Hydraulic fracturing (more commonly known as hydrofracking, or fracking) may have become popular in the early 2000s, but the practice actually traces its roots back to before the American Civil War. In the 1800s, coal was the dominant fuel source powering the Industrial Revolution, until the middle of the century when oil surged in popularity. There were advantages to using oil over coal in many situations, but the demand for oil was far outstripping the pace that it could be extracted from wells.

During the Battle of Fredericksburg in 1862, everything changed when Edward A. L. Roberts, a lieutenant in the Union Army, noticed that the damage from torpedoes was amplified when they exploded underwater. After the war, he launched the Roberts Petroleum Torpedo Company, inventing a new technique to extract oil that involved lowering multiple torpedoes into a well, covering the charges with water, and detonating them.

Roberts’ invention set the stage for what would later become commercial hydraulic fracturing almost a century later. Fracking today does not involve the use of explosives, however the general concept is largely similar to Roberts’ methods. In 1949, Halliburton became the first company to use hydraulic fracturing in the U.S., when new technologies allowed the company to achieve similar results in fracturing the rock using highly pressurized water instead of torpedoes.

Since the late 2000s, concerns over environmental damage and negative health effects have led to bans on fracking, both in the U.S. and across the world. Absent of a federal ban on fracking, state bans can limit the areas where this controversial drilling technique is used. For this article in our Dashboard Digest series, we’ll dive deeper into what fracking is, what are its risks, and what states are doing to take action.

What is Fracking?

Hydraulic fracturing is the process of injecting water, sand, and other substances into a well under high pressure to break up the surrounding bedrock in order to free fossil fuels contained in the rock’s pores. Under the pressure, the water mixture enlarges existing fractures, connecting pores that contain fossil fuels. The entire mixture, including the freed methane or oil, is extracted from the well and processed into usable fossil fuels.

Fracking is most often used in fossil fuel-bearing rock layers that are porous, but not permeable, like shale, sandstone, and coal. These layers can contain large amounts of gas and oil in their pores, however the impermeable surrounding rock makes it difficult to extract through conventional drilling techniques. Fracking can significantly increase the recoverable fossil fuels from a well, and today 79 percent of natural gas and 65 percent of crude oil in the U.S. is produced this way.

Concerns with Fracking

Damage to Ecosystems

As with conventional drilling techniques, fracking comes with environmental hazards including direct and indirect damage to ecosystems. Direct damage can happen to areas near well sites, resulting from well construction, chemical and gas leaks, air pollution, draining of water supplies, and water contamination.

Wells located in remote areas may require infrastructure development to construct the site and transport the fracked gas and oil, which may cut across ecosystems. Indirectly, fracking increases greenhouse gas emissions, which further exacerbates habitat loss and lowers global biodiversity.

Groundwater Contamination

The EPA has found evidence that fracking activities can impact drinking water quality, particularly in the following conditions:

• Water withdrawals for fracking in times or areas of low water availability,
• Spills during the handling of fracking fluids and chemicals,
• Injection of fracking fluids into improperly installed or maintained wells,
• Injection of fracking fluids directly into groundwater,
• Discharge of improperly treated fracking wastewater to surface water,
• Improper disposal or storage of fracking wastewater in unlined reservoirs.

Proponents of fracking claim that groundwater contamination is unlikely during proper drilling operations, however opponents argue that the industry is under regulated and leaks may not always be known or reported. Some studies have linked negative health outcomes with living near fracking sites due to potential methane groundwater contamination. These health effects include increased risk of: preterm and low birth rates leukemia, heart attacks,asthma, hospitalizations, and more.

Increased Air Pollution

Fracking well sites can negatively affect local air quality and contribute significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions. This can result from methane leaks from equipment, flaring of excess natural gas, operation of heavy equipment at well sites, and use of trucks to transport materials and fossil fuels to and from sites.

Additionally, since well operators are not always required to disclose the chemicals used in fracking fluids, the extent of air pollution and danger to communities is not well understood. Some studies have found relationships between hazardous air pollutants and upstream oil and gas development, including from fracking sites. Another study suggests that older adults living downwind of fracking sites have a higher risk of premature death than those upwind.

What are Fracking Bans?

Fracking bans prohibit the extraction of fossil fuels through hydraulic fracturing. They can be enacted through legislation, regulation, or executive order and have so far only been successful at the state and local levels. There have been attempts to ban fracking in the U.S. at the federal level, including through legislation and regulatory action, although neither approach has been successful.

As an alternative to an outright ban on fracking, states can also issue moratoriums on hydraulic fracturing. Moratoriums are different from bans as they are not permanent and are often used as a pause on an activity until it can be further studied. For example, California had a longtime moratorium on new hydraulic fracturing, and now the state is awaiting approval of final regulations to put a full ban into effect this October.

It’s important that fracking bans clearly define the actions that they are prohibiting, reducing the risk for exploitable loopholes. Earlier this year, an energy company attempted to exploit a loophole in the existing New York fracking ban by using liquid carbon dioxide instead of water. In response, the New York legislature passed a new bill that would prohibit this type of fracking as well, and the bill is waiting for the Governor’s approval.

Where are Fracking Bans in Place?

Statewide fracking bans are in place in five states: Vermont, New York, Maryland, Washington, and Oregon (Oregon’s moratorium ends on January 2, 2025). California currently has a moratorium on fracking in place and a full ban will start in October 2024. Individual counties across the country have also passed their own fracking bans.

Barriers to Fracking Bans

Economic and Workforce Dependence on Fossil Fuels

States where fracking contributes a significant portion to the state’s economy will likely have a significantly harder time passing a ban. In the five states where fracking bans are in place, none have significant natural gas reserves, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. For example, Vermont was the first state to pass a fracking ban through legislation in 2012, but the state has no known natural gas reserves.

On the other hand, states with significant natural gas reserves, and states where natural gas extraction contributes significantly to the economy may be unable to pass fracking bans or even increase regulations on fracking companies. Texas and Pennsylvania, for example, are the two most fracked states and oil and gas operations contribute a significant amount to each state’s GDP (22.3 percent and 8.9 percent, respectively). Without strong policies to support a just transition, banning fracking in these states could have a significant impact on their economy and can be unpopular for communities who rely on the industry for employment and tax revenue. Any fossil fuel phaseouts, including attempts to ban fracking, should be accompanied by plans to support affected workers through retraining and workforce development, and invest in alternative industries, such as renewable energy.

Fossil Fuel Industry Opposition

States trying to pass fracking bans also face significant opposition from oil and gas companies. These corporations can have a lot of political and economic power and have a long history of climate misinformation and disinformation campaigns. Natural gas, commonly obtained through fracking, is often touted as a “clean” fossil fuel that can help bridge the gap between dirtier coal and renewable energy. While burning methane theoretically produces fewer emissions than coal, this fact ignores the consequences of methane leaks — which are far too common.

The fossil fuel industry also previously led the charge in taking legal action against governments that try to regulate its practices. For example, in 2015, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under President Obama issued regulations that would have required companies to disclose information on the chemicals used in fracking and take steps to prevent leakage from oil and gas wells on federal lands. The rule was challenged by a collection of fossil fuel industry groups, states, and Tribal entities and was later struck down by a federal court. The BLM’s rule wasn’t a full ban on fracking, and still faced strong opposition by the oil and gas industry.

Prioritizing Other Climate Issues

Even in states that are generally supportive of climate policy, fracking bans can be challenging to get across the finish line — or even to the start of the race. These states may be focusing on climate solutions that are more relevant to their specific needs, or may not have significant oil and gas resources that warrant legislation. If fracking isn’t commonly occurring in a state, spending legislative and political resources to pass a ban could be seen as largely symbolic and lawmakers may decide to focus their efforts on other policy areas, like investments in clean energy or adaptation to climate change.

State Example

New York

The fracking boom came to New York in 2008, and by 2010, Governor Paterson imposed a moratorium on fracking until the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) could conduct a review on the impacts it would have on the state’s air quality and water resources. No new permits would be issued for fracking wells, but the moratorium was still a temporary measure.

A few years later, in 2011, the town of Dryden, NY took matters into their own hands by updating language in their municipal zoning laws. The new language did not specifically bar fracking in the jurisdiction, but they imposed new road-use restrictions, noise limits, and protections for critical natural areas — all of which were indirectly targeting companies that might drill fracking wells into the gas-rich Marcellus shale lying beneath the town.

Middlefield, NY followed suit with their own zoning laws, and both towns were eventually sued by oil and gas companies. The state’s Court of Appeals ultimately ruled in the towns’ favor and upheld the zoning laws, creating a precedent for local action on fracking.

In 2014, the state’s public health review of hydraulic fracturing (which was asked for by the DEC), concluded that the public health risks of fracking were insufficiently understood and recommended against resuming fracking operations. In response to this, then Governor Cuomo announced a full ban on hydraulic fracturing in the state. This was further strengthened by a 2020 law, finally codifying the longstanding ban on fracking in the state.

In 2024, the state legislature passed a bill expanding the state’s fracking ban to include liquid carbon dioxide, instead of water, as the injection fluid. This was in response to efforts from a Texas company to lease land in the state for drilling using a different technology that wasn’t outlawed in the original ban. The bill has not yet been sent to Governor Hochul’s desk, but many environmental groups have called on the Governor to sign the bill.