Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Produced Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves expansion of produced‑water recycling facility after technical Q&A on odor, wildlife and monitoring
Summary
The commission approved Readwater/Greenwater LLC’s three‑pond expansion of an existing produced‑water recycling facility with conditions requiring state permits, odor controls, an on‑site operator during receiving and construction timelines; neighbors questioned mosquito abatement, wildlife impacts and H2S monitoring.
The Duchesne County Planning Commission approved Readwater LLC/Greenwater LLC’s application to expand a produced‑water recycling facility, allowing additional ponds and storage subject to state and county conditions.
Planning staff presented findings that the proposed expansion aligns with the county zoning ordinance and general plan goals for energy development. Staff emphasized that produced‑water disposal/recycling facilities trigger a broader public‑notice area (two miles) because of potential odor impacts and that state oversight (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining; DOGM) and DEQ permits apply. Staff described required conditions in the county permit: perimeter fencing, compliance with state regulations, procedures to minimize odor and a requirement that an operator be on site during receiving operations and secure the site when no operator is present. Staff also noted construction timing expectations (substantial action within 18 months and completion within three years) and the need for a Section 404 permit if waters of the United States are impacted.
Proponent Jake Woodland said the facility is an upgraded recycling operation (two ponds are already authorized) and that the operator has invested in repairs and reclamation of legacy ponds. Woodland said the facility currently processes roughly 20,000–22,000 barrels per day and that intake/stripping infrastructure has capacity up to about 50,000 barrels per day; he estimated earlier capital investment in the range of $20 million for improvements already made. Public commenters asked about mosquito abatement, bird and pollinator impacts, potential toxins and airborne emissions; a long‑standing neighbor described intermittent odors associated with earlier operations and asked for continued monitoring and treatment of H2S. Proponent responded that the facility operates under DOGM rules, performs leak detection and H2S is monitored and treated in the process.
After questions and public comment, the commission moved and voted to approve the expansion with the staff‑recommended conditions recorded in the planning file.
