top of page

Should New Mexico have worse water protections than Texas?

First, thank you to everyone who has shown up to raise their voice against corporate exploitation and profiteering at the expense of our safety and health. Friday the schedule was adjusted and the hearing will resume on Tuesday rather than Monday, but there will still be at least two more opportunities on that day to take three minutes to make a statement to protect our water. Sign up here.


Thursday Mariel's cross examination of NMOGA witness, Mr. Rick McCurdy, the Vice President of Innovation and Sustainability for Select Water Solutions, revealed that Oil and Gas regulators in Texas have adopted an authorization process for produced water reuse that is significantly more protective than the rule that our New Mexico Environment Department has proposed for adoption here. And that he would recommend that our regulations include the same protections!


Texas regulations include not only public notice, but limitations on size and detailed requirements for testing of fluids and soil before and after treatment testing, a characterization of naturally occurring radioactivity, worker protections, financial assurances, and importantly, authority to reject or modify an application to protect Texas water. We argue that our own water, our health, and our land deserve at least the same protections, and that our Environment Department should join New Energy Economy in insisting that the rule include these necessary safeguards afforded by a legally required permit process based on scientific treatment standards.


For those who want to nerd out and listen to this decisive moment in the hearing, this rather long (18 min) snippet of Mariel's cross examination of Mr. McCurdy enumerates the protections that NM deserves:

New Mexico Oil & Gas Association (NMOGA) paid witness Dr. Tischler, who has argued essentially that direct discharge of treated fracking waste into our land and water should not be prohibited because technology development is really cool and you never know when industry will solve all the issues involved, was cross-examined by our lawyer Chris Dodd. Chris pointed out that Dr. Tischler has virtually no academic research experience, has no expertise in produced water treatment or the latest research about such treatment, admitting expertise only on industrial and municipal treatment technologies, and that his testimony on this matter contradicts directly with the testimony of our witness, Dr. Avner Vengosh, who is the Chair of the Duke University Division of Earth and Climate Sciences and has published 180 peer reviewed academic studies including 34 studies on produced water. Dr. Vengosh testified unequivocally that:

"It has been shown that disposal of treated oil wastewater to streams and rivers has caused high levels of radioactivity in the sediments in the outfall sites. Given the high level of salinity and elevated levels of other contaminates in oil produced water specifically from the Permian Basin, reuse of untreated or inadequately treated oil wastewater in New Mexico is clearly impossible and would cause a major environmental damage."

AFTER ALL IS SAID AND DONE, THE COMMISSION MUST ADOPT A RULE THAT:

1. Limits off oil-field projects to permitted research and at accredited labs.

2. Requires permits for any pilot projects to provide transparency and accountability, including:

  • required disclosure of all chemical constituents before any person seeking a permit for pilot project from the NMED is permitted

  • limits on scale to protect public health and the environment

  • authority for NMED to modify or deny any permit application

  • required pre-treatment analytical tests and post treatment analytical tests on both fluids and soil, and that data be given to NMED on a quarterly basis, and all data be made public online

  • that there be characterization of all naturally occurring radioactive material and any other radioactive material be tested for, and that all workers be provided training and personal protective equipment

  • that there be specific residual waste standards for treatment waste and that monitoring of proper disposal of that residual waste be stringent to avoid public health risks and environmental contamination

All other reuse and discharge must be prohibited at this time, because the science is not there yet.

As he noted in a public comment yesterday, Edward Paulsgrove, a former geologist for the US Army Corp of Engineers and retired Senior Project Manager enforcing the Clean Water Act advised that when it comes to our water, the precautionary principle must be applied - if it is possible that a given policy or action might cause harm to the public or the environment, and if there is still no scientific agreement on the issue, the policy or action in question should not be carried out.

Comments


  • Black Facebook Icon
  • Black Instagram Icon
  • Twitter
bottom of page