Written by Evgenia Spears, Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter
Produced water is the wastewater that comes out of oil and gas wells. Part of it is the water and chemicals injected underground during hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Part of it is naturally occurring water that has been trapped in underground formations alongside oil and gas for millions of years. As oil and gas are brought to the surface, this water comes up with them. Untreated produced water is highly toxic and can contain organic and inorganic compounds, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and naturally occurring radioactive materials. Texas, the nation’s largest oil and gas producer, generates an estimated 20–25 million barrels (up to 1 billion gallons) of produced water daily in the Permian Basin alone.
It’s easy to see why the interest in the reuse of produced water is gaining attention: The oil and gas industry generates billions of gallons of produced water every day. Most of it is disposed of by injecting it deep underground, a practice that has recently been linked to increased earthquakes and reports of groundwater and soil contamination. Oil and gas companies need another method to dispose or to get rid of produced water since underground injection is losing favor among Texans. Texas is also in need of additional water supplies, if produced water could be treated to a safe standard, reusing it could help address both challenges. At least in theory.
To determine whether that potential could become reality, the 87th Texas Legislature established the Texas Produced Water Consortium (TxPWC), bringing together scientists, engineers, regulators, industry representatives, and environmental organizations to study how produced water could be safely treated and reused. While the TxPWC is making progress, more research is needed to fully understand what treatment technologies are required, what long-term impacts on the environment and public health may be, or even the full range of chemicals that may be present, since some are protected as trade secrets and not publicly disclosed.
Developments at the Legislature
Last year the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1145 (SB 1145), which transferred authority over land application of treated produced water from the Railroad Commission of Texas to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). SB 1145 also directed TCEQ to “adopt standards for land application of water under this section, including standards that prevent pollution of surface and subsurface water.”
In addition, during the same legislative session, lawmakers also passed House Bill 49 (HB 49), which expanded legal protections for companies that treat and reuse produced water provided that they’re compliant with TCEQ’s rules and permit requirements. Thus, SB 1145 rulemaking will not only determine how produced water reuse is regulated in Texas, but also the standards companies must meet to receive those legal protections.
SB 1145 took effect last September, and TCEQ began a rulemaking process. The agency published its proposed rules in May of this year and gave the public 30 days to review and comment on a proposal that will determine how produced water reuse will be regulated in Texas.
SB 1145 Rulemaking: What Did TCEQ Actually Propose?Instead of developing protective discharge standards for treated produced water, the agency proposes regulating this effluent under Chapter 309, an existing wastewater land application program that was intended for very different wastewater streams, such as municipal or industrial wastewater. In other words, TCEQ isn’t building a separate regulatory program around the unique characteristics of produced water, but instead is trying to fit this unique wastewater into a program that’s already in place. But treated produced water isn’t just another typical wastewater stream.
So what is it then? The proposed rules repeatedly use the term “treated produced water,” yet never define what “treated” actually means. Does it mean salts have been removed? Or does it mean heavy metals, hydrocarbons, naturally occurring radioactive materials, and other constituents of concern commonly associated with produced water also have been removed? It’s unclear.
By incorporating this waste stream into Chapter 309, the rule would also apply that program’s setback requirements to treated produced water, allowing land application as close as 100 feet from surface waters and 150 feet from private water wells. The proposal doesn’t explain why those distances were determined to be protective for treated produced water or what scientific basis the TCEQ relied on in reaching that conclusion.
These are only a few examples of the concerns that we listed in the Texas Living Waters coalition’s comments to the TCEQ. Developing a new regulatory framework for a waste stream that researchers are still trying to understand is a difficult task. Until we know what it takes to safely reuse produced water, we shouldn’t rush into something with such grave risks for the health of humans, wildlife and waterways.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The public comment period for SB 1145 rulemaking closed mid-June, but Texas still has a chance to correct its course. A responsible course of action would be for the TCEQ to slow this rulemaking down and take the time necessary to develop standards specifically for treated produced water using the best available science, rather than trying to fit this unique waste stream into a program intended for a different type of wastewater. Those new proposed standards should then be brought back to the public for another round of review and comment.
This conversation shouldn’t just happen in Austin. Communities across the state where produced water reuse projects may one day be proposed deserve an opportunity to understand what’s being considered, ask questions, and participate in the development of the rules before the TCEQ starts issuing permits. That can’t happen without much more education and outreach. Most Texans have never heard of produced water, let alone had the opportunity to learn how it could be treated and reused.. It’s unrealistic to expect meaningful public feedback if people are asked to comment before they’ve had a fair chance to understand the technical aspects what’s being proposed.
It’s tempting to reach for the tool that’s already in the garage instead of the one the job actually calls for. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. And sometimes forcing the fit creates a whole new set of problems. Responsible reuse of produced water is one of those jobs that calls for a specific set of tools and standards designed for job at hand.Texas should take the time to build the right program, which should be based on the best available science, informed public input, transparency, and trust. If we do that, we’ll be in a much better position to decide what role produced water should play in our water future.
