ASSIGNMENT TWO: ARTICLE SYNOPSIS
EPA on fracking: “we can only do so much”
DuBois, S. (2010, September 17). EPA on fracking: “we can only do so much”. CNN money.com. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/16/news/fracking_EPA.fortune/index.htm 1.
Due to the raised concerns with hydraulic fracturing fluid polluting the ground water the state regulation board of New York has elected to elevate the issue of concern to the EPA. With this shift of regulating authority, opponents and proponents began arguing their side. Opponents to fracking generally believe the EPA has a right to regulate the fracking fluid and that public has the right to know if the process is safe. Proponents to fracking, argue that the EPA and the Clean Water Act don’t cover fracking fluid because it enters the earth far below the water table, and thus doesn't have a chance to pollute ground water. The EPA has agreed to perform and fund a study that will focus the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water and will look into expanding their study to consider the complete fracking process.
Analysis – How ADR could be used to help resolve the issue The EPA has a structured Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) practice in place that encompassing various techniques for resolving conflict. The EPA relies primarily on mediation and facilitation. With respect to the issue summarized above the use of mediation in reaching a mutually acceptable solution is recommended. Mediation is one of the most promising ADR tools because of its promotion of innovative solutions, cooperation among the parties, and responsibility for the result by all parties. Mediators can be used by the EPA both before and after the study results have been documented, which are accepted in 2012. Public hearings are one mediation tactic that the EPA is initiating currently, prior to the study kicking off in 2011. With this issue being centered on the EPA’s regulating authority and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document