We filed a Motion for Science to demand that oil and gas front group share the basis for their fracking waste discharge petition

Last week New Energy Economy filed a motion requesting that the Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) require the “Water Access Treatment & Reuse Alliance” (WATR) to disclose the scientific basis upon which they relied to develop their proposed rule to allow oil and gas companies to dump fracking waste, referred to as “produced water,” into land and waters in thirteen counties in New Mexico.

Last year, after an exhaustive 18-month process, the WQCC ruled that there is “insufficientscientific support for the proposition that any discharges of treated or untreated produced water would be protective of ground or surface water.” The Commission relied on testimony from five NMED scientists, independent experts, and extensive public comment. Yet, despite this definitive ruling, the industry-backed WATR Alliance has now been given the green light to relitigate the issue without providing the Commission or the public any new science proving that produced water can be safely reused and discharged.

WATR has alleged that there is “new evidence” that justifies its proposed rule but has thus far failed to specify what it is, and has communicated only that they are putting it together for the hearing. That is not how the WQCC is supposed to operate. The law requires that any rule being (re)considered must be based on sound scientific evidence, and that the rule itself must be based on such evidence. In this case the proposed rule was written in anticipation of some alleged new research that may soon come to light proving produced water can be safely reused and discharged. The oil and gas industry, which has more more money than anyone, except maybe AI, cannot even buy the science to demonstrate that it can be "treated" and reused (and they usually can afford the pricetag for any expert!). Just shows how out-of-bounds this scheme really is.

In response to our opposition to their petition for rulemaking, WATR submitted a list of Google search results as flimsy evidence for the existence of new scientific research, but a review of the studies on that list found that most had nothing to do with Permian produced water or protection of human health, and none supported WATR's claim that scientific research proves the safety of treatment and discharge. In fact, the few relevant studies on that list proved the opposite.

One paper from NM Produced Water Research Consortium scientists published in September last year found that after the distillation process:

“about 96.78% of the organic fraction present in the distillate remained unidentified. This outcome highlights the limitations of current standard extraction techniques...when it comes to thoroughly characterizing the organics in treated PW [produced water], as well as underscores the need for the use of advanced, comprehensive targeted and non-targeted chemical characterization together to reveal and enhance our understanding of “unknown” chemicals in PW [produced water].” (Emphasis added.)

Another relevant peer-reviewed study on the list had this to say about the produced water composition of numerous organics (natural and synthetic), inorganics, metals, and radioactive materials:

“PW composition is not fully identified or understood, and many unknown constituents are likely yet to be discovered. Indeed, the majority of the compounds identified in the current study (~94% of the compounds identified in total along with predicted molecular formula and structures) are not listed in existing PW databases, emphasizing the necessity of non-targeted chemical screening to unveil such unknowns…In addition, identifying unknowns using solely targeted techniques is nearly impossible due to the complex composition of PW, the lack of appropriate internal standards, and unreasonably high analytical costs for the multitude of potential constituents. Most of the existing literature on PW treatment technology evaluations is based on limited targeted analyte removals and therefore does not demonstrate human health and ecological safety in long-term reuse applications. (Emphasis added.)

Do you feel reassured that treatment technologies are ready for prime time yet? We do not.

NMED SCIENTISTS ARE BEING DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED

The necessity for our motion is driven not just by WATR’s failure to disclose the science it claims to have, but also by the shocking refusal of the Governor’s administration to allow Environment Department scientists who testified in the last hearing about the dangers of discharging produced water to testify before the WQCC in the WATR petition proceeding. Their earlier testimony established that there is no current scientific evidence that it is possible to treat and discharge produced water without poisoning New Mexico’s environment and endangering human health. Refusing to allow them to testify reflects the Governor’s desire to give the industry what it wants, despite the foreseeable harm to New Mexicans’ health and ourenvironment.

Governor Lujan Grisham and her Environment Department know what the science says—that dumping or reusing oil and gas wastewater is a toxic gamble that would contaminate our waters and poison our people. That is why they’re silencing their own scientists. They don’t want the truth to get in the way of industry profits. But the law is crystal clear: no science, no rule. Political favors for oil and gas cannot replace science and evidence and cannot justify poisoning New Mexico.

Our motion stresses that WATR’s proposal is fatally deficient: it only references 300 chemicals (without any numerical toxicity values) even though scientific analysis has found at least 1,198 known constituents in Permian Basin produced water, not to mention countless undisclosed or unidentified compounds. Most of the chemical constituents have no toxicological benchmarks, making it legally and scientifically impossible to set protective standards.

Approving this sham petition would be arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. New Mexicans’ health and water must come before the oil and gas industry's toxic waste problem.