Abstract:
The proposed thesis will compare two different environmental contexts for the regulation
of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) through textual analysis of debates on
environmentalism, economic gain, indigenous rights, land alterations, and legal
jurisdiction. These texts will include anthropological discussions of environmental issues,
newspaper and media articles, court filings, legislative bills, and environmental impact
studies. The thesis examines the proactive regulation of fracking in New Zealand and
reactive regulation in California. The environmental frameworks of both California and
New Zealand are known for being progressive and pro-ecology. California is often
referred to as “Ecotopia”, and New Zealand’s tagline is “100% Pure”. Regulatory
procedures are more decentralized and reactive in California than in New Zealand.
Environmental regulation in New Zealand is divided between the Ministry of the
Environment and the Ministry of Economic Development. Fracking regulation from these
two ministries has been proactive, and annually or semi-annually redrafts regulation depending on industry and community concerns. California’s environmental regulation is
collectively enforced by a selection of the 500 different state agencies. The Division of
Oil and Gas of the California Department of Conservation, the focal agency for fracking
oversight in California, has taken a reactive approach toward fracking in the state. These
state approaches toward fracking shape the attitudes of community members toward the
environment in these different regions. New Zealand’s regulation has fostered increased
cooperation between the government and residents, whereas California’s regulation has
resulted in a decreased cooperation.
