Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

New Mexico Governor Puts Finger on Scale in Oilfield Wastewater Vote

News Feed
Monday, September 22, 2025

This story was produced in partnership with SourceNM. The administration of New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham appears to have pressured members of the state Water Quality Control Commission to consider a petition reversing a rule the commission passed unanimously in May that banned fossil fuel wastewater from being used outside oilfield work and testing. The commission’s August meeting marked the first time in years that all four department secretaries on the panel had shown up at the same time, raising eyebrows. Those secretaries then led the push to support a new petition that would overturn a rule whose development entailed more than a year of hearings and scientific debate.   In a statement to SourceNM, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said she “encouraged relevant cabinet secretaries to bring their expertise” to the proceedings. In an interview with Capital & Main and New Mexico PBS, James Kenney, the Environment Department secretary and a Water Quality Control Commissioner, said, “The governor did not explicitly ask us to all show up.” And recent reporting by the Santa Fe New Mexican reveals emails between the Governor’s Office, Kenney and other commissioners where they discussed pushing rules allowing wider use of oilfield wastewater “over the finish line.”  When reached by phone at a bluegrass festival in Winfield, Kansas, on Wednesday, Water Quality Control Commission Chair Bruce Thomson said he was unaware of the email exchanges with commissioners.  Thompson said he had not received any emails from the Governor’s Office and offered no comment when asked if he had concerns about the commission’s process.  Many who supported the original rule are livid with the apparent meddling, explicit or not. “They’re putting politics over scientifically based policy, and that’s illegal,” said Mariel Nanasi, executive director of the environmental group New Energy Economy. State statute requires commissioners to recuse themselves if their impartiality or fairness “may be reasonably questioned.” In a statement, Jodi McGinnis Porter, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham’s office, said, “The administration’s position on water reuse has been public for months. Directing secretaries to attend required meetings rather than send staff does not violate any laws” “This is the oddest, most political rule making I’ve seen in 25 years,” said Tannis Fox, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. For nearly three decades she has worked on water issues while working in or alongside state government, including a five-year stint in the late 1990s as the legal counsel for the Water Quality Control Commission.  At the center of the debate lies oilfield wastewater — also known as produced water — which is toxic and possibly laced with chemicals that operators consider “trade secrets” and do not have to publicly identify. Projects like the New Mexico Produced Water Research Consortium have worked for years to perfect industrial-scale wastewater purification.  The Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance, which represents oil companies, wastewater treatment firms and other, unnamed parties, petitioned the committee to rewrite its ruling. It claimed the science of wastewater treatment had dramatically improved in the past year and the May ruling should therefore be rewritten. Environmental groups, which vigorously supported the original rule, say the rule should stand for its built-in five-year lifespan.  At the August meeting, the four secretaries — from the Office of the State Engineer, the Environment Department, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health — were joined by the director of the Game and Fish Department and the chair of the Soil and Water Conservation Commission. A representative from New Mexico Tech, another from the State Parks Division and four members at large rounded out the meeting. Led by Kenney, all but three voted to reverse course and proceed with the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance petition to pursue using treated wastewater outside the oilfields. No future hearings on the matter are currently scheduled.  Kenney said, “It’s not uncommon for the cabinet to band together around a governor priority.” Water Quality Control Commission members James Kenney and Randolph Bayliss at a commission meeting on August 12 in Santa Fe. Photo: Danielle Prokop/Source NM. That priority is the governor’s 50-Year Water Action Plan, he said. Among many initiatives, it calls for the state to develop a legal path for broader use of oilfield wastewater by 2026. The Water Quality Control Commission’s May vote likely eliminated that possibility. “I just wish the administration would come out … and be upfront and transparent about what’s going on,” Fox said. Two things are likely going on. One: Lujan Grisham wants a new source of water for industrial uses in a state suffering through a historic drought. And two: The oil and gas industry has a growing problem with tightly regulated, toxic wastewater it can’t easily dispose of.  For years, Lujan Grisham and the industry have wanted to see one problem solve the other, with the wastewater cleaned and approved for use outside oilfield applications, currently the only legal use in New Mexico. That was a goal of the governor’s Strategic Water Supply, part of the 50-Year Water Action Plan. The supply creates a new water source for new businesses as the state’s freshwater supplies dwindle from climate change. The Strategic Water Supply bill originally included oilfield wastewater, but the state Legislature stripped out that language, leaving brackish aquifers deep underground as the sole source for new water. The Legislature balked in large part because oilfield wastewater is highly toxic, hard to clean and difficult to test. Debating the idea before the Water Quality Control Commission switched the forum from the legislative to the bureaucratic realm, where the number of people involved is smaller and  nearly all of them have been appointed by the governor. Kenney has been on the commission since 2019 but until recently sent a representative to the commission meetings in his stead. At his first meeting in July, he supported the petition to remake the wastewater rule, though five of his own Environment Department scientists had previously testified that treated oilfield wastewater could not be safely used elsewhere. When he attended the August meeting, his second, Kenney led the commission to a divided vote to proceed with the petition.  Kenney said that water treatment science had changed so much even before the commission’s May vote that the petition deserved to be considered. The May rule, he said, was guided by “2022 or earlier science” and the process didn’t allow for subsequent research to be admitted as evidence. Hearings do have cutoff dates after which new information generally can’t be introduced, to give commissioners a fixed set of information to ponder. “We couldn’t introduce new testimony,” he said. Fox disagreed. “Scientific materials were NOT limited to 2022 materials, and peer reviewed articles and other materials from 2023 and 2024 came into evidence,” she said in an email. “It was possible to introduce into evidence science up through May 2024,” she said in a subsequent phone call. Deliberations ran for a year beyond that. Fox acknowledged the technology to turn toxic brine into demonstrably safe water is “inching along.” Even so, “There hasn’t been some sort of earth-shattering [scientific] article that says, ‘Hey! We got this one! We got a silver bullet here!’”  Jennifer Bradfute, president of the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance, disagrees. She said her group has a collection of recent scientific papers showing successful treatment of oilfield wastewater. During the August hearing, she held up as evidence a list of scientific papers she said she found on Google Scholar.  Fox later dismissed the list, saying, “Some are relevant, some are not relevant, but none are showing that discharge at scale is safe. It’s just a bunch of articles on produced water.” Pei Xu, a professor in the department of civil engineering at New Mexico State University and a lead researcher at the Produced Water Research Consortium, is at the bleeding edge of several scientific studies currently testing the safety of different water treatment and testing procedures for oilfield wastewater. In a detailed interview, she described current, unfinished studies quantifying any effects of treated water on small animals and plants. She also shared a half-dozen recent papers indicating successful treatment of oilfield wastewater. Xu said she is confident that wastewater can be treated to safe levels today. However, she said, “If everybody looks for the peer-reviewed publications, I think we still need some time, especially related to all these ongoing studies.” Peer review, the gold standard of scientific research, allows other scientists in the field to critique the work done. It’s a process that can take months after the research has finished.  In the end, Xu said that it’s not her decision to use treated water outside a testing laboratory — that rests with the state. “I will work on science, and then how they will utilize the data, it’ll be up to the regulators,” she said.  Kenney listens during public comment at the August Water Quality Control Commission meeting. The majority of commenters voiced opposition to efforts to expand the use of oil and gas wastewater. Photo: Danielle Prokop/Source NM. During the August hearing, commissioners asked Kenney if Environment Department scientists could validate the results of any new studies for the commission. Environment Department scientists had previously testified that research into wastewater purification technology had not advanced to a point that it was safe to use in large scale applications beyond the oilfield. “I suspect most of the commissioners do not feel they are technically qualified to determine whether the results that are presented by these … new papers and studies, if they are in fact truthful,” said Thomson, chair of the committee.  In fact, state law says, “The water quality control commission shall receive staff support from the department of environment.” At the commission meeting, however, Zachary Ogaz, general counsel for the Environment Department, said the department had “no obligation” to make its scientists available. And Kenney hedged, saying that department turnover means scientists would “need to get up to speed” in order to testify before the commission.  “While I think it’s important to have a regulator validate the science, I think it is the obligation of the parties to present testimony that can be verified and validated,” he said. On Sept. 4, Mariel Nanasi of New Energy Economy filed a motion requesting that the Water Quality Control Commission require the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance to “disclose the scientific basis” relied on to develop its petition. On Sept. 19, Bradfute’s group responded, asking the commission to deny that motion, calling it an “extra-regulatory” requirement that should be addressed in a hearing. Even so, the response included a statement from a scientist working at a Texas-based wastewater treatment company outlining the last three years of water treatment science, concluding, “The use of treated produced water can occur in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment, provided treatment is robust, monitoring comprehensive, and regulatory safeguards enforced.” It went on to list 16 new and older papers on wastewater science. *   *   * Oilfield wastewater is a growing, expensive headache for oil and gas producers across the country, particularly in the Permian Basin — the nation’s most productive oilfield — which straddles Texas and New Mexico. Around five barrels of wastewater are produced for every barrel of oil in the Permian Basin, and the total has increased every year as the basin’s production has grown.  The water is highly saline and loaded with naturally occurring minerals as well as chemicals added in the drilling process. All of that eventually comes back up the well, mixed with the oil and gas. Sometimes the water is contaminated with naturally occurring radioactive minerals, too.  Neither the federal government nor New Mexico requires drillers to publicly list drilling chemicals considered “trade secrets,” so it’s not perfectly known what goes down and up a well. Colorado does require operators to disclose all chemicals used in fracking, but a recent study alleges that companies there don’t always do so. Chevron, one of the companies named in the study, is represented on the board of the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance. (Since the report came out, Chevron has complied with the Colorado law.) The overarching issue is what to do with the produced water. A small percentage is lightly cleaned and reused to drill new wells — a process that uses millions of gallons per well. For years, companies have also injected the water back into the ground, but that triggers earthquakes and some spectacular leaks. New Mexico tallies how much wastewater is produced and how much is injected, but it doesn’t track how much is shipped to Texas for disposal. The problems continue there.  Wastewater ponds in the Permian Basin in southern New Mexico. Photo: Jerry Redfern. Aerial support provided by LightHawk. Recently, ConocoPhillips said it is producing less oil and more water than expected in a Texas field just south of the New Mexico state line because of wastewater contamination from nearby disposal wells. In a motion filed with the Texas Railroad Commission (the state’s main oil and gas regulatory body), ConocoPhillips opposed Pilot Water Solutions’ plan to drill an additional wastewater well in the area. The motion read, “Pilot is banking on increased regional need for disposal capacity resulting from wells producing waste in other Texas counties and New Mexico.” Last year, the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division cancelled 75 proposed wastewater wells along the same stretch of border due to increasingly frequent earthquakes. ConocoPhillips also has a board member at the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance.  Bradfute, the alliance president, helped write New Mexico’s law on oil and gas wastewater that clarified who had oversight of the water and barred its use outside the oilfield. The law also created the New Mexico Produced Water Research Consortium to study how to clean and test produced water so it can eventually be used more broadly. Despite years of testing, however, the constantly shifting nature of what is in wastewater raises questions about the treated water’s safety, which is what led the Water Quality Control Commission to nix its broader use in May. Bradfute formed the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance in September 2024, three weeks after final arguments were made in the commission’s original hearings. She said that timing is coincidental — the original impetus was to promote treating brackish and produced water in response to Gov. Lujan Grisham’s 50-Year Water Action Plan. Bradfute said there are about 25 members of the alliance, but she wouldn’t name them. “Some of my members have been pretty severely attacked by different interest groups as a result of the rulemaking,” she said. “There’s been false Instagram and TikTok videos that certain groups are putting out there definitely attacking individuals by name,” she continued. Stephen Aldridge, the mayor of tiny Jal, New Mexico, is an Alliance board member with a history of wrangling over water in his corner of the state. Joining was a quick decision for him. “If there’s a conversation on water in New Mexico, we want a seat at the table,” he said. Since becoming mayor eight years ago, Aldridge has tussled with a series of oil and water companies that wanted to tap the town’s aquifers for water to drill oil wells in the surrounding Permian Basin.  “Yeah, they don’t like me very much,” he said. “But hell, I’ve got two friends I’m not looking for anymore.” Besides, he said, “I’m damn sure an advocate for this community. That’s my job.” The work has secured the town water for the foreseeable future, but only just. Aldridge says that there isn’t any excess to promote new business growth. That’s why he has his eye on produced water. Truckloads of the stuff rumble through his town every day. “I’m not without my concerns, but I’m also inquisitive enough to want to see some pilot [projects] up and running, and I would think that others would be too,” he said. In particular he worries about the toxic remains from the water treatment process. Aldridge knows there would be a lot of it: Where would it go? He’s waited years, watching the water cleaning science improve. He thinks it will be safe, eventually. Meanwhile, “Let’s don’t hurt ourselves in the process of tripping over a dollar to pick up a dime,” he said. Key WATR Alliance Players The Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance includes several political and industry heavy-hitters:  John D’Antonio, a produced water consultant; former state engineer (the state’s top water bureaucrat) appointed by Lujan Grisham; also New Mexico Environment Department secretary under Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson Deanna Archuleta, a member of the Vogel Group lobbying and consulting firm; former Washington, D.C.-based lobbyist for Exxon-Mobil; and controversial appointee to head the state Game Commission by Lujan Grisham Jason Sandel, a friend and political donor to Lujan Grisham and the head of a Farmington-based oilfield services conglomerate Tiffany Polak, policy adviser for Occidental Petroleum; a former deputy director of the state’s Oil Conservation Division Kathy Ytuarte, the former director of administrative services at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association A review of Lujan Grisham’s published calendars shows that alliance board members and representatives of companies publicly associated with the alliance have collectively visited the governor’s office 20 times since she took office in 2019. Copyright 2025 Capital & Main.

Gov. Lujan Grisham appears to push commission to overturn its recent ruling barring the use of produced water outside the oilfield. The post New Mexico Governor Puts Finger on Scale in Oilfield Wastewater Vote appeared first on .

This story was produced in partnership with SourceNM.


The administration of New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham appears to have pressured members of the state Water Quality Control Commission to consider a petition reversing a rule the commission passed unanimously in May that banned fossil fuel wastewater from being used outside oilfield work and testing.

The commission’s August meeting marked the first time in years that all four department secretaries on the panel had shown up at the same time, raising eyebrows. Those secretaries then led the push to support a new petition that would overturn a rule whose development entailed more than a year of hearings and scientific debate.
 



 
In a statement to SourceNM, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said she “encouraged relevant cabinet secretaries to bring their expertise” to the proceedings. In an interview with Capital & Main and New Mexico PBS, James Kenney, the Environment Department secretary and a Water Quality Control Commissioner, said, “The governor did not explicitly ask us to all show up.” And recent reporting by the Santa Fe New Mexican reveals emails between the Governor’s Office, Kenney and other commissioners where they discussed pushing rules allowing wider use of oilfield wastewater “over the finish line.” 

When reached by phone at a bluegrass festival in Winfield, Kansas, on Wednesday, Water Quality Control Commission Chair Bruce Thomson said he was unaware of the email exchanges with commissioners. 

Thompson said he had not received any emails from the Governor’s Office and offered no comment when asked if he had concerns about the commission’s process. 

Many who supported the original rule are livid with the apparent meddling, explicit or not. “They’re putting politics over scientifically based policy, and that’s illegal,” said Mariel Nanasi, executive director of the environmental group New Energy Economy. State statute requires commissioners to recuse themselves if their impartiality or fairness “may be reasonably questioned.”

In a statement, Jodi McGinnis Porter, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham’s office, said, “The administration’s position on water reuse has been public for months. Directing secretaries to attend required meetings rather than send staff does not violate any laws”

“This is the oddest, most political rule making I’ve seen in 25 years,” said Tannis Fox, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. For nearly three decades she has worked on water issues while working in or alongside state government, including a five-year stint in the late 1990s as the legal counsel for the Water Quality Control Commission. 

At the center of the debate lies oilfield wastewater — also known as produced water — which is toxic and possibly laced with chemicals that operators consider “trade secrets” and do not have to publicly identify. Projects like the New Mexico Produced Water Research Consortium have worked for years to perfect industrial-scale wastewater purification. 

The Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance, which represents oil companies, wastewater treatment firms and other, unnamed parties, petitioned the committee to rewrite its ruling. It claimed the science of wastewater treatment had dramatically improved in the past year and the May ruling should therefore be rewritten. Environmental groups, which vigorously supported the original rule, say the rule should stand for its built-in five-year lifespan. 

At the August meeting, the four secretaries — from the Office of the State Engineer, the Environment Department, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health — were joined by the director of the Game and Fish Department and the chair of the Soil and Water Conservation Commission. A representative from New Mexico Tech, another from the State Parks Division and four members at large rounded out the meeting.

Led by Kenney, all but three voted to reverse course and proceed with the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance petition to pursue using treated wastewater outside the oilfields. No future hearings on the matter are currently scheduled. 

Kenney said, “It’s not uncommon for the cabinet to band together around a governor priority.”

Water Quality Control Commission members James Kenney and Randolph Bayliss at a commission meeting on August 12 in Santa Fe. Photo: Danielle Prokop/Source NM.

That priority is the governor’s 50-Year Water Action Plan, he said. Among many initiatives, it calls for the state to develop a legal path for broader use of oilfield wastewater by 2026. The Water Quality Control Commission’s May vote likely eliminated that possibility.

“I just wish the administration would come out … and be upfront and transparent about what’s going on,” Fox said.

Two things are likely going on. One: Lujan Grisham wants a new source of water for industrial uses in a state suffering through a historic drought. And two: The oil and gas industry has a growing problem with tightly regulated, toxic wastewater it can’t easily dispose of. 

For years, Lujan Grisham and the industry have wanted to see one problem solve the other, with the wastewater cleaned and approved for use outside oilfield applications, currently the only legal use in New Mexico. That was a goal of the governor’s Strategic Water Supply, part of the 50-Year Water Action Plan. The supply creates a new water source for new businesses as the state’s freshwater supplies dwindle from climate change. The Strategic Water Supply bill originally included oilfield wastewater, but the state Legislature stripped out that language, leaving brackish aquifers deep underground as the sole source for new water.

The Legislature balked in large part because oilfield wastewater is highly toxic, hard to clean and difficult to test. Debating the idea before the Water Quality Control Commission switched the forum from the legislative to the bureaucratic realm, where the number of people involved is smaller and  nearly all of them have been appointed by the governor.

Kenney has been on the commission since 2019 but until recently sent a representative to the commission meetings in his stead. At his first meeting in July, he supported the petition to remake the wastewater rule, though five of his own Environment Department scientists had previously testified that treated oilfield wastewater could not be safely used elsewhere. When he attended the August meeting, his second, Kenney led the commission to a divided vote to proceed with the petition. 

Kenney said that water treatment science had changed so much even before the commission’s May vote that the petition deserved to be considered. The May rule, he said, was guided by “2022 or earlier science” and the process didn’t allow for subsequent research to be admitted as evidence. Hearings do have cutoff dates after which new information generally can’t be introduced, to give commissioners a fixed set of information to ponder. “We couldn’t introduce new testimony,” he said.

Fox disagreed. “Scientific materials were NOT limited to 2022 materials, and peer reviewed articles and other materials from 2023 and 2024 came into evidence,” she said in an email. “It was possible to introduce into evidence science up through May 2024,” she said in a subsequent phone call. Deliberations ran for a year beyond that.

Fox acknowledged the technology to turn toxic brine into demonstrably safe water is “inching along.” Even so, “There hasn’t been some sort of earth-shattering [scientific] article that says, ‘Hey! We got this one! We got a silver bullet here!’” 

Jennifer Bradfute, president of the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance, disagrees. She said her group has a collection of recent scientific papers showing successful treatment of oilfield wastewater. During the August hearing, she held up as evidence a list of scientific papers she said she found on Google Scholar. 

Fox later dismissed the list, saying, “Some are relevant, some are not relevant, but none are showing that discharge at scale is safe. It’s just a bunch of articles on produced water.”

Pei Xu, a professor in the department of civil engineering at New Mexico State University and a lead researcher at the Produced Water Research Consortium, is at the bleeding edge of several scientific studies currently testing the safety of different water treatment and testing procedures for oilfield wastewater. In a detailed interview, she described current, unfinished studies quantifying any effects of treated water on small animals and plants. She also shared a half-dozen recent papers indicating successful treatment of oilfield wastewater.

Xu said she is confident that wastewater can be treated to safe levels today. However, she said, “If everybody looks for the peer-reviewed publications, I think we still need some time, especially related to all these ongoing studies.” Peer review, the gold standard of scientific research, allows other scientists in the field to critique the work done. It’s a process that can take months after the research has finished. 

In the end, Xu said that it’s not her decision to use treated water outside a testing laboratory — that rests with the state. “I will work on science, and then how they will utilize the data, it’ll be up to the regulators,” she said. 

Kenney listens during public comment at the August Water Quality Control Commission meeting. The majority of commenters voiced opposition to efforts to expand the use of oil and gas wastewater. Photo: Danielle Prokop/Source NM.

During the August hearing, commissioners asked Kenney if Environment Department scientists could validate the results of any new studies for the commission.

Environment Department scientists had previously testified that research into wastewater purification technology had not advanced to a point that it was safe to use in large scale applications beyond the oilfield.

“I suspect most of the commissioners do not feel they are technically qualified to determine whether the results that are presented by these … new papers and studies, if they are in fact truthful,” said Thomson, chair of the committee. 

In fact, state law says, “The water quality control commission shall receive staff support from the department of environment.”

At the commission meeting, however, Zachary Ogaz, general counsel for the Environment Department, said the department had “no obligation” to make its scientists available. And Kenney hedged, saying that department turnover means scientists would “need to get up to speed” in order to testify before the commission. 

“While I think it’s important to have a regulator validate the science, I think it is the obligation of the parties to present testimony that can be verified and validated,” he said.

On Sept. 4, Mariel Nanasi of New Energy Economy filed a motion requesting that the Water Quality Control Commission require the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance to “disclose the scientific basis” relied on to develop its petition.

On Sept. 19, Bradfute’s group responded, asking the commission to deny that motion, calling it an “extra-regulatory” requirement that should be addressed in a hearing. Even so, the response included a statement from a scientist working at a Texas-based wastewater treatment company outlining the last three years of water treatment science, concluding, “The use of treated produced water can occur in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment, provided treatment is robust, monitoring comprehensive, and regulatory safeguards enforced.” It went on to list 16 new and older papers on wastewater science.

*   *   *

Oilfield wastewater is a growing, expensive headache for oil and gas producers across the country, particularly in the Permian Basin — the nation’s most productive oilfield — which straddles Texas and New Mexico. Around five barrels of wastewater are produced for every barrel of oil in the Permian Basin, and the total has increased every year as the basin’s production has grown

The water is highly saline and loaded with naturally occurring minerals as well as chemicals added in the drilling process. All of that eventually comes back up the well, mixed with the oil and gas. Sometimes the water is contaminated with naturally occurring radioactive minerals, too. 

Neither the federal government nor New Mexico requires drillers to publicly list drilling chemicals considered “trade secrets,” so it’s not perfectly known what goes down and up a well. Colorado does require operators to disclose all chemicals used in fracking, but a recent study alleges that companies there don’t always do so. Chevron, one of the companies named in the study, is represented on the board of the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance. (Since the report came out, Chevron has complied with the Colorado law.)

The overarching issue is what to do with the produced water. A small percentage is lightly cleaned and reused to drill new wells — a process that uses millions of gallons per well. For years, companies have also injected the water back into the ground, but that triggers earthquakes and some spectacular leaks. New Mexico tallies how much wastewater is produced and how much is injected, but it doesn’t track how much is shipped to Texas for disposal. The problems continue there. 

Wastewater ponds in the Permian Basin in southern New Mexico. Photo: Jerry Redfern. Aerial support provided by LightHawk.

Recently, ConocoPhillips said it is producing less oil and more water than expected in a Texas field just south of the New Mexico state line because of wastewater contamination from nearby disposal wells. In a motion filed with the Texas Railroad Commission (the state’s main oil and gas regulatory body), ConocoPhillips opposed Pilot Water Solutions’ plan to drill an additional wastewater well in the area. The motion read, “Pilot is banking on increased regional need for disposal capacity resulting from wells producing waste in other Texas counties and New Mexico.” Last year, the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division cancelled 75 proposed wastewater wells along the same stretch of border due to increasingly frequent earthquakes. ConocoPhillips also has a board member at the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance. 

Bradfute, the alliance president, helped write New Mexico’s law on oil and gas wastewater that clarified who had oversight of the water and barred its use outside the oilfield. The law also created the New Mexico Produced Water Research Consortium to study how to clean and test produced water so it can eventually be used more broadly. Despite years of testing, however, the constantly shifting nature of what is in wastewater raises questions about the treated water’s safety, which is what led the Water Quality Control Commission to nix its broader use in May.

Bradfute formed the Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance in September 2024, three weeks after final arguments were made in the commission’s original hearings. She said that timing is coincidental — the original impetus was to promote treating brackish and produced water in response to Gov. Lujan Grisham’s 50-Year Water Action Plan.

Bradfute said there are about 25 members of the alliance, but she wouldn’t name them. “Some of my members have been pretty severely attacked by different interest groups as a result of the rulemaking,” she said. “There’s been false Instagram and TikTok videos that certain groups are putting out there definitely attacking individuals by name,” she continued.

Stephen Aldridge, the mayor of tiny Jal, New Mexico, is an Alliance board member with a history of wrangling over water in his corner of the state. Joining was a quick decision for him.

“If there’s a conversation on water in New Mexico, we want a seat at the table,” he said.

Since becoming mayor eight years ago, Aldridge has tussled with a series of oil and water companies that wanted to tap the town’s aquifers for water to drill oil wells in the surrounding Permian Basin. 

“Yeah, they don’t like me very much,” he said. “But hell, I’ve got two friends I’m not looking for anymore.” Besides, he said, “I’m damn sure an advocate for this community. That’s my job.”

The work has secured the town water for the foreseeable future, but only just. Aldridge says that there isn’t any excess to promote new business growth. That’s why he has his eye on produced water. Truckloads of the stuff rumble through his town every day.

“I’m not without my concerns, but I’m also inquisitive enough to want to see some pilot [projects] up and running, and I would think that others would be too,” he said. In particular he worries about the toxic remains from the water treatment process. Aldridge knows there would be a lot of it: Where would it go?

He’s waited years, watching the water cleaning science improve. He thinks it will be safe, eventually. Meanwhile, “Let’s don’t hurt ourselves in the process of tripping over a dollar to pick up a dime,” he said.


Key WATR Alliance Players

The Water, Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance includes several political and industry heavy-hitters: 

  • John D’Antonio, a produced water consultant; former state engineer (the state’s top water bureaucrat) appointed by Lujan Grisham; also New Mexico Environment Department secretary under Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson
  • Deanna Archuleta, a member of the Vogel Group lobbying and consulting firm; former Washington, D.C.-based lobbyist for Exxon-Mobil; and controversial appointee to head the state Game Commission by Lujan Grisham
  • Jason Sandel, a friend and political donor to Lujan Grisham and the head of a Farmington-based oilfield services conglomerate
  • Tiffany Polak, policy adviser for Occidental Petroleum; a former deputy director of the state’s Oil Conservation Division
  • Kathy Ytuarte, the former director of administrative services at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association

A review of Lujan Grisham’s published calendars shows that alliance board members and representatives of companies publicly associated with the alliance have collectively visited the governor’s office 20 times since she took office in 2019.


Copyright 2025 Capital & Main.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

What should countries do with their nuclear waste?

A new study by MIT researchers analyzes different nuclear waste management strategies, with a focus on the radionuclide iodine-129.

One of the highest-risk components of nuclear waste is iodine-129 (I-129), which stays radioactive for millions of years and accumulates in human thyroids when ingested. In the U.S., nuclear waste containing I-129 is scheduled to be disposed of in deep underground repositories, which scientists say will sufficiently isolate it.Meanwhile, across the globe, France routinely releases low-level radioactive effluents containing iodine-129 and other radionuclides into the ocean. France recycles its spent nuclear fuel, and the reprocessing plant discharges about 153 kilograms of iodine-129 each year, under the French regulatory limit.Is dilution a good solution? What’s the best way to handle spent nuclear fuel? A new study by MIT researchers and their collaborators at national laboratories quantifies I-129 release under three different scenarios: the U.S. approach of disposing spent fuel directly in deep underground repositories, the French approach of dilution and release, and an approach that uses filters to capture I-129 and disposes of them in shallow underground waste repositories.The researchers found France’s current practice of reprocessing releases about 90 percent of the waste’s I-129 into the biosphere. They found low levels of I-129 in ocean water around France and the U.K.’s former reprocessing sites, including the English Channel and North Sea. Although the low level of I-129 in the water in Europe is not considered to pose health risks, the U.S. approach of deep underground disposal leads to far less I-129 being released, the researchers found.The researchers also investigated the effect of environmental regulations and technologies related to I-129 management, to illuminate the tradeoffs associated with different approaches around the world.“Putting these pieces together to provide a comprehensive view of Iodine-129 is important,” says MIT Assistant Professor Haruko Wainwright, a first author on the paper who holds a joint appointment in the departments of Nuclear Science and Engineering and of Civil and Environmental Engineering. “There are scientists that spend their lives trying to clean up iodine-129 at contaminated sites. These scientists are sometimes shocked to learn some countries are releasing so much iodine-129. This work also provides a life-cycle perspective. We’re not just looking at final disposal and solid waste, but also when and where release is happening. It puts all the pieces together.”MIT graduate student Kate Whiteaker SM ’24 led many of the analyses with Wainwright. Their co-authors are Hansell Gonzalez-Raymat, Miles Denham, Ian Pegg, Daniel Kaplan, Nikolla Qafoku, David Wilson, Shelly Wilson, and Carol Eddy-Dilek. The study appears today in Nature Sustainability.Managing wasteIodine-129 is often a key focus for scientists and engineers as they conduct safety assessments of nuclear waste disposal sites around the world. It has a half-life of 15.7 million years, high environmental mobility, and could potentially cause cancers if ingested. The U.S. sets a strict limit on how much I-129 can be released and how much I-129 can be in drinking water — 5.66 nanograms per liter, the lowest such level of any radionuclides.“Iodine-129 is very mobile, so it is usually the highest-dose contributor in safety assessments,” Wainwright says.For the study, the researchers calculated the release of I-129 across three different waste management strategies by combining data from current and former reprocessing sites as well as repository assessment models and simulations.The authors defined the environmental impact as the release of I-129 into the biosphere that humans could be exposed to, as well as its concentrations in surface water. They measured I-129 release per the total electrical energy generated by a 1-gigawatt power plant over one year, denoted as kg/GWe.y.Under the U.S. approach of deep underground disposal with barrier systems, assuming the barrier canisters fail at 1,000 years (a conservative estimate), the researchers found 2.14 x 10–8 kg/GWe.y of I-129 would be released between 1,000 and 1 million years from today.They estimate that 4.51 kg/GWe.y of I-129, or 91 percent of the total, would be released into the biosphere in the scenario where fuel is reprocessed and the effluents are diluted and released. About 3.3 percent of I-129 is captured by gas filters, which are then disposed of in shallow subsurfaces as low-level radioactive waste. A further 5.2 percent remains in the waste stream of the reprocessing plant, which is then disposed of as high-level radioactive waste.If the waste is recycled with gas filters to directly capture I-129, 0.05 kg/GWe.y of the I-129 is released, while 94 percent is disposed of in the low-level disposal sites. For shallow disposal, some kind of human disruption and intrusion is assumed to occur after government or institutional control expires (typically 100-1,000 years). That results in a potential release of the disposed amount to the environment after the control period.Overall, the current practice of recycling spent nuclear fuel releases the majority of I-129 into the environment today, while the direct disposal of spent fuel releases around 1/100,000,000 that amount over 1 million years. When the gas filters are used to capture I-129, the majority of I-129 goes to shallow underground repositories, which could be accidentally released through human intrusion down the line.The researchers also quantified the concentration of I-129 in different surface waters near current and former fuel reprocessing facilities, including the English Channel and the North Sea near reprocessing plants in France and U.K. They also analyzed the U.S. Columbia River downstream of a site in Washington state where material for nuclear weapons was produced during the Cold War, and they studied a similar site in South Carolina. The researchers found far higher concentrations of I-129 within the South Carolina site, where the low-level radioactive effluents were released far from major rivers and hence resulted in less dilution in the environment.“We wanted to quantify the environmental factors and the impact of dilution, which in this case affected concentrations more than discharge amounts,” Wainwright says. “Someone might take our results to say dilution still works: It’s reducing the contaminant concentration and spreading it over a large area. On the other hand, in the U.S., imperfect disposal has led to locally higher surface water concentrations. This provides a cautionary tale that disposal could concentrate contaminants, and should be carefully designed to protect local communities.”Fuel cycles and policyWainwright doesn’t want her findings to dissuade countries from recycling nuclear fuel. She says countries like Japan plan to use increased filtration to capture I-129 when they reprocess spent fuel. Filters with I-129 can be disposed of as low-level waste under U.S. regulations.“Since I-129 is an internal carcinogen without strong penetrating radiation, shallow underground disposal would be appropriate in line with other hazardous waste,” Wainwright says. “The history of environmental protection since the 1960s is shifting from waste dumping and release to isolation. But there are still industries that release waste into the air and water. We have seen that they often end up causing issues in our daily life — such as CO2, mercury, PFAS and others — especially when there are many sources or when bioaccumulation happens. The nuclear community has been leading in waste isolation strategies and technologies since the 1950s. These efforts should be further enhanced and accelerated. But at the same time, if someone does not choose nuclear energy because of waste issues, it would encourage other industries with much lower environmental standards.”The work was supported by MIT’s Climate Fast Forward Faculty Fund and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Under Trump, E.P.A. Explored if Abortion Pills Could Be Detected in Wastewater

Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency found that they could develop methods to identify traces of the medication if necessary — a practice long sought by the anti-abortion movement.

Senior officials at the Environmental Protection Agency directed a team of scientists over the summer to assess whether the government could develop methods for detecting traces of abortion pills in wastewater — a practice sought by some anti-abortion activists seeking to restrict the medication now used in over 50 percent of abortions.The highly unusual request appears to have originated from a letter sent from 25 Republican members of Congress to Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator, asking the agency to investigate how the abortion drug mifepristone might be contaminating the water supply.“Are there existing E.P.A.-approved methods for detecting mifepristone and its active metabolites in water supplies?” the lawmakers asked at the end of the public letter, sent on June 18, an effort led by Senator James Lankford and Representative Josh Brecheen, both of Oklahoma. “If not, what resources are needed to develop these testing methods?”Scientists who specialize in chemical detection told the senior officials that there are currently no E.P.A.-approved methods for identifying mifepristone in wastewater — but that new methods could be developed, according to two people familiar with the events, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.Abortion pills have emerged as a major focus for the anti-abortion movement since the fall of Roe v. Wade, as growing numbers of women in states with abortion bans have turned to websites and underground networks that send the pills through the mail, allowing them to circumvent the laws.The widespread availability of abortion pills — which women usually take at home in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy — has inspired many anti-abortion activists to push for new approaches to curtail their use. That has included a campaign by one prominent group to raise awareness about environmental harms they say are caused when the medication and fetal remains enter the sewage system.Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

Britain missing out on potential £2bn recycling industry by exporting plastic waste

Exclusive: Government failure to close loophole allows 600,000 tonnes to be shipped abroad each yearA plastic recycling industry potentially worth £2bn and 5,000 jobs is dying in the UK because of government failure to close a loophole that allows 600,000 tonnes of plastic waste to be exported each year.The Guardian can reveal that in the past two years 21 plastic recycling and processing factories across the UK have shut down due to the scale of exports, the cheap price of virgin plastic and an influx of cheap plastic from Asia, according to data gathered by industry insiders. Continue reading...

A plastic recycling industry potentially worth £2bn and 5,000 jobs is dying in the UK because of government failure to close a loophole which allows 600,000 tonnes of plastic waste to be exported each year.The Guardian can reveal that in the past two years 21 plastic recycling and processing factories across the UK have shut down due to the scale of our exports, the cheap price of virgin plastic and an influx of cheap plastic from Asia, according to data gathered by industry insiders.Britain’s exports of plastic waste to developing countries increased by 84% in the first half of this year, in what critics say is unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism.In particular, UK exports soared to Indonesia – a country struggling with an environmental crisis from plastic pollution – amounting to more than 24,000 tonnes. The total plastic waste exports in the first half of the year came to 317,747 tonnes.Used packaging is sorted at a Lampton recycling centre in London. Across the country 21 such factories have closed in the past two years. Photograph: Peter Dazeley/Getty ImagesExporting hundreds of thousands of tonnes of plastic waste to countries without the capability to process it properly increases the chance of serious environmental pollution as well as putting the lives of waste workers at risk.James Mcleary, managing director of Biffa polymers, said the industry was facing challenges and units were closing across the country.Plastic recycling facilities that have closed in the past two years include Biffa’s Sunderland factory, which had capacity to process 39,000 tonnes each year of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene (PP) plastic – used in packaging – and three Viridor facilities. Vanden Recycling is also closing its plastics processing site in Whittlesey, Peterborough.Keeping the waste material collected from households within the UK to be cleaned, sorted, processed and turned into recycled products, is better environmentally, captures the carbon within the plastic, and creates jobs and growth, experts say.But policymakers have not made the key changes needed to stop incentivising plastic waste exports.I don’t want to wonder if there is a boy whose life has been wasted somewhere because of me throwing something in a binMcleary said the continued export of waste plastic should be an affront to our civilised society. He cited the deaths of 200 young people in Turkey that were exposed earlier this year by ISIG Meclisi, which carried out the first ever analysis of workplace deaths in the country’s recycling industry. The UK was the largest exporter of plastic waste to Turkey in 2023.The investigation, called Boy Wasted, revealed that two people are crushed, ripped, or burned to death in the sector every month, and that this has been the case non-stop for the past 10 years.Mcleary said there was a need for a level playing field for the UK plastic recycling industry. “I don’t like closing plants, it’s jobs and it’s people lives,” he said.“Fundamentally I believe you need to take responsibility for our waste ourselves. It is just common sense as a human being. I don’t want my rubbish to end up in Malaysia. I don’t want to wonder if there is a boy whose life has been wasted somewhere because of me throwing something in a bin outside my house.A waste worker at a landfill site near Istanbul. The UK is the biggest exporter of plastic waste to Turkey. Photograph: Sedat Suna/EPA“There are lines as a civilised society we should not cross – it is not acceptable.”Mcleary said the loophole that made it cheaper for companies to export plastic rather than keep it in the UK needed to be closed. “We are asking for a level playing field. We don’t want the market tilted towards us.”“This has been pointed out over a number of years by ourselves and others. Yet today we are in a perfect storm and factories are closing.”skip past newsletter promotionOur morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionHe welcomed the UK’s plastic packaging tax, which is imposed on producers who fail to include at least 30% of recycled plastic in their products, as a way of driving demand to use our own stock of plastic waste in the UK. But he wants it to be more ambitious by raising the requirement for products to have a minimum recycled content to 50% by 2030 to encourage manufacturers incorporate more of it into their products and reduce the use of virgin plastic.Building a UK plastic recycling industry to keep the plastic waste thrown out by householders within the country had the potential to become a £2bn industry, hiring 2,000 people directly and 3,000 indirectly and would also restore public confidence in recycling, Mcleary said.“People in the UK should care where their plastic goes,” he added. “If they think they are recycling they should know it is being recycled, and know that it is being recycled in a responsible fashion.”Viridor has closed three plastic recycling factories in the past three years; in Avonmouth, Skelmersdale and this year its Rochester sorting plant.A UK recycling plant sorts plastic waste into bales, ready to be processed. Photograph: Teamjackson/Getty ImagesAn industry source said it was important that policymakers started seeing waste as critical infrastructure.“If we were to stop exporting plastic waste, and we were to meet our increased recycling target of a 65% recycling rate for municipal waste by 2035, we would need to build 400 new factories across the UK – 20 of them would be sorting facilities and 20 would be processing facilities turning the material back into products,” the source said.“This is a key growth area and has a carbon benefit because it stops the plastic being incinerated and used in energy for waste.“But the risk is now that we are exporting material and the investment and the jobs to other countries.”The government said it was committed to cleaning up the nation and cracking down on plastic waste.“For too long plastic waste has littered our streets, polluted Britain’s waterways, and threatened our wildlife,” a spokesperson said. “Our packaging reforms will collectively underpin £10bn worth of investment in new sorting and processing facilities, while delivering the deposit return scheme will ensure more plastic is recycled and not chucked away as litter or left to rot in landfill.”

UK plastic waste exports to developing countries rose 84% in a year, data shows

Campaigners say increase in exports mostly to Malaysia and Indonesia is ‘unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism’Britain’s exports of plastic waste to developing countries have soared by 84% in the first half of this year compared with last year, according to an analysis of trade data carried out for the Guardian.Campaigners described the rise in exports, mostly to Malaysia and Indonesia, as “unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism”. Continue reading...

Britain’s exports of plastic waste to developing countries have soared by 84% in the first half of this year compared with last year, according to an analysis of trade data carried out for the Guardian.Campaigners described the rise in exports, mostly to Malaysia and Indonesia, as “unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism”.In 2023, the EU agreed to ban exports of waste to poorer nations outside a group of mainly rich countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The ban comes into force in November 2026 for two and a half years and can be extended. The UK does not have a similar ban in place.Data analysed by the The Last Beach Cleanup, a US group campaigning to halt plastic pollution, showed that the increase in UK exports in the first half of 2025 was mainly to Indonesia (24,006 tonnes in 2025, up from 525 tonnes in 2024) and Malaysia (28,667 tonnes, up from 18,872 tonnes in 2024).Total plastic waste exports remained relatively high in the first half of 2024 and 2025, at 319,407 and 317,647 tonnes respectively. The percentage of UK plastic waste going directly to non-OECD countries was 20% of total plastic waste exports in 2025, up from 11% in 2024.The Last Beach Cleanup analysed data from the UN Comtrade database to reach its findings. Jan Dell, who works for the group, accused UK ministers of “hypocrisy” by failing to ban exports to poorer nations.“The UK is hypocritically saying, ‘we’re part of the high ambition coalition’, at the plastics talks. But behind the scenes, it is refusing to set a date to stop exporting to poorer countries,” she said. “We see it is increasing exports of its own plastic waste to places like Malaysia and Indonesia.”She added: “It is unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism.”After the collapse of the UN plastic treaty talks in August, Emma Hardy, under-secretary of state at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), said she was “hugely disappointed” an agreement had not been reached but was proud of the UK’s work towards an ambitious treaty.Britain was part of a “high ambition” coalition of nations calling for the treaty to include binding obligations on reducing plastic production and consumption, she said.Campaigners are calling for the UK, one of the top three countries exporting plastic waste, at about 600,000 tonnes a year, to follow the EU and ban exports to non-OECD countries. They also want to close a loophole that makes it cheaper to export plastic waste rather than recycle it in the UK.Plastic products, such as these found in Klang, Selangor in June, are often fly-tipped from factories processing imported plastic waste in Malaysia. Photograph: Basel Action NetworkThe Conservative government said in 2023 that it intended to ban plastic waste exports to non-OECD countries – but it never happened.Wong Pui Yi, a Malaysia-based consultant for Basel Action Network, a group championing global environmental health and justice, said there were “good guys and bad guys” in the waste trade.“A lot of waste traders are looking to reduce costs,” she said. “If waste falls into the hands of the bad actors, one of the easiest ways to reduce costs is to avoid environmental controls. In developing countries, it is easier to avoid environmental controls due to weaker laws and lower enforcement capacity.”In July, the UK’s exports of plastic waste to Malaysia dropped to 2.8% (1,500 tonnes), most likely due to the country’s new import restrictions. But as one country bans or tightens imports, as happened with China in 2018, the trade shifts elsewhere.The rise in UK plastic exports to Asia is likely to be an underestimate, experts say, because a lot goes to the Netherlands and other European countries where it can be shipped on. The UK also exports plastic to Turkey.James McLeary, the managing director of Biffa Polymers, a UK recycling firm, said the UK should take responsibility for its plastic waste.“It is just common sense as a human being” he said. “I don’t want my rubbish to end up in Malaysia. I don’t want to wonder if there is a boy whose life is wasted somewhere because of me throwing something in a bin outside my house.”Earlier this month, an investigation called Boy Wasted revealed that, for the last decade, two people were crushed, ripped, or burned to death in the recycling sector in Turkey every month.Adnan Khan, a Canadian journalist whose work on refugee labour in Turkey sparked the investigation, said that while Turkey had a licence system for recycling plastic waste, “my research shows that it is pretty easy to get a licence and the oversight is low. It’s a broken system.”All EU plastic waste exports should be banned to anywhere outside the EU, he said. “I would go further and say every country should take care of its own trash.”Defra did not respond to a request for comment.

A Bay Area startup sold a plastic recycling dream. Neighbors call it just another incinerator

The Sonoma County company Resynergi says it will depart the state, just as Gov. Newsom sends CalRecycle back to the drawing board on potentially nation-leading rules governing plastic waste and plastic products.

In summary The Sonoma County company Resynergi says it will depart the state, just as Gov. Newsom sends CalRecycle back to the drawing board on potentially nation-leading rules governing plastic waste and plastic products. The plan sounded like a magic bullet from the future to solve one of the world’s most vexing environmental waste problems.  In Rohnert Park, just north of San Francisco, a startup company called Resynergi planned to use a form of “advanced recycling” to reuse plastic. Its process would chemically transform old plastic, blasting bits of it with microwaves until they turned into an oil that could then be used to make new plastic.  But the process – known as pyrolysis – was a hard sell to Sonoma County neighbors, who protested so much that the company withdrew its application and now plans to move out of state.  The fight that boiled over in Rohnert Park in recent months is a window into the tensions ahead for California as the state overhauls nation-leading regulations governing plastic pollution and packaging. (CalRecycle, formally known as the Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling, will hold a public hearing about those rules Oct. 7.)  While California is establishing some of the most forward-thinking plastic responsibility and recycling rules in the country, a dirty secret is that most plastic recycling methods are ineffective at best and illusory at worst.  Millions of tons of plastic go to the state’s landfills each year, and millions more are shipped to Southeast Asia, where plastic is rarely recycled. Instead it is illegally dumped, and often burned. Last year, Attorney General Rob Bonta brought suit against ExxonMobil for “perpetuating the myth … that you can recycle plastics, including single use plastics, and that it’s sustainable and good for the environment … It’s not true. It’s a lie.” ExxonMobil has since countersued Bonta for defamation. California’s regulators, meanwhile, are working to implement a 2022 state law that moves the state toward a circular economy for plastic – by making companies that produce packaging and single-use plastic items responsible for what happens to them after people throw them away. Those companies, along with environmental groups, have been weighing in as CalRecycle has been writing regulations, now years in the making.   Recent comments by Gov. Gavin Newsom suggest the state is aiming to strike a balance, finding a way to encourage recycling companies while hitting the state’s goals – all while avoiding more air pollution or other environmental impacts.  As for Resynergi, local and environmental advocates say that the way local, county, and regional regulators handled the company points up the challenges the state will face as it regulates plastic and defines whether and how it can be recycled.  “It does make me nervous, since it took seven years to get any enforcement on a facility that’s a two hour drive from the Capitol,” said Nick Lapis, advocacy director for Californians Against Waste.  A credible solution to plastic waste? Resynergi’s departure came as Sonoma County officials began to ask more serious questions about its operations, almost a decade after the company first arrived.  In 2017, company founder Brian Bauer chose Rohnert Park, a small, middle-class community surrounded by farmland, to develop and test his process. He set up shop in a development called SOMO Village – a 200-acre neighborhood with homes, a high school, and commercial space. Developers market it as a climate-conscious place, built to be carbon-neutral, which Bauer said was a draw for Resynergi.   In early conversations, according to Bauer, Sonoma County officials “suggested” his business could follow simpler recycling guidelines. Sheri Cardo, a spokesperson for Sonoma County’s Department of Health Services, confirmed the department had talked with Bauer about its operations as a recycling research and development site, and that his characterization was accurate.   In 2023, when Bauer sought to expand operations, he approached the city of Rohnert Park’s planning division for permits.  Officials told Bauer his facility was considered a heavy manufacturing site, and that Resynergi’s location – 600 feet from a school – demanded an environmental review, according to documents obtained by residents through a public records request. In a response late last year,  Resynergi argued that such a review could take too long, and moving quickly “could make or break substantial investment from a large strategic investor.” Within a month, planning officials had flipped and were now siding with Resynergi, granting it a more flexible, less burdensome administrative use permit. The decision avoided additional public review.  But to operate legally, Resynergi had to secure approval from county officials and the regional air district. In California, pyrolysis is classified as a type of incineration, associated with toxic and hazardous waste. Businesses must obtain a solid waste permit from local authorities, who enforce the state’s public resources code. In the past, three facilities have received permits to use pyrolysis, two for the purpose of destroying medical waste. All are now closed, according to CalRecycle. California counties issue waste permits on behalf of CalRecycle. The Bay Area Regional Air Quality Management District permits and controls pollution that microwaving plastic could produce. Resynergi’s microwave incinerator at 1200 Valley House Drive, in Rohnert Park, on Aug. 26, 2025. Photo by Chad Surmick for CalMatters County officials started looking into the company when they realized Resynergi’s plans would make the company a fully operational and “fixed component in the county’s waste system,” said Cardo, the county spokesperson.  “Although your facility might be considered a recycling facility in vernacular language, it is not under state law,” wrote Christine Sosko, Sonoma County’s director of environmental health. CalRecycle spokesman Lance Klug said in an email that Sonoma County’s response followed state standards. But environmental advocates say the way city and county officials handled Resynergi reflects regulators’ confusion about the processes for advanced recycling  – confusion fueled by the plastic industry.   Jane Williams, director of California Communities Against Toxics, argues that federal and state law make it clear that pyrolysis facilities have to follow rules as incinerators. “It’s really interesting for me to see, having worked on these incinerators for so long, how these guys pulled strings,” Williams said. “They pulled whatever out of their pockets so they could convince people this is a recycling facility.”  The American Chemistry Council, a trade group supporting the plastic industry, disagrees. And Resynergi’s Bauer said he doesn’t think his company’s process counts as incineration.  “Communities across California and the country are searching for credible solutions to plastic waste,” Bauer wrote in an open letter to the community. “This city has the chance to lead by example.”  Community fears toxic air pollution  People living in and near SOMO Village found out that Resynergi planned to burn plastic on a larger scale when the Bay Area Air Quality Management District notified the public of the company’s permit application. The community protested, filling city council rooms at each meeting and waving signs depicting polluting smoke stacks. Some parents spoke through tears to their city leaders. “Our air is not your experiment,” one poster read.  Among the local opponents of Resynergi was Stephanie Lennox. She lives about 20 minutes from Rohnert Park in rural Forestville, but her two daughters go to Credo High School right next to the facility. She wondered about emissions and the risk of an explosion.  “My Lord, don’t we need a solution to our global plastic pollution,” Lennox said. “But my daughters’ lungs are not part of your beta testing phase for your ‘world’s global plastic solution.’” Kirsten Van Nuys is hugged after addressing the city council at Rohnert Park City Hall to protest the recent operation of Resynergi’s microwave incinerator at 1200 Valley House Drive, on Aug. 26, 2025. Photo by Chad Surmick for CalMatters First: Resynergi’s microwave incinerator at 1200 Valley House Drive, in Rohnert Park. Last: Annabelle Royes, 9, stands in front of Rohnert Park City Hall to protest the operation of Resynergi’s microwave incinerator on Aug. 26, 2025. Photos by Chad Surmick for CalMatters Local organizers said they wanted city and county leaders to follow state law and the federal Clean Air Act.   When plastic is burned, additives like flame retardants or other chemicals that don’t break down can create toxic emissions, said Veena Singla, a researcher at the University of California San Francisco. Resynergi applied to the regional air district to obtain a permit for pollution control equipment in April, after the company had already begun operating their technology. In August, the air district issued three notices of violation to Resynergi for constructing and operating without a permit.  Bauer admitted to operating the equipment without a permit. The company never burned plastic in Rohnert Park he said; it did burn plastic at “prototype levels” in Santa Rosa. But, Bauer added, Resynergi was trying to follow the rules as he understood them. As a startup, he said, “you don’t even know if you will get a prototype to work. You’re also trying to figure out how the permitting process works.”  Millions spent to sway regulations Resynergi’s departure wasn’t because of a community outcry, Bauer said. The turning point, he said, was “the pull from other states; how they treated climate technologies such as ours …combined with the overall culture of accepting what we’re doing.” Plastics manufacturers and industry advocates like the American Chemistry Council have campaigned to redefine terms and loosen environmental regulations for the process Resynergi is developing. After the lobbying, 27 states have reclassified pyrolysis as manufacturing instead of solid waste operations, said Davis Allen, a researcher for the Center for Climate Integrity. That classification helps operators get around federal air requirements, he added.  Resynergi’s Bauer told CalMatters that “one of those (states) is a candidate,” and that the company will move out by the end of the year.    An analysis by the climate accountability newsletter HEATED found the chemistry council and groups aligned with it have spent as much as $30 million to promote the concept of advanced recycling as a mainstream and established one. That language aims to sway not just state laws, but federal clean air policy as well.   Between 2021 and 2022, when lawmakers were discussing plastic producer legislation, the American Chemistry Council spent more than $1.6 million on lobbying state legislators, according to publicly available data published by the Secretary of State. The American Chemistry Council’s Ross Eisenberg says that pyrolysis and other chemical recycling processes do work. These processes turn “hard-to-recycle plastics into the raw materials for high-quality products while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and fossil energy use during production compared with virgin production,” he said.  “America’s plastic makers are investing billions of dollars to modernize and expand recycling capacity and improve efficiency,” Eisenberg said, adding that the companies are “advocating for smart policies that enhance collection and sorting so more plastics can be remade into new products.” This year, the Environmental Protection Agency said it isn’t taking further action on the matter, but industry representatives said they’ll continue to lobby at the federal level. Ambitious rules and tough realities for plastic California’s goals to reduce plastic pollution and make producers responsible for plastic waste are ambitious in size, scope, and speed. Within seven years, state law seeks to reduce plastic packaging by 25%, make single-use plastic packaging 100% recyclable or compostable, and divert most of that packaging into recycling.  Allen, from the Center for Climate Integrity, says laws like this can be a good idea – as long as regulators focus more on reducing plastics and less on recycling them.  “Almost any solution that is based on the idea that plastics can widely be recycled just isn’t really going to work,” Allen said. “There just aren’t easily available solutions to a lot of the problems that limit the effectiveness of recycling.” Single-use plastic bottles on a conveyor belt at greenwaste recycling facility in San Jose on July 29, 2019. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters. But in March, regulations aimed at achieving the state’s goals were dealt a setback after two years of hearings. The day they were due, Gov. Newsom directed CalRecycle to start the regulatory process over.  The governor asked for changes “to minimize costs for small businesses and families – while ensuring California’s bold recycling law can achieve the critical goal of cutting plastic pollution,” said Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesperson for the governor, in an email to CalMatters. The Plastics Industry Association and the American Chemistry Council hailed the governor’s announcement as an opportunity. “We believe California’s regulations should be clear, technology-neutral, and performance-based,” said the council’s Ross Eisenberg. According to Klug, the CalRecycle spokesman, the state “remains committed to fostering business innovation that promotes a safe and clean future for all Californians.”  But environmental organizations like the Monterey Bay Aquarium and Surfrider called the decision disappointing.  Williams, the California Communities Against Toxics activist, said she’s concerned that more recent draft language may encourage pyrolysis facilities like Resynergi, which, she says, don’t belong in the state.    If California “rolls out the red carpet,” she said, “The only thing that will stop a whole new fleet of incinerators being built in California now is open, persistent community opposition.”  Resynergi also took part in CalRecycle workshops for the regulations. The company’s departure announcement praised the “innovative spirit of California … instrumental in the company’s growth.”  Brian Bauer said he’s hopeful the state plastic regulations will ease regulations for companies like his, but he plans to return to California either way.  “So it might be a couple years,” Bauer said. “We’ll be back to California in due time.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.