EDITORIAL: Is Atlantic Coast Pipeline still a viable project?

This editorial, written by the Lynchburg News & Advance, and posted to the Free Lance-Star. discusses the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Dominion Energy.

This is an excellent piece. There is an obvious flaw in the article’s title however. The word “still” implies it was once needed. It has only been needed by Dominion Energy’s stockholders, no one else, certainly not captive ratepayers.

You should know that FERC, the Federal agency with oversight over pipeline investments grants pipeline builders a 15% rate of return on these type capital investments. FERC has only rejected one pipeline in 30+ years, and the constant court injunctions show how little oversight they actually do over such projects. They are clearly pro industry, regardless of the impact on our climate or people.

Building the pipeline would allow Dominion to increase its profit percentage by 50%. Their currently allowed profit percentage is approximately 9%. They have recently requested that their profit percentage for shareholders be increased from approximately 9% to over 10%. Plus the increased rate for capital investments.

So why wouldn’t they want to build a completely unnecessary pipeline? When was the last time you received a 15% profit on your investments?

And all that is without considering where we are today, in a climate crisis where fossil fuels are destroying our environment, and poisoning our air water, land and health. Google pipeline disasters, or fracking’s impact on health, or fracking and earthquakes. Time to wake up and smell the impending disaster.

Free Lance-Star Editorial: Preserve Ag land for agriculture

This editorial is way off base.

Why should agricultural land be off-limits for solar projects? Solar projects are more environmentally friendly than housing developments. And they are more economically beneficial as they don’t require massive outlays of tax dollars for roads, schools, etc.

Solar farms don’t use massive amounts of water and drain aquifers, as opponents claim. The Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors put language into that County’s permits to ensure that. Solar farms don’t produce greenhouse gas emissions. And they don’t reduce neighbor’s property values as some claim. Arguing that they reduce tourism is specious. When was the last time you went to a farm for a vacation?

If the land is used for commercial agriculture, it has a far more dangerous impact on the environment and the economy. Commercial agriculture typically uses genetically-modified seeds (GMOs), large quantities of pesticides, and lots of water. Most commercial farm acreage is a monoculture that kills beneficial insects. The land is continuously disturbed, causing runoff into streams and rivers carrying pesticides. And often, sludge, containing all sorts of hazardous materials, is dumped onto the land, under the guise of “free fertilizer”. Just look at the prohibitions the landowner agrees to when sludge is dumped onto their farm – no grazing, no planting, etc., for a period of time afterwards. Too bad deer and other wildlife can’t read the signs to stay off.

Solar panels should be on idustrial land as well as on homes, buildings, parking lots, etc., but Dominion Energy makes that nearly impossible.

If we don’t do something really quickly, we will lose the opportunity to do anything. Our climate crisis will make living increasingly more difficult. We need to do something now to get off fossil fuels.

Gas Pipelines in the Taylorsville Basin- What? No way! OMG!

Pipelines in the Taylorsville Basin? Wherever there are fracking wells, there are pipelines. So, if fracking is allowed in the Taylorsville Basin, there will be pipelines. Didn’t think about that? Probably also didn’t think about how the land will be acquired for the buried pipelines. Think Eminent Domain, where your land is taken regardless of whether you want it or not.

Virginia passed a constitutional amendment in 2013 that protects us, eh, so we are safe. Actually, no. The eminent domain protection is embedded in Code Section 1-219.1. Limitations on eminent domain. But, that only applies to things entirely within the Commonwealth.

Virginia won’t have any say in whether your land can be taken if the pipeline crosses state boundaries. The Federal Energy Regulatory Agency (FERC) has jurisdiction in those cases. If a company, like Dominion, wants to hook any gas from a fracking well found in Caroline County into either the proposed Atlantic Coast (ACP) and Mountain Valley (MVP) pipelines, as lateral lines, FERC can approve those lateral lines, and Virginia has no say in it. The same struggle faced in the western part of Virginia will come to the Tidewater Region.

FERC, a federal agency, has been around since the 1980’s and has rejected many pipeline applications – right? So they will act in the best interests of all – correct? Actually, no. Since 1999, FERC has rejected only 2 pipeline applications out of 400.

So what are the types of pipelines? There are transmission pipelines and distribution pipelines. Transmission pipelines, like the ACP and MVP, move gas at high pressure from a collection point (called “gate stations”) to “regulator stations”, where the gas is distributed to customers, under less pressure. During transit, compressor stations maintain pipeline pressure, with the number of stations dependent upon how far the gas has to travel.

Is natural gas always transmitted via pipelines to the end user? Yes. Only liquid natural gas (LNG) is transmitted via trucks or boats. Otherwise, trucks passing through towns would be bombs on wheels – far more dangerous, and far more costly.

Do pipelines leak? Absolutely – at every stage. There are many links to articles on this website that describe how much escapes and where. The where is easy – everywhere. At every point in the natural gas life cycle, from drilling to transmission to the ultimate end user, methane leaks into the atmosphere, from the well to gathering, transmission, and distribution pipelines, through compressor stations, into power plants. And for a final whammy, when it arrives are the customer’s site, it is burned, converted into CO2 and other noxious emissions, that contribute to global warming.

Here’s a recent story that discusses how executives from natural gas companies call their increasingly cheap and plentiful fuel the world’s best answer to climate change because it produces about half the carbon dioxide of coal when burned in a power plant and it can fuel trucks, trains and ships. However, a study published in the scientific journal Nature put methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas industry at about 13 million metric tonnes per year, 60 percent higher than the official U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimate. Carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. energy sources, meanwhile, are around 5 billion tonnes.

Any other problems? Oh yeah! Explosions occur fairly frequently. There are many linked articles on this website that discuss the number and severity of pipeline explosions. Or try Wikipedia for a List of pipeline accidents. Or try here for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Or simply google pipeline explosions. Are there injuries and  fatalities? Is the air and water polluted? Yes.

So remember: fracking = pipelines.

 

Who really benefits from fracking? You? No, not at all.

The Fossil Fuel industry, their shareholders, their lobbyists, and the state and federal legislators who pass laws that benefit that industry in exchange for campaign contributions. It is definitely not the public. And, given that Congress has seen fit to remove export restrictions for that industry, much of the gas will be exported, not used domestically. So Americans are allowing their land, air, and water to be potentially irreparably damaged, to benefit countries far away. Less and less of those countries like us now, and that number continues to increase, not diminish, as our policies and actions

Don’t be fooled by propaganda that pretends we have to frack everywhere to become energy independent, or we have to for the security and safety of our country. Reducing the world’s dependence on fossil fuels means that less and less money goes to countries who by-and-large- do not like us.

There are alternatives to fossil fuels that are viable today. Read the stories of housing communities in Florida being built to use only solar energy. Or the cities being run on of solar energy. Or the countries whose energy dependence on fossil fuels is diminishing every day, as wind turbines offshore proliferate and replace gas/coal/nuclear power sources.

Renewable energy. That energy source can be home-grown; and, all by itself, it would make the US energy independent. It would dramatically improve the planet’s outlook for the future, if we reduced the amount of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) we release into an already-overburdened ocean and atmosphere.

We are forfeiting our leadership role in the world. China is striking out forcefully and quickly in that direction, knowing that coal in the ground means future energy reserves, and far less air, water, and land pollution. Why are we turning our backs on the future? Why are we ceding the future to a country where civil liberties don’t exist?

Fracking – are we nuts?

Fracking releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when it is extracted, when it is shipped to where it will be used, and when it is burned. Global warming is real and we are running out of time to keep it under control. Virtually all climate scientists agree that climate change is upon us and is caused by man’s own actions. The only exceptions in the scientific community are the very, very few “scientists” who are paid for their thoughts by the fossil fuel industry, guided by firms who specialize in creating doubt. This industry is following the same script used by the tobacco and leaded gasoline to cloud the issue and keep the public from realizing how serious this problem is. To keep people from understanding the truth, raise doubt.

Glaciers are melting; storms are intensifying; sea Levels are rising (exacerbated in Virginia by sinking shorelines); air temperatures are steadily increasing worldwide; and water is becoming scarcer and more polluted.

So what does fracking do?

  • Pollution: Fracking is exempt from both the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, thanks to the so-called “Halliburton Loophole” so there is no accountability for poisoning the land, water, or air.
  • Water: Fracking changes millions and millions of gallons of “clean” water into unusable, highly polluted and toxic water. Clean water is mixed with “proprietary” toxic chemicals and injected through wells deep into the ground to break up the shale and release the trapped gas. The waste water from that process is no longer usable so it has to be disposed of, either by injecting it back underground or dumping it into open pits, exposed to the elements. A third solution, pump it into storage tanks and ship it to be cleaned, is considered too costly by the industry. In truth, there are virtually no waste water treatment plants that can clean the water and make it safe for release back into the environment. So what are the problems with that?
    • Aquifers: There are many examples of aquifers being polluted by fracking, but it is difficult to prove, because those water sources are rarely tested prior to fracking beginning, so there is no baseline to compare to.
    • Injection wells have been linked to increased number and severity of earthquakes.
    • The amount of clean water turned into unusable, toxic water varies at each well site, but an most use upwards of 7M gallons per well.
    • The exact make-up of the chemicals used in the process are not identified. Industry calls them “proprietary”, and so does not have to disclose them. An industry website, FracFocus, lists some of the chemicals used, but not all.
  • Air:
    • CO2 has exceeded 400 parts per million in the atmosphere so the atmosphere will heat up; the more methane and CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer it will get. This is a scientific fact, and the good thing about science is that it is true regardless of whether you believe it or not.
    • CO2 is created in the burning process, and escapes into the air during extraction and delivery.
    • Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 (more than 80 times worse), and way too much escapes during extraction, transportation, and burning. Recent studies have shown that methane leaks from well sites are far worse than originally estimates. There is a current leak in Aliso Canyon, CA that has been leaking massive amounts of methane gas, on a Deepwater Horizon scale, since October 23, 2015 that the owner, SoCal Gas estimates cannot be plugged until the Spring 2016.
    • If you want to see how many really, really bad gas leaks are occurring, follow this link: http://www.clf.org/map/?gclid=CNW56ZCyk8oCFVMWHwodzcEN7Q
    • Testing for Contaminants: If open pits are used to store wastewater, you should know that the air above the open pits is not tested for contaminants, so there is no way to know what is floating up from them. But there are studies that show how the health of people who live near them is being deleteriously affected.
    • Open pits mean mosquitoes and other varmints. Or, pesticides can be added to the water to try and control them.
    • Odors from the pits are blown with the winds.
    • One of the by-products of the process of breaking up shale, is the release of radon. Radioactive waste materials brought to the surface release radioactivity into the air during the process, and afterwards, when the radioactive materials must be disposed of.
  • Land:
    • Breaking up shale brings radioactive materials, heavy metals, and other toxic materials to the surface, all of which require safe disposal. They are better off where they are.
    • Most Regulations require that the well operators have bonds that cover returning the land to pre-drilling conditions. But most bonds are nominal in value, and well operators save money by simply allowing the bond to default rather than pay the true cost of returning the land to its original condition. Same when a disaster occurs – the bonds do not cover the costs of fixing a disaster. And even when the Government takes the culprit to court, judgements against the industry are gentle hand slaps – take the $2.5M fine received by Duke Energy for ash spills that have an estimated clean-up cost of $250M.
    • Disaster/Performance Bonds are inadequate to handle a crisis, and most State Penalties are inadequate. There are virtually no conflict of interest prohibitions against government employees leaving regulatory agencies and going to work for the very industry they regulate and no prohibitions for former industry personnel to work for agencies regulating their industry.
  • Fracking-caused problems for the local community:
    • Heavy trucks roll continuously over roads not built to handle the weight and no provisions are made to reimburse localities for the destruction they cause.
    • Pipelines are proposed to move gas across private property and through environmentally sensitive lands.
    • Trains are used to carry gas from extraction to the end-user site, through highly populated cities and towns, sometimes with explosive results.
    • Spills are inevitable, and the questions is “will they” but rather “when will they?”
    • Noise can be deafening from stations, truck traffic, and 24×7 operation of the wells.
    • Non-functioning and non-producing wells must be shut down, but most operators leave before that is done.
    • There is inadequate monitoring by VA DEQ, and none by EPA, because of a lack of resources for the former and legislation prohibition for the latter.
    • Believe it or not, some jurisdictions allow fracking wastewater to be used in farming, even organic farming. Eat hearty!
  • Health Issues: There are so many health issues associated with fracking, you should just read on.

Westmoreland sets no-fracking strategy

I applaud the Board of Supervisors (BOS) of Westmoreland County for taking an extremely sound, well-thought-out position. The two step approach should be the model that every County in the Taylorsville Basin follows. And I applaud the FLS Editorial Staff for supporting this decision, stating “We would urge the other three Taylorsville Basin counties to follow their neighbors’ lead.” There are, however more than 3 Counties in the Taylorsville Basin, as it runs northwest from the City of Richmond to Baltimore. Currently almost 86,000 acres are under leases for fracking, mostly in King George, Caroline, Westmoreland, Essex, and King and Queen Counties. All of these Counties need to act in concert to ban fracking, because if just one county contaminates the waters under them, they affect all the counties.

King George County was the first in the Taylorsville Basin to restrict fracking in 2016, but they stopped short of considering an outright ban, largely because the Oil and Gas (O&G) industry has threatened to sue Counties if they ban fracking. Multiple industry representatives attended the King George BOS meeting where restrictive ordinances were approved. Augusta County in northwest Virginia was the first to ban fracking, followed by Richmond County. So far, no lawsuits have materialized. Supposedly, an O&G industry spokesperson stated recently that they have no interest in fracking in the Taylorsville Basin because of all the regulations in place that make it too difficult to frack there. I wouldn’t believe that, nor would I sit back and relax.

There are other common sense things that should be done now, rather than wait until oil and gas prices spike, like they would if war broke out in the Middle East. Case in point, state-wide regulations need to be updated, following the model each of the Counties have adopted. Those regulations should reflect the latest information on health and environmental issues caused by fracking. These things should be looked at now, before any fracking is allowed. For instance:

  1. The Potomac Aquifer is being drained at about 5 times its recharge rate. So Virginia regulations should unequivocally state that no water can be removed from the aquifer for fracking. Water that is used becomes toxic and cannot be cleaned by any water treatment plants in Virginia. So strict measures should be put in place to ensure that any water that is used must be held in above-ground tanks and disposed of in an environmentally sound method. Remember, fracking is exempt from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, so we cannot rely on those laws to ensure that toxic water is properly disposed of. Each frack uses between 4 and 6 million gallons of water each time the well is fracked; and wells can be fracked multiple times.
  2. Virginia should study the issue of earthquakes and fracking in the Basin, because to the west is the Lake Anna nuclear power plant and to the northeast is the Calvert Hills nuclear power plant. We need to ensure that the geology of the Taylorsville Basin doesn’t turn Virginia into another Oklahoma?
  3. Regulations need to be based on available science, not based on a motive that puts companies ahead of residents, as is currently the case. For instance, what is the appropriate set-back distance from “resource protection areas,” such as wetlands, houses, schools and public and private wells? Is 200 feet enough? 500 feet? 2 miles? A recent study in the journal Science Advances concluded that babies born within two miles of fracking sites are more likely to have low birth weights and thus health problems throughout their life.

Much of the pro-fracking positions taken are scientifically incorrect, relying on partial truths and twisted logic. For example:

  1. “There is no reason why the US can’t be energy self-sufficient”. This position completely ignores the obvious – we can be energy independent without relying on fossil fuels.
  2. “We need to ‘drill, baby, drill’ because if we don’t extract American O&G, we are giving money to countries that, by and large, do not like us.” Absolutely correct, except that we can stop giving money to countries that hate us by shifting away from fossil fuels to renewables.
  3. “Natural gas is a cleaner fuel than coal, so switching to natural gas reduces the amount of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) we release into the atmosphere.” Burning coal releases more GHGs into the atmosphere than burning natural gas – true. But when you consider the full life cycle of natural gas, it turns out that both are equally bad. Methane gas is 86 times more potent in warming the planet than CO2. Methane gas escapes in every part of the extraction process, beginning at the drilling site, through transportation through pipelines, until it is ultimately loaded into the burn site. Should we continue to build out a fossil fuel infrastructure in Virginia by building pipelines and drilling wells? Or should we migrate away from our dependence on fossil fuels to renewables, like wind and solar? The answer is simple and clear – we should focus our efforts on building renewable energy sources. It is a specious argument to imply that the only way we can be energy independent is via fossil fuels.

Climate change is real, is imminent, is caused by humanity, and is fixable if we act.

The Heritage Foundation is now proposing a really radical stance, with no basis in scientific research or fact. Their position – more CO2 in the atmosphere is good for the planet. That is simply nonsense. Scientists have modeled the increase in global temperature caused by increasing GHGs in the atmosphere, and the results are really scary. They are also really obvious. As the atmosphere warms up, so do the oceans. Ice melts and slips into the sea, causing the oceans to rise. As oceans warm, they expand, and that causes additional sea level rise. As the oceans absorb CO2, they become more acidic, harming the creatures that live there causing coral reefs, the nursery for marine life, to blanch and die.

The US military believes there is a nasty downside for US security, as naval bases like Norfolk flood and as people from flooded countries migrate elsewhere. Scientists have shown that recent storms have been exacerbated by global warming, like hurricanes, while long periods of drought and related wildfires come to areas where it hasn’t been much of a problem before. As the oceans heat up, weather patterns change, and severe and unpredictable weather events become the norm, not the exception. Hurricanes increase in strength, pouring unprecedented amounts of rain into coastal cities and towns, like New Orleans, New York City, and Norfolk. The cost to prevent this is astronomical, if the damage can even be prevented. Many Pacific Islands are sinking beneath the oceans and there is no antidote for that.

The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society publishes a roundup of studies investigating the influence of climate change on certain extreme weather events, like heat waves and floods. But this year marks the first time some of the papers concluded that an event could not have occurred in a world where global warming did not exist. The studies suggested that the record-breaking global temperatures in 2016, an extreme heat wave in Asia, and a patch of unusually warm water in the Alaskan Gulf were only possible because of human-caused climate change.

A claim that there was an 18-year hiatus in global warming, from 1998-2014 has been debunked, but is often pointed to by climate change deniers. The debate began when the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a study in 2015 stating that the global climate continues to warm. Many scientists objected, stating that the data corrections made by NOAA were wrong. This became ground zero for deniers. Subsequent studies showed that the NOAA report was accurate, and a currently-ongoing study has postulated that the increase was even more pronounced, because data from the Arctic was not fully used. When done so, it will show an even higher rate of warming. To finally nail the coffin shut, global temperatures have continuously increased since the mid-20th century. 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded, until 2015 exceeded that, only to be exceeded again in 2016, which became the hottest year ever recorded. 2017 is on track to be one of the top 3 years ever recorded. So the last 4 years have been the hottest years ever, since global temperatures have been captured.

Renewable energy is heavily subsided and cannot compete with fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are far cheaper than renewable sources, unless you consider the cost of all the problems caused by fossil fuels. A legitimate cost benefit analysis of fossil fuels versus renewables would consider the cost of providing the power, plus the cost of fixing the problems caused by fossil fuels. The O&G industry doesn’t want the latter considered, because it clearly pushes the cost of fossil fuels to unsupportable levels.

Fracking should be banned because it harms the health of residents.

Fracking causes damage to the health of residents living near well sites. Fracking leaks methane into the atmosphere when mined, transported, and loaded into power plants, and when it is burned, it releases CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s the assessment of virtually all climate scientists who are not paid to say deny the truth.

Recent science-based studies by health professionals have studied the environment around well sites, and the deleterious impact is well documented. See the article titled “New, Major Evidence That Fracking Harms Human Health”, published in theAtlantic.com based on the study published in Science Advances. That study “examined birth records for every child born in Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2013—more than 1.1 million infants in total—and looked at the mother’s proximity to a fracking site, using the state of Pennsylvania’s public inventory of fracking-well locations. They found significant, but very local, consequences. Infants born to mothers who lived within two miles of a fracking well are less healthy and more underweight than babies born to mothers who lived even a little further away.”

A very thorough analysis of fracking-caused health problems can be found in The Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (the Compendium), 4th edition, published in November 2016. That document formed the basis for NY’s decision to ban fracking within the state. The opening paragraph to the Compendium states: “(the Compendium) is a fully referenced compilation of the evidence outlining the risks and harms of fracking. Bringing together findings from the scientific and medical literature, government and industry reports, and journalistic investigation, it is a public, open-access document that is housed on the websites of Concerned Health Professionals of New York (www.concernedhealthny.org) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (www.psr.org).”

Fracking wells are time bombs waiting to explode.

According to Schlumberger, an industry-leading O&G exploration company, 5% of well sites fail in the first year, and 2/3rds fail within 15 years. That means failures in pipes, cement casings, joints, well barriers, etc., all of which allow methane gas and other toxic materials to leak out of confinement into the surrounding land and water. But this is just the beginning, because fracking wells are connected via pipelines, and they are prone to leakage and explosions from the pipes and compressor stations. See the link http://fracdallas.org/docs/pipelines.html which uses the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration data from 2012, showing more than 80 natural gas pipeline explosions and fires in 2012, causing over $44,000,000 in damages. From 1986-2012, in Texas alone, there were 1,668 “significant incidents” causing 78 fatalities (14.6% of all deaths nationwide), 371 injuries (15.7% of all injuries nationwide) and property damage of about $668 Million. Pipelines are safer than transporting gas via truck and rail, but that’s not very reassuring to those who died or whose property was destroyed.

“Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” (but unfortunately, not for you)

Those in favor of fracking often use “jobs, jobs, jobs” as their mantra. What they fail to mention is that virtually all jobs are filled with temporary workers from oil producing states, like Texas and Oklahoma, who already work in the field and have the necessary skills and experience. Since Virginia does virtually no fracking, virtually no Virginians have the needed skills and experience so they won’t get hired. The only possible jobs available to Virginians would be truckers, but only if they have the special licenses needed to haul explosive and toxic materials. There are many horror stories about problems caused by transient workers brought in, from crime, prostitution, drugs, and housing shortages.

Insurance bonds will cover any problems – except it won’t.

Companies need to be bonded and insured, to obtain permits for fracking. There are over 3,000 small companies doing fracking across the country, and most of them exist while the job is there; they go out of business when the job ends. So the bond, which usually only covers site restoration, is treated as the cost of doing business, forfeited when the job ends. Once a well is closed, it is not monitored in Virginia after the first year. But that hole, and its equipment, is around forever, subject to failure over time. It’s not a question of if it will contaminate the surrounding land and water, but when.

You can’t prove that fracking has contaminated groundwater anywhere.

Contrary to any assertions that fracking doesn’t pollute groundwater, a study published in Environmental Science and Technology analyzed aquifer water samples from 550 wells across the Barnett Shale near Dallas and determined that drinking water wells in Texas counties that are home to intensive fracking operations contain elevated levels of more than two dozen metals and chemicals, some of which are carcinogens. The O&G industry claims “you can’t prove nothing” because groundwater testing was never done before fracking began, but the simple truth is that people were drinking the water before fracking began, but they couldn’t afterwards. The Pennsylvania government recently stated that fracking had polluted the water in several townships.

http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-westmoreland-sets-no-fracking-strategy/article_3de34646-1e59-556a-9624-021864ceb66a.html

Wastewater Disposal Pits – Do they leak? (Of course)

Pits are holes. Frackers dig them to store stuff, most of which you wouldn’t want to drink. So what is a pit?

Pits are used to store drilling fluids and to dispose of wastes generated by drilling operations. Drilling fluids contain toxic materials such as arsenic, mercury, lead, and other toxins. Wastes can contain all those, plus  radioactive materials and contaminated water that cannot be cleaned by waste disposal sites.

So you would think that the pits would be built to keep this stuff away our water supply, right? What if your pit was separated from your water supply by a thin sheet of plastic, like several layers of garbage bags you use to throw away your leaves? Would you feel safe? Ever rip one of those bags?

The thickness of the liner varies from state-to-state. Colorado, for instance, requires a 60 mil liner, about 2.5 inches thick, while Virginia requires a liner of 10 mil (less than 1/2 an inch), about the size of your index finger.

Where would you feel safer, in Colorado or Virginia? A leak in one of these pits is far more serious than a swimming pool leak. Do you think the 10 mil liner will withstand an earthquake? Will it protect the aquifer for 10 years? 15? 30 years? Are you willing to gamble your water supply on it? Your legislators and the Department of Environmental Quality have made that decision for you. What do you think? For more information see: Stronger Report 2015 Guidelines-Pits