clump of sage, had created artificial perches for hawks and falcons, who were proceeding to have their way with the threatened sage grouse, namely by having them for dinner. There was nothing that the oil and gas development wasn't impacting.


(The picture above, courtesy of the Wyoming Wildlife Council, is of the Jonah oil and gas field in Western Wyoming)

On that same trip to Wyoming, a range biologist with the Bureau of Land Management explained to our group of sportsmen-conservationists that the gas didn't form a giant pool below the ground; it instead occurs in disparate pockets throughout the bedrock (in the case of Pennsylvania, the bedrock is the Marcellus Shale). Drilling into disparate pockets of gas doesn't make much sense from an efficiency standpoint, so gas companies blast massive quantities of sand, water and chemicals into the bedrock. This helps to consolidate the pockets of gas, making them much more efficient to reach.

A few short years ago, not many people in this country knew much about 'fracking." I was fortunate (or unfortunate, as the case may be) to be working on energy issues on public land for a hunting and fishing conservation organization, so I was one of the few people who had heard of this process. While Dick Cheney was living at the Naval Observatory he succeeded in exempting fracking fluid (sand, water, chemicals) from the Safe Drinking Water Act; so all those oil and gas companies were not required to disclose precisely what chemicals were included in the fracking fluid. One of the leading hydraulic fracturing companies in the world is a company you might have heard of: Halliburton. Dick Cheney was Halliburton's CEO prior to being selected, err, selecting himself, to be George Bush's Vice President.

This exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act is critically important to keep in mind, because gas wells are drilled very deep; sometimes, thousands of feet deep. The gas wells almost always intersect with groundwater aquifers, some wells intersect several aquifers before they reach their downward terminus. These aquifers are like rivers of freshwater that run underground; tens of millions of Americans get their water from wells that tap into underground aquifers. As gas wells are 'fracked,' that dubious mix of sand, water and chemicals is blasted through the groundwater flows (and everything else, besides) at an incredibly high pressure, completely changing the geologic makeup of the substrate. It is one of the more destructive processes one can imagine; but since it all happens underground, its fairly easy to ignore.

Until the Academy Award nominated film Gasland was released. Much like Super Size Me before it, Gasland was one of these documentaries that kind of caught fire and became a must-see amongst a significant portion of the general public (at least the portion that is paying any attention at all). One of the more poignant images from the movie was the footage of rural Pennsylvanians lighting their tap water on fire. Methane from the fracked gas wells all around them had leaked into their water supply. A few homes had exploded from the buildup of methane; in 2004, three people were killed in such an explosion. Fracking had essentially provided the methane with new pathways in which to travel, and it was making houses and whole communities unlivable. Gasland was an important contribution to the knowledge base, and put fracking on the radar screen of millions of people.

A few days ago, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, chaired by none other than First District Congressman Andy Harris, held a hearing on fracking. The intention of the hearing was to discredit a three year study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which showed that the drinking water of the town of Pavilion, Wyoming had been made flammable and undrinkable because of fracking. Below is a quote from the testimony of Mr. James B. Martin, Regional Administrator for the EPA:

In the summer of 2010, EPA constructed two deep monitoring wells to sample water in the aquifer at and below the depths of drinking water wells. Phases three and four of the investigation involved taking samples from these monitoring wells, as well as from selected domestic and livestock wells. The results, discussed in the draft report issued on December 8, 2011, indicate that ground water in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing as conducted in this area. Analysis of samples taken from the deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of benzene, methane, and synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids.

Josh Fox, the guy who directed Gasland had every intention of filming Mr. Martin's testimony, as well as the testimony of the other witnesses, and the statements of the Representatives who comprise the Subcommittee. However, Republican members of the Subcommittee objected to Mr. Fox's filming of the hearing, and Chairman Harris, the First District's own, had Mr. Fox arrested and removed from the premises by the US Capitol Police.

I have now watched the video of the arrest, and I have read many of the press accounts of the arrest and the circumstances surrounding the event. Members of the media are frequently allowed to video tape hearings. Indeed, the hearing in question was being filmed (and broadcast via the Internet) by the Committee itself. You can see an archived webcast of the hearing at the link below. If the filming is done quietly, and does not interrupt the flow of the hearing, it is generally allowed and no questions are asked. Chairman Harris and his Republican committee mates decided that the purpose of the hearing, to pretend that a long-term EPA study that indicated there were all kinds of problems with fracking was bunk, didn't mesh well with having a filmmaker in the room who seemed hellbent on holding Andy Harris and his ilk accountable.

http://science.house.gov/hearing/energy-and-environment-subcommittee-epa-hydraulic-fracturing-research

Andy Harris is the proud product of the Tea Party, a movement that if it is anything, is not afraid to get in the face of decision makers when it thinks something is haywire. Remember the health care town hall meetings from a few summers back? They were about one hundred times more 'disruptive' than anything Josh Fox did earlier this week. Imagine for a second if Matt Drudge wanted to film a hearing on health care chaired by a Democrat. Would Mr. Harris scream with indignation if the chair insisted on having Drudge escorted from the room in handcuffs? I hope the people of the First District are paying attention as their Congressman plays a leading role in a concerted attempt to sweep an important issue right under the rug. There are chemicals in the water, and the good doctor says drink up.

The Case Against Question 5

You may have noticed over on Facebook or in comment forums across the interwebs that a select few of the most partisan operators around are baying like cur dogs about the inequity! the unfairness! of Governor Martin O' Malley's recently released redistricting plan for Maryland's 8 Congressional districts. According to the Governor's commission on redistricting, 70% of Marylanders remain in their current district under the proposed plan, but that hasn't stopped the most rabidly partisan amongst us (and mostly Republicans at that) from screaming about the sheer partisanship reflected in the new redistricting plan.

It's been a long time since I've agreed with Republicans in Maryland about much of anything, but I agree with them about the purely partisan motivation of the redistricting plan. In an attempt to win seven of eight Congressional seats in 2012, the Democrats running the state have brought Roscoe Bartlett's Western Maryland district far down into that hotbed of liberal thinking, Montgomery County. The new 6th now includes Gaithersburg, Germantown, and portions of Rockville and its environs. The Washington suburbs are full of new immigrants of varying levels of legality, but are also chock full of well compensated and well educated DC commuters who, by and large, tend to vote for Democrats. These same voters have sent Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen to the House for the past five terms.

But truth be told, the changes in the 6th also create a much more competitive 8th district in which Van Hollen will likely have to compete against a credible challenger, and will actually have to campaign. More personally dismaying from my standpoint is that the new 1st district now extends further west than ever before, and some of the newly encompassed ground includes portions of Carroll County, northern Baltimore County, and a majority of Harford County. Carroll County citizens don't have a ton in common with Somerset County citizens, but that was not foremost on the minds of the Governor's Redistricting Task Force. They were willing to sacrifice ten years of inevitable Republican representation in the 1st for the sake of knocking off Roscoe out west.

Much as I don't support anything Andy Harris says or does, I don't necessarily want him to be summarily kicked from office because of a redistricting effort led largely by the other party. What I want are fair election districts, where a diverse array of candidates and ideas can be heard and where the election results are not preordained. This is where I differ from the GOP.

Maryland GOP leaders, which is something of an oxymoron given their permanent minority status, are calling the governor's plan unfair. Which implies that if they were in office, they would not be attempting the same type of shenanigans, which put the interests of partisan politics ahead of the interests of the people of Maryland. Of course, this is not the case. All over the country, Republican led states are doing precisely the same things, trying to finagle Congressional boundary lines for the sake of GOP advantage at the ballot box. There is no question that if the Republicans were in charge in Maryland, they would be doing exactly what they decry the Democrats for doing. No wonder 89% of Americans think that Congress is dysfunctional, we are represented by politicians who think first of personal ambition, then Party, and then the people, and always in that order.

Gerrymandering, the practice of altering Congressional district boundary lines in creative ways for partisan ends got its start by Elbridge Gerry (and as a side note, he pronoounced his last name similar to Gary not Jerry, so I am always sure to pronounce the word properly as garymandering, and not jerrymandering)who started this tradition as Governor of Massachusetts in 1812.

However, the lack of competition in our House seats is eroding the quality of our elected officials, and as such, is eroding the quality of our political debate. The vast majority of Congressional seats are now held firmly by one Party or the other, with incumbents virtually assured a safe seat as long as they care to serve. This only serves to create a House of Representatives full of the most partisan champions imaginable, whose commitment to ensuring gridlock is generally applauded at home, at the expense of progress and problem solving.

Some states have started to dabble with fair election rules, but only when the electorate clamors for genuine good government. As long as partisans rewrite the election rules every ten years, we will only ever have partisan driven redistricting. It is time to implement a truly fair system for holding elections, one where boundary lines are computer generated, with only population and regional equity as part of the determining formula. No more legislative districts that are only the width of a road in order to get to some select conservative or liberal neighborhood. The people should demand that their representation not be selected for them, if elections no longer matter, what else does?

I hope you will consider joining me in voting AGAINST Question 5 on the statewide ballot.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Guess who is the co-chair of the newly minted Chesapeake Bay Watershed Congressional Caucus? That's right! Our very own member of Congress, the honorable Andy Harris! Andy seems to think this is a great opportunity to come together with his "colleagues on both sides of the aisle on finding common-sense solutions to protect our Bay." Brings to mind a quote from George Carlin: "kinda makes you want to puke in your suit, doesn't it?"

You'll remember in my last blog that Andy voted to defund the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) during the FY2011 budget process. These were the plans that would have set real benchmarks for pollution reduction in each of the watershed states, and would have fostered meaningful cooperation between the states and the feds. It was exactly what Andy proposed on his campaign website, yet he still voted, lemming-like, with his Party. He sold out the Chesapeake Bay in the name of Republican solidarity. Rob Wittman, a Virginia Republican who, like Andy is a member of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Congressional Caucus, took a principled stand against his Party and for the Bay by voting against the funding limitation.

Not long after that vote, Andy signed a letter along with many Congressional colleagues that asked the EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers to cease and desist from issuing Clean Water Act administrative guidance, a perfectly legal and appropriate Executive action. The guidance will restore federal protection to important waters and wetlands that are crucial to water quality in places like the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes. From 1972 to 2001, these waters had been protected by the Clean Water Act; Congress knew that you can't protect iconic systems like the Bay without safeguarding the upstream wetlands and tributaries that feed them. But a series of judicial decisions, and Bush-era guidance eroded the act in the name of polluting streams and filling wetlands. The Obama Administration moved forward with guidance (released for public comment on April 27) over the objection of clean water opponents like Andy Harris.

Then, Andy again voted against the Chesapeake Bay by voting to not only allow, but to mandate, drilling for oil off the coast of Maryland and Virginia. Barely a year after Deepwater Horizon crippled the Gulf seafood and tourism industry, and cost billions to clean up (a process that will be ongoing for a decade), Andy Harris decided that the chimera of cheaper gas was more valuable than the Chesapeake Bay and Maryland's coastal bays which would be hammered by any kind of spill. The Bush administration's own Energy Information Agency stated unequivocally in 2008 that no amount of drilling that the United States could possibly engage in would ever succeed in lowering gas prices in a meaningful way. Andy Harris sold out the Bay for a talking point.

And after all this, Andy Harris has the audacity, the gall, to join the the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Congressional Caucus. I would be frustrated, if I weren't so damn angry. We should all be so angry.