Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Produced Water Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Produced‑water reuse draws sharp divide: industry pushes permits, environmental groups call for standards first
Summary
Industry and midstream operators asked the Water Quality Control Commission to adopt a permitting framework for treated produced water reuse in a limited geography; environmental groups and NMED staff urged more published, long‑duration pilot data, baseline water‑quality standards and transparent chemical disclosure before permitting discharge or land‑application at scale.
A contentious panel at the Water & Natural Resources Committee laid out sharply different plans for how New Mexico should treat and reuse produced water from oil and gas operations.
Industry representatives and the Water Alliance said the state should adopt a comprehensive permitting framework limited to specific Permian counties and require multi‑barrier treatment, real‑time surrogate monitoring, targeted and non‑targeted chemical analysis, whole‑effluent toxicity testing and financial assurance sized to closure and abatement costs. Proponents argued pilot work and joint industry projects have shown treated effluent can meet surface‑discharge benchmarks when processed through multi‑step treatment trains.
Environmental organizations, public‑interest lawyers and some NMED officials urged more caution. They pointed to the Water Quality Control Commission’s May phase‑1 rule that generally prohibits discharge while authorizing non‑discharging pilots. They said the current scientific record lacks widely published, peer‑reviewed, long‑duration pilot results in the Permian, and that about 180 produced‑water constituents detected in the basin do not currently have numeric water‑quality standards under New Mexico law. They also flagged high energy and carbon costs for large‑scale desalination and urged limits on PFAS in downhole operations and full chemical disclosure from operators before broad reuse or discharge permits are issued.
NMED staff described red‑line comments submitted in response to the Water Alliance petition and said the department is seeking a phased, science‑based path: enable carefully scoped non‑discharging pilots, require robust monitoring and public reporting, and follow with a rulemaking to set numeric standards before large‑scale discharge or irrigation uses are authorized.
The committee asked agencies for a clear list of outstanding technical questions, copies of pilot data being developed for peer review and an assessment of likely energy and cost ranges for treatment options. No legislative action was taken; many members said they want published pilot results and defensible numeric standards before any expansion of discharge or irrigation uses.
