What the extraction industry calls "produced water" is the subject of hearings this week in New Mexico.

The term applies to water coming out of the ground along with oil and gas, which can be toxic to humans, animals and the environment.

The New Mexico Environment Department has developed draft rules for the reuse of such water, while also creating safeguards.

Camilla Feibelman, director of the Rio Grande chapter of the Sierra Club, encouraged residents to support the rule.

"What this rule-making does is to prohibit the use of this produced water outside oil and gas operations," Feibelman explained. "It keeps it from being discharged in a way that would harm our surface waters and our groundwater."

A hearing by the Water Quality Control Commission at the State Capitol allows for public comments from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. the rest of the week. Even though the rule is meant to enforce protections, some environmental opponents have rallied outside the State Capitol, arguing no produced water is safe and will always pose a threat to New Mexicans' health and safety.

The rule allows for research projects on the use of produced water, as long as there is no discharge to surface or groundwater, and formalizes the approach already used by the department. Feibelman says the Sierra Club opposes the use of produced water closed-loop industrial processes, in part because the state's environmental division did not provide any substantive testimony supporting its use.

"We want to make sure that these liquids that are dangerous and filled with toxic chemicals -- even in some cases naturally occurring radioactive material -- don't intersect with any of our waters," Feibelman emphasized.

A 2023 lawsuit claiming the state has failed to enforce pollution laws while also allowing more oil and gas production is currently making its way through the New Mexico courts.

ADDITION: Comments by Enbridge, received after deadline, have been added. (10:10 a.m. MST, Jan. 22, 2025)

A new report says Enbridge's plan to build a tunnel for Line 5 between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron is too expensive and unnecessary.

The report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis stated the aging pipeline, which transports crude oil and natural gas liquids from Canada to the U.S., serves fewer customers and is harder to maintain. The report also pointed out the tunnel project will likely cost much more than Enbridge has admitted.

Suzanne Mattei, energy policy analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, was the main author of the report.

"In our report, I would say conservatively, estimated that it would cost at least $500 million before it's through," Mattei reported. "But it could be more. We don't know."

The report noted Enbridge has not publicly confirmed a new cost figure and emphasized Enbridge should reconsider investing in an outdated pipeline, which could prolong the "carbon lock-in" effect, as markets for its products decline.

In response to the report, Enbridge did not comment on the cost figure, but stated it will pay all costs of tunnel construction and ongoing maintenance. Enbridge also said the prolonged regulatory approval process has delayed the process, adding to the cost.

In 2018, Enbridge estimated the project at $500 million but according to the report, by 2022, the company revealed in a corporate earnings call costs had increased to $750 million and rising. Mattei argued aside from the project's high cost, maintaining the 70-year-old pipeline could present further challenges, despite Enbridge's claim the pipe is in excellent condition based on its assessment.

"How true is that when the underwater dual pipeline had the anchor strike in 2018 and the ship's cable snafu in 2020?" Mattei asked.

Another controversy involving the Line 5 project is the tribal claim of trespass. Some Native American tribes in Michigan and Wisconsin have argued the pipeline threatens their sacred lands and water rights, potentially violating protective treaties.

In its statement, Enbridge refers to Line 5 as a "vital energy artery," and argues pipelines are safer for the environment and the climate than rail or shipping oil on the Great Lakes by barges.

Dams on the lower Snake River in Washington state are losing water to evaporation at a rapid rate, according to a new study. The reservoirs created by the four lower Snake River dams lose more than 30,000 acre feet of water each year. That's enough water for the household needs of 240,000 people, the Stockholm Environment Institute estimates.

Miles Johnson, legal director of Columbia Riverkeeper, said this is another drawback of the dams.

"This study showed that there is a hidden cost to the existence of the lower Snake River dams, and that's not to take away from any of the other well understood costs of the lower Snake River dams, which are the compromise of tribal treaty rights, impeding salmon recovery," he said.

The reservoirs from the dams have a surface area of about 30,000 acres in total. Columbia Riverkeeper and other organizations are calling for the dams to be removed to ensure the recovery of endangered species like salmon, which also impacts tribal nations. Critics argue that dams are often taken down without the input of nearby communities.

Groups opposed to removing the dams point out that they're important for irrigating farmland in the region. However, Johnson says this hurdle can be overcome.

"We can have those things alongside the services that the lower Snake River dams currently provide if we plan carefully and invest wisely in replacing those services," Johnson explained.

The study also found that the water that's lost to evaporation from the reservoirs each year could grow more than 8,000 acres of apples, or generate $3.7 million in revenue for farms in southeast Washington.

Larger livestock operations can be a thorny issue in rural areas and South Dakota lawmakers are proposing restricting feedlot details with more communities poised to debate the projects.

A Senate bill calls for updating language dealing with concentrated animal feeding operations. A provision tucked inside would bar a key state agency from providing a list to the public of existing operations already issued a permit, unless federal law said it has to be turned over. Local governments seeking information might also encounter difficulty.

Jay Gilbertson, manager of the East Dakota Water Development District, does not view the sites as a big environmental risk but still questions the move.

"It creates an impression that there's something to hide," Gilbertson contended.

The number of concentrated animal feeding operations in South Dakota has swelled to nearly 440. In the U.S., feedlots with large animal herds are under scrutiny over air and water quality concerns. Under the bill, a resident researching environmental effects would have to travel to the state Capitol to secure site records.

The bill's sponsor said it is in response to requests from national media and others seeking specific site details and to protect sensitive information from getting in the hands of "bad actors."

But policy experts tracking the movement noted local organizing is often at the center of opposition to the projects, regardless of whether an out-of-state environmental group is assisting. Gilbertson pointed out the state offers accessible databases for other facilities subject to permits, such as wastewater treatment plants, and large feedlots should not be given extra cover.

"Suddenly, when cows and farmers are involved, if you're interested, you're a terrorist," Gilbertson observed. "I think that's kind of silly."

Gilbertson is referring to the term "agro-terrorism" used by the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources when describing the denial of past records requests. The department noted while it doesn't prefer to share lists of existing operations online or over the phone, the public can access information when a new project is seeking a permit.


get more stories like this via email