Scientists Find Evidence that a Pennsylvania Town’s Water Was Contaminated by Fracking – Inside Climate News

Report on Water Contamination in New Freeport, Pennsylvania, and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

In the summer of 2022, a hydraulic fracturing incident, or “frac-out,” occurred in New Freeport, Pennsylvania, leading to significant groundwater contamination. An investigation led by Duquesne University confirmed widespread pollution in private water wells, impacting the health and viability of the community. This event and its aftermath directly challenge the achievement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). This report details the scientific findings, stakeholder responses, and the profound implications for sustainable development in the region.

Incident Analysis and Scientific Findings

A two-year study was initiated by Professor John Stolz of Duquesne University following requests from the Center for Coalfield Justice on behalf of New Freeport residents who observed abnormalities in their well water after the frac-out. The incident involved drilling fluids from a well pad owned by EQT escaping through an abandoned gas well.

• Geographic Scope: The study found evidence of oil and gas contamination over a larger geographic area than was initially reported by state authorities.
• Contamination Levels: Of 75 water samples tested, the findings were critical for assessing public health and safety.
  1. 71% of samples contained methane.
  2. Approximately 50% of households in the study were determined to have “bad water.”
  3. Two wells registered explosive levels of methane, posing a severe safety risk unknown to the homeowners.

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The contamination crisis in New Freeport serves as a case study in the failure to uphold key principles of sustainable development.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  The incident represents a direct violation of the goal to ensure access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.

  • Access to safe water was compromised for a significant portion of the community, which relies heavily on private wells. Over 25% of Pennsylvania’s population uses private wells, making groundwater protection critical.
  • At least 22 households are now dependent on temporary holding tanks (“water buffaloes”), an unsustainable and costly alternative.
  • The event, along with the drying up of some wells, undermines the sustainable management of water resources.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The physical and mental health of the community has been endangered, contrary to the objectives of SDG 3.

  • The presence of methane and other drilling-related contaminants in drinking water poses direct public health dangers.
  • The declaration of a disaster emergency by Freeport Township officials formally recognized that the frac-out has endangered the health, safety, and welfare of residents.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The crisis threatens the social and economic fabric of New Freeport, making the community less inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

  • The lack of a fundamental resource has led some residents to move away and others to attempt to sell their homes, eroding the community’s stability.
  • The long-term viability of the town is at risk without a permanent solution, highlighting the need for resilient public infrastructure like a municipal water line.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The community’s pursuit of accountability highlights challenges related to justice and institutional effectiveness.

  • Residents filed a class-action lawsuit against EQT in 2024, seeking justice and remedy for the damages incurred.
  • A significant regulatory gap exists, as the legal “zone of presumption” for contamination near a well does not apply to frac-outs, weakening institutional accountability.
  • Discrepancies between the findings of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and independent academic research point to challenges in effective governance and enforcement.

Stakeholder Responses and Institutional Actions

1. Community and Local Government: Residents have organized through legal channels, filing a class-action lawsuit. Freeport Township supervisors declared a disaster emergency and are actively seeking state and federal funding for a public water line to ensure a long-term, sustainable water source.
2. Corporate Entity (EQT): The company alleged to be the source of the frac-out has maintained that it bears no responsibility for the contamination.
3. State Regulatory Body (DEP): The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection initially confirmed the water was unsafe for consumption but did not link it to oil and gas drilling. The agency is now investigating more recent complaints regarding water contamination in the area.
4. Academic and Non-Profit Sector: Duquesne University and the Center for Coalfield Justice provided crucial, independent scientific data that validated residents’ concerns and supports their pursuit of accountability under SDG 16.

Recommendations and Forward Outlook

The situation in New Freeport underscores systemic vulnerabilities related to energy production and environmental protection. The following actions are recommended to prevent similar crises and advance the SDGs:

• Preventative Testing: Residents in areas near current or future fracking operations are strongly advised to conduct baseline water testing through accredited labs. This provides crucial data for establishing liability in the event of contamination.
• Regulatory Reform: State regulations must be updated to address the risks posed by frac-outs, particularly in regions with a high density of abandoned wells. Closing the “zone of presumption” loophole is essential for corporate accountability and aligns with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).
• Infrastructure Investment: To achieve SDG 6 and SDG 11, investment in public water infrastructure is necessary for communities whose private wells have been compromised by industrial activity.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article directly connects to SDG 3 by highlighting the health risks associated with contaminated drinking water. The text states that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) found the water “not safe for human consumption” and that the local township declared a disaster emergency because the situation “endangered or will endanger the health, safety and welfare of a substantial number of persons.” The presence of methane at “explosive levels” and other pollutants from fracking fluids poses a direct threat to the well-being of the residents.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  This is the most central SDG in the article. The entire narrative revolves around the contamination of a community’s primary water source (private wells) due to a “frac-out.” The article details how residents lost access to safe drinking water, with findings that “essentially half of the people in our study had bad water.” It describes their reliance on expensive alternatives like “water buffaloes” and bottled water, demonstrating a complete failure to ensure access to clean and safe water.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The article addresses SDG 11 by illustrating how environmental degradation threatens the viability of the New Freeport community. The lack of a basic service like clean water has led to residents moving away and others trying to sell their homes. A local official expresses fear that the town could become “non-existent,” stating, “If you don’t have water, you don’t have anything.” This highlights the link between environmental safety and the social and economic sustainability of human settlements.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  This goal is relevant through its focus on the environmental impact of corporate activities. The article discusses the alleged responsibility of the fracking company, EQT, for the “frac-out,” which represents a failure in the “environmentally sound management of chemicals.” The incident, where drilling fluids escaped their intended path, is a clear example of production practices negatively impacting the environment and human health.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article touches upon issues of justice and institutional effectiveness. Residents have filed a “class-action lawsuit against fracking company EQT” to seek justice and accountability. Furthermore, the article questions the effectiveness of regulatory bodies like the DEP, with one expert stating the agency had not “fully utilized the data they have.” It also points to a regulatory gap, noting there is no “zone of presumption” for frac-outs, which complicates holding companies responsible and indicates a need for stronger, more accountable institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.9

   “By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.” The contamination of well water in New Freeport with drilling fluids and methane is a direct example of water pollution from hazardous chemicals, which this target aims to reduce.

2. Target 6.1

   “By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.” The article shows a regression from this target. Residents have lost access to safe water and now face unaffordable solutions, such as a water buffalo that “costs $3,000 a month.”

3. Target 6.3

   “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution… and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials.” The “frac-out” is a direct release of hazardous materials into the environment, leading to the pollution of groundwater and a decline in water quality, which this target seeks to prevent.

4. Target 11.1

   “By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services…” The loss of clean water, a fundamental basic service, directly undermines this target and threatens the adequacy and safety of housing in the affected area.

5. Target 12.4

   “By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle…and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil…” The escape of fracking fluids into groundwater is a failure to manage industrial chemicals properly, leading to their release into the soil and water, directly contravening this target’s objective.

6. Target 16.3

   “Promote the rule of law… and ensure equal access to justice for all.” The residents’ class-action lawsuit is a clear invocation of this target, as they are using the legal system to seek remedy and hold the company accountable for the damages incurred.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Proportion of population with contaminated water

  The study by John Stolz provides a direct indicator: “Of the 75 samples tested, 71 percent contained methane,” and “Essentially half of the people in our study had bad water.” This measures the extent of the failure to provide safe water (Target 6.1).

• Number of households lacking access to safe water

  The article mentions that “at least 22 households there rely on holding tanks called water buffaloes right now because of contamination.” This number serves as a concrete indicator of the population affected (Target 6.1, 11.1).

• Number of pollution incidents

  The article states that the “DEP recorded 54 ‘communication’ incidents, as frac-outs are called, between 2016 and 2024.” This data point can be used as an indicator to track the frequency of industrial pollution events (Target 6.3, 12.4).

• Economic cost borne by affected population

  The article implies an economic indicator by stating, “A water buffalo costs $3,000 a month, an expense many residents cannot afford.” This measures the economic burden of the disaster on individuals, relating to the affordability of basic services (Target 6.1).

• Number of legal actions seeking environmental justice

  The mention of the “class-action lawsuit against fracking company EQT” serves as an indicator of communities seeking legal recourse and access to justice (Target 16.3).

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

Source: insideclimatenews.org