Reject water rule — it’s too risky
The proposed produced water reuse rule pending at the Water Quality Control Commission raises significant concerns regarding the health and environmental impacts of reusing fracking wastewater, particularly in the context of its potential use in agricultural settings.
The presence of human carcinogens such as BTEX, benzene, toxic heavy metals like arsenic and lead, PFAS and highly radioactive elements such as radium in produced water underscores the urgent need for robust regulatory oversight and independent health studies. Instead, this rule lacks any standards for water quality or treatment.
The above-mentioned toxic compounds in fracking waste threaten soils, air, groundwater and surface water quality. The prospect of agricultural use magnifies that risk, facilitating the bio-accumulation and accumulation of persistent compounds in our food sources and our bodies. The Water Quality Control Commission should account for cumulative toxin impacts in the proposed rule, but instead fails to define any specific treatment or testing requirements.
Studies have shown these contaminants persist throughout the oil and gas production line, concentrating over time. High-quality epidemiological studies are urgently needed to assess the health impacts of any fracking waste reuse, especially given recent observations linking childhood leukemia and multiple myeloma to oil and gas production sites. Moreover, recent research has highlighted the detrimental effects of fracking wastewater on key freshwater species, with potential far-reaching consequences for freshwater ecosystems.
A comprehensive study on human health risks associated with fracking waste has revealed several critical findings:
Although changes in the chemical composition of soil, water and air are expected, elevated levels often remain above safety thresholds, even when down blended or diluted.
Regulators lack the necessary resources for effectively monitoring and remediating point source pollution and rely on self-reporting.
Risk assessment should integrate both hazard and exposure evaluation to accurately gauge health risks in children, the elderly and women.
These findings underscore the importance of comprehensive regulation, rigorous monitoring and proactive measures to mitigate environmental and public health impacts of recycling fracking wastewater, and the New Mexico Environment Department is already sorely underfunded and beyond capacity. The oil and gas industry’s lack of transparency on fracking chemicals exacerbates the problem.
Weak disclosure rules enable companies to withhold information on flowback and produced water chemical identities, raising concerns about direct exposure to toxins like Radon 238 and PFAS from wells and waste sites. The chemicals used in both fracking and conventional oil drilling interact with one another, and with other natural compounds like arsenic and anthracene, to produce new compounds that can be more toxic than the individual chemicals by themselves.
The uncertainties surrounding the effects of these intricate chemical blends in wastewater make it unsafe to utilize them on roads or crops, or to inject them into aquifer recharge and recovery projects, from which over 90% of New Mexicans draw their drinking water. Given the health risks associated with known toxins and the risks from unknown toxic compounds, the proposed rule’s lack of independent studies and enforcement mechanisms is deeply troubling.
Without adequate funding and regulatory oversight, there is a significant risk of exposing our water, our food, our livestock and our bodies to harmful contaminants. Furthermore, the economic impacts on farmers and ranchers must be carefully considered. Just consider dairy farmer Art Schapp of Clovis, who lost 3,500 dairy cows because of PFAS contamination of his water. His family and workers also were exposed to PFAS.
The proposed rule to allow the use of fracking wastewater in agriculture poses significant risks to public health, environmental integrity and economic well-being. It is imperative that the Water Quality Control Commission prioritizes the protection of residents and the environment by rejecting this rule and advocating for epidemiological studies, stringent regulations and robust oversight of the oil and gas industry.