OXFORD – A Town of Oxford Board meeting held Wednesday night found 14 out of 34 attendees addressing the board with concerns either in favor of – or in opposition to – high-volume hydraulic fracturing within the town limits.
High-volume hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the controversial practice of injecting chemically treated water, sand, and lubricants into wells drilled into the earth’s crust, lined with metal piping and concrete and extending down thousands of feet below the surface. The highly pressurized fluid creates fissures in rock formations deep underground, which are then held open with sand allowing natural gas nestled within the rock formation to be harvested. While some assert that the process can be safely performed and will yield an abundance of wealth for Chenango County, others insist fracking will prove harmful to the environment and contaminate the county’s water supply.
During last night’s meeting, eight Oxford residents voiced their opposition to the advent of fracking within the town limits, while one individual addressed what he felt were inadequacies in the town’s regulations which may govern the practice. Five others spoke in favor of fracking.
Fracking proponents addressing the board brought up a number of points. Some speakers used their time to commend the members of the board for not taking a stance on the issue of fracking prior to the state Department of Environmental Conservation’s release of the comprehensive Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, which will influence whether or not the state lifts its moratorium banning fracking. One individual mentioned the keying of a car following the March meeting, alluding to his belief that it had been done as a result of the issue of fracking’s divisive nature, before going on to assert that there is no connection between fracking and pollution. Another speaker said he had lived in a location across from where a well was drilled and claimed it was so quiet he barely even noticed. The final town resident who spoke in favor of fracking addressed a petition signed by Oxford residents in opposition of fracking, stating that many of the signatures are in fact duplicates and pointed out that – even if all the signatures were to be counted – the petition only represented one-fourth the town’s population.
Those who spoke against fracking mentioned a myriad of concerns. The first two opponents of fracking to speak requested that the board answer a number of submitted questions, as well as provide a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for details regarding the submission of the town’s 2007 zoning ordinance revision, which permits fracking, to the county 239 review. Other concerns brought up by those opposing fracking within the town limits included: the possibility of spreading fracking byproducts on roads, earthquakes believed to be caused by disposal wells, potential increases in noise due to fracking, the town’s potential inability to enforce regulations regarding fracking, the belief that should fracking occur it should not be permitted within residential areas, as well as others.
Following the public speaking portion of the meeting, the board proceeded with normal business. The town’s superintendent of highway, Tim Tefft, gave the board a number of updates. At one point, Councilmen Jerry Locke asked Tefft whether there was any possibility fracking fluids would ever be purposefully spread on town roads.
“I would never even consider it,” Tafft responded.
Councilman Locke also addressed the FOIL request for the 2007 law’s submission to the county 239 review, pointing out that, during the March meeting, he had stated it did not exist because the law had never been submitted to the county 239 review board and therefore a receipt could not be handed over.
“In regard to gas, my personal feeling is we don’t want to be involved in the permitting at all,” said Councilman Alan Davis.
“If we don’t take charge of it than who will?” asked Councilman John Hofmann. “Someone here locally or someone in Albany?”
By the conclusion the meeting, board members had decided to attend the town planning board’s meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m., April 16, with the intent of lumping together a revision to the town’s noise ordinance along with the resubmission of the 2007 zoning revision so that one public hearing will be held instead of two.