[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 29778-29780]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROHIBITING OIL AND GAS DRILLING IN MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE IN CORTLAND, 
                                  OHIO

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2818) to prohibit oil and gas drilling in Mosquito Creek 
Lake in Cortland, Ohio.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2818

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.

       After the enactment of this Act no person may commence any 
     drilling activity (including any slant or directional 
     drilling) to extract oil or gas from lands beneath waters 
     under the jurisdiction of the United States in Mosquito Creek 
     Lake in Cortland, Ohio. The Attorney General of the United 
     States may bring an action in the appropriate United States 
     district court to enforce the prohibition contained in this 
     section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-
Barcelo) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in somewhat reluctant support of H.R. 2818, a 
bill to prohibit oil and gas drilling beneath Mosquito Creek Lake in 
Cortland, Ohio, introduced by the gentleman from Youngstown, Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant).
  The bill reflects the concerns of some of the gentleman's 
constituents in Trumbull County, Ohio regarding the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers-administered project known as Mosquito Creek Lake for which 
the Department of the Interior is considering leasing the oil and gas 
rights beneath this reservoir. The Bureau of Land Management has 
prepared a planning analysis and environmental analysis in preparation 
for a decision whether to lease approximately 11,100 acres of minimal 
estate acquired by the Federal Government when the Corps of Engineers 
impounded this drainage basin, creating a reservoir about 1 mile wide 
and 9 miles long.
  Nonetheless, local opposition to the BLM proposal remains, primarily, 
upon concerns of spills and contaminant discharges from drilling upon 
surface and groundwater resources. However, I will yield to the wishes 
of the elected House Member from this affected area. He will have to 
deal with that with his constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2818 was introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) to address concerns raised by his constituents in Trumbull 
County, Ohio relating to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-administered 
project known as Mosquito Creek Lake. This area is currently under 
consideration for development of Federal oil and gas rights beneath the 
man-made reservoir.
  The U.S. Bureau of Land Management field office in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin, has developed a proposed planning analysis, environmental 
analysis preparatory to a decision on whether to lease 11,100 acres of 
mineral estate acquired by the Federal Government when the Corps 
impounded this drainage basin creating a reservoir about 1 mile wide 
and 9 miles long.
  There are significant oil and gas deposits beneath Mosquito Lake 
which various entities have expressed desires and interest in 
developing. Despite stipulations and other safeguards which the BLM and 
the Corps of Engineers have promised to provide, as well as a long 
history of oil and gas development in the area, some local residents 
continue to oppose any new oil and gas activity.

[[Page 29779]]

  These stipulations are not sufficient to resolve the concerns of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), therefore, his bill would bar any 
person from any drilling activity including slant or directional 
drilling to extract oil or gas from lands beneath Mosquito Creek Lake 
in Cortland, Ohio. Under the bill, the U.S. Attorney General would have 
the authority to file suit in the U.S. District Court to enforce this 
prohibition.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration opposes this bill. Not only 
do they perceive an opportunity to raise Federal revenues through the 
development of oil and gas resources, they also cannot prevent drainage 
from surrounding private lands if they do not develop the area beneath 
Mosquito Creek Lake.
  Given these concerns, I have some reservations about the bill. 
However, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has expressed a great 
desire to see this bill enacted and, since it affects his district, we 
do not intend to oppose it.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this time to speak on a 
bill that I introduced, and I wanted to make a few comments on H.R. 
2818, to ban slant drilling at Mosquito Creek Lake.
  Now, I have supported capturing revenues from energy sources offshore 
and will continue to do so. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to point this out 
to the House, because this is the beginning of probably a policy 
discussion on an issue that has become and will become more sensitive.
  The Bureau of Land Management wanted to slant drill underneath 
Mosquito Creek Lake, and that is the sole, primary, and only drinking 
water for the second largest city in my district of 60,000 people, the 
city of Warren. The City of Cortland also depends upon it as do the 
aquifer systems of many small communities in the area.
  So it is not as if we are just capturing the revenue, which I want to 
do and which I support. This is a sole-purpose drinking water lake. I 
think it is bad policy.
  I want to make this point very simply to Congress, water running down 
hill, and any drilling today would be in effect 40 years from now. What 
tremor might there be or what consequence might occur to impact upon 
that system and to damage the quality of drinking water for our people? 
The cost and benefits to the communities are so small that one single 
incident would obliterate any dollars they have in any of their budget. 
So Congress is doing much more today than pass this. Congress begins 
the dialogue and debate on these types of issues.
  So I wanted to make this point that every single community impacted 
upon by this decision was opposed to that drilling. I am strongly 
opposed. I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), chairman, and 
the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the ranking 
member, for having supported the bill and hope that they will help me 
all the way through to codify this into law and statute.


                       why a legislative remedy?

  At this stage in the process the only way to stop what could be an 
environmental catastrophe is legislative action.
  My bill, H.R. 2818 would bar any person from any drilling activity, 
including slant or directional drilling, to extract oil or gas from 
lands beneath Mosquito Creek Lake. The bill gives the U.S. Attorney 
General the authority to file suit in U.S. District Court to enforce 
the prohibition.


                         background on the lake

  Mosquito Creek Lake is located in a heavily populated area, Trumbull 
County, Ohio. The county seat, Warren, located at the southern end of 
the lake, has a population of more than 50,000. Trumbull County has a 
total population of more than 225,000.
  The lake was constructed in 1944 primarily for flood control, low-
flow augmentation, municipal water supply, and water quality control. 
The lake also serves to conserve land and preserve fish and wildlife, 
including several endangered species.


               the lake is main source of drinking water

  Mosquito Creek Lake is the sole source of drinking water for the city 
of Warren. Let me repeat that: the lake is the sole source of drinking 
water for the city of Warren.
  The city of Cortland also relies on the lake to recharge its 
aquifers. Surrounding communities also rely, in part, on the lake to 
supply their drinking water.
  Any contamination of the lake would severely compromise the drinking 
water supply of up to a quarter of a million people. That is why I am 
here today.


                   all local governments are opposed

  The four local governments that are impacted by this proposal, the 
cities of Cortland and Warren, Bazetta Township, and Trumbull County, 
all adamantly oppose the drilling.
  Keep in mind that these governments will receive royalties from the 
drilling.
  In addition, every civic, scientific and academic organization 
involved in the process has raised serious and substantive concerns 
relative to safety and the worth of the drilling proposal. The Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) has ignored local concerns.


 state and local governments lack resources to monitor and respond to 
                              emergencies

  The state of Ohio does not have the resources to effectively and 
consistently conduct inspections and monitor water quality.
  BLM glosses over this issue by asserting that the state will somehow 
come up with the necessary resources or that the drillers themselves 
will hire outside contractors to do the monitoring and inspecting.
  While I have great respect for the oil and gas drilling industry, 
inspection and water quality monitoring are functions that should not 
be entrusted to the private sector--especially when the private 
companies have a glaring conflict of interest.
  Contrary to what BLM has stated in their planning analysis and 
environmental assessment (PA/EA) documents, the local governments do 
not have the necessary equipment, personnel, expertise and resources to 
adequately cope with a drilling accident.


    blm has not adequately consulted with state and local officials

  Throughout the process BLM has not adequately consulted with state 
and local governments. For example, BLM did not adequately consult with 
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
  Given that the proposed drilling will affect the sole source of 
drinking water for more than a quarter of a million people, BLM should 
have made every effort to ensure that Ohio EPA played a central role at 
every step of the environmental assessment process.
  Unfortunately, this was not done as evidenced by the fact that not a 
single individual from Ohio EPA was part of the team that prepared the 
proposed PA/EA.


                         Benefits versus Risks

  Under a best case scenario, the local governments could receive a 
total of $150,000 a year.
  A single accident could shut down the drinking water supply for the 
cities of Warren and Cortland, and surrounding communities.
  The planning and assessment documents prepared by BLM do not address 
the key issue of how or where these government entities would get safe 
drinking water.
  A single accident could have devastating and lasting consequences.


                     No Place to Turn But Congress

  I, along with the local governments involved, have tried to work with 
BLM. Our concerns have been laid out in great detail. We have been 
involved in the planning and assessment process at every stage. We have 
done everything by the book.
  The Congress is our last resort. I urge the House to approve H.R. 
2818. Don't let the federal government impose a program on a community 
that the entire community does not want.
  In closing, I'd like to quote from a 9/28/98 letter submitted to BLM 
by David D. Daugherty, assistant law director for the city of Warren, 
as part of the PA/EA process.

       There is no gas shortage at present and even if there were, 
     the relative small size of the potential gas resources under 
     the reservoir would do little to solve any national energy 
     crisis. The overall economic benefit to the area is slight 
     while the potential for harm is great. Mitigation measures by 
     their definition imply the possibility of harm; and while 
     they may reduce the probability of harm the possibility still 
     exists, particularly where the mitigation measures rely on 
     questionable enforcement as well as disaster containment 
     capabilities. If no action is taken the mitigation measures 
     are unnecessary and the probability of a spill or other 
     contamination from drilling under Federal lands is zero.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr.

[[Page 29780]]

Hansen) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2818.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________