! ! There!are!some!externalities!imposed!by!shale!gas!development!that!clearly!have!impacts! beyond!state!borders,!and!there!are!areas!of!shale!gas!development!that!the!federal! government!already!regulates.!!For!example,!air!emissions,!including!methane!and!volatile! organic!compounds!most!notably,!are!not!a!local!concern.!!Rather,!because!gases!can!easily! travel!beyond!the!local!area!and!across!state!boundaries,!air!emissions!are!a!cause!for!national! concern!(and!even!international!concern,!due!to!methane’s!contribution!to!climate!change).!! The!Clean!Air!Act!gives!the!federal!government!jurisdiction!to!regulate!air!emissions,!as! described!in!Chapter!2.!!A!second!area!of!federal!involvement!in!shale!gas!development!is!in! wastewater!disposal.!!Particularly!the!two!most!common!methods!of!disposal,!via!publicly\ owned!treatment!works!(POTWs)!and!underground!injection!control!wells,!wastewater!disposal! is!regulated!under!the!Clean!Water!Act!and!the!Safe!Drinking!Water!Act.! ! Beyond!the!geographic!distribution!of!costs!and!benefits,!shale!gas!development!does!work! differently!in!different!states.!!States!have!enacted!regulations!that!reflect!these!differences!in! geology!and!environmental!conditions,!which!themselves!create!different!cost!and!benefit! structures!in!different!states.!!For!example,!the!development!process!in!any!two!shales!(for! example,!Michigan’s!Antrim!Shale!compared!to!Texas’!Barnett!Shale)!differs!significantly.338!!To! take!just!one!example,!during!the!fracturing!process,!all!shales!return!both!flowback!and! produced!water,!but!quantities!returned!differ!significantly.!!In!some!shales,!the!combined! flowback\plus\produced\water!quantity!returned!is!significantly!less!than!the!amount!of!water! inserted,!and!in!some!shales,!the!amount!returned!is!more!than!the!amount!inserted.!! Furthermore,!the!composition!of!the!water!returned!to!the!surface!in!terms!of!the!naturally\ occurring!chemicals!contained!therein!and!the!quantities!of!the!chemicals!will!differ! significantly!from!one!shale!to!another,!and!therefore,!from!one!state!to!another.339!!These! differences!create!significantly!different!operating!conditions!for!shale!gas!companies!in!terms! of!their!considerations!around!reuse!and!disposal!of!wastewaters!and!creates!significantly! different!risk!factors!for!the!states!that!regulate!operations.! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! disposal,!and!remediation!of!hazardous!substances!and!spills!of!hazardous!substances!has!been!defined! as!a!federal!responsibility,!perhaps!due!to!the!exceptional!nature!of!the!handling!and!remediation! procedures!that!are!required!for!hazardous!waste!sites,!and!the!significant!resources!that!are!required,! but!as!described!in!Chapter!2,!oil!and!natural!gas!have!largely!been!exempted!from!these!two!pieces!of! legislation,!putting!regulatory!responsibility!back!on!the!states.! 338 !Wiseman,!“State!Enforcement!of!Shale!Gas!Development!Regulations,!Including!Hydraulic! Fracturing,”!note!52.! 339 !Tom!Hayes,!“Characterization!of!Marcellus!and!Barnett!Shale!Flowback!Waters!and!Technology! Development!for!Water!Reuse.”!
Chapter!5!–!Regulatory!Federalism!
83!