In the last decade, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas has exploded on the Barnett Shale in Texas, now home to the most intensive hydraulic tracking and gas production activities ever undertaken in a densely urbanized area. Yet, the debate is ongoing as to whether the explosive growth of gas industry operations poses a serious risk to public health and the environment. Concerns include the possibility that chemicals injected, naturally occurring substances disrupted, or toxins spiffed at the surface may contaminate soil or make their way into drinking water supplies. Particularly problematic are the endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which are known to cause latent abnormalities at infinitesimally small levels of exposure. Health effects may not surface for decades and could affect future generations. Although the gas industry is quick to claim that there are no proven cases of groundwater contamination related to hydraulic fracturing, local concerns are far more complicated. Leaks, spills, illegal dumping, and the attendant risk of soil contamination, ground and surface water pollution cannot be denied. Yet, a close review of federal and state regulatory provisions related to chemical reporting, monitoring, disclosure, tracking ,and cleanup reveal a fundamental problem: quality monitoring data is scarce. Moreover, information is not available on the hazards, or even the identity of all the potentially problematic chemicals associated with gas industry operations. Texas has adopted chemical disclosure requirements, but they are very limited, and unless trade secret claims are challenged, they are largely optional. There arc exceptions requiring disclosure of trade secrets to emergency medical personnel but not to toxicologists or epidemiologists. There are no exceptions for incidents where hydraulic fracturing chemicals are spilled on properly that have not (yet) resulted in identifiable health effects. There are no provisions allowing disclosure of trade secrets for the purpose of conducting sampling, assessing hazards, designing protective measures or engineering controls, or conducting studies to determine health effects. Even where chemicals associated with gas industry operations have been disclosed, they may still slip by undetected given limited surface and drinking water quality monitoring systems that focus narrowly on short and dated chemical lists. There is no comprehensive or systematic monitoring for industrial chemicals in groundwater. Given the difficult burden of proof, common law is also unlikely to serve as a reliable vehicle to identify contamination and hold industry accountable. The difficulty of toxic tort litigation, the ad hoc nature of litigation, and the veil of secrecy following settlement agreements requiring confidentiality all argue in favor of strong regulations governing gas industry operations. Gas-industry exemptions from federal regulation and a weak state regulatory system that relies on vague standards reminiscent of the early days of environmental law leave Texas cities at the forefront of the regulatory effort. After evaluating the federal and state regulatory framework, this Article reviews local regulatory efforts and concludes by discussing reasonable regulatory approaches to further strengthen and address soil and water contamination concerns. These approaches include adopting significant setbacks from the floodplain, a manifest system for tracking waste, monitoring, and reporting requirements, and clear standards to govern cleanup operations based on planned and restricted future land use. This Article also explores the possibility that local governments could adopt additional chemical disclosure requirements and share in the cost of any subsequent trade-secret litigation. Finally this Article discusses constitutional takings issues and concludes that public health concerns may outweigh the burden on property rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]