It was both; unless the well goes down to the same depth as the fracking level (unlikely as no water percolates down to those depths), and as upward migration of fracking media would require moving against gravity through impermeable layers of rock, the water table isn't touched by the target formation of fracking.
That, of course, doesn't negate the potential for surface contamination from spills, agricultural/industrial/mining runoff, previously unknown underground tanks, historical industrial concerns (such as smelters) to be effecting the supply on a well that was placed without a thorough (and thus expensive) search and impact assessment. In less affluent areas, the likelihood that a well was sited by a hydrologist (instead of a man with a stick) varies in inverse proportion to the likelihood that the driller is actually siting the well and acting as the hydrologist.
[EDIT: "goes up in direct proportion" changed to "varies in inverse proportion to the likelihood"; I proof-read myself terribly]
That, of course, doesn't negate the potential for surface contamination from spills, agricultural/industrial/mining runoff, previously unknown underground tanks, historical industrial concerns (such as smelters) to be effecting the supply on a well that was placed without a thorough (and thus expensive) search and impact assessment. In less affluent areas, the likelihood that a well was sited by a hydrologist (instead of a man with a stick) varies in inverse proportion to the likelihood that the driller is actually siting the well and acting as the hydrologist.
[EDIT: "goes up in direct proportion" changed to "varies in inverse proportion to the likelihood"; I proof-read myself terribly]