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

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.

Can Peru Reboot Its Amazon Oil? Pollution Fallout and Local Opposition Loom

By Alexander VillegasSANTA ROSA, Peru (Reuters) -Near a remote bend of the Patoyacu River in Peru's northern Amazon, Wilmer Macusi stood atop a...

SANTA ROSA, Peru (Reuters) -Near a remote bend of the Patoyacu River in Peru's northern Amazon, Wilmer Macusi stood atop a rusty pipeline cutting through the jungle, swirling a branch in the pool of stagnant water surrounding it.“They say this is clean,” said Macusi, a 25-year-old Indigenous Urarina leader, pointing to the spot where an oil spill occurred in early 2023. “But if you move the water, oil still comes out.”Black droplets bubbled to the surface as plastic barriers meant to contain the spill drooped into the water. The pipeline links a nearby oilfield, Block 8, to the larger government-owned North Peruvian Pipeline (ONP). Macusi's community of Santa Rosa lies a short walk away.Peru’s northern Amazon holds hundreds of millions of barrels of crude, according to government data. But Indigenous groups say oil extraction over the past half-century brought pollution, not progress, and are opposed to a fresh wave of development.The region once pumped more than half of Peru's oil, peaking at about 200,000 barrels a day in the 1980s before environmental liabilities and community opposition drove production below 40,000 bpd. Key blocks went dormant in 2020.Now, the region's modest reserves are again central to state oil firm Petroperu's plans. The company has spent $6.5 billion upgrading its Talara refinery into a 95,000-bpd complex aimed at producing high-grade fuels for export. Heavily indebted with a CCC+ junk credit rating from ratings agency Fitch, Petroperu wants to revive Amazon oil output to supply Talara.The state firm estimated last month that proven and probable reserves in the region were worth $20.9 billion, which Petroperu said could deliver $3.1 billion in tax revenues for local governments and communities. While the amount of oil at stake is relatively small, the plans have fueled tensions over past spills, stoking Indigenous opposition at a time Brazil, Ecuador and Guyana are trying to expand their Amazon oil frontiers.Frustration about climate action and forest protection boiled over at the COP30 climate summit this week, when dozens of Indigenous protesters forced their way into the venue and clashed with security guards.Petroperu is also planning to import oil to the refinery by linking the 1,100-km ONP to neighboring Ecuador, which aims to boost production in its own Amazon region as part of a $47 billion oil expansion plan. Hailed as an engineering marvel when it was built in the 1970s, the ONP has since become a lightning rod for leaks, protests and sabotage. Indigenous groups in both countries are resisting the pipeline link-up.The government is weighing options for how best to run the pipeline, including through a joint venture or outsourcing its management.  Petroperu failed to attract an international partner to run its largest oilfield, Block 192, which produced more than 100,000 bpd at its peak but has recently been the focus of Indigenous protests demanding remediation for damage to the forest, soil and waterways.Petroperu's former chairman Alejandro Narvaez, who was fired last month, estimated Block 192 could produce at least 20,000 bpd with investment and overall Amazon production could hit 100,000 bpd.The state oil firm selected domestic firm Upland Oil & Gas to operate the block, but Peru's state oil regulator disqualified Upland last month on the grounds it did not demonstrate financial capacity. Upland disputes the decision and has asked for a review.Petroperu also partnered with Upland to revive production at the smaller Block 8, which produced 5,000 bpd last month.Upland's CEO Jorge Rivera, son of one of Peru's early oil prospectors, told Reuters that Upland has offered Indigenous communities training, jobs and funding."We've dedicated ourselves to understanding the complexities behind operating these fields,” he said.Rivera visited Santa Rosa in March, gifting a Starlink terminal and requesting a report on the community's needs.The community's main demand was the cleanup of the nearby spill, but questions remain over who bears responsibility.Though the operator is responsible for the 108-km stretch of pipeline that runs through Block 8 connecting it to the ONP, Upland's contract exempts it from liability for past pollution.The previous operator, an Argentine subsidiary named Pluspetrol Norte, was fined a record number of times by Peru's environmental regulator OEFA before it filed for liquidation and left the area in late 2020. Eight Indigenous federations and non-governmental organizations filed a complaint to the OECD's Dutch National Contact Point, a mechanism to implement OECD guidelines for businesses, which concluded in September that Pluspetrol had violated Indigenous communities' rights in Peru's Amazon and urged the company to address the environmental damage.In a response to Reuters, Pluspetrol said it already had complied with environmental and human rights regulations and that the NCP statement was "without merit" for not reflecting the "breadth and complexity of the evidence presented and the extent of actions taken by the company."  Decades of scientific research have found high levels of lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic in wildlife and Indigenous people living near Peru's oilfields. Estimated cleanup costs for Block 192 alone stand at $1.5 billion.OEFA registered over 560 environmental infractions including oil spills and others from the ONP or other oil infrastructure in Blocks 192 and 8 from 2011 through September 2025.Petroperu has said any damage is "temporary and reversible" and blamed unspecified "economic and rural-domestic activities" by local communities as the main driver of water pollution.In late 2023, Peru's prosecutor's office said it had broken up a network of businessmen, local Indigenous leaders and a Petroperu employee that it said was orchestrating oil spills to secure lucrative cleanup contracts.  In an interview with Reuters before his dismissal, Narvaez said Petroperu had prioritized cleaning up spills under the regulator's supervision.The government of Peru's interim President Jose Jeri, who took power last month, replaced Narvaez with Petroperu board vice president Fidel Moreno and said it will soon replace Petroperu's entire board of directors.Moreno did not reply to an interview request.Macusi said communities had yet to access a fund from Upland promising 2.5% of oil sales. Meanwhile, meetings with the oil regulator, Perupetro, to discuss funding for community projects have been delayed.After an oil spill from the Block 8 connector pipeline in 2022, Urarina communities held a strike, taking over oil facilities, fields and blockading a river to demand a better state response. Macusi, who as a teen worked hauling buckets of spilled oil, says communities are ready to take action again."If the promised benefits don't come soon, we'll take measures," he said.(Reporting by Alexander Villegas; Additional reporting by Marco Aquino; Editing by Nia Williams and Katy Daigle)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

L.A. air officials approve port pollution pact as skeptics warn of 'no clear accountability'

Southern California air officials voted overwhelmingly Friday to give themselves the power to levy fines on the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach if they don't fulfill their promises to transition to cleaner equipment.

Southern California air officials voted overwhelmingly Friday to give themselves the power to levy fines on the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach if they don’t fulfill their promises to transition to cleaner equipment. The ports remain the largest source of smog-forming pollution in Southern California — releasing more emissions than the region’s 6 million cars each day. The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s governing board voted 9-1 in favor of an agreement that commits the ports to installing zero-emission equipment, such as electric truck chargers or hydrogen fuel pumps, to curb air pollution from the heaviest polluters. The plans will be submitted in three phases: heavy-duty trucks and most cargo-moving equipment by 2028; smaller locomotives and harbor crafts by 2029; and cargo ships and other large vessels by 2030. If the ports don’t meet their deadlines, they would be fined $50,000 to $200,000, which would go into a clean-air fund to aid communities affected by port pollution. The AQMD, for its part, forgoes imposing new rules on the ports for five years. Many environmental advocates voiced disappointment, saying the agreement doesn’t contain specific pollution reduction requirements. “I urge you not to sign away the opportunity to do more to help address the region’s air pollution crisis in exchange for a pinky promise,” said Kathy Ramirez, one of dozens of speakers at Friday’s board meeting. “This is about our lives. I would encourage you to think about why you joined the AQMD board. If not for clean air, then for what?” Port officials and shipping industry officials lauded the decision as a pragmatic way to transition to a zero-emissions economy.“The give and take of ideas and compromises in this process — it mirrors exactly what a real-world transition to zero emissions looks like,” said William Bartelson, an executive at the Pacific Maritime Assn. “It’s practical, it’s inclusive and it’s grounded in shared goals.”The vote answers a long-standing question over how the AQMD intends to reduce pollution from the sprawling trade complex, a focus of environmental justice efforts for decades. The twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, known as the San Pedro Port Complex, is the largest container port in the Western Hemisphere, handling 40% of all container cargo entering the United States. Despite years of efforts at reducing pollution, the vast majority of heavy machinery, big rigs, trains and ships that serve the region’s bustling goods movement still are powered by diesel engines that emit toxic particles and nitrogen oxides, a precursor to smog. For nearly a decade the AQMD has vacillated between strict regulation and a pact with the ports with more flexibility. Several negotiations over a memorandum of understanding failed between 2017 and 2022. The board was prepared to require the ports to offset smog-forming pollution from trucks, trains and ships through clean air projects, like solar panels or electric vehicle chargers. Instead, the ports presented the AQMD with a proposed cooperative agreement, prompting the agency to pause its rulemaking. The AQMD doubled the penalties in that proposal and agreed not to make new rules for five years, not the 10 the industry wanted. Perhaps the most important details of the agreement — the types of energy or fuel used; the appropriate number of chargers or fueling stations — won’t be published for years. The lack of specifics prompted skepticism from many environmental advocates.“It’s just a stall tactic to make a plan for a plan in the hope that emission reductions will come sometime in the future,” said Fernando Gaytan, a senior attorney with environmental nonprofit Earthjustice.The contract also includes a clause that the AQMD or ports could terminate the agreement “for any reason” with a 45-day written notice. Wayne Nastri, the AQMD’s executive officer, said this gives the agency the option to switch back to requiring zero-emission infrastructure at the ports. “If we report back to you and you’re not seeing the progress being made, you can be confident knowing that you can pivot and release that [rulemaking] package,” Nastri said to the board. At the end of public comment, opponents of the agreement broke into loud chants. The AQMD cleared the gallery as the board discussed the proposal. Board member Veronica Padilla-Campos, the lone “no” vote, said the agreement lacked the necessary emission reductions and offered “no clear accountability” to local communities.Fellow board member Nithya Raman acknowledged many criticisms of the agreement but ultimately voted for it. “I really have come to believe that the choice before us is this cooperative agreement or no action at all on this issue — continuing a decade of inaction,” Raman said. “I will be voting to support it today, because I do think that it is our only pathway to take any steps forward toward cleaner air at the single largest source of air pollution in the region.”The plan still must be approved by commissioners at the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach Harbor Commission at meetings this year.

Pollution-plagued port communities near LA and Long Beach say regulator excludes them

Communities near the ports say regulators didn't consider their input when weighing a cooperative agreement about pollution from the ports.

Guest Commentary written by Theral Golden Theral Golden is a Long Beach resident Paola Vargas Paola Vargas is a community organizer at East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice The South Coast Air Quality Management District Board of Governors should vote against the so-called cooperative agreement to curb emissions in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, because impacted community members were not meaningfully included, it weakens the district’s ability to reduce emissions and it creates a dangerous precedent.   The toxic pollution experienced daily by nearby community members isn’t new. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the busiest in the country. We have known for decades that port emissions shorten life expectancy and quality of life in the South Coast Air Basin, which encompasses parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. These pollution-burdened areas are called “diesel death zones” due to the adverse health impacts. In places like West Long Beach, life expectancy is up to eight years shorter than the county average. Throughout the basin, there are an estimated 2,400 pollution related deaths a year. Both ports have made air quality improvements, but the complex is still the single largest fixed source of emissions in southern California.  And the toxins are only going to increase. Cargo activity at the ports is expected to rise 57% from 2021 to 2032. We can expect the human death toll to rise alongside it. There is a process underway with the South Coast Air Quality Management District — the governing body charged with regulating port pollution — that has the potential to address these grave health outcomes. Communities harmed by the pollution have consistently asked the district to incorporate their feedback when identifying solutions, but the district has not meaningfully engaged them. Instead, it has sided with industry time and again, allowing it to dictate the flow and outcomes of the process.  Gov. Gavin Newsom recently declined to sign Senate Bill 34, citing concerns that it would limit the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s authority to regulate port emissions and would interfere with cooperative actions taking place with the ports. We agree with Newsom’s assessment that regulatory authority and cooperation can avoid the worst health impacts — except the cooperation he refers to as “locally driven and collaborative” has been anything but.   The cooperative agreement includes a five-year ban on rulemaking. That handcuffs South Coast Air Quality Management District, effectively blocking the agency’s authority to address port pollution when the South Coast Air Basin can least afford a delay.  Youths play baseball at Bloch Field near the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro on April 8, 2025. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters This ban on rulemaking not only impacts the ports of LA and Long Beach but every port in the district. It also sets a dangerous precedent that could spur other air districts to eliminate public participation in rulemaking processes and prioritize industry priorities over public health.  Instead of advancing the cooperative agreement, the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s board should provide more time to meaningfully and collaboratively engage local communities and consider public health implications.   This doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. We can chart a path that addresses port pollution, improves quality of life and recognizes the role ports play in our global supply chains.  But that won’t happen without communities taking a meaningful place at the table. 

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.