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.

Texans grapple with rising toxic pollution as oil, gas production booms

News Feed
Monday, March 17, 2025

This story was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center. It is part three in a four-part series. Read part one here and part two here. ODESSA, Texas — For retired pastor Columbus Cooper, life can be divided into two periods: the time when he could still drink water out of his tap, and the time after. When Cooper and his wife bought their home in West Odessa in the heart of the Permian Basin, the U.S.'s most productive oil field, they knew they were surrounded by tank batteries holding spent fuel or fracking fluid and injection wells injecting that waste fluid back into the earth.  But as lifelong Odessans, they weren’t worried — until their water started tasting funny and the stench crept in. Until, six years ago, two people died in a pumphouse down the street. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) later confirmed what many already suspected: The very infrastructure that had fueled the region’s economic boom was exposing the people who lived there to dangerous toxins. Without access to city water, West Odessa residents — like rural Texans across oil country — largely depend on water from wells drilled into the aquifer below. Frequently those wells are as little as a few hundred yards from oil and gas wells or other infrastructure linked with toxic pollution — which are just one explosion or spill away from ruining them. Now, Cooper laughs when he thinks about their decision to move to the neighborhood. “I assumed they would be regulated,” Cooper told The Hill, pointing to a tank battery venting invisible, noxious gas. “I assumed somebody would be making sure we were safe.” The oil and gas industry has long been a cornerstone of the Texas economy, and has brought a flood of new jobs and money to the Permian Basin in recent years as production has climbed to new highs. In 2024 alone, the industry paid a record $27 billion in state taxes and royalties and employed nearly half a million people, many earning more than $124,000 a year. The industry and Texas lawmakers argue that beyond the economy, the state's fossil fuel production is important for American energy independence — and the environment. The Permian is the regional wellhead of a vast outpouring of oil and — particularly — gas that both the U.S. government and Western oil industry tout as a means of redirecting global markets away from more-polluting energy sources like coal and foreign producers they say produce dirtier products. Every country is concerned about three things in descending order: national security, energy security and the health of its land and water, ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance said in March at CERAWeek by S&P Global. “Natural gas,” he said, “delivers on all fronts.” But for many Texans on the doorstep of the state’s staggering fossil fuel expansion of the past decade, the boom has come at a cost. Millions of Texans now live within striking distance of oil infrastructure — exposed to airborne chemicals, groundwater contamination and, in extreme cases, sudden, violent failures of aging wells, all of which creates public concern. “You don’t want to live close to any of this development — particularly if you’re surrounded by wells,” Gunnar Schade, a Texas A&M atmospheric chemist, told The Hill.  Fracking, the increasing use of which has driven the past decade's oil and gas boom, has been central to much of the mounting pollution concern. Environmentalists and researchers have warned that the technique, in which cocktails of chemicals are pumped underground to shatter rock and release oil and gas, can contaminate groundwater — accusations the industry has fought for years.  A 2016 EPA study has been cited by both environmentalists and the industry as support for their positions on the issue. The report found that while direct fracking-related water contamination — penetrating from subterranean oil wells to water wells — was possible, it was rare.  Industry groups like the Texas Oil and Gas Association point to the steps operators take to wall off wells from surrounding groundwater behind “layers of steel casing and cement, as well as thousands of feet of rock.” And the Independent Petroleum Association of America points to “no fewer than two dozen scientific reviews,” including the EPA study, that “have concluded that fracking does not pose a major threat to groundwater.” But much of that discourse has centered on the direct impact of the fracking process, which leaves out a great deal of oil and gas operations. The EPA study also identified multiple other ways that the fuels' extraction threatens water supplies — like spills or deliberate dumping. In the Permian, for example, The Hill observed numerous pumpjacks and storage tanks dripping "produced water," or wastewater resulting from the fracking process, on the soil, sometimes in close proximity to farms. This water can resurface tainted with salt, heavy metals, benzene, toxic "forever chemicals" and even radioactive isotopes. The EPA has also pointed to risks that come from the disposal of such wastewater in underground injection wells.  And in Texas, all of these risks have escalated as the amount of water being used to frack ever-deeper wells has risen — leading to new challenges in disposing of the resulting wastewater. Each year, Texas oil and gas wells generate more than 12 billion barrels of wastewater — 4 billion of them in the Permian alone, more than all other U.S. oil fields combined. Texas is one of the only states moving forward with plans to allow this produced water to be disposed of in aboveground creeks and rivers. For example, in south Texas’s Eagle Ford Shale, researchers found 700 million gallons per year of produced water was being dumped legally into rivers and creeks that cattle drank.  Much of the rest goes back into the Earth. Permian drilling companies inject about 6 billion barrels per year into disposal wells, a process meant to keep it away from drinking water. But the subsurface that those wells cut into is riven with underground cracks and fissures and pocked with as many as hundreds of thousands of "zombie wells," oil and gas wells that were improperly sealed or left open to deteriorate. Many have rusted-out casings, making them potential pathways between underground water sources and the wastewater being forced into disposal wells. For decades, geologists have warned that underground injection wells could interact with these abandoned legacy wells and contaminate the underground water sources they are connected to. Deep injection wells also lubricate faults in the earth, sometimes causing earthquakes bad enough to crack home walls and foundations. One quake last July was strong enough to break municipal water pipes.  After a decade of local outcry about fracking earthquakes, companies began injecting more shallowly. But this gave rise to another issue: Fracking fluid began bursting from the state’s old, failing or forgotten wells.  The tendency of fracking fluid to come back to the surface has turned cleanup into a game of "whack-a-mole,” as Kirk Edwards, a local oil and gas executive and former chair of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, put it. Zombie wells are “a black eye for the industry,” Edwards told The Hill. He warned that oil producers had perhaps a year to solve the issue before they would face local revolt. The area needed, he said, “a Manhattan Project for water” to treat and reuse fracking fluid.  Economics are a large contributor to the problem, Edwards argued. “It’s cheap for an oil company to pay a trucker to dispose of it,” he said, referring to fracking fluid. He defended producers for the instances when fracking fluid they’ve injected underground reappears in unexpected places: Those injections, he noted, are legal. “Nobody knows the Earth can’t hold that water until you have a breakthrough. You can’t blame [an operator for a] business plan that has been working for 25 years.” Some efforts have been made to clean up this pollution. The 2022 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $4.7 billion in funding to cap the 100,000-plus “zombie wells” across America, of which Texas has received more than $100 million so far. In 2023, Texas lawmakers approved another $10 million. State Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R), who represents part of the Permian, is seeking $100 million this session to seal area wells. But the future of all this funding is uncertain. The second Trump administration has repeatedly sought to block Biden-era federal grants related to the environment. None of the monies approved by Texas in 2023 have been distributed yet. And in that same session, a previous version of Landgraf’s bill passed the state House but died in the Senate. Meanwhile, the backlog of orphaned wells — abandoned sites with no financially solvent owner to take responsibility — has grown.  And another — potentially greater — danger arising from the expanding oil and gas infrastructure also looms. For sparsely populated regions like the Permian, said Schade, the Texas A&M atmospheric chemist, the risk of water pollution pales in comparison to the risk of air pollution — something he told The Hill that state regulators have “diligently” refused to measure.  Some industry leaders acknowledge their role in air pollution — particularly in regard to the issue of methane that is vented or burned off (“flared”) from wells to relieve pressure. In 2022, the chief executive of Diamondback Energy voiced his support for Biden-era emission-reduction rules that split the oil and gas industry: The rules, he argued, would gain the industry “credit from the general public that we are doing ... right [by the] environment in producing the barrels.” But others argued that the federal oversight was unnecessary, saying the industry is successfully policing itself. The Texas oil and natural gas industry already has been “actively implementing measures to identify and lower emissions,” Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil and Gas Association, told The Center Square. The oil and gas produced in Texas, he added, is “the cleanest in the world.” Independent studies indicate that airborne chemicals from oil and gas extraction threaten the communities that live around wells and infrastructure. Studies by Schade’s lab have found that the fracking boom has “dramatically increased” the human-caused release of dangerous hydrocarbons — in particular benzene, which is higher in the Permian even than other shale regions like the Eagle Ford. In high enough doses, benzene can break the body’s ability to create red blood cells, raising the risk of developing conditions akin to leukemia. Schade noted that increased fracking has also led to higher levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx), which harms the throat and nose and can worsen asthma. When combined with toxic hydrocarbons, NOx can create the chemical ozone, which can spread far from individual wells and increases the risk of death for those exposed over the long term. People living in the oil patch, Schade said, faced “simultaneous exposure to air, water, noise and light pollution” that was hard for outsiders to fathom.  Only those “actually living in the areas of production, or spending at least a significant time there,” he added, “should be consulted to get an idea what it's like.” Sometimes, those conditions are lethal for residents. In October 2019, a woman named Natalee Dean loaded her two children into the car and went out looking for her husband, Jacob — a contractor with a small local oil company called Aghorn Energy. Jacob had been called out to the site hours before to investigate a malfunctioning pump and stopped answering his cellphone, according to criminal charges later filed against the company by the federal government. Frightened, Natalee loaded the kids into the car and drove to the Aghorn pumphouse. Jacob’s truck was parked outside, empty. Federal investigators later concluded that she found Jacob inside the pumphouse, dead or dying of hydrogen sulfide poisoning — before she died as well. Her last words, according to state records citing family members who were on the phone with her, were “oh, my god,” E&E News reported. Passers-by found her children, safe, in the car the next morning. Cooper, the retired pastor, lived nearby. He and his wife had spent years complaining about the facility to the EPA after reeking water spread out of the facility and onto the road long before the deaths. Around the same time, he and his wife began to notice a growing change in the water from the well they, like most in West Odessa, depended on. It was “discolored,” smelled bad, and left behind stains and residue on their drinking glasses, Cooper said. Then there was the smell, which filled their home at all hours. He described it as “mainly like sewage, rotten eggs, a real pungent smell of ammonia. It burns your eyes and takes your breath away.” Years after the Deans’ deaths, under the Biden administration, the EPA and Justice Department charged Aghorn and its vice president with violating the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act by lying about the quality of its pumps — allegedly leading to the deaths of Jacob and Natalee Dean. The Justice Department and the company agreed to settle the case earlier this month. The Hill has reached out to Aghorn for comment. That federal case, for which Cooper was an official witness, also offered an explanation for the changes he and his wife had observed in the water from the family wells. When the EPA told him that Aghorn had been dumping spent fracking fluid “into the soil — there was absolutely no way we were going to be doing anything" with that water, he said. Now he and his wife drink, cook and wash their dishes with bottled or filtered water they buy. Over the last year, Cooper told The Hill, the prices of that water have nearly doubled, from $0.20 per gallon to $0.35, so they make do with about 100 gallons per month — significantly below the United Nations threshold for water poverty, or insufficient access to clean water. Rancher Schuyler Wight is frustrated with the companies. “The industry keeps making excuses instead of stepping up and fixing the problem,” he said. The rights to drill on the land, which Wight’s family sold generations before, are now leased by an oil company, which pumps liquified carbon dioxide underground to force oil and gas back to the surface.  But the wells are old, he said, and if they are not quickly capped when no longer producing, they can develop cracks in the casing that keeps chemicals out of water.  “Mix [carbon dioxide] and water, you get carbonic acid,” Wight said. Carbonic acid corrodes metal and raises the threat of leaks. He pointed to liquid dripping from a valve. Instead of feeding life, as leaks of fresh water would, past spills had salted the soil so nothing would grow, he said. With 240 old wells on his property, Wight has many such leaks. One of his parcels borders Lake Boehmer, a 60-acre spill bubbling from an abandoned oil-turned-water well: powder blue, dead tree stumps poking from its center. The air on the parcel reeked of hydrogen sulfide. Wight's biggest fear, he said, is a world shifting away from oil that leaves no money for cleanup. “If they don’t fix it now, while they’ve got money, then what happens when they don’t?” Lake Boehmer aside, one of the main problems with oil and gas pollution is that, like germs and viruses, “it’s largely invisible," said Sharon Wilson, director of Oilfield Witness, a watchdog group aiming to change that. In a field east of Midland-Odessa, Wilson stopped her car where an unlit flare — meant to burn off excess oil and gas — poked up from the ground. To the naked eye, it was a quiet scene: farmer’s fields, windmills spinning in the distance. But through her camera’s viewfinder, which can see the infrared radiation thrown off by the gases, a black, oily plume of unburned methane vented into the atmosphere, heating the planet and likely carrying a long list of toxins. At a nearby tank battery, where workers deposit oil or fracking fluid, invisible smoke streamed into the air. Those fumes worry many Texas residents, who have fought to keep them away from homes. Anne Epstein, a Lubbock physician, was part of a successful effort to ban oil wells less than 600 feet from peoples’ homes — before the state passed legislation stripping cities of the authority to regulate fracking.  “To see the effects of oil toxins, look at places in the body that are rapidly growing and developing — or small bodies that are rapidly growing and developing,” Epstein said. When it comes to such pollution, she said, “fetuses, babies, children” are especially vulnerable because they breathe faster, exposing themselves to more airborne toxins. Millions may be at risk. A 2022 study found that 17 million people in the U.S. live within half a mile of an oil or gas well — 4 million of them children. At that range, a 2019 Colorado study found a slight uptick in cancer risk and other dangers, significant enough for that state to require new wells be at least that far from homes.  But in Texas, the required distance is just a fraction of that. In February, the city of Arlington, with a population of nearly 400,000, permitted the drilling of 10 new wells less than a quarter mile, or half the Colorado limit, from a day care.  Even the higher limit may not be enough to ensure safety: Schade said that if the winds blow wrong and wells are dense enough, toxins can travel far further than any current setback requirement.&nbsp For Wilson, Oilfield Witness's campaign is personal. In the early 2000s, she was living in Wise County on the outskirts of Dallas-Fort Worth, when the water from her well — which she and her son relied on — turned dark and foul-smelling. After a lifetime believing that if something went wrong, someone would come help, “what I learned when my water turned black is that if it's oil and gas, nobody is coming, and that was a huge paradigm shift for me,” Wilson said. “Because then I realized that, yeah, that America is not like that thing that I believed when I grew up.” She later learned that she had been an unwilling participant in the dawn of a boom. Her home was just miles from where wildcatter George Mitchell was carrying out early fracking experiments. Concerns about the process’s impact on groundwater had surfaced even before fracking’s popularization: In 1996, a local jury found Mitchell guilty of hundreds of millions in punitive damages for wrecking local water supplies.&nbsp At the time, Mitchell denied the allegations. “I have never believed, nor do I believe now, that Mitchell Energy Corp. is the cause of the problems that the plaintiffs are complaining about,” he told the Wise County Messenger in a statement.&nbsp The following year, a local jury overturned&nbspthe verdict on appeal — saving the company from bankruptcy&nbspand clearing the way for the shale revolution. In 1998, two years after the judgment, Mitchell combined horizontal drilling and fracking into what is generally regarded&nbspas the first-ever fracked well. In 2005, Congress further enabled fracking to take off by exempting the technique from the Clean Water Act. But in his last interview before his death in 2013, Mitchell had changed his tune. He&nbsptold Forbes&nbspthat the industry needed more regulation. “They should have very strict controls. The Department of Energy should do it." Why? Because, he said, fracking and horizontal drilling could be done safely — but independent drillers “are wild” and “tough to control.” If allowed to operate freely, he said, they risked ruining the industry.&nbsp In the street in front of his house, Cooper — the homeowner with the tainted water — met Wilson studying a flare through her camera. She invited him to look. “Oh, wow,” he said, watching as a corona of thick black smoke, invisible to the naked eye, surrounded the thin flame. What, she asked him, would he want his elected officials to know if they stood here too? He didn’t hesitate. “I’d want someone to assure that I have clean water, clean air, to know that our investment in our homes is going to be protected,” he said. He wanted, he said, “somewhere safe to live — where they would be willing to live themselves.” Gabriela Meza of KMID contributed reporting.

This story was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center. It is part three in a four-part series. Read part one here and part two here. ODESSA, Texas — For retired pastor Columbus Cooper, life can be divided into two periods: the time when he could still drink water out of his tap, and the time after. When...

This story was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center. It is part three in a four-part series. Read part one here and part two here.

ODESSA, Texas — For retired pastor Columbus Cooper, life can be divided into two periods: the time when he could still drink water out of his tap, and the time after.

When Cooper and his wife bought their home in West Odessa in the heart of the Permian Basin, the U.S.'s most productive oil field, they knew they were surrounded by tank batteries holding spent fuel or fracking fluid and injection wells injecting that waste fluid back into the earth. 

But as lifelong Odessans, they weren’t worried — until their water started tasting funny and the stench crept in. Until, six years ago, two people died in a pumphouse down the street. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) later confirmed what many already suspected: The very infrastructure that had fueled the region’s economic boom was exposing the people who lived there to dangerous toxins.

Without access to city water, West Odessa residents — like rural Texans across oil country — largely depend on water from wells drilled into the aquifer below. Frequently those wells are as little as a few hundred yards from oil and gas wells or other infrastructure linked with toxic pollution — which are just one explosion or spill away from ruining them.

Now, Cooper laughs when he thinks about their decision to move to the neighborhood. “I assumed they would be regulated,” Cooper told The Hill, pointing to a tank battery venting invisible, noxious gas. “I assumed somebody would be making sure we were safe.”

The oil and gas industry has long been a cornerstone of the Texas economy, and has brought a flood of new jobs and money to the Permian Basin in recent years as production has climbed to new highs. In 2024 alone, the industry paid a record $27 billion in state taxes and royalties and employed nearly half a million people, many earning more than $124,000 a year.

The industry and Texas lawmakers argue that beyond the economy, the state's fossil fuel production is important for American energy independence — and the environment. The Permian is the regional wellhead of a vast outpouring of oil and — particularly — gas that both the U.S. government and Western oil industry tout as a means of redirecting global markets away from more-polluting energy sources like coal and foreign producers they say produce dirtier products.

Every country is concerned about three things in descending order: national security, energy security and the health of its land and water, ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance said in March at CERAWeek by S&P Global. “Natural gas,” he said, “delivers on all fronts.”

But for many Texans on the doorstep of the state’s staggering fossil fuel expansion of the past decade, the boom has come at a cost. Millions of Texans now live within striking distance of oil infrastructure — exposed to airborne chemicals, groundwater contamination and, in extreme cases, sudden, violent failures of aging wells, all of which creates public concern. “You don’t want to live close to any of this development — particularly if you’re surrounded by wells,” Gunnar Schade, a Texas A&M atmospheric chemist, told The Hill. 

Fracking, the increasing use of which has driven the past decade's oil and gas boom, has been central to much of the mounting pollution concern. Environmentalists and researchers have warned that the technique, in which cocktails of chemicals are pumped underground to shatter rock and release oil and gas, can contaminate groundwater — accusations the industry has fought for years. 

A 2016 EPA study has been cited by both environmentalists and the industry as support for their positions on the issue. The report found that while direct fracking-related water contamination — penetrating from subterranean oil wells to water wells — was possible, it was rare. 

Industry groups like the Texas Oil and Gas Association point to the steps operators take to wall off wells from surrounding groundwater behind “layers of steel casing and cement, as well as thousands of feet of rock.” And the Independent Petroleum Association of America points to “no fewer than two dozen scientific reviews,” including the EPA study, that “have concluded that fracking does not pose a major threat to groundwater.”

But much of that discourse has centered on the direct impact of the fracking process, which leaves out a great deal of oil and gas operations. The EPA study also identified multiple other ways that the fuels' extraction threatens water supplies — like spills or deliberate dumping. In the Permian, for example, The Hill observed numerous pumpjacks and storage tanks dripping "produced water," or wastewater resulting from the fracking process, on the soil, sometimes in close proximity to farms. This water can resurface tainted with salt, heavy metals, benzene, toxic "forever chemicals" and even radioactive isotopes.

The EPA has also pointed to risks that come from the disposal of such wastewater in underground injection wells. 

And in Texas, all of these risks have escalated as the amount of water being used to frack ever-deeper wells has risen — leading to new challenges in disposing of the resulting wastewater.

Each year, Texas oil and gas wells generate more than 12 billion barrels of wastewater — 4 billion of them in the Permian alone, more than all other U.S. oil fields combined. Texas is one of the only states moving forward with plans to allow this produced water to be disposed of in aboveground creeks and rivers. For example, in south Texas’s Eagle Ford Shale, researchers found 700 million gallons per year of produced water was being dumped legally into rivers and creeks that cattle drank. 

Much of the rest goes back into the Earth. Permian drilling companies inject about 6 billion barrels per year into disposal wells, a process meant to keep it away from drinking water.

But the subsurface that those wells cut into is riven with underground cracks and fissures and pocked with as many as hundreds of thousands of "zombie wells," oil and gas wells that were improperly sealed or left open to deteriorate. Many have rusted-out casings, making them potential pathways between underground water sources and the wastewater being forced into disposal wells. For decades, geologists have warned that underground injection wells could interact with these abandoned legacy wells and contaminate the underground water sources they are connected to.

Deep injection wells also lubricate faults in the earth, sometimes causing earthquakes bad enough to crack home walls and foundations. One quake last July was strong enough to break municipal water pipes. 

After a decade of local outcry about fracking earthquakes, companies began injecting more shallowly. But this gave rise to another issue: Fracking fluid began bursting from the state’s old, failing or forgotten wells. 

The tendency of fracking fluid to come back to the surface has turned cleanup into a game of "whack-a-mole,” as Kirk Edwards, a local oil and gas executive and former chair of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, put it.

Zombie wells are “a black eye for the industry,” Edwards told The Hill. He warned that oil producers had perhaps a year to solve the issue before they would face local revolt. The area needed, he said, “a Manhattan Project for water” to treat and reuse fracking fluid. 

Economics are a large contributor to the problem, Edwards argued. “It’s cheap for an oil company to pay a trucker to dispose of it,” he said, referring to fracking fluid. He defended producers for the instances when fracking fluid they’ve injected underground reappears in unexpected places: Those injections, he noted, are legal. “Nobody knows the Earth can’t hold that water until you have a breakthrough. You can’t blame [an operator for a] business plan that has been working for 25 years.”

Some efforts have been made to clean up this pollution. The 2022 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $4.7 billion in funding to cap the 100,000-plus “zombie wells” across America, of which Texas has received more than $100 million so far. In 2023, Texas lawmakers approved another $10 million. State Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R), who represents part of the Permian, is seeking $100 million this session to seal area wells.

But the future of all this funding is uncertain. The second Trump administration has repeatedly sought to block Biden-era federal grants related to the environment. None of the monies approved by Texas in 2023 have been distributed yet. And in that same session, a previous version of Landgraf’s bill passed the state House but died in the Senate.

Meanwhile, the backlog of orphaned wells — abandoned sites with no financially solvent owner to take responsibility — has grown. 

And another — potentially greater — danger arising from the expanding oil and gas infrastructure also looms. For sparsely populated regions like the Permian, said Schade, the Texas A&M atmospheric chemist, the risk of water pollution pales in comparison to the risk of air pollution — something he told The Hill that state regulators have “diligently” refused to measure. 

Some industry leaders acknowledge their role in air pollution — particularly in regard to the issue of methane that is vented or burned off (“flared”) from wells to relieve pressure. In 2022, the chief executive of Diamondback Energy voiced his support for Biden-era emission-reduction rules that split the oil and gas industry: The rules, he argued, would gain the industry “credit from the general public that we are doing ... right [by the] environment in producing the barrels.”

But others argued that the federal oversight was unnecessary, saying the industry is successfully policing itself. The Texas oil and natural gas industry already has been “actively implementing measures to identify and lower emissions,” Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil and Gas Association, told The Center Square. The oil and gas produced in Texas, he added, is “the cleanest in the world.”

Independent studies indicate that airborne chemicals from oil and gas extraction threaten the communities that live around wells and infrastructure. Studies by Schade’s lab have found that the fracking boom has “dramatically increased” the human-caused release of dangerous hydrocarbons — in particular benzene, which is higher in the Permian even than other shale regions like the Eagle Ford. In high enough doses, benzene can break the body’s ability to create red blood cells, raising the risk of developing conditions akin to leukemia.

Schade noted that increased fracking has also led to higher levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx), which harms the throat and nose and can worsen asthma. When combined with toxic hydrocarbons, NOx can create the chemical ozone, which can spread far from individual wells and increases the risk of death for those exposed over the long term.

People living in the oil patch, Schade said, faced “simultaneous exposure to air, water, noise and light pollution” that was hard for outsiders to fathom. 

Only those “actually living in the areas of production, or spending at least a significant time there,” he added, “should be consulted to get an idea what it's like.”

Sometimes, those conditions are lethal for residents. In October 2019, a woman named Natalee Dean loaded her two children into the car and went out looking for her husband, Jacob — a contractor with a small local oil company called Aghorn Energy.

Jacob had been called out to the site hours before to investigate a malfunctioning pump and stopped answering his cellphone, according to criminal charges later filed against the company by the federal government. Frightened, Natalee loaded the kids into the car and drove to the Aghorn pumphouse.

Jacob’s truck was parked outside, empty. Federal investigators later concluded that she found Jacob inside the pumphouse, dead or dying of hydrogen sulfide poisoning — before she died as well. Her last words, according to state records citing family members who were on the phone with her, were “oh, my god,” E&E News reported. Passers-by found her children, safe, in the car the next morning.

Cooper, the retired pastor, lived nearby. He and his wife had spent years complaining about the facility to the EPA after reeking water spread out of the facility and onto the road long before the deaths. Around the same time, he and his wife began to notice a growing change in the water from the well they, like most in West Odessa, depended on. It was “discolored,” smelled bad, and left behind stains and residue on their drinking glasses, Cooper said.

Then there was the smell, which filled their home at all hours. He described it as “mainly like sewage, rotten eggs, a real pungent smell of ammonia. It burns your eyes and takes your breath away.”

Years after the Deans’ deaths, under the Biden administration, the EPA and Justice Department charged Aghorn and its vice president with violating the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act by lying about the quality of its pumps — allegedly leading to the deaths of Jacob and Natalee Dean. The Justice Department and the company agreed to settle the case earlier this month.

The Hill has reached out to Aghorn for comment.

That federal case, for which Cooper was an official witness, also offered an explanation for the changes he and his wife had observed in the water from the family wells. When the EPA told him that Aghorn had been dumping spent fracking fluid “into the soil — there was absolutely no way we were going to be doing anything" with that water, he said.

Now he and his wife drink, cook and wash their dishes with bottled or filtered water they buy. Over the last year, Cooper told The Hill, the prices of that water have nearly doubled, from $0.20 per gallon to $0.35, so they make do with about 100 gallons per month — significantly below the United Nations threshold for water poverty, or insufficient access to clean water.

Rancher Schuyler Wight is frustrated with the companies. “The industry keeps making excuses instead of stepping up and fixing the problem,” he said.

The rights to drill on the land, which Wight’s family sold generations before, are now leased by an oil company, which pumps liquified carbon dioxide underground to force oil and gas back to the surface. 

But the wells are old, he said, and if they are not quickly capped when no longer producing, they can develop cracks in the casing that keeps chemicals out of water. 

“Mix [carbon dioxide] and water, you get carbonic acid,” Wight said. Carbonic acid corrodes metal and raises the threat of leaks. He pointed to liquid dripping from a valve. Instead of feeding life, as leaks of fresh water would, past spills had salted the soil so nothing would grow, he said.

With 240 old wells on his property, Wight has many such leaks. One of his parcels borders Lake Boehmer, a 60-acre spill bubbling from an abandoned oil-turned-water well: powder blue, dead tree stumps poking from its center. The air on the parcel reeked of hydrogen sulfide.

Wight's biggest fear, he said, is a world shifting away from oil that leaves no money for cleanup. “If they don’t fix it now, while they’ve got money, then what happens when they don’t?”

Lake Boehmer aside, one of the main problems with oil and gas pollution is that, like germs and viruses, “it’s largely invisible," said Sharon Wilson, director of Oilfield Witness, a watchdog group aiming to change that.

In a field east of Midland-Odessa, Wilson stopped her car where an unlit flare — meant to burn off excess oil and gas — poked up from the ground. To the naked eye, it was a quiet scene: farmer’s fields, windmills spinning in the distance. But through her camera’s viewfinder, which can see the infrared radiation thrown off by the gases, a black, oily plume of unburned methane vented into the atmosphere, heating the planet and likely carrying a long list of toxins. At a nearby tank battery, where workers deposit oil or fracking fluid, invisible smoke streamed into the air.

Those fumes worry many Texas residents, who have fought to keep them away from homes. Anne Epstein, a Lubbock physician, was part of a successful effort to ban oil wells less than 600 feet from peoples’ homes — before the state passed legislation stripping cities of the authority to regulate fracking. 

“To see the effects of oil toxins, look at places in the body that are rapidly growing and developing — or small bodies that are rapidly growing and developing,” Epstein said. When it comes to such pollution, she said, “fetuses, babies, children” are especially vulnerable because they breathe faster, exposing themselves to more airborne toxins.

Millions may be at risk. A 2022 study found that 17 million people in the U.S. live within half a mile of an oil or gas well — 4 million of them children. At that range, a 2019 Colorado study found a slight uptick in cancer risk and other dangers, significant enough for that state to require new wells be at least that far from homes. 

But in Texas, the required distance is just a fraction of that. In February, the city of Arlington, with a population of nearly 400,000, permitted the drilling of 10 new wells less than a quarter mile, or half the Colorado limit, from a day care. 

Even the higher limit may not be enough to ensure safety: Schade said that if the winds blow wrong and wells are dense enough, toxins can travel far further than any current setback requirement.&nbsp

For Wilson, Oilfield Witness's campaign is personal. In the early 2000s, she was living in Wise County on the outskirts of Dallas-Fort Worth, when the water from her well — which she and her son relied on — turned dark and foul-smelling.

After a lifetime believing that if something went wrong, someone would come help, “what I learned when my water turned black is that if it's oil and gas, nobody is coming, and that was a huge paradigm shift for me,” Wilson said. “Because then I realized that, yeah, that America is not like that thing that I believed when I grew up.”

She later learned that she had been an unwilling participant in the dawn of a boom. Her home was just miles from where wildcatter George Mitchell was carrying out early fracking experiments. Concerns about the process’s impact on groundwater had surfaced even before fracking’s popularization: In 1996, a local jury found Mitchell guilty of hundreds of millions in punitive damages for wrecking local water supplies.&nbsp

At the time, Mitchell denied the allegations. “I have never believed, nor do I believe now, that Mitchell Energy Corp. is the cause of the problems that the plaintiffs are complaining about,” he told the Wise County Messenger in a statement.&nbsp

The following year, a local jury overturned&nbspthe verdict on appeal — saving the company from bankruptcy&nbspand clearing the way for the shale revolution. In 1998, two years after the judgment, Mitchell combined horizontal drilling and fracking into what is generally regarded&nbspas the first-ever fracked well. In 2005, Congress further enabled fracking to take off by exempting the technique from the Clean Water Act.

But in his last interview before his death in 2013, Mitchell had changed his tune. He&nbsptold Forbes&nbspthat the industry needed more regulation. “They should have very strict controls. The Department of Energy should do it."

Why? Because, he said, fracking and horizontal drilling could be done safely — but independent drillers “are wild” and “tough to control.” If allowed to operate freely, he said, they risked ruining the industry.&nbsp

In the street in front of his house, Cooper — the homeowner with the tainted water — met Wilson studying a flare through her camera. She invited him to look. “Oh, wow,” he said, watching as a corona of thick black smoke, invisible to the naked eye, surrounded the thin flame.

What, she asked him, would he want his elected officials to know if they stood here too? He didn’t hesitate. “I’d want someone to assure that I have clean water, clean air, to know that our investment in our homes is going to be protected,” he said.

He wanted, he said, “somewhere safe to live — where they would be willing to live themselves.”

Gabriela Meza of KMID contributed reporting.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

England’s water industry issued £10.5bn in ‘green bonds’ despite pollution record

River Action says use of issuance tied to environmental benefits is ‘corporate greenwash on steroids’Water companies have issued a fifth of the UK’s “green bonds” since 2017, despite a consistently poor record of sewage pollution during that time, research has shown.Privately owned water companies in England have together issued £10.5bn in bonds tied to projects that offer “environmental benefits”, according to analysis of financial market data by Unearthed, which is part of Greenpeace UK. Continue reading...

Water companies have issued a fifth of the UK’s “green bonds” since 2017, despite a consistently poor record of sewage pollution during that time, research has shown.Privately owned water companies in England have together issued £10.5bn in bonds tied to projects that offer “environmental benefits”, according to analysis of financial market data by Unearthed, which is part of Greenpeace UK.Anglian Water has been the biggest issuer in the water industry, at £3.5bn, with struggling Thames Water second at £3.1bn. The two companies were the third- and sixth-largest issuers of corporate green bonds overall since 2017.Issuers of green bonds are expected to use the proceeds for defined purposes such as renewable energy, greenhouse gas control and clean transportation such as electric vehicles. Sustainable water and wastewater management is also included. This means many water companies’ standard operations qualify. In return, companies tend to be able to borrow more cheaply, because they attract investors hoping to benefit the environment while also profiting.Yet the privatised water industry in England and Wales has faced persistent criticism over its environmental record in recent decades, after years of alleged underinvestment and payment of large dividends to shareholders.The first green bond issued by a UK water company was in 2017, when Anglian, which supplies much of the east of England, raised £250m. However, the UK government’s Environment Agency last month said environmental progress across the sector had declined in the last year. Critics of the water industry said the poor performance raised questions over possible “greenwashing” in relation to the bonds.James Wallace, the chief executive of River Action, a clean water campaign group, said: “This is corporate greenwash on steroids. UK water companies are raising billions through green bonds while failing to deliver the environmental improvements these funds are supposed to support.“Their crumbling infrastructure continues to kill rivers and put communities at risk while investors are rewarded. True green finance should deliver real benefits for the environment and public health, not mask ongoing pollution.”Water companies accounted for 19% of all corporate issuance between 2017 and 2025. If issuance by the Thames Tideway “super sewer” developer is taken into account, that proportion rises to 22%.Thames Water’s effective owners are pushing for the government to grant it leniency on environmental standards for as long as 15 years as part of a rescue plan. Unearthed also revealed that Thames has failed to publish impact reports detailing its bonds’ environmental benefit for two years. Although not a legal requirement, the failure to publish the reports contravenes the industry standard.The company said it was still committed to publishing the impact reports for its green bonds. A spokesperson said: “The impact report for 2022-23 and 2023-24, which will detail the allocation of the £1.65bn raised through our January 2023 green bond issuance, has not yet been published. We take our reporting responsibilities seriously, and on this occasion we have fallen short of meeting expectations.”skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy 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 promotionAn Anglian spokesperson said growing the economy while reducing pollution required “significant and sustained investment in infrastructure”, adding that the funds raised “helped to deliver significant environmental improvements”.“We know there is more still to do, particularly on issues like pollution, but environmental performance is broader than just that one measure,” the spokesperson said, pointing to carbon emission reductions.They said it was vital that the government create the conditions for an “investable sector” through regulatory reform.Water UK, a lobby group for the industry, declined to comment.

Where others saw litter, he saw a bird: Galveston artist crafts reddish egret from washed-up debris

The artwork, which will be displayed at Moody Gardens and other locations on the island, was created to increase awareness about plastic pollution in the ocean.

Julianna Washburn/HPMGalveston artist Evan McClimans shows the eye of his sculpture made out of marine debris on Nov. 25, 2025.When artist Evan McClimans saw broken garbage bins, a discarded kayak and blue bottle caps that littered Galveston’s beaches, he didn't see it as trash. He saw a vision. McClimans transformed the waste bins into what now looks like bird feathers, the kayak came to resemble sand and the bottle caps were made into what looks like ocean water. Sign up for the Hello, Houston! daily newsletter to get local reports like this delivered directly to your inbox. After four months of creating, McClimans finished his work of art. He'd pieced together thousands of pieces of marine debris from Galveston to create a 7-foot sculpture of a reddish egret, the official bird of Galveston and a threatened species nicknamed "Gerde of the Gulf." "It’s been a lot of blood, sweat and tears on this thing and I’m just so grateful that I got to do it," McClimans said. The project was part of a partnership between the Galveston Park Board and Washed Ashore, an Oregon-based organization that works to encourage recycling and educate the public about plastic pollution in the ocean. Sculptures are made out of washed-up debris and represent marine life affected by plastic pollution. "When you’re looking at these different artworks, you’re understanding that these are things ending up in the ocean that we use every single day," said Elizabeth Walla, environmental programs manager at the Galveston Park Board. Walla said the Galveston Park Board, which is responsible for maintaining all 32 miles of beach front on the island south of Houston, has a crew of 36 members who clean the beaches by hand every day, picking up trash and emptying trash barrels. "It is hard to imagine, but we are picking up at least 2 million pounds of trash from our beach front every year," Walla said. Walla said marine debris in Galveston isn't just from people leaving trash on the beach, however, as a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that marine debris accumulation rates were 10 times higher in Texas than the other states along the Gulf, because of where Texas sits in relation to wind directions and currents. "When that was released, it made sense to me because a lot of the trash that we see, especially the bigger stuff, has barnacles on it. It has algae on it. You can tell it’s been in the water for quite a while," Walla said. To help create “Gerte,” Walla said in addition to the crew that typically cleans the beaches, volunteers from around the community came together to help pick up marine debris. Items such as lighters, beach toys and sand buckets now help make up the sculpture. Julianna Washburn, HPM“Gerte of the Gulf,” a sculpture made out of marine debris, sits inside artist Evan McClimans’ shop on Nov. 25, 2025.Julianna Washburn/HPMGalveston artist Evan McClimans shows a children’s toy that sits on his sculpture made out of marine debris on Nov. 25, 2025. "My favorite is the Texas volleyball," McClimans said about one of the items on the sculpture. "I have a whole bin full of beach balls that they found out in random places, but that one had Texas on it and since this [sculpture] is staying in Galveston, I thought it’d be appropriate to put that one on there." While each piece of marine debris turned into its own artform, McClimans, who once focused his energy entirely on welding, said creating Gerte changed him, too. "I’ve definitely taken a bigger interest in making sure that I do my part and preach to others to do theirs," McClimans said. "When I go to the beach, I make sure [to] pick up 10 pieces when you’re there, pick up 10 pieces when you leave," McClimans said. At a Galveston City Council meeting in November, "Gerde of the Gulf" was given the 2025 Galveston Planning & Design Award in the environmental category. Gerte will be displayed at Moody Gardens starting Monday, then the sculpture will continue to move to different locations around the island.

Brazil Prosecutors Sue Agencies Over Haidar Shipwreck, Environmental Risk

By Ana ManoSAO PAULO (Reuters) -Brazilian federal prosecutors in Para state have filed a lawsuit to demand the removal of the hull and oily...

SAO PAULO (Reuters) -Brazilian federal prosecutors in Para state have filed a lawsuit to demand the removal of the hull and oily residues from the Haidar ship, which sank 10 years ago near Vila do Conde port, Brazil's biggest for live cattle shipments.In a statement on Wednesday, Para federal prosecutors recalled the Haidar wreck caused the death of 5,000 cattle and a spill of 700,000 liters of oily residues.A subsequent spill from the Haidar wreck was reported in 2018, prosecutors said, showing that remaining residues inside the hull represent "a constant threat."Some 215,000 liters of oil, diesel, fuel, and lubricant could still be inside the ship, prosecutors added, warning of potentially "catastrophic water pollution" if new spills occur.The sunken vessel still contains carcasses and skeletal remains of the cattle drowned in 2015, they said. Prosecutors are seeking at least 5 million reais ($936,873) in compensation, in addition to 91,400 reais for environmental damages related to the 2018 spill.Defendants include the federal infrastructure department DNIT, Para's environment agency SEMAS, the Para Port Authority CDP, and the companies that owned the ship.They did not immediately comment on the lawsuit.Para, Brazil's biggest live cattle-exporting state, shipped 370,000 head of cattle worth $344 million mainly to Egypt, Morocco, and Algeria in the year through July, according to trade data compiled by state authorities.Beefpacker Minerva owned the cattle ferried on the Haidar in 2015, but it is not a defendant, according to court filings.       (Reporting by Ana ManoEditing by Rod Nickel)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Data centers are putting new strain on California’s grid. A new report estimates the impacts

A new report estimates that California’s data centers are driving increases in electricity use, water demand and pollution even as lawmakers stall on oversight.

In summary A new report estimates that California’s data centers are driving increases in electricity use, water demand and pollution even as lawmakers stall on oversight. California is a major hub for data centers — the facilities that store and transmit much of the internet. But just how much these power-hungry operations affect the state’s energy use, climate and public health remains an open question for researchers. A new report released this week by the environmental think tank Next 10 and a UC Riverside researcher attempts to quantify that impact — but its authors say the report is only an estimate without harder data from the centers themselves. “We are just making these reports pretty much in the dark — since there’s almost zero information,” said Shaolei Ren, an AI researcher at UC Riverside and co-author of the report. “We have extremely little information about data centers in California.” Ren and his coauthors conclude that between 2019 and 2023, electricity use and carbon emissions by California data centers nearly doubled, while on-site water consumption slightly more than doubled. Much of the increases were attributable to the electricity required to run artificial intelligence computations. But many of the report’s estimates, including its health impacts, are based on limited data — a key issue researchers said they encountered repeatedly when crafting the report. The report underscores a growing tension in the industry: advocates who support clean energy and experts who study energy demand agree the days of steady, flat energy use at data centers are over, but there’s far less consensus on just how sharply electricity demand will climb. “In very simple terms, a lot of the uncertainty comes from: what is our life going to look like with AI in the next five years, 10 years, 20 years — how integrated is it going to become?” said Maia Leroy, a Sacramento-based advocate who focuses on clean energy and the grid.  “Are we reaching a point where the use is going to plateau, or is it going to continue?” Experts say more transparency is essential to better understand what resources data centers demand in California. Liang Min, who manages the Bits and Watts Initiative at Stanford University, says the state should improve its forecasts for energy demand to support clean energy goals. Min, who investigates AI’s growing strain on the electric grid, told CalMatters that demand at power centers rises in rapid, unpredictable phases and can shift quickly with each new generation of hardware. The California Energy Commission, which plans for energy use and the growth in demand, “can play a pivotal role,” in understanding and adapting to the demands of AI. As demand grows, policy responses lag In Sacramento, efforts to add transparency and guardrails around data centers have struggled this year. California lawmakers shelved most consumer and environmental proposals aimed at data centers, even as they approved a plan to regionalize California’s power grid to help meet demand from the sector. They set aside two bills focused on curbing data centers’ energy use — one requiring operators to disclose their electricity use and another that offered clean power incentives. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a separate proposal that would have required data center operators to report their water use, even after the bill was weakened. In the end, Newsom — who has often highlighted California’s dominance in the artificial intelligence sector — signed only one measure, allowing regulators to determine whether data centers are driving up costs. Mark Toney, who leads The Utility Reform Network and supported the transparency measure, has questioned whether data centers justify the costs they’re pushing onto ratepayers. He warned of the centers’ “voracious consumption of energy and water, increased carbon emissions, and jacking up ratepayer bills.” Hard facts about data centers are tough to find in California because most rent out power, cooling and floor space to other companies, said Ren, the UC Riverside researcher. Such colocation facilities don’t run their own servers or technology, so they report less information publicly than data centers built by major tech companies in other states. While estimates vary, California has the third-most data centers in the country, after Texas and Virginia. DataCenterMap, a commercial directory that tracks data centers worldwide, lists 321 sites across the state. More in California are expected in coming years. The centers operate around the clock and often rely on diesel backup generators to maintain service during power failures — a practice that adds both greenhouse gases and local air pollutants. They also consume energy and water depending on their cooling methods. Rising data-center demand, and rising questions F. Noel Perry, the businessman and philanthropist who founded Next 10, said his organization’s report shines light on what is fundamentally a black box. “To solve a problem, we have to understand what the problem is,” he said.  “We’ve seen the proliferation of data centers in California, in the U.S. and across the world — and we also are seeing major implications for the environment,” Perry told CalMatters. “The real issue has to do with transparency — and the ability of elected officials and regulators to create some rules that will govern reductions in emissions, water consumption.” The report estimated that data centers used 10.8 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2023, up from 5.5 terawatt-hours in 2019, accounting for 6% of the nation’s total data center energy use. Unless growth is curbed or better managed, the report’s authors project demand could rise to as high as 25 terawatt-hours by 2028, equal to the power use of roughly 2.4 million U.S. homes. Carbon emissions from the sector nearly doubled during the same period, climbing from 1.2 million to 2.4 million tons, researchers estimated, while on site water use grew from 1,078 acre feet in 2019 to 2,302 acre feet in 2023. That’s enough to meet the annual water needs of almost seven thousand California households. The report’s authors also estimated the public health costs from air pollution associated with data centers have potentially risen, from $45 million in 2019 to more than $155 million in 2023, with the burden expected to reach as high as $266 million by 2028. Most of those costs stem from indirect pollution produced by fossil-fueled power plants that supply the grid. But authors pointed out that regions dense with data centers — particularly Santa Clara County, home to Silicon Valley — could face higher localized risks from diesel backup generators. Dan Diorio, vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, said the report exaggerates the impact of backup diesel generators, which are tightly regulated and rarely used in California, minimizing their contributions to air pollution. Data centers don’t control the water used in electricity generation, said Diorio. Since those water impacts don’t happen on site, it’s not fair to blame that on the centers themselves.  “It paints a skewed picture of this critical 21st-century industry,” Diorio said in a statement. Diorio said the report also overlooks how cooling technology varies by region and has become more efficient in recent years. But the authors say their findings underscore the need for uniform reporting standards for data centers’ energy and water use. The report said California should establish ongoing local monitoring and review of data centers — and make the findings public. Ren, the UC Riverside researcher, said that California’s cleaner grid and stricter pollution rules are helping blunt some environmental impacts of data centers already. “California — versus the national average — is doing a better job due to the cleaner grid,” he said.

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.