Lawmakers debate reclaimed‑water authority bill as public weighs risks of produced water reuse

A House committee held extended testimony on House Bill 311, a proposal to create local reclaimed‑water authorities that could coordinate and finance reuse of treated wastewater and nontraditional sources such as brackish or produced water. Lawmakers and witnesses debated whether the measure provides adequate oversight and whether it could open a pathway for reusing oil‑ and gas‑produced water.

Sponsor Representative Small (committee testimony) said the committee substitute limits the number of authorities the Economic Development Department may approve in the first year, clarifies that the Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) remains solely responsible for setting water‑quality standards, and adds minimum experience requirements for board members. The sponsor said the intent is to give local communities tools to find and match nontraditional water supplies with new economic projects while preserving existing water rights.

Opponents — including environmental groups, Pueblo and tribal representatives and community organizations — urged rejection of the bill or substantial amendment. They argued the bill could sidestep existing safeguards by allowing local authorities and nonprofit boards to facilitate reuse without fully established standards. Many witnesses cited produced water (the wastewater from oil and gas operations) and raised concerns about toxic constituents, PFAS, and radioactive material. The Center for Biological Diversity and other organizations warned that no proven treatment currently ensures safe reuse of produced water for many potential uses.

"The Orwellian renaming of treated fracking waste to reclaimed water is very telling," said Sarah Swati (Zoom testimony), urging the committee to reject the bill and warning that removing Water Quality Control Commission oversight would endanger communities.

Supporters included local governments, conservation districts, New Mexico State University researchers and water‑management organizations that said the measure would help regions build projects to use brackish or reclaimed water for economic uses without drawing fresh supplies. John D’Antonio, a former state engineer and president of the New Mexico Desalination Association, said the state needs new mechanisms to safeguard water supplies and cited desalination and municipal reuse as parts of a broader strategy.

The sponsor and several witnesses repeatedly stressed that the WQCC would retain authority to set standards for certified reclaimed water; the committee substitute added language stating the commission is responsible for water quality. Still, committee members pressed on definitions and on whether the bill’s broad definition of reclaimed water — “any type of water, regardless of source” that has been treated — could include produced water. The sponsor acknowledged the definition is intentionally agnostic about source but said a legal pathway (WQCC standards and permits) would be required before produced water could be reused outside of oil‑field operations.

Lawmakers asked whether the bill imperils acequia and tribal water rights; the sponsor and technical witnesses said the measure does not alter existing water‑rights law and that reclaimed‑water use by an authority cannot impair existing water rights. Committee members also questioned why the Economic Development Department has a key approval role; the sponsor said that role is meant to align economic development, local planning and new water resources.

Public testimony was mixed and extensive. Many environmental and tribal witnesses opposed the bill unless it expressly protected public health and retained clear, enforceable statewide oversight. Supporters urged more tools for local communities, pointing to pilot projects and research at New Mexico State University. At the end of the hearing the sponsor asked for additional engagement; the committee did not take a final vote.