The potential costs associated with possible environmental clean-up processes, loss of land value and human and animal health concerns are proven facts. A 2010 EPA study "discovered contaminants in drinking water including: arsenic, copper, vanadium, and adamantanes adjacent to drilling operations which can cause illnesses including cancer, kidney failure, anaemia and fertility problems".
While the EPA Office of Water has jurisdiction over the waste disposal of flowback fluids from Fracking, it has limited jurisdiction over the injection of fracking fluids.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the Safe Drinking Water Act so that the "underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to Fracking operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities” are excluded from the EPA's jurisdiction. The amended law left the regulation of Fracking under the jurisdiction of the states.
Some arguments against Fracking center upon the extent to which fracking fluid used far below the earth's surface might pollute fresh water zones, contaminate surface or near-surface water supplies, impact rock shelf causing seismic events or lead to surface subsidence. These arguments are based on polution events that have been caused by failure of grouting systems, blowout valves and well casings that have spewed fracking fluids at the surface and below the surface of the ground.
There are also concerns about Fracking's impact on drinking water supplies. The procedure uses millions of gallons of fresh water per well. Some states, such as Texas, Florida, Arizona, and California are trying to compensate for drinking water shortages by recycling sewage (also called effluent, gray, and reclaimed water). This form of processing cannot, however, remove many of the toxins used in hydraulic fracturing or all pathogens present in wastewater. Its effectiveness and safety in converting wastewater into drinking water is being debated.
