Yesterday the fracking waste reuse hearing got off to a strange start when WQCC Commissioner McWilliams, who was called out by for ethical violations due to her conflicts of interest as an oil and gas business owner, opted to recuse from voting but declared that she would continue to sit in deliberations during the hearing in order to continue "providing my fellow commissioners my perspective for their consideration.” We believe that if she deliberates with the WQCC body she taints the ultimate decision whether she votes or not, and her words at the hearing were at odds with her actions. She stated that she didn't want to deny us our "due process." If she didn't want to then she would have stepped aside.
Additionally it was announced that Commissioner Velasquez, who recused himself from the hearing due to "conflicts of interest" in May, chose to replace himself mid-hearing by Randolph Bayliss, a man who works directly for Mr. Velasquez. But a disqualified decision maker has no authority to designate their replacement in the proceeding in which they are disqualified. These machinations are a clear indication of unethical maneuvering at the WQCC to ensure votes to support the oil and gas industry's preferred outcome and we have once again filed a Motion for Recusal.
Our lawyer, Christopher Dodd, followed those announcements by pointing out the glaring and illegal omission of a permit requirement in the proposed rule, stating unequivocally:
Section 70-13-4(D) provides:
For uses regulated by the Water Quality Control Commission pursuant to the Water Quality Act, a person shall obtain a permit from the Department of Environment before using the produced water.” That is the law, and it is clear. Any use of produced water outside of the oil fields requires a permit. The current pilot projects are in violation of the law. By law, this Commission’s regulation must require permits for any use of produced water or its byproducts. By law, permits are required for any use. The proposed regulation is unlawful.
He further cited the intent of the legislature in drafting the Produced Water Act as detailed in a letter from the lead Sponsor of the Produced Water Act, former Speaker Egolf, who wrote shortly after the bill's passage:
“I urge you to take care in crafting of these regulations to ensure that none of the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to House Bill 546 inadvertently allow or purport to permit any use, application, or discharge of produced water outside of oil and gas operations. The people of New Mexico will be best served by the adoption of stringent regulations of produced water that put public health and safety first and clearly state that any use of produced water outside of oil and gas operations is prohibited.”
New Energy Economy then introduced an alternative rule for the Commission's consideration that prohibits the discharge, handling, transport, storage, recycling or treatment of treated or untreated produced water for any activities unrelated to the exploration, drilling, production, treatment or refinement of oil and gas, except as the NMED authorizes by permit, and further detailed standards that such a permit application must include.
Why is a permit process so important? Because no permit means no notice, means no opportunity to be heard and no ability to reject a fracking waste research project to protect the public. That is a violation of our due process and a violation of the Water Quality Commission's duty to protect the public.
THE PUBLIC SHOWED UP TO SAY
"DON'T FRACK WITH OUR WATER"
During Public Comment Rayellen Smith, Indivisible Albuquerque, delivered 1,100 signatures from New Mexico residents on a petition organized by Defend NM Water asking the Commission to adopt a rule that prohibits both discharge and reuse of fracking waste. The petition was also delivered to Infrastructure Advisor and Strategic Water Supply pitch-woman Rebecca Roose for delivery to the Governor, and to NMED to ask them to protect our water from contamination.
Feleecia Guilian, with YUCCA and Food and Water Watch, talked about growing up in Edgewood, where her family was always concerned that their well would run dry.
"Growing up, my father always emphasized the importance of our water resources. He would always tell me “Hija, agua es vida, agua es vida. Si no tenemos agua, no tenemos vida. Protégelo.” His concerns were not abstract; they were rooted in the lived experiences of our community. We constantly worry about water scarcity, fearing that any given moment could be the one when our water would run out. This fear is not unfounded.
I was raised in Edgewood, where our relationship with water was also shaped by our dependence on local agriculture. My family regularly buys corn and other produce from Schwebach Farms (but most notably corn - they have the best sweet corn), a staple of our community. Recently, they had to sell the farmhouse and 4.5 acres of land because their well ran dry…Their future is uncertain.
I find it incomprehensible why we would consider using produced water for agriculture or other purposes alike. Our food system is already under immense stress, and introducing produced water, which lacks scientifically-based treatment, handling, and disposal standards, would only exacerbate existing problems. The oil and gas industry, notorious for its excessive water use and the production of toxic waste, must be held accountable for its impact on our water resources, first and foremost.”
We encourage everyone to speak out this week–public comment is 9am and 1pm everyday! The virtual option makes it short and sweet. This is our opportunity to protect our health.
Comments