Amity and Prosperity: One Family and the Fracturing of America

The Tragedy of the Commons is an economic and environmental principle that explores whether commonly-owned natural resources are possible or sustainable. The term originates from a pamphlet written by economist William Forster Lloyd in 1833, though it was later popularized by scientist Garrett Hardin. The commons typically refers to land that is shared by many individuals, with no single person holding a property claim over it. Such land can include farmland, pastures, or rivers, amongst other natural resources. In Lloyd’s original pamphlet, he considers a pasture where multiple cattle herders allow their cows to graze for food. Lloyd hypothesized that a greedy “free rider” would inevitably seek to take more than his or her fair sure of the pasture, allowing more and more cows to graze on the land until the pasture is completely depleted of grass (197).

Many economists cite the Tragedy of the Commons in arguing that commons must be divided up and given over to individual property owners. These economists believe that such individual property owners will naturally seek to protect their property from overuse. Griswold discusses the Tragedy of the Commons in relation to fracking companies like Range Resources. On the one hand, these fracking companies seem to prove that the Tragedy of the Commons is true; Range pollutes and depletes the surrounding land in its quest for ever-increasing profits. However, Griswold also questions whether the Tragedy of the Commons is a true inevitability and proposes that society could work out a system that protects the commons for all: “What if people were able to work out effective practices of sharing the commons and transmit those traditions to their descendants?” (197).

The Environmental Rights Amendment is an amendment to Pennsylvania’s state constitution that states that “the people have a right to clean air, pure water, and the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment” (235). The amendment was first passed in 1971, with bipartisan support. At the time, Pennsylvania’s coal industries were largely deregulated, allowing them to rake in massive profits while causing widespread pollution and environmental devastation. Griswold describes how “the rivers of the rust belt were so toxic they caught fire” (81). Around this time, an environmentalist and conservationist movement was growing in the United States, spurred by Rachel Carson’s influential 1962 book Silent Spring. In the book, Carson traces how pollution affects the environment, paying particular attention to how pesticides like DDT could “travel the food chain” and enter human’s bodies (82). However, the Environmental Rights Amendment went practically untested for more than 40 years, until the attorney Jordan Yeager cites the amendment in his lawsuit against Act 13 before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Court’s judges agree with Yeager’s arguments and cite the Environmental Rights Amendment in their decision ruling against Act 13’s provisions for fracking. Griswold argues that the decision meant that “the amendment had actual teeth” (241).

The Department of Environmental Protection is Pennsylvania’s state agency for monitoring environmental practices, regulating factories and corporations, and ensuring that water and air is clean and protected. The DEP appears frequently throughout Amity and Prosperity, with Stacey and Beth frequently calling the agency to complain about fracking and asking them to test their water. Despite their pleas, Stacey and Beth feel that the DEP is largely ineffective and reluctant to act, leading the Smiths to file multiple suits against the DEP. As the Smiths research their case, they discover that the Yeager fracking site had leaked multiple times. Though the DEP was aware of these leaks, it had not informed Stacey or Beth of the possible contamination. Though the DEP is meant to regulate gas companies like Range Resources, the book portrays them as being on the same side, as many individuals continually switch between working for the DEP and gas companies throughout their career. 

The Environmental Protection Agency is the US federal agency tasked with regulating and protecting environmental practices. Stacey turns to the agency after feeling that the DEP is futile in helping her. Initially, Stacey is hopeful when the EPA sends one of their criminal agents to investigate, and she believes the EPA will be more forceful in pursuing a case against Range Resources. However, Stacey loses her hope as years go by without the federal agency taking action. The EPA also performs a test on Stacey and Beth’s water, and while they confirm that the water is contaminated, they claim that they cannot make a decision as to whether Range Resources is the culprit for the contamination. 

Griswold refers several times to the concept of a pre-drill test—a water test on Stacey and Beth’s water taken before the fracking had begun. Such a test would allow Stacey and Beth to prove to what extent chemicals or metals were already present in the water before Range began drilling at the Yeager site. If the pre-drill test showed the water was clean, Stacey and Beth would prove to courts that Range’s actions had actively contaminated their water. Lacking such a pre-drill test, Kendra searches for another means of proving contamination but fails to find one. Stacey eventually learns that Range had conducted a pre-drill test for the Yeagers, but the Yeagers refuse to give the test to Stacey.