by Jerry Redfern for Capital and Main
The Clear Horizons Act died in the Senate yesterday, but that is not the only bill related to environmental regulation that won't be making it to the governor's desk this session. A controversial bill to pave the way for treated oilfield wastewater to be used outside the drilling operations was shot down after nearly five hours of debate on Saturday. And another bill that would have sharply restricted the use of drones around “critical infrastructure,” including oil and gas operations and pipelines, was quashed before it could limit a powerful tool for documenting spills.
In its initial form, the Water Quality Commission Produced Water Rules bill would have kicked the state Water Quality Control Commission into gear to create rules to allow treated wastewater water to be used for all sorts of things: cement, hydrogen production, geothermal energy and even watering “industrial” crops and discharge into waterways — the last two being particularly controversial.
Oilfield wastewater — also known as produced water — is highly saline and can contain radioactive elements, toxic organic compounds and other contaminants from the well drilling process. Its toxic nature has kept it highly regulated. But record-breaking oil and gas production in the Permian Basin has also created record-breaking amounts of produced water, leading to problems with its disposal.
Currently, companies reinject the water back underground, but that has led to more frequent earthquakes and failed wells. Producers are desperate for another way to get rid of the water, even as New Mexico faces a growing water crisis. The dream is to clean the water so it can be used outside the oilfield.
Before Saturday’s hearing, the bill’s sponsors stripped out the most controversial possible uses, but public comment still ran 75-18 against the proposed legislation. “The reputation of New Mexico chile is at stake!” an Albuquerque resident testified, loudly, referring to the state’s famed peppers. “Don’t frack with our chile!”
After hours of debate by the House Agriculture, Acequias & Water Resources Committee, the legislation was tabled. Democrats on the committee weren’t convinced of the produced water’s safety or the bill’s need. Rep. Micaela Lara Cadena (D-Doña Ana) led the arguments and spent nearly an hour picking the bill apart.
If the effort sounds familiar, it should. Last year, a push to get the Water Quality Control Commission to reconsider a fresh ruling to postpone broader use of produced water use exploded after reporting showed Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had meddled in the process.
Tannis Fox, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center, testified against the bill on Saturday, as she did last year. Before it was heard, she said, “The oil and gas industry is relentless in its efforts to obtain authorization for the reuse … of treated produced water. And industry has the support of the current administration.”
One-month legislative sessions like this year’s are nominally devoted to creating a budget, and legislators need an executive message from the governor to debate nonmonetary matters like this one. Gov. Lujan Grisham provided that on Jan. 30.
“The governor’s message is not an endorsement of the bill as drafted and introduced; rather, a message allows for the bill to advance through the legislative process, including debate and possible amendments,” Michael Coleman, the governor’s director of communications, said before the hearing. “The governor remains committed to advancing responsible and protective produced water reuse rules.”
After it was shot down, Fox said the bill, among other problems, “would have forced a new produced water rule on an extremely rushed timeline. … That would have deprived the commission of the rigor needed to write a rule that would keep New Mexicans and our water resources safe.”
Despite that, she expects proponents to resurrect the petition that died last summer, continuing the fight.
Meanwhile, the Unlawful Use of Unmanned Aircraft bill had its first and only hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It would have restricted flying drones around “critical infrastructure,” including communications and electric networks, water pipelines, jails and prisons, child detainment facilities, military installations, airports, private property — and natural gas and crude oil facilities and pipelines on Monday.
“One of my colleagues said, ‘Hey, this is the Charlie Barrett bill,’” Charlie Barrett said. “I think it’s silly.”
Barrett, an ecologist and thermographer with Oilfield Witness, has made a name for himself in recent years by finding and reporting oilfield spills across New Mexico.
“That visual data can be really useful,” Barrett said. “We’ve documented gathering line spills, and the only way we were able to see it was because we could see a big black stain on the soil” from a drone.
During the hearing, bill sponsor George Muñoz (D-Cibola, McKinley & San Juan) didn’t mention no-fly zones for oilfield infrastructure. But Sen. James Townsend (R-Eddy & Otero) said, “It’s a constant battle protecting those facilities from drones because that drone invasion over that can be very serious.”
Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-Bernalillo) told a story of buying her husband a drone for Christmas, which led to them inadvertently finding out that a neighbor swam in their pool in the nude. “Were we guilty of a misdemeanor?” she asked. “I just don’t think that this bill is ready,” she said.
Neither did the committee — they voted it down.
by Jerry Redfern for Capital and Main