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

Why Is a Floating Seaweed Taking Over an Entire Ocean? Researchers Have the Answer

Sargassum expansion across the Atlantic is tied to nutrient pollution and ocean circulation. Its growth now affects ecosystems and coastal communities. Researchers at Florida Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute have compiled a comprehensive review covering forty years of data on pelagic sargassum, the free-floating brown algae that plays a crucial role in the Atlantic [...]

Brian Lapointe, Ph.D., a leading expert on Sargassum and a research professor at FAU Harbor Branch, emerges from Sargassum at Little Palm Island in the Florida Keys in 2014. Credit: Tanju MisharaSargassum expansion across the Atlantic is tied to nutrient pollution and ocean circulation. Its growth now affects ecosystems and coastal communities. Researchers at Florida Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute have compiled a comprehensive review covering forty years of data on pelagic sargassum, the free-floating brown algae that plays a crucial role in the Atlantic Ocean. For decades, scientists believed sargassum was largely restricted to the nutrient-poor waters of the Sargasso Sea. It is now clear that this seaweed has become a widespread and fast-growing presence across the Atlantic, with its expansion tied to both natural variability and human-driven nutrient inputs. Published in the journal Harmful Algae, the review examines the emergence and persistence of the Great Atlantic Sargassum Belt, an enormous seasonal bloom that spans from West Africa to the Gulf of Mexico. Since first being observed in 2011, this belt has formed nearly every year—except in 2013—and in May reached a record biomass of 37.5 million tons. This figure excludes the long-term background biomass of 7.3 million tons typically found in the Sargasso Sea. Linking nutrient enrichment to sargassum expansion The analysis integrates historical oceanographic records, modern satellite data, and detailed biogeochemical studies to better explain shifts in sargassum abundance, distribution, and nutrient balance. The findings emphasize the influence of human-driven nutrient loading on ocean processes and the urgent need for international collaboration to track and mitigate the impacts of these vast seaweed blooms. “Our review takes a deep dive into the changing story of sargassum – how it’s growing, what’s fueling that growth, and why we’re seeing such a dramatic increase in biomass across the North Atlantic,” said Brian Lapointe, Ph.D., lead author and a research professor at FAU Harbor Branch. “By examining shifts in its nutrient composition – particularly nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon – and how those elements vary over time and space, we’re beginning to understand the larger environmental forces at play.” Sargassum on a beach in Palm Beach County in 2021. Credit: Brian Lapointe, FAU Harbor BranchAt the start of the review, Brian Lapointe and his colleagues, Deanna F. Webber, research coordinator, and Rachel Brewton, Ph.D., assistant research professor at FAU Harbor Branch, note that early oceanographers mapped the Sargasso Sea by tracking surface patches of sargassum. They assumed the seaweed flourished in its warm, clear, yet nutrient-poor waters. This idea later presented a paradox, as mid-20th-century researchers went on to describe the same region as a “biological desert.” Resolving the paradox with modern studies However, recent satellite observations, ocean circulation models, and field studies have resolved this paradox by tracing the seasonal transport of sargassum from nutrient-rich coastal areas, particularly the western Gulf of America, to the open ocean via the Loop Current and Gulf Stream. These findings support early theories by explorers who proposed that Gulf-originating sargassum could feed populations in the Sargasso Sea. Remote sensing technology played a pivotal role in these discoveries. In 2004 and 2005, satellites captured extensive sargassum windrows – long, narrow lines or bands of floating sargassum – in the western Gulf of America, a region experiencing increased nutrient loads from river systems such as the Mississippi and Atchafalaya. “These nutrient-rich waters fueled high biomass events along the Gulf Coast, resulting in mass strandings, costly beach cleanups, and even the emergency shutdown of a Florida nuclear power plant in 1991,” Lapointe said. “A major focus of our review is the elemental composition of sargassum tissue and how it has changed over time.” Growth rates and limiting nutrients Laboratory experiments and field research dating back to the 1980s confirmed that sargassum grows more quickly and is more productive in nutrient-enriched neritic waters than in the oligotrophic waters of the open ocean. Controlled studies revealed that the two primary species, sargassum natans and sargassum fluitans, can double their biomass in just 11 days under optimal conditions. These studies also established that phosphorus is often the primary limiting nutrient for growth, although nitrogen also plays a critical role. From the 1980s to the 2020s, the nitrogen content of sargassum increased by more than 50%, while phosphorus content decreased slightly, leading to a sharp rise in the nitrogen-to-phosphorus (N:P) ratio. VIDEOThe story of sargassum over four decades. Credit: Brian Lapointe, FAU Harbor Branch “These changes reflect a shift away from natural oceanic nutrient sources like upwelling and vertical mixing, and toward land-based inputs such as agricultural runoff, wastewater discharge, and atmospheric deposition,” said Lapointe. “Carbon levels in sargassum also rose, contributing to changes in overall stoichiometry and further highlighting the impact of external nutrient loading on marine primary producers.” The review also explores how nutrient recycling within sargassum windrows, including excretion by associated marine organisms and microbial breakdown of organic matter, can sustain growth in nutrient-poor environments. This micro-scale recycling is critical in maintaining sargassum populations in parts of the ocean that would otherwise not support high levels of productivity. Influence of Amazon River outflow Data from sargassum collected near the Amazon River mouth support the hypothesis that nutrient outflows from this major river contribute significantly to the development of the GASB. Variations in sargassum biomass have been linked to flood and drought cycles in the Amazon basin, further connecting land-based nutrient inputs to the open ocean. The formation of the GASB appears to have been seeded by an extreme atmospheric event – the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation in 2009 to 2010, which may have helped shift surface waters and sargassum from the Sargasso Sea southward into the tropical Atlantic. However, the researchers caution that there is no direct evidence of this movement. Moreover, genetic and morphological data suggest that some sargassum populations, particularly the dominant S. natans var. wingei, were already present in the tropical Atlantic prior to 2011, indicating that this region may have had an overlooked role in the early development of the GASB. “The expansion of sargassum isn’t just an ecological curiosity – it has real impacts on coastal communities. The massive blooms can clog beaches, affect fisheries and tourism, and pose health risks,” said Lapointe. “Understanding why sargassum is growing so much is crucial for managing these impacts. Our review helps to connect the dots between land-based nutrient pollution, ocean circulation, and the unprecedented expansion of sargassum across an entire ocean basin.” Reference: “Productivity, growth, and biogeochemistry of pelagic Sargassum in a changing world” by Brian E. Lapointe, Deanna F. Webber and Rachel A. Brewton, 8 August 2025, Harmful Algae.DOI: 10.1016/j.hal.2025.102940 This work was funded by the Florida Department of Emergency Management, United States Environmental Protection Agency, South Florida Program Project, and the NOAA Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms program. Historical studies included within the review were funded by the NASA Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Program and Ecological Forecast Program, NOAA RESTORE Science Program, National Science Foundation, “Save Our Seas” Specialty License Plate and discretionary funds, granted through the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute Foundation, and a Red Wright Fellowship from the Bermuda Biological Station. Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

Effort to Curb Southern California Rail Yard Pollution Stalls Under Trump

The region’s rail yards continue to pose serious health hazards, prompting local advocates to push state leaders for action. The post Effort to Curb Southern California Rail Yard Pollution Stalls Under Trump appeared first on .

This story was supported by the Climate Equity Reporting Project and the Stakes Project at UC Berkeley School of Journalism. When MaCarmen Gonzalez moved from Mexico to the city of San Bernardino, east of Los Angeles, two decades ago, she brought one of her two sons with her. Soon after, he began suffering from asthma, while the son who remained in Mexico stayed healthy. The contrast convinced Gonzalez that the air in her new community — which had become a major distribution hub for Amazon and other online retailers — was making people sick. She began organizing with People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, a local environmental group, after seeing many of her friends fall ill with cancer — and in some cases — die from the disease. She attributed their illnesses to the unhealthy air.   Earlier this year, San Bernardino County — home to more than 2 million residents, the majority of whom are Latino — was ranked the nation’s worst for ozone pollution by the American Lung Association for the 15th consecutive year. “If you can’t leave, then you are stuck with the situation here, and you start to notice the health impacts building,” she said. “It often starts with allergies, and then it gets worse.” Over the last several years, Gonzalez and other community members have rallied residents to protest and testify at local regulatory hearings, pressing for tougher oversight of what’s known as the logistics industry. Their movement gained momentum when local air regulators began drafting rules aimed at cutting pollution from warehouses and Southern California’s two massive ports. MaCarmen Gonzalez with a group of environmental justice activists near the San Bernardino rail yard. Photo courtesy of People’s Collective for Environmental Justice. Last summer, organizers won a major victory when the South Coast Air Quality Management District agreed to regulate rail yards, an often-overlooked but heavily polluting corner of the shipping industry. Health studies going back nearly two decades have found elevated cancer risk in communities near rail yards, including the BNSF Railway intermodal facility in San Bernardino, as well as reduced lung function in children going to school nearby. The pollution that trains, trucks and other vehicles generate in rail yards don’t only pose health risks to local residents, they’re also a significant source of climate-warming emissions.  But just as air regulators were preparing to crack down on the pollution coming from the 25 rail yards in the region, the effort hit a wall — a new presidential administration hostile to  environmental regulation.  Consequently, the rule that the South Coast Air Quality Management District adopted last summer intended to make rail companies like BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad clean up their operations is now off the table. The rule would have required the companies to dramatically reduce the toxic emissions generated by their Southern California rail yards, make plans to add zero emissions infrastructure and replace some diesel-powered equipment with cleaner electric alternatives. It was a blow to communities like San Bernardino, where pollution from goods movement has grown alongside the rise in e-commerce. It also threw a wrench in one of the region’s more promising strategies for addressing the persistent, interconnected problems of climate change and air pollution. And it’s just one of many ways communities could suffer under the Trump administration’s broad-based attack on environmental regulations. For now, local residents in San Bernardino are looking to state officials to rein in air pollution in their communities. But they face steep opposition from rail companies and industry lobbying groups. *   *   * The Inland Empire, where Gonzalez lives, is a basin-shaped region that stretches east of Los Angeles County, and includes the cities of San Bernardino, Riverside and Ontario. The towering San Gabriel Mountains, which form the region’s backdrop, are often obscured by a layer of gray-brown haze laden with lung-damaging particulates and other pollutants that get trapped by the peaks and hang in the air. The pandemic hastened the expansion of Southern California’s shipping industry, but the warehouses began to replace farms in the area as far back as the 1980s. Their proliferation has led to sprawl at a massive scale and has attracted over 600,000 trucks a day to the region. They transport everything from clothing and shoes to appliances and home goods from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Numerous studies have shown that living near transportation corridors is associated with higher rates of heart disease and cancer, adverse birth outcomes, negative effects on the immune system and neurotoxicity. “It’s funny to think you could be going out to exercise, but you might actually be hurting yourself more than you’re helping,” said Gem Montes, another organizer with People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, who started a citizen science project focused on testing the air after realizing air pollution was hampering her ability to go outside. She worked with high school students who found high levels of air pollution in their school and homes.   Montes lives in Colton, known as the “hub city,” which is home to the Union Pacific West Colton yard, another major rail yard.  Rail yards are built to include dozens of parallel tracks used for storing, sorting, loading and unloading train cars and locomotives. They use retired diesel locomotives to move trains around the yards — engines that are more polluting than people typically see traveling around the state.  And the trucks that park at the rail yards often idle for hours at a time. And the pollution they generate is not just from their emissions. There is also noise. Residents living near rail yards hear the sound of metal gnashing against metal as freight trains pass by, moving products from warehouses to far-flung distribution centers. At all hours of the day, trucks loaded up with cargo rumble through Inland Empire communities, headed to nearby warehouses, including a 1-million-square-foot Amazon fulfillment center. *   *   * The rules championed by environmental and community groups to curb emissions from rail yards and other polluters were part of a creative strategy employed by local air regulators in recent years to work around restrictions on regulating cars, trains and trucks, which typically cross state lines, placing them primarily under federal jurisdiction. These so-called indirect source rules allow local regulators to target emissions generated by trains and vehicles that are associated with stationary facilities — such as warehouses, sports stadiums or, in this case, rail yards — that attract significant traffic. The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s first indirect source rule was aimed at cutting vehicle emissions directly connected to warehouses. It was adopted in 2021 and imposes environmental fees on warehouse owners, which they can offset by adding solar panels to their roofs, replacing diesel loading vehicles with electric ones, or providing chargers for electric trucks.  Then, last August, the AQMD adopted a similar rule for rail yards, and community members were cautiously optimistic.  The rule required BNSF and Union Pacific to cut smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution at all 25 rail yards in the region — an 82% reduction by 2037 — and mandated that the rail operators plan to build charging and other infrastructure to support zero-emission operations. A row of shipping containers sit in a lot next to a San Bernardino neighborhood. Photo: Jeremy Lindenfeld. It would have been an incremental step toward broader electrification of the rail industry in the state — and it would have paved the way for Union Pacific and BNSF to electrify their freight handling equipment and add charging infrastructure to the rail yards. However, the rule was written to take effect only after the state passed two related laws aimed at cutting emissions in trucks and passenger trains. And the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state regulator that partners with 35 regional air districts, withdrew both rules from the EPA process in January, shortly before Trump took office, in recognition that approval by the new administration was dead on arrival.   Two large railroad industry trade groups, the Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, had opposed the in-use Locomotive Regulation, which would have required train operators to begin transitioning their equipment to zero emissions. Both groups sued CARB in 2023 over the rule.  Neither BNSF nor Union Pacific responded to Capital & Main’s requests for comment.  *   *   * Now activists are hoping that the state can regulate the rail yard on its own — and state officials seem open to trying. This spring Rainbow Yeung, a spokesperson for AQMD, told Capital & Main that the agency was “continuing to discuss potential paths forward with CARB.” In March, Assemblymember Robert Garcia introduced Assembly Bill 914, which would have affirmed CARB’s authority to oversee indirect sources. But after it was amended, he placed it on hold, effectively killing it for the year. The nonprofit advocacy organization Earthjustice sponsored the bill alongside Garcia. Adrian Martinez, director of the organization’s Right To Zero campaign, says that the legislation will be reintroduced in early 2026.  A state-level rule targeting a range of “pollution magnets,” including rail yards, would be a novel step for California, which has been granted waivers by the EPA under both Republican and Democratic administrations that allow the state to go beyond federal air quality regulations. CARB listed the strategy in a recent set of recommendations to Gov. Gavin Newsom aimed at filling in the gaps left by the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine the state’s climate policy. “With our clean air standards under attack by the Trump administration, it’s vital that California brings more tools to the table to clear smog,” said Martinez. The Supply Chain Federation, an industry lobbying group that fought against AB 914, has expressed concern about the potential shift toward a statewide rule targeting indirect pollution sources. The group “will continue to oppose similar proposals in the future,” said Sarah Wiltfong, chief public policy and advocacy officer for the federation in an email. The Supply Chain Federation released a report in July calling AQMD’s warehouse indirect source rule  “deeply flawed, economically harmful, and environmentally ineffective” and said it wants CARB’s other existing approaches to vehicle emissions standards to continue instead.   Andrea Vidaurre, co-founder of People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, feels optimistic about the potential for a state-level indirect source rule but added that it is not the only way forward.  “Rail yards are a huge source of air pollution, so if it’s not through [an indirect source rule], we’re asking what else California can do to make sure that it’s looking at [vehicle] idling limits, infrastructure upgrades, whatever it might need to do to have these places ready for [electric trains] — technology that exists everywhere else in the world but here.” And while electrifying trains and trucks would go a long way toward reducing pollution and cutting greenhouse gases, Vidaurre and her fellow advocates say that the larger issue of consumption — how much and how we buy — is the elephant in the room.  Even last fall, when it seemed all but guaranteed that the region would take an incremental step toward cleaning up its rail yards, she said the new regulations wouldn’t be a silver bullet.  “The problem is that we’re concentrating everything in one community,” said Vidaurre. “Forty percent of the nation’s imports move through these two ports.” But even if trucks and trains get electrified, she added, we still need fewer of them on the road. Copyright 2025 Capital & Main. Maison Tran is a UC Berkeley California Local News Fellow.

This Pennsylvania settlement could set the standard for preventing tiny plastic pellet pollution

A company agreed to install technology to watch for the tiny plastic pellets.

When Heather Hulton VanTassel went looking for plastic pellets in the Ohio River in 2021, she was simply trying to establish a baseline level of contamination. A new plastics facility was being constructed nearby, and she wanted to be able to compare the prevalence of pellets — known as “nurdles” — before and after it went into operation. The “before” number would probably be low, she thought. What she and her co-workers found, however, exceeded her expectations. “We were really shocked at the numbers we were seeing,” she told Grist.  VanTassel is the executive director of Three Rivers Waterkeeper, a nonprofit that protects the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio rivers in southwestern Pennsylvania. As she and her team went about testing the river four years ago, hundreds of nurdles were coming up in each sample they pulled with their handheld trawls, a device about the size of a large shoebox. And the plastic pieces were tiny — even more so than the 5 millimeter nurdles she was used to. She had to add coffee filters to her catchment device to keep the particles from slipping through its sieves. VanTassel’s team kept following the pellets upstream, trawl after trawl, until they eventually reached the Ohio River’s confluence with Raccoon Creek, a popular area for swimming and fishing. That’s where they found the source. An industrial stormwater pipe was transporting pellets from a Styropek plastics facility and releasing them directly into the creek. The water testers could see them flowing out “all over the vegetation,” VanTassel said, and deposited in the soil just above the water line. That finding became the catalyst for a legal battle that has just reached its conclusion. Three Rivers Waterkeeper and the nonprofit PennEnvironment reached a landmark settlement agreement with Styropek earlier this month, following a lawsuit they filed against the company in 2023 over its contamination of the Ohio River watershed. The agreement, which also resolves a violation notice from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, requires Styropek to pay $2.6 million to remediate its plastic pollution, and to fund clean water projects across the state. But what makes the settlement effective, according to the plaintiffs, is not this initial penalty. It’s a requirement that Styropek must install technology to detect the release of any more plastic pellets from its facility in Monaca, Pennsylvania. If the technology finds even a single nurdle in the facility’s stormwater outfalls, the company will have to pay up.  David Masur, PennEnvironment’s executive director, said the agreement should become “a model and a blueprint” for regulators and the plastics industry. “I think they’ll have a hard time saying rationally why they shouldn’t do it [monitor their nurdle pollution] after a case like this, where the regulators and the industry are saying, ‘We agree it’s possible.’”  Nurdles are the precursors to plastic products. Manufacturers melt them down so they can be shaped into ink pens, disposable cups, or any number of other items. A water bottle, for context, is estimated to be made of about 1,000 nurdles. Styropek’s nurdles in Raccoon Creek were made of expandable polystyrene — a type of plastic that has been banned in many jurisdictions, due to its nonrecyclability and tendency to break into hazardous microplastics — destined to become things like packing peanuts, insulation for coolers, and foamy to-go containers. The company claims to be the largest expandable polystyrene producer “in the American continent.” Due to their tininess, ranging from the size of a pinhead to that of a nubbin on a Lego piece, nurdles are liable to escape into the environment. Spills often occur during transportation — these have been documented off the coasts of Sri Lanka, South Africa, Louisiana, and in many other places — but effluent from plastic production and processing facilities is also a significant pollution source.  Once in the environment, nurdles and the fragments that break off them may get eaten by birds and marine animals, causing plastic to accumulate up the food chain as larger critters eat smaller ones. Plastic particles are associated with a range of health problems in both humans and other animals, including heart disease and immune system dysfunction, though it’s not yet clear whether these are due to the leaching of plastics’ inherent chemical additives or the tendency of other pollutants to glom onto plastic particles, or perhaps some other factor. What’s the connection between plastics and climate change?Plastics are made from fossil fuels and cause greenhouse gas emissions at every stage of their lifespan, including during the extraction of oil and gas, during processing at petrochemical refineries, and upon disposal — especially if they’re incinerated. If the plastics industry were a country, it would have the world’s fourth-largest climate footprint, based on data published last year by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Research suggests that plastics are responsible for about 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. But this is likely an underestimate due to significant data gaps: Most countries lack greenhouse gas information on their plastics use and disposal, and the data that is available tends to focus on plastic production and specific disposal methods. Scientists are beginning to explore other ways plastics may contribute to climate change. Research suggests that plastics release greenhouse gases when exposed to UV radiation, which means there could be a large, underappreciated amount of climate pollution emanating from existing plastic products and litter. Marine microplastics may also be inhibiting the ocean’s ability to store carbon. And plastic particles in the air and on the Earth’s surface could be trapping heat or reflecting it — more research is needed.Holly Kaufman, a senior fellow at the nonprofit World Resources Institute, said it’s obvious that plastics are using up more than their fair share of the carbon budget, the amount of carbon dioxide the world can emit without surpassing 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius (2.7 or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming. Plastics have “a major climate impact that has just not been incorporated anywhere,” she said — including the U.N.’s plastics treaty. In the U.S., companies that want to discharge wastewater or stormwater into public waterways have to get a special kind of permit from their state’s environmental protection agency, or the federal EPA. The permit describes the types and amounts of pollutants that are allowed to be released, and anything not included on this list may be considered a violation of the federal Clean Water Act. That formed the basis of PennEnvironment and Three Rivers Waterkeeper’s lawsuit: They argued that because Styropek’s permit didn’t say anything about nurdles, releasing them into Raccoon Creek was illegal. Part of the settlement agreement with Styropek, which is expected to be approved by the federal court for Western Pennsylvania, gives the company three years to eliminate nurdles from its stormwater outfalls, and up to two years to eliminate them from its wastewater outfalls. Should Styropek sell its facility to another company, those requirements will still apply — a crucial detail, since the company began winding down production at its Monaca facility earlier this year and reportedly plans to shut down completely in early 2026. While the facility idles, the consent decree only applies to its stormwater; the wastewater requirements will kick in if the facility resumes production.   Styropek declined to be interviewed for this story and instead sent a statement noting that it is “firmly committed to upholding the highest standards of safety, health, environmental protection, quality, and sustainability.” There are many ways of cleaning up stormwater and wastewater, and Styropek has already begun trialing a number of technologies, including “turbidity curtains” to trap suspended plastic in its wastewater lagoons and an iron coagulant to aggregate smaller plastic particles into larger ones. But different technology is required to know whether those interventions are actually working. Styropek’s settlement requires it to install monitoring tools that can detect nurdles down to the individual particle, and the company will incur a fine for each inspection where one is detected. For stormwater discharge, fines will increase if more than 10 pellets are detected. Until recently, this technology didn’t exist, at least not at an industrial scale. But a similar settlement that an environmental group and private citizen reached six years ago with the Taiwanese company Formosa Plastics, whose Port Lavaca, Texas, facility was caught releasing tens of millions of nurdles into the Gulf of Mexico, set a helpful precedent. The settlement required the facility to install novel technology to its wastewater outflows, capable of detecting not only nurdles and other microplastics but also plastic powder.  Aiza José-Sánchez, president of the company Aizaco Environmental Engineering, designed that technology. She declined to say whether she’s been approached about the Styropek settlement, but she told Grist she’s made significant updates to her equipment with an eye toward installing it at other plastics facilities.  With Formosa, Aizaco’s monitoring system is installed above an underground wastewater pipeline roughly 2 miles away from the actual plastic production facility. This is so independent auditors can access it without having to enter the facility. Aizaco disinterred part of the underground pipe and connected it to a series of detectors, which could flag samples of water that might contain plastics. One of them sensed if the water was suspiciously turbid, or cloudy. Another used filters to catch particles above a certain size, and workers onsite were also keeping watch for signs of plastic contamination. Flagged samples would be tested using chromatography, a technique that separates dissolved substances out of a mixture, to confirm whether their pollutants really were plastic. Aizaco designed tools to detect nurdles in companies’ outflows. Courtesy of Aizaco An Aizaco employee holds a nurdle detected by the company’s technology. Courtesy of Aizaco The system works “100 percent of the time,” José-Sánchez said. Every inspection — meaning at least three times a week, per Formosa’s consent decree — has turned up plastic pollution, she told Grist. Her company’s testing has resulted in millions of dollars of fines for Formosa. Masur, with PennEnvironment, said the requirement of monitoring technology — supported by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection — was what made their settlement agreement such a “landmark,” more so than the $2.6 million penalty. He said he’s hoping to reinforce the precedent set in the Formosa case, which proved that it’s possible for plastic producers to set a goal of “no plastic discharges,” and then monitor their own facilities to see if they’re achieving it. “We wanted this to be the standard under the Clean Water Act,” said Matthew Dononhue, a senior attorney at the nonprofit National Environmental Law Center, who led the complaint against Styropek.  Donohue and Masur said they couldn’t divulge whether other environmental groups were looking into their own lawsuits to demand continuous monitoring at plastics facilities. But they offered another potential path forward. Facilities with water pollution permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System have to renew their permits every five years — and when they do, the public gets a chance to give input. If enough people advocated for it, state environmental protection agencies or the federal EPA could revise facilities’ permits to include a monitoring requirement.  “As the facilities in our state have their permits come up for a renewal, we should just be taking this and dropping it right in,” Masur said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline This Pennsylvania settlement could set the standard for preventing tiny plastic pellet pollution on Sep 16, 2025.

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.