Arlington TX water director resigned ….letter to “BUZZ” Pishkur (our new director)

click pic to enlarge Lake Arlington Compressor Station 5/2009
UPDATE, old BUZZ-ard non responsive on six email attempts…so here is a follow up email…
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: kim feil <>
Cc:; Jay Doegey <>;;;;;;
Sent: Wed, January 9, 2013 10:04:53 AM
Subject: Will City of Arlington add a link to their drinking water website addressing water contam concerns from urban drilling padsites?

I preach often on my blog (and on news article comments) about how Lake Arlington has 100 laterals underneath it, how we had a surface drilling/workover spill into the lake a few summers ago, and how our (relatively young)water director quit/retired… that we have hired some specialists to help with the new screening equipment, how can we be transparent about what the city is attempting to be proactive at in this regard, and how we are mitigating these risks to the public water supply.
For example, TCEQ verified that formaldehyde is not screened for (yet found above ESL limits at the Lake Arlington Compressor Station on a BSEEC industry funded air study)… will Arlington start screening as a protective Home Rule measure and be a leader in addressing “urban drilling drinking water safety”?
Let me know how the city is being proactive against surface and ground water contamination early detection from the risks of all the nearby padsites – and please share it with the rest of Arlington, by posting it on your website.

Kim Feil

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: kim feil <>
Sent: Fri, October 26, 2012 6:46:47 PM
Subject: Walter welcome, here are my unresolved issues

Welcome to your new job as our Arlington Water Director…we have over 100 horizontal casing laterals underneath Lake Arlington from all the nearby gas drilling padsites.  Not sure it those laterals are cement and steel or just cement…either way we’ve already had a surface spill a couple of summers ago from a drill site on the Ft Worth side doing a workover and drilling waste spilled and an unknown amt went into the lake.
A bit of Lake Arlington history….I was told that lake also is home to the equipment stranded down there at the end of the dig when they were first drilling the lake and a big rainstorm came through and all that old equipment is still down there.
We need a program to screen for drilling effulents like fracking chemicals and heavy metals. We’ve had several spills from numerous drilling sites in Arlington that filled during a rainstorm and the storm drainage ditches received the runoff and was only tested for chlorides.
We need to prevent acid rain falling out into our lake from nearby industrial processes like the Echelon power plant also….the nearby Lake Arlington Compressor Station failed its formaldehyde test (127 ppb) in May of 2009 through a BSEEC industry funded air study. (see above photo)
Arlington is participating with other cities in a study of how surface water can be impacted with urban drilling…it’s a little late but never-the-less I hope the results will be made known to the public when the study is completed. We have a city news blog that I subscribe to that it can be posted to.
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: kim feil <>
Cc:;; Laura Hunt <>;
Sent: Fri, October 26, 2012 3:17:24 PM
Subject: Lana, that old Arlington city mineral well may be a problem now that we fracked nearby.

Lana, I checked with the TCEQ and the Railroad Commission and they could not help me.
I am copying others for their input including Dale Henry who has capped 5,000 wells in his career-he is also running for a seat on the Railroad Comission.
There is a chance of the old water well (at Center & Main ST) communicating with any migration from faults from the new gas wells in the area (or disturbing the known pollution from an old gasoline station next to the current Truman drill site). Past issues of acquifer contamination have been the bad casings on the old well or old wells not properly closed in that were conduits for nearby new wells where unintended fractures beyond the “zone” had migration of methane or frack fluids fiund their way to the surface or to ground water sources via the old well.
We really need to find out who plugged that mineral well. A Facebook Group called TEX WELLS (a group of UTA scientists were studying the Arlington water wells in relation to shale drilling risks to them and is yet to release their report that was due out over the summer….I don’t know what the hold up is.
The RRC sent me a letter stating they do not regulate how close drilling can be to old wells, and that surprised me.
Here is some background on what I’ve researched so far on this old mineral well downtown and related migration news articles…..
Lana, can I count on you to please try to find out who,when, & how that well was capped? (never received a response)

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: kim feil <>
Sent: Thu, June 14, 2012 7:50:45 PM
Subject: last request
Julie, please read this letter from one of your (water expert) peers in N Carolina …. before you exit your position. I need you to take a stand and officially advise council and other leaders on the risks to our ground and surface waters from all this drilling/fracking.

Please do not leave your position without making this official recommendation for Arlington officials to get it on public record. I will want to do an open records request of your exit letter making this recommendation. It is the right thing to do in the interest of public health.
Please let this be your final act to complete what you have worked your whole career in achieving….safe drinking water.
This is so important that you make a stand and do this one last task to finish strong in looking out for us. (update – never got a response on this request)
June 11, 2012
From: Barbara Goldberg
To: Governor Perdue of North Carolina,
I am writing to ask you to veto any bill passed by the General Assembly that legalizes fracking, whether it is S820, H1054 or other version. There are too many issues that should be studied and understood before legalizing fracking in North Carolina. My professional experience makes me particularly concerned about the potential for contamination of groundwater with hazardous chemicals. I have learned that polluted groundwater cannot be cleaned up and is essentially gone forever.  We should do everything in our power to prevent such pollution and not fool ourselves that there is some acceptable way of managing it. Here is the basis of my conclusion:Background:Although I currently live in Chatham County and work at RTI International in RTP, I had a 25 year career as a water and environmental attorney in Arizona. I wrote laws for the Arizona Legislature on water management, worked with Governors, lobbied for cities and towns on water/environmental issues (usually for laws to protect their water quality and quantity) and represented communities whose groundwater had been polluted. I was also on a state advisory committee on laws governing injection of wastewater into aquifers (which practice would be legalized by S820). I represented the City of Scottsdale, Arizona, for 13 years in a federal Superfund project trying to get the responsible industries to pay for cleanup of the large aquifer that had been contaminated. Groundwater was an important source of water for the city.After years of negotiation, and with the help of pressure from the federal EPA, several agreements were signed with 3 large industrial companies (the small ones were long gone or had no money) to pay to build a treatment plant for the City.  Similar agreements were signed with neighboring cities.  The cost of building the plant in Scottsdale was around $100 million (this is from memory – if you want the exact amount I can get it). The cost of operating it each year is also significant. Operating costs in Scottsdale are borne by the City, which has around 300,000 residents.  The reason that the plant had to be built is because the contaminated aquifer covered 11 square miles, thus there was too much polluted water to remove and dispose of. Another alternative was to abandon the water supply and only build wells around the edges that would pump enough to keep it from spreading and contaminating other clean wells. This was not acceptable because the city needed the water for its residents and industries.  So the only option was to pump, treat and serve. It took several years of public hearings and education to convince the residents to accept the treated water as drinking water (it would meet all federal drinking water standards, but one couldn’t say there were ABSOLUTELY NO contaminants left in the water).Fracking in North CarolinaWhen I apply this experience to the small well owners and small communities in the NC shale gas counties, I am frightened.  The potential for fracking to contaminate groundwater has been documented and some sources say North Carolina’s geology is particularly vulnerable.  If the NC groundwater aquifers (which are much closer to the surface than the aquifers in Arizona by thousands of feet) are contaminated by any of the range of chemicals used by fracking companies, the wells will simply have to be abandoned. Due to the high cost of aquifer cleanup, wellhead treatment or regional treatment plants, it will not be feasible to clean or treat the water in rural areas. Furthermore, under current fiscal constraints, it may not even be feasible to clean up or treat water supplies used by larger towns without tax or rate increases.  Affected small landowners will suffer a diminution in property values.  It has been documented that fracking can result in contaminated water entering surface water streams over the ground. Also, groundwater flows underground to streams or lakes.  So even landowners and towns that rely on surface water can be affected(e.g., Cary and other communities served by Jordan Lake).The current S820 bill that passed the Senate last week contains a provision that, under certain circumstances, requires an oil and gas company to compensate and provide a “replacement water supply” to the surface owner of a contaminated well within 5000 feet of a fracking well (see section 4b of S820). Even if a well owner can establish liability under this provision, the company is not required to provide the alternative water supply in perpetuity, or to subsequent owners of the property. What if the company goes bankrupt? Who will then provide the ongoing “alternative water supply”? Who will buy a farm without a water supply? Who will compensate the landowner for the diminution in his or her property values? Who will locate a business in a town with a contaminated water supply?Groundwater flows underground. The contamination in Scottsdale started out under separate isolated industrial properties in the 1960’s, but after 20 years, the contaminated aquifer extended 11 square miles, encompassing the entire downtown and southern half of the City.  The legislation does not provide any protection for well owners who are outside the 5000 feet radius, or for doing anything to stop the spread of the contaminated water. This has the potential to ruin a current or future water supply for an entire region, and that could affect the future economic development of that region. I am not even addressing in this letter potential health effects should people drink contaminated water.North Carolina’s water supplies are crucial to its future. Providing for some limited liability for the contamination of groundwater is no substitute for adequately protecting the groundwater quality in the first place. Fracking should not be legalized, if at all, until much more study is done and stringent regulations are developed. Even assuming adequate regulations, the State would have to have sufficient resources to monitor and enforce the regulations and best practices. Will the state allocate sufficient funds? I doubt it. It is even less likely to happen with a regulatory body controlled by the regulated industry, as S820 provides.Fracking is too risky for North Carolina landowners and water supplies. The meager speculative rewards do not justify us taking these risks.  Please veto any legislation legalizing fracking in 2012.Yours truly,
Read an Arlington City document that is six years late in being
protective of public health from our water department (BTW whose 40-something-ish? director is changing jobs after 28 yrs…how comforting is that?)
Informal Report to Mayor and Council
Provide an update on staff’s proposed participation in a Tailored Collaboration Project with the Water Research Foundation.
Arlington and other areas have experienced a significant amount of natural gas well development. With this increase in the activity of hydraulic fracturing, there is a need to confirm and update our understanding of any potential impacts on surface water quality and drinking water and wastewater treatment operations.
An approach to validating or improving our current processes is to engage the Water Research Foundation in a Tailored Collaboration research project. The Water Research Foundation is a member-supported, international nonprofit 501(c)3 organization. Formed in 1966, it is the nation’s only research foundation devoted to drinking water research and governed by water utilities. With more than 950 subscriber members who provide water to 80 percent of the U.S. population, the Water Research Foundation has funded and managed more than 1,000 research projects.
The proposed research project is a collaboration of seven (7) water utility partners from Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado and the Water Research Foundation. The project scope includes identifying chemicals associated with fracturing fluids, flowback and produced waters. While there are some lists available (such as FracFocus), this project will aggregate the information into a format useful for water utilities. The research will also comprehensively identify the physical and chemical properties of the chemical constituents in fracturing fluids, flowback and produced waters. The research will tie these properties to a range of physical and chemical properties of interest to water utilities.
The research will also help Arlington Water Utilities department:
•       Confirm or update the identification of the potential pathways that need to be protected for drinking water supplies by consolidating the available information on this subject.
• Evaluate the ability of treatment facilities to address flowback and produced waters.
• Allow utilities to standardize the components of a monitoring plan, including having a reasonable list of chemical constituents, define frequencies for sampling and identify indicator parameters for monitoring.
• Address emergency preparedness for spills and response to customer inquiries.
Arlington will contribute $24,000 toward the research project. The other Utilities and Water Research Foundation will also participate so that the total research budget including cash and in-kind contribution will be $260,200.
Unless otherwise directed, the Arlington Water Utilities department will participate in the research and utilize the results to enhance its water quality monitoring procedures.
Participation in Water Research Foundation Tailored Collaboration Project
City Council Meeting Date: 06-05-12
53Page 2 of 2
Julia J. Hunt, P.E. Director of Water Utilities 817-459-6600
From: Kim Feil <>
Date: June 9, 2012 7:19:50 AM CDT
To: Kim Feil <>
Bcc:  Robert Cluck <>, Robert Rivera <>, Robert Shepard <>,, Jimmy Bennett <>, Lana Wolff <>, Sheri Capehart <>, “” <>, Trey Yelverton <>, Stuart Young <>, Roger Venables <>, Jim Self <>, Don Crowson <>, Jim Self <>, Collin Gregory <>,
Subject: Sets of threes – 
The starting string of this email is regarding a superintendent for AISD that was immediately dismissed (not for malfeasance).  I am taking the opportunity to shed light on what

“WOULD have been a good reason to let him go in that drilling emergencies are not prompting the shutting down of these drill sites near schools-for starters”.

Begin forwarded message:
From: Kim Feil <>
Date: June 9, 2012 7:09:15 AM CDT
To: “Mike

Subject: Sets of threes
I substitute taught for almost 8 years and loved the children so much, I consider what I have been doing a greater (necessary) thing than teaching them.

Someone has to look out for their health, for what good does it if they (the teachers) challenge them to “be all that they can be” and to “reach for the stars” if they have nothing to look forward to but the realization that our prior leaders chose to live for the day and for money at their future’s expense.
The cost to future generations is locally (poor health living near drilling NBTEX), regionally (risked toxins in water, livestock and produce) and
globally (warming and severe weather patterns).
If we truly wanted whats best for our kids, we would
1) teach them how to eat nutritious (and actually serve it during school lunches), 
2) teach them that we cannot poop in our own fishbowl if we have no way of changing the water, & we’would  be 
3) working (and sacrificing our current lifestyles) to get off of fossil fuels to clean up our “fishbowl” we have to live in. 
But instead we forge on and enter an age where the low hanging fossil fuel fruit of conventional drilling has peaked and we press on to the most destructive and invasive surface and subsurface extraction methods such as
1) mountain top removal, 2)tar sands mining, and  3) hydraulic fracturing for coal seam gas, oil, & natural gas.
Before I stopped teaching, I  apologized to the students (when topics came up about energy types) that back in the 1970’s, we had a chance to start building grids that support renewable energy.  Nothing has changed much in that the lobbying effects. T he government welfare is given to the fossil fuel industry. I challenged them to not be like “us” and told them the longer we wait, the harder it will be (on them and their children)
to make the change to renewable energy.
The leadership when I was young failed me and you…..and at this rate we have already failed them because
1) the severe weather patterns are already here,
2) my family no longer eats seafood and……worst of all……
3) everytime I hand a glass of “filtered” Arlington water to my kids…..I know what we don’t screen for.
Are you aware that Arlington “FINALLY” took my advice and is doing a study with the Water Research Foundation* to better understand how gas drilling might be affecting our surface waters. They want to review if what they presently screen for needs to be updated……this is six years too late Mike.
If you read our Arlington Water Directors document above, I find three troubling things….
1) Fracfocus is not a complete list of chemicals used, the secret formulas are still secret. 
2) If injection wells are one day outlawed (seismic activities), are we planning to start accepting these fluids for treatment?
3) Our Water Utilities Director is leaving (changing jobs) and is rather young to be “retiring”. Is the poop fixn’ to hit the fan when the study results come out?


About Kim Triolo Feil

Since TX Statute 253.005 forbids drilling in heavily settled municipalities, I unsuccessfully ran for City Council Seat to try to enforce this. Since Urban Drilling, our drinking water has almost tripled for TTHM's. Before moving to Arlington in 1990, I lived in Norco’s “cancer alley”, a refinery town. It was only after Urban Drilling in Arlington did I start having health effects. After our drill site was established closest to my home, the chronic nosebleeds started. I know there are more canaries here in Arlington having reactions to our industrialized airshed (we have 55-60 padsites of gas wells). Come forward and report to me those having health issues especially if you live to the north/northwest of a drill site so I can map your health effects on this blog. My youtube account is KimFeilGood. FAIR USE NOTICE: THIS SITE MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. MATERIAL FROM DIVERSE AND SOMETIMES TEMPORARY SOURCES IS BEING MADE AVAILABLE IN A PERMANENT UNIFIED MANNER, AS PART OF AN EFFORT TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE (AMONG OTHER THINGS). IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS IS A 'FAIR USE' OF THE INFORMATION AS ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 USC SECTION 107, THE SITE IS MAINTAINED WITHOUT PROFIT FOR THOSE WHO ACCESS IT FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE: HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/ TO USE MATERIAL REPRODUCED ON THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES THAT GO BEYOND 'FAIR USE', PERMISSION IS REQUIRED FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER INDICATED WITH A NAME AND INTERNET LINK AT THE END OF EACH ITEM. (NOTE: THE TEXT OF THIS NOTICE WAS ALSO LIFTED FROM CORRIDORNEWS.BLOGSPOT.COM)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s