Shocker: Ken Cuccinelli supports hydraulic-fracking in the George Washington National Forest

Environmentally conscious Virginians were handed another reason to vote against Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on Tuesday after he told a Roanoke-area group in Troutville that he was a proponent of hydraulic-fracking for natural gas in the George Washington National Forest.

While I can’t do justice to the vast number of consequences at stake in the debate over whether or not to allow hydraulic-fracking in the George Washington National Forest, water supplies and overall degradation of the forest are arguably two of the biggest issues at play.

The George Washington National Forest contributes to the drinking water of around 260,000 people and as The Atlantic reported recently, hydraulic-fracking has been seen by its critics “as an environmental menace to underground water supplies…”

While governments (Federal, state, and local) have been slow to recognize the negative impacts of hydraulic-fracturing on local water supplies, it doesn’t take a government study to conclude that 2+2=4. Hydraulic-fracking clearly has some negative effect(s) on local water supplies, whether it be from the extraction of water for fracking or less obvious consequences.

The George Washington National Forest’s management plan is scheduled for release in June, at which time a decision will have been made as to whether or not hydraulic-fracking will be allowed in the forest.

As always, the debate should be weighed in terms of short-term and long-term interests. For example, is the short-term extraction of natural gas from the forest worth the environmental damage that WILL occur in addition to the environmental damage that could occur? How much natural gas is even in the forest?

There are places in this country that should and must remain untouched by the forces of energy extraction, if only for this one fundamental reason: once you’ve tarnished this or any other relatively pristine land area, you can’t ever get back to square-one. Once the damage has been done, we can’t reverse the effects. And when it’s all said and done, will we really still think it was a good idea to tarnish one of our greatest remaining nature sites?   

Of course, for Ken Cuccinelli, that answer seems to be, “Yes.”