New York and Colorado are a study in contrasts in how they have approached the controversy over hydraulic fracturing, a technology that has stimulated this nation’s boom in oil and gas drilling in recent years.
New York banned the practice last month, following a de facto moratorium that had been in place, while Colorado continues to search for ways to regulate the industry while allowing its development. This difference, however, does not merely reflect contrasting positions by the states’ governors toward hydraulic fracturing. It also reflects very different profiles of public opinions in New York and Colorado, as we discovered when administering surveys to politically engaged people in the two states.
The debates have been particularly polarized in New York. With release of a long-awaited health review of hydraulic fracturing by the New York State Department of Health, Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration concluded that the health and environmental risks are too high and that New York will ban hydraulic fracturing. The decision ends an era of political uncertainty in New York that began six years ago when the state imposed its moratorium.
The decision in New York may have been informed partly by the science in the state health study, but science is not the arbitrator of political decisions. Political decisions emerge at the intersection of values, interests, identities, power and opportunities. Making political decisions requires good timing, building support, and minimizing opposition.
The opposition to hydraulic fracturing has been strong in New York relative to other states. A survey we administered in the fall of 2013 to people politically engaged in , including those from government, non-governmental and industry affiliations, shows little middle ground. Since Cuomo does not have a lot of support in the middle and would inevitably be caught in the crossfire in making a decision, he had to align with one side or the other.
The political landscape of hydraulic fracturing in New York is of course more nuanced than our survey results show. In New York, our research shows that although the oil and gas industry may have financial resources, those opposed were better mobilized, more networked, and more politically active. However, gaining political leverage involves more than public performances. It requires the capacity to influence government.
While opponents to hydraulic fracturing have proven successful at influencing local governments across New York, the durability and legitimacy of that influence remained uncertain until . This provided an opportunity for Cuomo to align with a powerful coalition. Without the statewide ban, local governments would likely have continued to move ahead without Cuomo’s support.
While the opponents of hydraulic fracturing were gaining momentum in New York, the supporters had fewer political opportunities to gain a foothold on the debate. In part, this is a result of declining natural gas prices, New York’s more limited shale resources compared to neighboring states in the Marcellus, and the fact that the oil and gas industry historically has not been a major economic base in New York. These factors arguably inhibit New York’s potential for expansive economic development from shale gas, at least in the near term.
The situation is different in Colorado. Our 2013 survey of shows variation with extremes and sizeable middle ground. This middle ground is one reason for Colorado’s leadership in formulating hydraulic fracturing regulations on disclosure, setbacks, and air quality and may have contributed to Gov. John Hickenlooper’s creating a task force for resolving questions of state and local authority.
Still, many Coloradans involved in this issue take more polarized positions — including those who prefer to see it stopped completely and those who would like to see it expanded extensively.
Given the political landscape in Colorado, we would not expect to see a statewide ban anytime soon. What will endure is political contention, and New York’s decision to ban hydraulic fracturing could fuel the escalation of the debate. For those supporting hydraulic fracturing, the New York ban could be seen as a threat that leads to entrenchment and intensification of political resolve.
For those against hydraulic fracturing, the New York ban is a possible path for victory by showing how to mobilize supporters and pressure government. But the escalation of contentious politics is not inevitable.
As a state, we might not agree on the outcome, but we may start by agreeing on a sustainable political process that incorporates short and long-term perspectives, remains open and transparent, includes representatives of the disadvantaged as well as the advantaged, and provides fair rules of decision-making.
Tanya Heikkila and Christopher Weible are associate professors at the School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
