Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

Potential Hydraulic Fracturing Moratorium

in Canandaigua, New York
November 2013
Authors: Dillon Rodriguez, Meghan Wolf, Rachel Hampton

______________________________________________________________
Introduction
The Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Office was approached by the town council of Canandaigua,
New York to provide a recommendation on whether to adopt a moratorium on hydraulic
fracturing, commonly known as fracking, that would prohibit natural gas exploration and
extraction within town limits. Canandaigua is a town in upstate New York located in the Finger
Lakes region. This small town is located adjacent to Canandaigua Lake in Ontario County. Its
location within the Marcellus Shale allows the opportunity for fracking and natural gas
exploration within its borders. This report responds to the town council of Canandaiguas request
by addressing the complexity of the issue at hand through the consideration of economic,
environmental and public safety concerns related to the issue and its stakeholders. At the end of
this report, the P&Z office ultimately submits a recommendation consistent with what we deem
is the most viable option.
As the Planning and Zoning Office of Canandaigua, our job is to regulate land development
through the City Subdivision Regulations, and through site plan reviews [and] administers the
Citys Historic Zoning Ordinance, and processes requests for Special Use Permits.1 In this
sense, we can recommend the best options for land development and natural resource use in
Canandaigua. Because natural gas exploration and extraction is heavily tied to the land it is
located on, the Planning and Zoning Office is the best fit government office to provide this
recommendation.

______________________________________________________________
Natural Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing in Canandaigua: Issue Overview
This section seeks to provide background on hydraulic fracturing, the role it has played in New
York and Canandaigua, and a glimpse at the stakeholders involved in this issue.
Fracking is a highly contentious issue, not only in New York, but in the entire United States, as
natural gas production has increased in recent years.2 In order to extract underground resources,
like natural gas and oil, the process of hydraulic fracturing breaks, or fractures, the shale buried
1 "Planning & Zoning." Canandaigua, New York . The City of Canandaigua, n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.canandaiguanewyork.gov/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC>.
2 "U.S. Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet)." U.S. Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million
Cubic Feet). U.S. Energy Information Administration, n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2a.htm>.

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

beneath the ground to release these valuable resources. It does this by blasting a combination of
water and chemicals into the ground. These fluids that are pumped down to break the shale are
referred to as flowback when they are recovered. These chemical liquids can then either be
discharged into surface water or injected underground, where they can enter the water system.3
The process of fracturing the shale rock and the chemical composition of the liquid used to
fracture the shale are two controversial parts of fracking that lead to environmental concerns.
This process of fracking and the concerns it poses will be further considered in the section titled
Current Technology and Data.
The state of New York as a whole, not just Canandaigua, has played an interesting role in the
issue of fracking. Governor Cuomo has not been clear on where the state stands on this issue,
even though a moratorium has been in place, the future is uncertain. The Governor wants more
scientific analysis on the potential health side effects before he permits fracking in upstate New
York. Whatever decision the state makes would apply directly to Canandaigua, therefore
potentially influencing our towns ability to make a decision. This issue will be further explored
in the section titled The Ethics of Fracking.
An August 2013 Washington Times article states that Chesapeake Energy, one of the largest
players in natural gas, may abandon their previous claims in drilling the Marcellus Shale,
including Canandaigua.4 This is happening because of uncertainty over whether or not the state
will ever allow drilling. This article defines Chesapeake Energys interest in fracking in
Canandaigua, making them a stakeholder in this issue. Knowing that, we need to consider who
all the different stakeholders in this issue are. In order to decide whether or not a moratorium
should be put into effect in Canandaigua, a discussion of potential policies and their
consequences is necessary, especially in evaluating their effect on different stakeholders. These
stakeholders will be further explored in later sections of this paper.

______________________________________________________________
Whats at Stake?: Participants in the Issue
Opinions surrounding fracking have really divided into two camps: those that support it for
economic reasons and those who oppose it for environmental and health reasons. Of course, the
issue is more complicated than that, and we will explore the positions of all stakeholders
involved in the Ethics section of this report, but to give an idea of how this issue is framed, let us
explore the general arguments of supporters and the opposition.
People who support fracking argue that:
3 "Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information." United States EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web.
03 Nov. 2013. <http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydrowhat.cfm>.
4 Wolfgang, Ben. "As N.Y. Fracking Ban Drags On, Leading Energy Company Backs out." The Washingtion Times.
The Washington Times, 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2013. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/7/nyfracking-ban-drags-leading-energy-company-backs/>.

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

1) Fracking allows access to natural gas reserves that we could otherwise not utilize;
2) Fracking provides a natural gas source within our own country, thus leading to energy
independence;
3) Fracking creates jobs and can help boost Americas economy;
4) Natural gas obtained through fracking is cleaner than fossil fuels, such as coal.
In contrast, people who opposed fracking typically point to the negative effects of fracking, such
as:
1) Unregulated chemicals are used in the process without being fully recovered, creating
concern for potential groundwater pollution;5
2) Wastewater (flowback) releases chemicals during the treatment process which can
create traveling ozone plumes;
3) Although natural gas is cleaner than other fossil fuels, it still releases carbon dioxide;
4) While fracking and natural gas have become popular, funding for other alternative
energy sources has been drastically cut.6
While these comments on fracking provide some insight into how stakeholders understand the
issue of fracking in general, it is still important to understand the unique viewpoints of various
stakeholders involved in this controversy. In regards to this issue of pursuing a moratorium on
fracking in Canandaigua, interested stakeholders would include the citizens of Canandaigua, the
citizens of neighboring communities, neighboring towns, the government of the State of New
York, anti-fracking groups, such as New Yorkers Against Fracking, environmental groups, such
as the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Association, hydraulic fracturing companies, such as the
Chesapeake Energy Corporation, and other Canandaigua businesses. A more complete review of
these stakeholders can be found in the section titled The Ethics of Fracking.

______________________________________________________________
Current Technology & Data
When it comes to the hydraulic fracturing process, the first step is to clear the site where the well
is going to be drilled. A hole is then drilled 7000-8000 feet straight down into the ground before
it changes direction and is drilled an additional 3000 feet horizontally in multiple directions. This
allows for a greater amount of exploration in multiple directions. A natural gas shale is like a
layer in the earth: it lies horizontally, parallel to the ground. In order to tap into the natural gas,
one must frack a larger area, so drilling vertically does not make much sense.7 Drilling mud,
5 Hoffman, Joe. "Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana."
On the Cutting Edge - Professional Development for Geoscience Faculty, 2012. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.
<http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html>.

6 http://www.photoforward.org/uploads/1/0/5/3/10531249/_gasland_study_guide_print.pdf
7 King, Hobart. "Directional and Horizontal Drilling in Oil and Gas Wells." Horizontal Drilling & Directional
Drilling: Natural Gas Wells. Geoscience News and Information, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
<http://geology.com/articles/horizontal-drilling/>.

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

composed of lubricants and drilling agents, is added to the well to ease the drilling process.
Following that, two to seven million gallons of a 98% water, 2% chemical solution called frack
fluid is pumped into the well at extremely high pressures causing small fissures in the shale.
This process releases the trapped natural gas in the shale so it can rise up the well. The material
that is pulled from the now drilled well is called drill cuttings. This wet, rocky material,
depending on what kind of drilling mud was used, can be toxic and is stored on-site in
containers. The hole is lined with a cement casing to protect from seepage into the ground. About
a third of the frack fluid flows back up to the surface in the form known as flowback, which
comprises a majority of the generated waste. It takes approximately four months from the
planning stage to the waste disposal stage to complete. After fracking, the production phase takes
place, where natural gas can rise and be collected.8
The chemicals used in fracking play a big role in its potential for negative impacts. There have
been at least 70 confirmed chemicals in frack fluid, with hypothesized figures reaching up to 596
different chemicals.9 The reason for this ambiguous number of chemicals and their names is
because hydraulic fracturing companies are exempt from many environmental laws, including
the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and more.10 Residents who
live near a fracking well often complain of a bad odor and poor tasting drinking water, and in
some cases have filed formal complaints and lawsuits against fracking companies. In 2004, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did a study to evaluate the effects of fracking on
underground sources of drinking water (USDW). They concluded that there was little to no risk
of fracturing fluid contaminating [USDW] during hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane
production wells.11 Even so, further studies on the effects of fracking fluid can be performed, as
the state of New York is currently in the process of doing so.
In fact, in New York, the Department of Environmental Protection ended drilling propositions in
the NYC Watershed. This watershed provides all of the drinking water to the city, but through
study, they have found risks from drilling that could affect their drinking water source. They
found that this was unacceptable and clearly unsafe when so many people rely on the resource.
This 2009 finding poses questions about the effects of drilling on other watersheds, especially in
New York, and the negative effects that could have too. It is important that Canandaigua also
considers these potential risks and considers addressing them before they exist.
8 Eckel, Sarah. "Protecting New Yorks Air, Land, Water and People Whats the Hydro-Fracking Rush?" The
Citizen's Campaign (2010): 1-20. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.citizenscampaign.org/PDFs/cce_hvhf_wp_final.pdf>.
9 What Chemicals Are Used. What Chemicals Are Used. FracFocus, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
<http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used>.
10 "Fracking Federal Law: Loopholes and Exemptions." Environmental Defense Center, 2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.edcnet.org/learn/current_cases/fracking/federal_law_loopholes.html>.
11 "Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information." United States EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.
Web. 03 Nov. 2013. <http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydrowhat.cfm>.

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

Another potential risk of the fracking process has to do with the natural gas wells. Up until
recently, there has been no solid evidence that links natural gas wells with any type of
contamination of the air or water. In 2011, the EPA did a full investigation of the city of
Pavillion, Wyoming to see if dangerous chemicals were a result of natural gas exploration
through fracking. They were successful in finding many dangerous compounds, including
Benzene: a known carcinogen in the water. Their tests discovered that the compounds found had
never naturally occurred in this area, meaning that they could be directly linked to fracking.12
Although these tests are significant, they do not necessarily apply to Canandaigua in the same
way because Wyoming and New York sit on different natural gas shales.
Schlumberger, and other large natural gas companies, have come out with studies detailing how
well failure can lead to natural gas or frack fluid making its way into the groundwater or up to
the surface. When a well is drilled, a one inch annulus of concrete lines the tube which the gas
travels up. This is supposed to prevent the gas from leaking out of the well. If the well fails,
unexpected migration of gas can occur, which leads to sustained casing pressure (SCP),
characterized by the annular pressure rising at the surface, then decreasing to zero, followed by
pressure rebuilding again. Causes of SCP can be linked to multiple factors, including tubing and
casing leaks, or damage to the cement after installation. The presence of SCP is related to well
age. When a well has aged to 15 years, the probability of SCP occurring is 50%, although any
well of any age can fail at any time. Upon installation, 5% of all natural gas wells will fail, and
over time, the proportion of all existing wells that fail increases. Because the wells are buried so
deep into the ground, targeting and repairing a compromised well is extremely difficult.13
Other potential impacts of fracking have to do with the natural gas resource itself. The Marcellus
Shale, on which Ontario County and Canandaigua are located, contains Radium-226 and Radon,
which are both naturally occurring attributes of the shale and harmful to human health. The
radioactivity of these elements is called a NORM, or a Normally Occurring Radioactive
Material. NORMs usually pose little to no threat to human health because they are locked away
underground. However, evidence has shown that migration can occur through sustained casing
pressure, letting these radioactive materials out into the environment. The flowback fluid, which
is stored in open containers and transported on open bed trucks, poses an environmental threat.
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) conducted a study in counties that lie
above the Marcellus Shale, including Steuben, Schuyler and Chenango counties, to observe the
Radium-226 levels in the production brine at 13 fracking sites. These counties are located just to
the south of Ontario County. The results of the study showed that over 80% of the DECs test
exceeded the EPAs safe level of Radium-226 in drinking water of 5 picocuries/Liter (pCi/L) on
orders of thousands. The health risks associated with long term exposure to radium include, but
12 Peralta, Eyder. "EPA Report Links Fracking To Water Pollution." NPR. NPR, 08 Dec. 2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/12/08/143381365/epa-report-links-fracking-to-water-pollution>.
13 Anderson, Mark A. "From Mud to Cement: Building Gas Wells." Oilfield Review 15.3 (2003): 62-76. Web. 9
Sept. 2013. <http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors03/aut03/p62_76.ashx>.

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

are not limited to, increased risk of development lymphoma, bone cancer, diseases that affect
blood production like anemia and leukemia, cancer of any and all organ tissues. The greatest risk
from Radium is actually the radioactive decay to radon. The EPA clearly states that There is no
safe level of radon-- any exposure poses some risk of cancer. Besides smoking, exposure to
radon is the ultimate risk factor for contracting lung cancer.14
In short, the fracking process poses several concerns due to the uncertainty of its impacts. In
addition to these concerns, Canandaigua is not the most viable candidate for natural gas
exploration. The town is located on the Northern side of the Marcellus Shale, and the area is
surrounded by lakes; this land is not exactly ripe for drilling.15 More fracking efforts are focused
in Pennsylvania, where larger companies such as Shell are doing exploration work.16 While
pollution and health impacts are a potential risk of fracking, the Planning and Zoning Office
cannot fully weigh the direct impact of these risks. Still, this information is presented to educate
the town council on these risks that should be further reviewed while considering natural gas
exploration and extraction in Canandaigua.

______________________________________________________________
The Ethics of Fracking

When evaluating hydraulic fracturing, it is important that the Canandaigua town council takes
into account how different stakeholders understand and address the issue. Therefore, the P&Z
office has laid out the positions of the following stakeholders in this section:
The citizens of Canandaigua,
The citizens of neighboring towns
The effect of neighboring towns
The state of New York
Anti-fracking groups
Environmental groups
Hydraulic fracturing companies
Other Canandaigua businesses, especially the tourism industry
As landowners and residents of Canandaigua, citizens are most vulnerable to the potentially
negative impacts of fracking, most specifically the impacts of water pollution caused by the
chemicals used in fracking. Because they are so vulnerable, citizens are active in expressing their
opinion on fracking and most oppose it. In fact, the city of Canandaigua has previously instituted
a moratorium on fracking in order to ensure the protection of water sources and citizens.17 Due to
their unique influence as residents, Canandaigua citizens will be most interested in their own
14 "Radon: Basic Information." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.epa.gov/radon/aboutus.html>.
15 New York State. "NYSERDA Reports." NYSERDA Reports. Department of Energy and Conservation, n.d. Web.
15 Nov. 2013.<http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/37805.html>
16 Shell Corporation. "Appalachia." Appalachia. Shell, 29 July 2010. Web. 15 Nov.
2013.<http://www.shell.us/aboutshell/projects-locations/appalachia.html>

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

well-being, especially for health reasons. Because of this, they will take a weak anthropocentric
stance to the issue, meaning they recognize their human well-being is dependent on a healthy
environment. The citizens of Canandaigua will want to ensure that the allowance of fracking
does not negatively affect either them or their environment.
Still, some citizens may not be oppose fracking. These citizens may recognize the economic
opportunity fracking provides by creating jobs, producing natural gas, and promoting economic
independence. The Center For Local, State, and Urban Policys analysis on the public opinion of
fracking and natural gas, conducted with citizens of Pennsylvania and Michigan, provides some
interesting insight on this matter. One of the key findings of the study was that, While fairly
divided on this matter, more Pennsylvanians believe that natural gas drilling has thus far
provided more benefits than problems for Pennsylvania. A larger number anticipate greater future
benefits than problems for the state.18 Thus, if this survey can be applied across states, it may be
a possibility that citizens of Canandaigua recognize the benefit of allowing fracking. Still, a
recent survey in New York found that 45 percent of New Yorkers, do not support high volume
fracking, and 18 percent have no opinion. This figure shows that most New Yorkers oppose
fracking.19 But we cannot comment on the applicability to specifically Canandaigua citizens.
Furthermore, landowners and citizens in the Marcellus Shale area have the potential for high
earnings if they sell the fracking rights to their land. Chesapeake Energy has had leases with
landowners in the Marcellus Shale and because of New Yorks moratorium, those leases are
about to expire, without ever having benefitted either party. An organization has been formed
across the state consisting of pro-drilling landowners who wish to see high earnings from selling
their land to Chesapeake or similar companies. This group is called the Joint Landowners
Coalition of New York, whose website states their mission as to foster, promote, advance and
protect the common interest of the people as it pertains to natural gas development through
education and best environmental practices. In this sense, these landowners and citizens value
economic gains most. These multiple viewpoints highlight the diversity in reactions among
citizens.20
The citizens of neighboring communities have a similar position to that of the citizens of
Canandaigua. That is, they value their well being and will most likely take a weak
anthropocentric approach in regards to the issue of fracking. Citizens in neighboring towns are
just as much vulnerable to the negative impacts of fracking as citizens in the town of
17 Ordinance #2012-006, The City Council of the City of Canandaigua (2012). Web. 28 Oct.
2013.<http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Frack_Actions_CanandaiguaNY.pdf>.
18 Rabe, Barry G. and Borick, Christopher P., Fracking for Natural Gas: Public Opinion on State Policy Options
(November 1, 2011). Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), 'Survey Report: Fracking', Nov. 2011.
Web. 28 Oct. 2013 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2313288>.
19 Campbell, Jon. "Poll: Fracking Opposition at an All-time High in NY." Press & Sun-Bulletin. Pressconnects, 30
Sept. 2013. Web. 03 Nov. 2013. <http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20130930/NEWS10/309300032/>.
20 Joint Landowners Coalition of New York, Inc. N.p., 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2013. <http://www.jlcny.org/site/>

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

Canandaigua because they may share the same water source. Despite the negative impacts, these
citizens do not have the added benefit of jobs and economic prosperity brought about because of
fracking. Although they ultimately have no say in the matter, we at the P&Z office felt that it was
relevant to mention the citizens of neighboring communities just so the town council understands
that their decision has far reaching consequences if they should step in and oppose actions that
affect them.
In the same vein, we at the P&Z office also considered the neighboring towns in general. We feel
that these towns, while considering the same issue as Canandaigua, present a threat to the safety
of Canandaiguas citizens should they choose to pursue fracking. Their decision to pursue
fracking would come at no economic benefit to Canandaigua, but would still impact the
environment of Canandaigua and institute health costs on our citizens. Furthermore, those
neighboring towns would be accessing and using up the Marcellus Shale resource that
Canandaigua, as a part of Ontario county, also has a chance to access.21 Because neighboring
towns will be considering the same issues and similar stakeholders as Canandaigua, we cannot
say that they will embody any one ethic. Still our neighboring towns decisions are important to
consider when making a decision for Canandaigua because if these towns should, for example,
decide to move forward with fracking, Canandaigua may feel the impacts of that decision if its
water is polluted in the process. Interestingly though, fracking has already been banned in more
than 50 New York towns and dozens more are considering bans.22
The state of New York was also included as a stakeholder because they may have a final say in
this matter. While the state currently has a moratorium on fracking, they have not indicated
whether or not they will permanently ban fracking. The option of allowing fracking is also still
on the table, but no final decision has been made yet.23 Again, similar to the view of the
neighboring towns, the government of New York is also balancing the viewpoints of all
stakeholders involved and thus does not embody one particular ethic.
New Yorks final decision on this matter will have interesting implications for Canandaigua.
Should, for example, New York decide to ban fracking, we might see two possibilities.
Canandaigua may either no longer have a say in this matter if New York decides to have the final
decision and not allow local communities to make their own decision. New York may, however,
allow local communities to opt in or out of this ban, and may also allow them to create their own
regulations. If on the other hand, New York decides to officially allow fracking, there are also a
21 "Large Map of Marcellus Shale Formation." NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation. N.p., 2009. Web. 03
Nov. 2013. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/46381.html>.
22 Dolmetsch, Chris. "Top N.Y. Court to Decide Whether Towns Can Ban Fracking."Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg,
29 Aug. 2013. Web. 03 Nov. 2013. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/new-york-s-highest-court-tohear-appeals-in-fracking-case.html>.
23 Wolfgang, Ben. "As N.Y. Fracking Ban Drags On, Leading Energy Company Backs out." The Washingtion
Times. The Washington Times, 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/7/ny-fracking-ban-drags-leading-energy-company-backs/>.

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

number of implications for Canandaigua. For example, the state may decide to allow fracking,
but will give the local governments authority to decide what happens under their jurisdiction. In
this scenario, Canandaigua could still institute its own moratorium. In another scenario, the state
of New York could instead decide they want to encourage fracking, and will not only allow it in
New York, but will also prevent local governments from preventing fracking. In this sense, they
may decide to preempt, or override, local powers.24 If this happens, Canandaigua would fall
exclusively under state jurisdiction in matters related to fracking. Due to this unique relationship
between the state and local governments, Canandaiguas fate may still rest in New Yorks hands.
Still, Canandaigua could play a role in the state of New Yorks decision by actively choosing
how to address fracking. If Canandaigua allows fracking, that would signal to New York that
Canandaigua is supportive of fracking, but if Canandaigua actively bans or places a moratorium
on fracking, that would signal to the state of New York that Canandaigua would be in opposition
to state action in favor of fracking. In short, by taking a stance, Canandaigua would actively
show to New York which role they place as a stakeholder in New Yorks own consideration of
natural gas exploration and extraction.
Anti-fracking groups, such as New Yorkers Against Fracking, have actually been fighting to
completely ban fracking in New York. New Yorkers Against Fracking is a coalition that
encourages any businesses, political clubs, environmental organizations faith institutions, etc to
join together to support a ban on fracking. They, like citizens, have also taken the weak
anthropocentric approach that fracking poses a threat to New Yorks drinking water, and thus a
threat to the people of New York.25
Environmental groups, such as the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Association (CLWA) take an
ecocentric approach to addressing the issue of hydraulic fracking, which means they focus on the
well-being of the ecosystem. They recognize the potential negative impacts that fracking poses to
the water system quality and environment. The CLWA formally took a position on fracking in
2011 and unanimously agreed to oppose fracking in the Canandaigua Lake watershed.26
Interestingly enough, when deciding to oppose fracking the CLWA also argued from an
economic standpoint. They found that Canandaigua Lake supplies drinking water to over 60,000
residents, is a big economic driver of tourism ($177 million in 2008), is heavily used for
recreation ($10 million per year) and contributes over $1 billion in value to property values.27
Given this, they stress the economic importance of the watershed, and the fact that fracking and
24 Briggle, Adam. "Cities in New York Just Got a Big Stick in the Fracking Fight." Slate Magazine. N.p., May
2013. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/03/norse_energy_corp_v_town_of_dryden_court_upholds_new_
york_town_s_fracking.html>.
25 "Facts About Fracking." New Yorkers Against Fracking. N.p., 2012. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.
<http://nyagainstfracking.org/facts/>.
26 Board of Directors of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Association. CLWA's Position on Hydraulic Fracturing.
N.p.: Board of Directors of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Association, n.d. 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
<http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Frack_Actions_CanandaiguaLakeWatershedAssociationNY.pdf>.

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

pollution may threaten that. Furthermore, the CLWA found that there is insufficient regulation by
government, and believe that a stronger oversight plan must be developed before permitting
fracking. The P & Z office found this input compelling in that it appears the CLWA would be
more likely to accept fracking if there was a stronger government oversight plan.
Hydraulic fracturing companies, such as the Chesapeake Energy Corporation, are interested in
fracking in New York but because the policy climate is uncertain, might abandon any project
interest.28 Still, as the 11th largest producer of oil and natural gas, Chesapeake Energy
Corporation seeks to put economic gains over environmental concerns and seeks to continually
discover and develop unconventional natural gas in various areas, including the Marcellus
Shale.29 This favoring of production economic advances over environmental concerns means that
fracking companies have a strong anthropocentric ethic.
Also important to consider are other businesses in Canandaigua. Many businesses perceive
fracking as detrimental to their well-being and in fact, there is an initiative called Businesses
Against Fracking New York that seeks to provide a voice for business that support a ban on
fracking in New York.30 These businesses are concerned that fracking would harm the
development of New Yorks major business sectors such as tourism, recreation, agriculture,
restaurants, and real estate. In this sense, these businesses are interested in maintaining and
protecting their own economic health against the interests of fracking companies. They state
specifically Business owners are speaking out against fracking because they believe any modest
benefits do not outweigh associated... costs to our local and state economy, to public health, to
lost opportunity, to quality of life, and to industries that provide hundreds of thousands of jobs to
New Yorkers which will now be threatened by contamination.31 The tourist industry is an
especially important business stakeholder in Canandaigua. As part of the Finger Lakes Region,
Canandaigua relies on tourism as one of its main economic development activities.32 The tourist
industry perceives fracking as being harmful to industry because fracking requires the loss of
open space natural areas and scenic views, something which recreational and tourism activities
27 Board of Directors of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Association. CLWA's Position on Hydraulic Fracturing.
N.p.: Board of Directors of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Association, n.d. 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
<http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Frack_Actions_CanandaiguaLakeWatershedAssociationNY.pdf>.
28 Wolfgang, Ben. "As N.Y. Fracking Ban Drags On, Leading Energy Company Backs out." The Washingtion
Times. The Washington Times, 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/7/ny-fracking-ban-drags-leading-energy-company-backs/>.
29 "Chesapeake Energy Corporation." Chesapeake Energy. N.p., 2013. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.chk.com/Pages/default.aspx>.
30 About Us. Businesses Against Fracking New York. N.p., 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
<http://businessesagainstfrackingny.com/about-us/>.
31 About Us. Businesses Against Fracking New York. N.p., 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
<http://businessesagainstfrackingny.com/about-us/>.
32Henry, Ray. "Town of Canandaigua, Town History." Town of Canandaigua, New York, USA. N.p., 2010. Web. 03
Nov. 2013. <http://www.townofcanandaigua.org/history.htm>.

10

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

depend upon.33

______________________________________________________________
Cost-Benefit Analysis
The Planning and Zoning office has evaluated the issue, the positions of the stakeholders, and
has conducted its own cost and benefit analysis. As is clear in the above sections, stakeholders,
such as the citizens of Canandaigua, environmental groups, and anti-fracking groups, oppose
fracking efforts. Their opinions hinge on the recognition that fracking is both dangerous to
humans and the environment. On the other hand, some stakeholders, such as fracking companies,
support fracking for economic reasons. In this sense, those who benefit from fracking really
serve as the only strong supporting voice for fracking. The full cost benefit analysis and
explanation can be found below:

Stakeholder

Effect on
Stakeholder

Rank

Weight of
Stakeholder

Citizens of Canandaigua

-500

Pro-fracking Landowners in
Canandaigua

+500

Citizens of Neighboring Communities

-200

Neighboring Communities

neutral

Anti-fracking Groups/Environmental
Groups

-300

Hydraulic Fracturing Companies

+300

Canandaigua Businesses/ Tourism

-400

State of New York

???

N/A

Total

N/A

N/A

-600

33 Ordinance #2012-006, The City Council of the City of Canandaigua (2012). Web. 28
Oct.2013.<http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Frack_Actions_CanandaiguaNY.pdf>.

11

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

In this cost-benefit analysis, we at the P&Z Office first listed every stakeholder mentioned in the
sections above. We then indicated whether allowing fracking would be a cost or benefit for them.
If fracking presents a potential cost to a particular stakeholder, we assessed a -. If fracking is a
potential benefit to a particular stakeholder, we assessed a +. If there was no impact we
assessed a neutral. The state of New York was given ??? because we can not determine its
stance as a stakeholder currently.
We then ranked the stakeholders based on which we felt were most important and based on our
obligations as a governing body. 5 was given to what we at the P&Z Office felt was the most
important stakeholder and 1 was given to the least. We then multiplied this ranking with the
effect on the stakeholder, and weighted everything by a factor of 100. This gave us the
information found in the weight of the stakeholder column. Finally, the total value was
determined by adding all the values together. We found a total value of -600, indicating that,
overall, fracking would be more of a cost to stakeholders in Canandaigua.

______________________________________________________________
Conclusions
This report provides an analysis of the issue of hydraulic fracturing in Canandaigua, New York
and an analysis of its potential effects. In doing this analysis, multiple stakeholders positions
were examined and taken into account. In order to take a stance on whether or not Canandaigua
should adopt a moratorium on fracking that would prohibit natural gas exploration and extraction
within town limits, it is important that the town council weigh the aforementioned costs and
benefits of fracking in Canandaigua. During this process, the positions of the stakeholders should
be especially assessed. All sides have valid arguments, yet it is our job to make a
recommendation based on what we found was most viable.
Through the process of weighing the issues and stakeholders views, the P&Z office came to the
following conclusions:
1). The risks--both to human health and the environment, of fracking in this area are too high;
2). The political climate surrounding fracking is too negative;
3). The potential harm to Canandaiguas citizens and economy could be detrimental;
4). And fracking in Canandaigua, based on the stakeholders involved, would not be feasible from
a policy perspective.
Because of this, the Planning and Zoning Office recommends that Canandaigua supports a
moratorium on hydraulic fracturing.
Should the town of Canandaigua decide to not support a moratorium, and instead pursue shale
gas exploration and extraction, the Planning and Zoning Office also has secondary
recommendations in order to make the process as safe as possible. This would include:
12

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

1). Requiring a full disclosure of the chemicals involved in the process. As part of this
requirement, companies would be required to put an inert chemical tracker in their frack fluids;
2). Requiring the wells to be built to a standard that ensures their longevity;
3). And requiring a permitting process for businesses that will ensure that they follow safe
practices and maintain the quality of the land they seek permits on.
We believe that although allowing fracking is not ideal, if it is allowed, these steps will
encourage the best practices to be enforced in Canandaigua, and potentially the entire state of
New York.

Bibliography
1.About Us. Businesses Against Fracking New York. N.p., 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
<http://businessesagainstfrackingny.com/about-us/>.
This source is the official website of the group Businesses Against Fracking. In this site,
they describe their mission and reasons for opposing fracking. They feel that fracking poses great
risks to business and local economy.
2.
Board of Directors of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Association. CLWA's Position on
Hydraulic Fracturing. N.p.: Board of Directors of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Association,
n.d. 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
<http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Frack_Actions_CanandaiguaLakeWatershedAsso
ciationNY.pdf>.
This source details the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Associations decision to pass a
resolution to opposed hydraulic fracturing in the Canandaigua Lake watershed. They site the fact
that there is insufficient safety status of the industrial process and that there is insufficient
regulation as reasons why hydraulic fracturing should not be allowed.

13

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

3.
Briggle, Adam. "Cities in New York Just Got a Big Stick in the Fracking Fight." Slate
Magazine. N.p., May 2013. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/03/norse_energy_corp_v_town_of_dryden_c
ourt_upholds_new_york_town_s_fracking.html>.
This article describes the case Norse Energy Corp v. Town of Dryden, which decided that
towns and cities can have jurisdictional power over fracking decisions. This article also discusses
the policy dynamic between the state of New York and towns.
4.
Campbell, Jon. "Poll: Fracking Opposition at an All-time High in NY." Press & SunBulletin. Pressconnects, 30 Sept. 2013. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20130930/NEWS10/309300032/>.
This article discusses public opinion of fracking in New York. A study by Siena College
found that in New York, 45 percent of New Yorkers do not support fracking, 18 percent have no
opinion and 37 percent support fracking.
5.
"Chesapeake Energy Corporation." Chesapeake Energy. N.p., 2013. Web. 03 Nov.
2013. <http://www.chk.com/Pages/default.aspx>.
This source is the official website of Chesapeake Energy Corporation, a company that
produces natural gas and oil.
6.
Dolmetsch, Chris. "Top N.Y. Court to Decide Whether Towns Can Ban
Fracking."Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 29 Aug. 2013. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/new-york-s-highest-court-to-hear-appeals-infracking-case.html>.
This article discusses that the Court of Appeals in Albany agreed to hear arguments in
lawsuits that were seeking to block drill bans in New York towns. This article also discusses the
fact that many New York towns have banned fracking.
7.
Eckel, Sarah. "Protecting New Yorks Air, Land, Water and People Whats the HydroFracking Rush?" The Citizen's Campaign (2010): 1-20. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.citizenscampaign.org/PDFs/cce_hvhf_wp_final.pdf>.
This source provides information about the hydrofracking process, the health risks, and
chemicals used in fracking in New York. It is a comprehensive review of how fracking works,
and what it affects, from planning to extraction and after.
8.
"Facts About Fracking." New Yorkers Against Fracking. N.p., 2012. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.
<http://nyagainstfracking.org/facts/>.
This source is the official website of the group New Yorkers Against Fracking. In this

14

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

site, they discuss their reasons for opposing fracking. They list dangers to drinking water supply
and the fact that there is no federal regulation of fracking as two reasons.
9.
Fox, Josh. "Gasland Study Guide." Photoforward. Tribeca Film Institute, n.d. Web.
<http://www.photoforward.org/uploads/1/0/5/3/10531249/_gasland_study_guide_print.pdf>.
This site prefaces the movie Gasland, but also gives background information on the
practice of fracking. Included in this information is a pros and cons list that gave good
background information for addressing different stakeholders interests. This list was useful in
thinking about who the stakeholders would be that would hold these opinions. As well as a pros
and cons list, this source provides the basic information on the practice of fracking.
10.
"Fracking Federal Law: Loopholes and Exemptions." Environmental Defense Center,
2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.edcnet.org/learn/current_cases/fracking/federal_law_loopholes.html>.
These are the laws that hydraulic fracturing is exempt from.
11.
Henry, Ray. "Town of Canandaigua, Town History." Town of Canandaigua, New York,
USA. N.p., 2010. Web. 03 Nov. 2013. <http://www.townofcanandaigua.org/history.htm>.
This source is from the town of Canandaigua and it details the town history. Most
specifically it discusses the importance of tourism to local economy.
12.
Holdich, Stephen A., et.al. "From Mud to Cement: Building Gas Wells." Oilfield Review.
3rd ed. Vol. 15. Houston: Wetmore Printing, 2003. 62-76. Web. 09 Sept. 2013.
<http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors03/aut03/p62_76.ashx>
This is Schlumbergers oilfield review. It explains how well failures occur, what the
causes are, and a detailed overview of each of the four primary causes of sustained casing
pressure.
13.
Hoffman, Joe. "Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the
Williston Basin, Montana." On the Cutting Edge - Professional Development for Geoscience
Faculty, 2012. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.
<http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html>.
This source describes the case study of Williston Basin, Montana in order to explain
hydraulic fracturing and its risks. It details risks such as contamination of groundwater, air
pollution, waste disposal and methane pollution.
14.
"Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information." United States EPA. Environmental
Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.
<http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydrowhat.cfm>.
This site gave the background information used in the opening of our paper to explain the
15

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

general practice of hydraulic fracturing. It gave a description of what is done in the process and
what studies have been conducted to evaluate its safety, citing specific EPA studies. This site
also led to multiple other sources that were useful in this paper.
15.
New York State. "NYSERDA Reports." NYSERDA Reports. Department of Energy and
Conservation, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.<http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/37805.html>
This site contains a report published by the Department of Environmental Conservation
mainly to promote environmental integrity, but in this report contains information on the quantity
of natural gas wells drilled in New York State. We used this information to conclude the potential
success of well drilling, or lack thereof, in New York
16.
Shell Corporation. "Appalachia." Appalachia. Shell, 29 July 2010. Web. 15 Nov.
2013.<http://www.shell.us/aboutshell/projects-locations/appalachia.html>
This was an article published by Shell Corporation telling their plans to move to
Pennsylvania in the pursuit of natural gas exploration.
17.
Joint Landowners Coalition of New York, Inc. N.p., 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.jlcny.org/site/>
This is the official website for one of the stakeholder groups, pro-fracking landowners. It
gives insight into this groups opinion on the issue. It provides background information on how
this group formed, why they formed, and what their goals are. It exemplifies the stakeholder
position of being a landowner who has the potential to earn a lot from fracking on their land.
18.
King, Hobart. "Directional and Horizontal Drilling in Oil and Gas Wells." Horizontal
Drilling & Directional Drilling: Natural Gas Wells. Geoscience News and Information, n.d.
Web. 30 Oct. 2013. <http://geology.com/articles/horizontal-drilling/>.
This source explains the difference between how oil and natural gas are both extracted. In
this, we learn that it is best for natural gas wells to be extracted using fracking within a
horizontal well because of the way natural gas shales are formed naturally.
19.
"Large Map of Marcellus Shale Formation." NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation.
N.p., 2009. Web. 03 Nov. 2013. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/46381.html>.
This source is a map of the Marcellus Shale Formation and its location and production in
New York in 2009.
20.
Ordinance #2012-006, The City Council of the City of Canandaigua (2012). Web.
28 Oct.
2013.<http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Frack_Actions_CanandaiguaNY.pdf
16

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

>.
This source is an ordinance passed by the city council of the city of Canandaigua in 2012
to institute a moratorium on natural gas and petroleum exploration and extraction as well as the
disposal of natural gas and petroleum production wastes within the city.
21.
Peralta, Eyder. "EPA Report Links Fracking To Water Pollution." NPR. NPR, 08 Dec.
2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2013. <http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/12/08/143381365/epareport-links-fracking-to-water-pollution>.
NPR looks at Pavillion, Wyoming and how fracking is directly correlated to the
dangerous chemicals found in their water. Contradicts the previous studies (or lack thereof) that
said there is no way to link fracking to well water contamination.
22.
"Planning & Zoning." Canandaigua, New York . The City of Canandaigua, n.d. Web. 03
Nov. 2013. <http://www.canandaiguanewyork.gov/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC>.
This site was published by the city of Canandaigua and gives an overview of their
different offices. It defines what the Planning & Zoning Office does. It was helpful in figuring
out our role as representatives of this office.
23.
Rabe, Barry G. and Borick, Christopher P., Fracking for Natural Gas: Public Opinion on
State Policy Options (November 1, 2011). Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP),
'Survey Report: Fracking', Nov. 2011. Web. 28 Oct. 2013
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2313288>.
This report by the Center for Local, State and Urban Policy provides the survey results of
questions about the views of Pennsylvania citizens on issues related to hydraulic fracturing and
the extraction of natural gas.
24.
"Radon: Basic Information." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 27 Oct.
2013. <http://www.epa.gov/radon/aboutus.html>.
In this document, the EPA outlines the health risks of radon and the level of safety human
exposure to radon.
25.
"U.S. Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet)." U.S. Natural Gas
Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet). U.S. Energy Information Administration, n.d. Web.
03 Nov. 2013. <http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2a.htm>
This source is a graph released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration that shows
the U.S. production of marketed gas since 1900. The overall trend of the graph is upward, with a
slight dip in production between the 70s and 2005. Production has been on the incline since
2005.
26.

What Chemicals Are Used. FracFocus, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.

17

Planning & Zoning Office of Canandaigua

______________________________________________________________________________

<http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used>.
This source shows what known chemicals are used in hydrofracking. Includes chemical
names and purposes.
27.
Wolfgang, Ben. "As N.Y. Fracking Ban Drags On, Leading Energy Company Backs out."
The Washingtion Times. The Washington Times, 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/7/ny-fracking-ban-drags-leading-energycompany-backs/>.
This article describes Chesapeake Energys decision to abandon its effort to retain land
leases in parts of New York that are sitting on top of natural gas reserves. This decision was
made in light that New York may not be allowing fracking. This article was useful in defining
New York's current stance on fracking, their moratorium, and the role Chesapeake Energy has
played in the Marcellus Shale.

18