NM Oil and Gas Association Witness Rick McCurdy testifies before the Commission
The Water Quality Control Commission hearings on the reuse rule ended last Tuesday afternoon, August 13th. A huge thank you to all the organizations that worked together, the fierce water champions that gave comments, folks that wrote LTEs (5 in the Taos News so far)
and postcards, the experts that stood their ground to give clear, honest, fact driven testimony before the Commission and to the environmental groups that put the O & G industry on notice that we are going to keep our water safe. The Parties to the case will submit closing briefs by October 18th and the Hearing Examiner will compile a Statement of Facts for review by the Water Quality Control Commissioners as they consider what rule should be adopted. A decision is expected in December or January. If you would like to watch the hearings, they are on the WQCC Youtube channel.
During the hearing the health risks of produced water reuse, the lack of scientific data to back up the proposed reuse rule and the need for a stringent permit process became abundantly clear. Parties called not only for a prohibition on discharge to ground and surface water, but also increased oversight and transparency for any research conducted off the oil field. On the final day Commissioner Zemlick called into question why any research off the oil field is necessary when continued research is possible under existing rules at the OCD as long as it takes place on the oil field only.
On Wednesday, August 14th, YUCCA (Youth United for Climate Crisis Action) called out the bad faith of the O & G industry at Chevron's most recent Agua es Critica Produced Water Reuse Symposium outside Albuquerque. Chevron has been doing a PR swing through the state, working to convince us that toxic fracking waste is "produced water" that is really just water. They are using innocuous language to brainwash us into believing that their toxic waste is a solution to our water shortages. YUCCA spoke truth to power, blockading the entrance and bringing attention to the danger posed, the hypocrisy, and the lies being spread by the O & G industry.
Chevron's PR swing is happening in conjunction with its plans to expand its operations in New Mexico. The company announced that it plans to make "around $5 billion in capital expenditures in the Permian Basin in 2024." Chevron is also increasing their donations to legislators, presumably to get favorable legislation and financial support through government spending from our elected officials. To see how this works we can turn to the recent scandal out of Ohio about how these big industries get vast amounts of taxpayer money from our elected officials. The industry pours money into the pockets of politicians to get them into key positions to advance industry favorable legislation. That legislation in turn pours eye popping amounts of money into the pockets of the industry. If you want to become familiar with the scandal in Ohio that turned out to be a great ROI (industry spent $61 million on bribes and $ 20 million in fines for a $1.3 billion bailout) for the energy company, click on the inks here and here.
While our lawyers prepare closing briefs for the hearing examiner and we wait for a decision, the Defend NM Water coalition is looking at next steps on how to best protect our water from contamination of toxic waste fluid. Stay tuned for updates on upcoming actions to Defend our Water, especially as we know the Strategic Water Supply proposal to use public funds to pay for produced water treatment plants is expected to be raised again in the 2025 legislative session. We will also post updates on the legal proceedings for the ethics complaint.
P. S.
Here is an article in the La Jicarita, An Online Magazine of Environmental Politics in New Mexico that is a great overview of the Reuse Rule and why it needs to be opposed.
P. S. S.
When the hearings reconvened on Monday, Aug 5th, Commission McWilliams did recuse herself from voting but in an astonishing statement said she would sit in on the deliberations to provide "my fellow commissioners (with) my perspective for their consideration." Perhaps she doesn't understand that to recuse is to "remove (oneself) from participation to avoid conflict of interest."
Comentários