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.

Texas proposes first new rules for oilfield waste in 40 years

News Feed
Monday, September 9, 2024

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. This story is published in partnership with Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for the ICN newsletter here. Texas is inching closer to adopting revised oil and gas waste management rules for the first time in four decades. The Railroad Commission of Texas announced the draft rule at its Aug. 15 meeting and is now soliciting public comment. The rule regulates a range of disposal sites for oil and gas drilling wastes, from pits dug next to drilling rigs to large commercial facilities managing toxic waste from numerous drillers. Waste streams that fall under the rule include drilling mud, sludge, cuttings and produced water. The rule also aims to encourage more recycling of the drilling wastewater, which can be five to eight times saltier than ocean water and, like other oilfield waste, is often laced with fracking chemicals, hazardous compounds such as arsenic, benzene and toluene. The existing waste rule was adopted in 1984, long before fracking revolutionized the oil and gas industry. Fracking has increased the volume of oilfield waste and changed its composition. In Texas, waste pits have been linked to at least six cases of groundwater contamination and hundreds of violations of state rules. While the need to modernize the Railroad Commission’s rules is clear, the process has proved contentious. A task force with members of the oil industry and consultants met for two years to provide recommendations before the Railroad Commission released an informal draft to the public in October 2023. That round of public comments informed the updated draft released last month. Commission Shift, a nonprofit organization focused on reforming oil and gas oversight in Texas, applauded some provisions of the latest draft, such as requiring operators to register waste pits with regulators. But the organization warned that the proposal does not provide enough protections for groundwater. Karr Ingham, president of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, said his group raised concerns that provisions in the informal draft would be “unworkable” and too costly for smaller independent oil and gas companies. “I believe a number of the changes that were made do address those concerns,” Ingham said in an interview. “Yes, we’re much more comfortable with the current draft than that initial draft.” The agency is accepting written comments until Sept. 30. The Railroad Commission proposes that the new regulation, which would replace Statewide Rule 8, go into effect July 1, 2025. “The proposed rules include a combination of strategies to protect groundwater from pollution, including engineering and design controls, groundwater monitoring, and closure standards,” Railroad Commission spokesperson Patty Ramon said in an email. “In addition, the design and operational standards become more strict as waste volume increases, and also considers factors such as time in the ground, and proximity to groundwater.” Rule covers several oil and gas waste streams While drilling an oil or gas well, oily waste, known as mud and cuttings, return to the surface. The operator digs an earthen pit alongside the rig to dispose of this waste. The pit remains open while the well is drilled and then closed once the well is complete, permanently burying the waste underground. When these pits meet certain Railroad Commission requirements, they are automatically permitted. These are known as authorized pits or reserve pits. Other types of commercial waste pits require an individual permit under the draft rule. The draft rule only requires liners in reserve pits when groundwater is within 50 feet of the bottom of the pit. These pits cannot be in a 100-year floodplain but otherwise have no setback requirements from houses and water wells. There is no limit on how close the bottom of the reserve pit can be to the underlying groundwater and no groundwater monitoring required. However, for the first time, operators will be required to register the location of their reserve pits with the Railroad Commission. The Circle Six Baptist Camp now shares a fenceline with produced water recycling pits. More reserve pits are being dug to the west of the camp, visible in the left side of the image. Credit: Source: Google Commercial pits have more stringent requirements for liners, groundwater monitoring and setbacks from water wells in the draft rule. Fracking has increased the volume of drilling waste, according to law firm Baker Botts. The contents of the waste have also changed. While operators originally used water-based drilling mud, many now use oil-based mud to drill horizontal wells for fracking. The cuttings that come to the surface can contain diesel fuel and other chemicals. Drilling waste, despite containing harmful chemicals, is largely exempt from federal regulations for hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. A separate section of the draft rule covers commercial facilities that handle waste from drilling companies. The rule also governs commercial recycling facilities that process the waste for reuse, and produced water recycling facilities. Oil and gas companies are not required to report the volume of produced water generated in the state. But a 2022 report estimated that in the Permian Basin alone, 3.9 billion barrels, or more than 168 billion gallons, of produced water is generated every year. While the draft rule imposes stricter requirements than the preexisting rule, it falls short of how other states regulate drilling waste. In North Dakota, for example, open pits for liquid waste—including drilling mud and produced water—are prohibited except under specific circumstances with the regulator’s approval. New Mexico updated its waste rules in 2008 and banned unlined pits altogether. Drilling waste poses groundwater threat Virginia Palacios saw firsthand the impacts of oilfield waste when the shale boom took off in her hometown of Laredo. At the Texas Groundwater Summit in San Antonio in August, Palacios, now executive director of Commission Shift, remembered open-top trucks sloshing drilling waste onto the roads in Laredo. She recounted seeing a waste pit at her family’s ranch that had an oily sheen even though the company assured them it contained only water. Most landowners across Texas do not own the minerals under their land. The oil and gas companies that hold these mineral rights enter surface-use agreements with the landowners. These leases can include provisions for waste pits. “We can’t rely on mineral owners to just get a good lease every time,” Palacios said at the summit. “We’ve got to have good rules that apply across the board everywhere, so that we can ensure that groundwater is safe.” Palacios is concerned that the draft does not require operators to notify landowners when they dig authorized pits on their land. “We need to do better by the landowners to let them know what is going to happen and to allow them to give informed advice,” Palacios said. Pits that are not properly constructed or leach into the soil can contaminate groundwater. According to the commission’s online database, the agency issued 712 violations of water contamination rules since 2015. The commission did not provide clarification about how many of these violations occurred at waste pits. The commission has on record six active cases of groundwater contamination caused by waste pits and one case caused by a commercial waste facility, according to the state’s groundwater protection report. In addition to nonprofit organizations, some companies have doubts about the rule. Gabriel Rio, CEO of the waste management firm Milestone Environmental Services, told the Midland Reporter-Telegram that the draft rule is not sufficient to protect groundwater. “This very much falls short of what the industry is already doing,” he said. Milestone Environmental Services declined to comment for this story. Oil and gas industry provided early recommendations Jim Wright built on his career in oilfield waste management to win a seat on the Railroad Commission in 2020. Updating the waste rule was one of his priorities as commissioner. His staff formed a regulatory task force to provide recommendations for a revised rule. The Railroad Commission published the informal draft after receiving this industry feedback. In previous interviews, Wright has defended this process and denied that his role in the industry biased the rulemaking process. Wright’s staff did not respond to a request for comment. Commission Shift’s Palacios said she is concerned that the waste management companies subject to the rule had private meetings with regulators before the Railroad Commission shared the informal draft with the public. Several waste management professionals backed the protective measures during the informal comment period. Landowners and residents also submitted comments in support of the new regulations. Meanwhile, comments from numerous oil and gas operators pushed back on stricter requirements for reserve pits. The Texas Alliance of Energy Producers sought an exception for liner and groundwater monitoring requirements for reserve pits that are open for less than 18 months before the waste is buried. Ingham, the Alliance president, said the organization had further meetings with RRC staff and commissioners following the informal comment period. (Palacios confirmed that Commission Shift was also able to meet with agency staff). Ingham said that these meetings allow industry to provide information that RRC staff may not have at their disposal. “They are willing to take those meetings and listen to us. This is not remotely uncommon,” he said. The latest draft rule includes an option for operators to request exceptions to requirements for reserve pits. Judy Stark, president of the Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Association, said in an interview that a “one size fits all rule” doesn’t make sense for her region. Stark said that notifying landowners of the locations of pits could create costly delays for drillers. “You can’t wait if somebody is on vacation or something like that, with a $100,000 a day rig out there,” she said. “They used common sense on the draft,” Stark said. “It’s still in its draft stage so I can’t say where it’s going to end up.” Residents feel impacts of waste facilities Not everyone feels their concerns were heard in the rulemaking process. Tara Jones lives about a mile from the Blackhorn Environmental Services stationary waste facility in Orange Grove. When odors from the facility permeated Jones’ home, she asked regulators to investigate. She appealed to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which regulates air emissions from stationary facilities, along with the Railroad Commission and her elected officials. She said stationary waste facilities impact people far beyond their fence lines. “I am one mile away and there’s only one property owner between us,” she said. “But when it comes to stuff in the air, it doesn’t really matter.” Jones is skeptical that the Railroad Commission takes public comments into consideration. “I feel if you kick and scream loud enough, sometimes they do,” she said. “But will it change their mind? I don’t know. I don’t really think so.” In response to a question about how the Railroad Commission engages landowners and people who live near stationary waste facilities, the agency spokesperson said only that they use “various sources of information and expertise,” including public comments. “As with any proposed rule, staff will review and incorporate comments,” Ramon said. Palacios said that the Railroad Commission should hold public hearings near waste facilities, not only in Austin. She pointed out that Reeves County in the Permian Basin, which has the most commercial waste pits in the state, is a seven-hour drive from Austin. Commission Shift is urging the Railroad Commission to extend the public comment period on the more than 300-page draft document. “This is a massive overhaul of extremely important groundwater protection rules,” she said. “We’re asking the commission to extend the comment period to 90 days to allow the public to meaningfully participate in this rulemaking.” Asked whether the commission is considering extending the comment period or holding meetings outside Austin, the agency spokesperson did not answer. Disclosure: Texas Alliance of Energy Producers has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. As The Texas Tribune's signature event of the year, The Texas Tribune Festival brings Texans closer to politics, policy and the day’s news from Texas and beyond. Browse on-demand recordings and catch up on the biggest headlines from Festival events at the Tribune’s Festival news page.

While environmentalists say the new rules don’t do enough to protect groundwater, oil and gas operators are contesting stricter requirements for waste pits near wells.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.


This story is published in partnership with Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for the ICN newsletter here.

Texas is inching closer to adopting revised oil and gas waste management rules for the first time in four decades.

The Railroad Commission of Texas announced the draft rule at its Aug. 15 meeting and is now soliciting public comment. The rule regulates a range of disposal sites for oil and gas drilling wastes, from pits dug next to drilling rigs to large commercial facilities managing toxic waste from numerous drillers. Waste streams that fall under the rule include drilling mud, sludge, cuttings and produced water.

The rule also aims to encourage more recycling of the drilling wastewater, which can be five to eight times saltier than ocean water and, like other oilfield waste, is often laced with fracking chemicals, hazardous compounds such as arsenic, benzene and toluene.

The existing waste rule was adopted in 1984, long before fracking revolutionized the oil and gas industry. Fracking has increased the volume of oilfield waste and changed its composition. In Texas, waste pits have been linked to at least six cases of groundwater contamination and hundreds of violations of state rules.

While the need to modernize the Railroad Commission’s rules is clear, the process has proved contentious. A task force with members of the oil industry and consultants met for two years to provide recommendations before the Railroad Commission released an informal draft to the public in October 2023. That round of public comments informed the updated draft released last month.

Commission Shift, a nonprofit organization focused on reforming oil and gas oversight in Texas, applauded some provisions of the latest draft, such as requiring operators to register waste pits with regulators. But the organization warned that the proposal does not provide enough protections for groundwater.

Karr Ingham, president of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, said his group raised concerns that provisions in the informal draft would be “unworkable” and too costly for smaller independent oil and gas companies.

“I believe a number of the changes that were made do address those concerns,” Ingham said in an interview. “Yes, we’re much more comfortable with the current draft than that initial draft.”

The agency is accepting written comments until Sept. 30. The Railroad Commission proposes that the new regulation, which would replace Statewide Rule 8, go into effect July 1, 2025.

“The proposed rules include a combination of strategies to protect groundwater from pollution, including engineering and design controls, groundwater monitoring, and closure standards,” Railroad Commission spokesperson Patty Ramon said in an email. “In addition, the design and operational standards become more strict as waste volume increases, and also considers factors such as time in the ground, and proximity to groundwater.”

Rule covers several oil and gas waste streams

While drilling an oil or gas well, oily waste, known as mud and cuttings, return to the surface. The operator digs an earthen pit alongside the rig to dispose of this waste. The pit remains open while the well is drilled and then closed once the well is complete, permanently burying the waste underground.

When these pits meet certain Railroad Commission requirements, they are automatically permitted. These are known as authorized pits or reserve pits. Other types of commercial waste pits require an individual permit under the draft rule.

The draft rule only requires liners in reserve pits when groundwater is within 50 feet of the bottom of the pit. These pits cannot be in a 100-year floodplain but otherwise have no setback requirements from houses and water wells. There is no limit on how close the bottom of the reserve pit can be to the underlying groundwater and no groundwater monitoring required. However, for the first time, operators will be required to register the location of their reserve pits with the Railroad Commission.

The Circle Six Baptist Camp now shares a fenceline with produced water recycling pits. More reserve pits are being dug to the west of the camp, visible in the left side of the image. Credit: Source: Google

Commercial pits have more stringent requirements for liners, groundwater monitoring and setbacks from water wells in the draft rule.

Fracking has increased the volume of drilling waste, according to law firm Baker Botts. The contents of the waste have also changed. While operators originally used water-based drilling mud, many now use oil-based mud to drill horizontal wells for fracking. The cuttings that come to the surface can contain diesel fuel and other chemicals. Drilling waste, despite containing harmful chemicals, is largely exempt from federal regulations for hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

A separate section of the draft rule covers commercial facilities that handle waste from drilling companies. The rule also governs commercial recycling facilities that process the waste for reuse, and produced water recycling facilities.

Oil and gas companies are not required to report the volume of produced water generated in the state. But a 2022 report estimated that in the Permian Basin alone, 3.9 billion barrels, or more than 168 billion gallons, of produced water is generated every year.

While the draft rule imposes stricter requirements than the preexisting rule, it falls short of how other states regulate drilling waste. In North Dakota, for example, open pits for liquid waste—including drilling mud and produced water—are prohibited except under specific circumstances with the regulator’s approval. New Mexico updated its waste rules in 2008 and banned unlined pits altogether.

Drilling waste poses groundwater threat

Virginia Palacios saw firsthand the impacts of oilfield waste when the shale boom took off in her hometown of Laredo.

At the Texas Groundwater Summit in San Antonio in August, Palacios, now executive director of Commission Shift, remembered open-top trucks sloshing drilling waste onto the roads in Laredo. She recounted seeing a waste pit at her family’s ranch that had an oily sheen even though the company assured them it contained only water.

Most landowners across Texas do not own the minerals under their land. The oil and gas companies that hold these mineral rights enter surface-use agreements with the landowners. These leases can include provisions for waste pits.

“We can’t rely on mineral owners to just get a good lease every time,” Palacios said at the summit. “We’ve got to have good rules that apply across the board everywhere, so that we can ensure that groundwater is safe.”

Palacios is concerned that the draft does not require operators to notify landowners when they dig authorized pits on their land.

“We need to do better by the landowners to let them know what is going to happen and to allow them to give informed advice,” Palacios said.

Pits that are not properly constructed or leach into the soil can contaminate groundwater. According to the commission’s online database, the agency issued 712 violations of water contamination rules since 2015. The commission did not provide clarification about how many of these violations occurred at waste pits. The commission has on record six active cases of groundwater contamination caused by waste pits and one case caused by a commercial waste facility, according to the state’s groundwater protection report.

In addition to nonprofit organizations, some companies have doubts about the rule. Gabriel Rio, CEO of the waste management firm Milestone Environmental Services, told the Midland Reporter-Telegram that the draft rule is not sufficient to protect groundwater. “This very much falls short of what the industry is already doing,” he said.

Milestone Environmental Services declined to comment for this story.

Oil and gas industry provided early recommendations

Jim Wright built on his career in oilfield waste management to win a seat on the Railroad Commission in 2020. Updating the waste rule was one of his priorities as commissioner. His staff formed a regulatory task force to provide recommendations for a revised rule.

The Railroad Commission published the informal draft after receiving this industry feedback. In previous interviews, Wright has defended this process and denied that his role in the industry biased the rulemaking process. Wright’s staff did not respond to a request for comment.

Commission Shift’s Palacios said she is concerned that the waste management companies subject to the rule had private meetings with regulators before the Railroad Commission shared the informal draft with the public.

Several waste management professionals backed the protective measures during the informal comment period. Landowners and residents also submitted comments in support of the new regulations.

Meanwhile, comments from numerous oil and gas operators pushed back on stricter requirements for reserve pits. The Texas Alliance of Energy Producers sought an exception for liner and groundwater monitoring requirements for reserve pits that are open for less than 18 months before the waste is buried.

Ingham, the Alliance president, said the organization had further meetings with RRC staff and commissioners following the informal comment period. (Palacios confirmed that Commission Shift was also able to meet with agency staff).

Ingham said that these meetings allow industry to provide information that RRC staff may not have at their disposal. “They are willing to take those meetings and listen to us. This is not remotely uncommon,” he said.

The latest draft rule includes an option for operators to request exceptions to requirements for reserve pits.

Judy Stark, president of the Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Association, said in an interview that a “one size fits all rule” doesn’t make sense for her region.

Stark said that notifying landowners of the locations of pits could create costly delays for drillers. “You can’t wait if somebody is on vacation or something like that, with a $100,000 a day rig out there,” she said.

“They used common sense on the draft,” Stark said. “It’s still in its draft stage so I can’t say where it’s going to end up.”

Residents feel impacts of waste facilities

Not everyone feels their concerns were heard in the rulemaking process.

Tara Jones lives about a mile from the Blackhorn Environmental Services stationary waste facility in Orange Grove. When odors from the facility permeated Jones’ home, she asked regulators to investigate.

She appealed to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which regulates air emissions from stationary facilities, along with the Railroad Commission and her elected officials. She said stationary waste facilities impact people far beyond their fence lines.

“I am one mile away and there’s only one property owner between us,” she said. “But when it comes to stuff in the air, it doesn’t really matter.”

Jones is skeptical that the Railroad Commission takes public comments into consideration.

“I feel if you kick and scream loud enough, sometimes they do,” she said. “But will it change their mind? I don’t know. I don’t really think so.”

In response to a question about how the Railroad Commission engages landowners and people who live near stationary waste facilities, the agency spokesperson said only that they use “various sources of information and expertise,” including public comments.

“As with any proposed rule, staff will review and incorporate comments,” Ramon said.

Palacios said that the Railroad Commission should hold public hearings near waste facilities, not only in Austin. She pointed out that Reeves County in the Permian Basin, which has the most commercial waste pits in the state, is a seven-hour drive from Austin.

Commission Shift is urging the Railroad Commission to extend the public comment period on the more than 300-page draft document.

“This is a massive overhaul of extremely important groundwater protection rules,” she said. “We’re asking the commission to extend the comment period to 90 days to allow the public to meaningfully participate in this rulemaking.”

Asked whether the commission is considering extending the comment period or holding meetings outside Austin, the agency spokesperson did not answer.

Disclosure: Texas Alliance of Energy Producers has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.


As The Texas Tribune's signature event of the year, The Texas Tribune Festival brings Texans closer to politics, policy and the day’s news from Texas and beyond. Browse on-demand recordings and catch up on the biggest headlines from Festival events at the Tribune’s Festival news page.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

New Mexico Governor Puts Finger on Scale in Oilfield Wastewater Vote

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

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

Strange “Halos” on the Ocean Floor off Los Angeles Reveal a Toxic Secret

Once believed to contain the pesticide DDT, new analysis shows some barrels actually held caustic alkaline waste. In 2020, striking photographs revealed rusted barrels scattered across the seafloor near Los Angeles, capturing widespread attention. At first, the corroded containers were suspected to hold residues of the pesticide DDT, especially since some were surrounded by pale, [...]

A discarded barrel on the seafloor off the coast of Los Angeles. The image was taken during a survey in July 2021 by remotely operated vehicle SuBastian. Credit: Schmidt Ocean InstituteOnce believed to contain the pesticide DDT, new analysis shows some barrels actually held caustic alkaline waste. In 2020, striking photographs revealed rusted barrels scattered across the seafloor near Los Angeles, capturing widespread attention. At first, the corroded containers were suspected to hold residues of the pesticide DDT, especially since some were surrounded by pale, halo-like rings in the sediment. Yet the actual contents of the barrels, as well as the cause of the strange halos, remained uncertain. Research led by UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography has since clarified that the halo-producing barrels contained caustic alkaline waste, which seeped out and altered the surrounding environment. While the study could not determine the precise compounds inside, it noted that DDT production produced both alkaline and acidic byproducts. In addition, other major industries in the area, including oil refining, were known to release large amounts of alkaline waste. “One of the main waste streams from DDT production was acid, and they didn’t put that into barrels,” said Johanna Gutleben, a Scripps postdoctoral scholar and the study’s first author. “It makes you wonder: What was worse than DDT acid waste to deserve being put into barrels?” Researchers use Remotely Operated Vehicle SuBastian to collect sediment push cores next to barrels discarded on the seafloor. Credit: Schmidt Ocean InstituteToxic transformations of the seafloor The research showed that leaking alkaline waste reshaped parts of the seafloor into harsh habitats resembling natural hydrothermal vents — environments that host specialized microbes capable of surviving where most organisms cannot. According to the study’s authors, the scale and intensity of these impacts on marine ecosystems depend on both the number of barrels resting on the seafloor and the particular chemicals they released. Even with these uncertainties, Paul Jensen, a Scripps emeritus marine microbiologist and the study’s senior author, explained that he had assumed such alkaline material would quickly dilute in seawater. Instead, it has remained intact for more than fifty years, leading him to conclude that this waste “can now join the ranks of DDT as a persistent pollutant with long-term environmental impacts.” Released on September 9, 2025, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Nexus and backed by NOAA along with the University of Southern California’s Sea Grant program, the study adds to Scripps’ longstanding efforts to investigate the toxic legacy of once-permitted dumping in Southern California’s offshore waters. The results also offer a visual method to distinguish barrels that once carried this alkaline waste. “DDT was not the only thing that was dumped in this part of the ocean and we have only a very fragmented idea of what else was dumped there,” said Gutleben. “We only find what we are looking for and up to this point we have mostly been looking for DDT. Nobody was thinking about alkaline waste before this and we may have to start looking for other things as well.” VIDEO Video footage from ROV SuBastian’s exploration around the DDT Barrel Site 1 in the Southern California Borderland off the coast of Los Angeles. Credit: Schmidt Ocean Institute Ocean dumping legacy in California From the 1930s through the early 1970s, 14 deep-water dumping grounds off the coast of Southern California were used to dispose of “refinery wastes, filter cakes and oil drilling wastes, chemical wastes, refuse and garbage, military explosives and radioactive wastes,” according to the EPA. Seafloor surveys led by Scripps in 2021 and 2023 documented thousands of discarded objects, including hundreds of military munitions. The total number of barrels lying on the ocean floor is still unknown. Sediments in this region are heavily contaminated with DDT, a pesticide banned in 1972 and now recognized as dangerous to both humans and wildlife. Sparse records from the period suggest that most DDT waste was discharged directly into the sea. Gutleben said she and her co-authors didn’t initially set out to solve the halo mystery. In 2021, aboard the Schmidt Ocean Institute’s Research Vessel Falkor, she and other researchers collected sediment samples to better understand the contamination near Catalina. Using the remotely operated vehicle (ROV) SuBastian, the team collected sediment samples at precise distances from five barrels, three of which had white halos. The barrels featuring white halos presented an unexpected challenge: Inside the white halos the sea floor suddenly became like concrete, preventing the researchers from collecting samples with their coring devices. Using the ROV’s robotic arm, the researchers collected a piece of the hardened sediment from one of the halo barrels. Paul Jensen and Johanna Gutleben of UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography unload and sort sediment cores after the samples were brought to the surface from known dumping sites by Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) SuBastian during a July 2021 expedition aboard Research Vessel Falkor. Credit: Schmidt Ocean InstituteTesting for DDT and microbes The team analyzed the sediment samples and the hardened piece of halo barrel crust for DDT concentrations, mineral content and microbial DNA. The sediment samples showed that DDT contamination did not increase closer to the barrels, deepening the mystery of what they contained. During the analysis, Gutleben struggled to extract microbial DNA from the samples taken through the halos. After some unsuccessful troubleshooting in the lab, Gutleben tested one of these samples’ pH. She was shocked to find that the sample’s pH was extremely high — around 12. All the samples from near the barrels with halos turned out to be similarly alkaline. (An alkaline mixture is also known as a base, meaning it has a pH higher than 7 — as opposed to an acid which has a pH less than 7). This explained the limited amount of microbial DNA she and her colleagues had been able to extract from the halo samples. The samples turned out to have low bacterial diversity compared to other surrounding sediments and the bacteria came from families adapted to alkaline environments, like deep-sea hydrothermal vents and alkaline hot springs. Analysis of the hard crust showed that it was mostly made of a mineral called brucite. When the alkaline waste leaked from the barrels, it reacted with magnesium in the seawater to create brucite, which cemented the sediment into a concrete-like crust. The brucite is also slowly dissolving, which maintains the high pH in the sediment around the barrels, and creates a place only few extremophilic microbes can survive. Where this high pH meets the surrounding seawater, it forms calcium carbonate that deposits as a white dust, creating the halos. Photo of DDT Dumpsite Sediment core processing team. From left to right: Kira Mizell (USGS), Johanna Gutleben, Paul Jensen, Devin Vlach, Michelle Guraieb, Lisa Levin. Credit: Brady Lawrence for Schmidt Ocean InstituteLasting ecological consequences “This adds to our understanding of the consequences of the dumping of these barrels,” said Jensen. “It’s shocking that 50-plus years later you’re still seeing these effects. We can’t quantify the environmental impact without knowing how many of these barrels with white halos are out there, but it’s clearly having a localized impact on microbes.” Prior research led by Lisa Levin, study co-author and emeritus biological oceanographer at Scripps, showed that small animal biodiversity around the barrels with halos was also reduced. Jensen said that roughly a third of the barrels that have been visually observed had halos, but it’s unclear if this ratio holds true for the entire area and it remains unknown just how many barrels are sitting on the seafloor. The researchers suggest using white halos as indicators of alkaline waste could help rapidly assess the extent of alkaline waste contamination near Catalina. Next, Gutleben and Jensen said they are experimenting with DDT contaminated sediments collected from the dump site to search for microbes capable of breaking down DDT. The slow microbial breakdown the researchers are now studying may be the only feasible hope for eliminating the DDT dumped decades ago. Jensen said that trying to physically remove the contaminated sediments would, in addition to being a huge logistical challenge, likely do more harm than good. “The highest concentrations of DDT are buried around 4 or 5 centimeters below the surface — so it’s kind of contained,” said Jensen. “If you tried to suction that up you would create a huge sediment plume and stir that contamination into the water column.” Reference: “Extremophile hotspots linked to containerized industrial waste dumping in a deep-sea basin” by Johanna Gutleben, Sheila Podell, Kira Mizell, Douglas Sweeney, Carlos Neira, Lisa A Levin and Paul R Jensen, 9 September 2025, PNAS Nexus.DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf260 This research was funded by the National Oceanographic and Atmosheric Administration award nos. NA23NMF4690462 and NA22OAR4690679 to P.R.J. and L.A.L. and the University of Southern California Sea Grant award SCON-00003146 to L.A.L. Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

More than 100 landfills in England may be leaching ‘highly hazardous’ waste

Inadequate record keeping means councils do not know whether former waste sites contain toxic substancesMore than 100 old landfills in England that may be contaminated with toxic substances have flooded since 2000, potentially posing a serious safety risk, it can be revealed.Some of these former dumps containing possibly hazardous materials sit directly next to public parks and housing estates with hundreds of households, the analysis by the Greenpeace-funded journalism website Unearthed , in partnership with the Guardian, found. Continue reading...

More than 100 old landfills in England that may be contaminated with toxic substances have flooded since 2000, potentially posing a serious safety risk, it can be revealed.Some of these former dumps containing possibly hazardous materials sit directly next to public parks and housing estates with hundreds of households, the analysis by the Greenpeace-funded journalism website Unearthed , in partnership with the Guardian, found.Although councils are supposed to keep track of the dangers of these sites, funding has long since disappeared and some local authorities had no idea they were responsible, the investigation found.David Megson, an environmental chemist from Manchester Metropolitan University, said most former landfill sites were “likely to be quite safe and contain relatively inert waste, but some could be quite sinister”.“Historic reporting of what went into these sites wasn’t great, so in many cases, you’ve got little idea what is in there until you dig into it,” he said.The investigation took data on the 20,000 former landfill sites in England to identify the most high-risk – those used to dump “special” or industrial waste, for example, which were used after 1945 and before the mid-1990s, when laws about keeping records on the contents of landfill sites came into place.This was then compared with Environment Agency flooding data, with help from Dr Paul Brindley, a mapping expert at the University of Sheffield, to find landfills where more than 50% of their surface area was flooded.Any dumps that only contained household waste, those known to be safe or where controls were already in place were removed from the data, leaving only those that may contain dangerous substances, including pharmaceuticals, “forever chemicals”, heavy metals or “liquid sludge” – which could be anything from sewage to cyanide waste.A total of 105 sites were identified, which were disproportionately situated in poorer areas and in the north of England.Prof Kate Spencer, a historic landfill expert from Queen Mary University of London, who helped with the investigation, said that in hundreds of years of dumping waste humans had “never really considered the consequences”.“We now know far more about the potentially harmful effects of the waste materials and pollutants we’ve dumped, particularly chemicals like Pfas and PCBs, and how the impacts of climate change, such as flooding, could reopen pathways for those pollutants to enter the environment.”The investigation also found that 2,600 former dump sites with potentially hazardous contents were within 50 metres of watercourses.Charles Watson, the chair and founder of campaign group River Action said: “Everywhere you look, polluters can find easily accessible loopholes in the enforcement regime to break the law and degrade the environment. However, the failure to provide adequate funding to regulate something as basic as landfill sites that could be leaching highly hazardous waste is all the more shocking.“If our regulators can’t sort out how to protect us from pollutants that in theory have already been ‘safely’ disposed of, then we have little hope of ever seeing a holistic approach to combating the wider sources of water pollution.”Until 2017, councils could apply for contaminated land capital grants, which were administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to remediate contaminated land. Since then, there has been an “erosion of funding”, said Dr Grant Richardson, an environmental consultant and expert on landfill and contaminated land.“If there’s no obvious risk of harm or pollution emanating from these sites, nothing will be done to investigate or remediate them unless sites come to be developed. That means there are likely hundreds or potentially thousands of sites that have not been properly investigated that could be leaching contaminants at harmful levels into the environment,” he said.The lack of funding in areas such as this could have “devastating consequences”, the Local Government Association warned, pointing to a wider funding gap for councils of up to £8bn by 2028-29. A spokesperson said local authorities “desperately need a significant and sustained increase” in budgets to keep up with demands placed on them.The Green peer Natalie Bennett, whose party supports a law requiring better records of sites so they are not a public danger, said: “The lack of adequate regulations on contaminated land poses a threat to human life and welfare, especially given climate breakdown, rising sea levels, increased rainfall and flooding.“Greens urge Labour to add this law to the statute books and provide the necessary funds for local authorities to meet the requirements of such a new law.”The Environment Agency said it would “continue to support” local authorities with their responsibility for dealing with former landfills. “In circumstances where the Environment Agency leads on remediation, we work tirelessly with partners to reduce unacceptable risks to human health and the environment,” it added.

Analysis-Textile Giant Bangladesh Pushed to Recycle More Waste

By Md. Tahmid ZamiNARAYANGANJ, Bangladesh (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Bangladesh's limited capacity to deal with the enormous waste generated by...

NARAYANGANJ, Bangladesh (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Bangladesh's limited capacity to deal with the enormous waste generated by its textile sector may prove unsustainable as the global fashion industry faces pressure to reduce its environmental footprint.Bangladesh, the world's second-largest apparel producer, only recycles a small percentage of its textile waste, with the rest shipped abroad or left to pollute the landscape.As more countries introduce rules requiring greater recycled content in clothes, analysts and business owners say Bangladesh must expand recycling to meet demand from a global textile recycling market projected to be worth $9.4 billion by 2027.The European Union this month published its first road map towards meeting the standards under its Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, which includes provisions for reducing the environmental harm caused by the textile industry.This will require Bangladesh and other fashion suppliers to boost recycling while improving working conditions in what is largely an informal sector, said Patrick Schröder, a senior research fellow at the British think tank Chatham House."As the call for recycling grows and fast fashion goes out of fashion in the coming years, millions of jobs will be impacted, and Bangladesh needs to think ahead to step up its capacity to keep up with the changes," he said.Bangladesh's fashion industry is estimated to produce up to 577,000 metric tons of textile waste from the factories each year.Most of it is shipped abroad, and the rest is left to clog bodies of water, pollute the soil, enter landfills or be incinerated, which produces toxic gases, according to a report by Switch to Circular Economy Value Chains, a project supported by the EU and the Finnish government.What is processed has evolved into a vast, informal business in Bangladesh. Thousands of informal workshops sort and bundle the waste, known as jhut, and what remains in Bangladesh is down-cycled to make low-value products like mattresses, pillows and cushions.When clothing scraps are swept up from factory floors, politicians and other influential people control who gets it and at what price, said Asadun Noor, project coordinator at the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation in Dhaka."This is a very opaque process, offering limited visibility of the waste value chain to clothing brands and suppliers," he said.The scraps go to hundreds of mostly unregistered workshops near the capital Dhaka, where they are cleaned and sorted into batches based on quality, colour and other considerations.Tens of thousands of workers, 70% of them women, sort the remnants for 10 to 12 hours a day, a study by the U.N.'s children agency UNICEF said last year.Workers said they toil for low wages without key safety measures, like drinking water, paid sick leave or protection from harassment.One of them is Sabura Begum, 30, who works with 250 other women at a workshop in the city of Narayanganj, near Dhaka."I earn a wage of about $80 a month and it does not make it easy to run my family," she said.A small share of the waste sorted in workshops like Begum's is sent to about two dozen recycling factories in Bangladesh.A large portion is exported to other countries such as India or Finland for recycling into new fibre where this is a larger base of recycling facilities as well as advanced technology like chemical recycling that produces strong, fresh fibres.Some of the fibres made from exported scraps are then sent back to Bangladesh to be made into clothes.More local recycling could save Bangladesh about $700 million a year in imports, the Switch to Circular Economy Value Chains report estimated.Other major textile hubs are ramping up recycling capacity. For example, India recycles or reuses about 4.7 million tons, or about 60%, of its textile waste, according to a report by Fashion for Good, a coalition of businesses and non-profits.Some Bangladeshi companies are aiming to compete and provide proper labour standards.In 2017, Entrepreneur Abdur Razzaque set up Recycle Raw, which has now become one of the largest waste-processing businesses in Bangladesh."We offer decent wages and respect basic labour standards - ensuring things like drinking water, air circulation and security for our largely female workforce - so we attract and retain them much better than others," Razzaque said.A few local recycling factories are also investing in adding more production lines, but large-scale investment in technology like chemical recycling, with support from fashion brands and development-finance organisations is needed, said Abdullah Rafi, CEO of recycler Broadway Regenerated Fiber, based in the city of Ashulia, near Dhaka.However, investors expect a regular supply of waste feed stock and that means the current opaque system of handling waste would have to go, he said."What we now need is more finance and collaboration among brands, suppliers, waste handlers and recyclers to scale up our capacity," said Rafi.(Reporting by Md. Tahmid Zami; Editing by Jack Graham and Jon Hemming. The Thomson Reuters Foundation is the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters. Visit https://www.context.news/)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Bill would stop Texas oil drillers from secretly burying toxic waste on private property

House Bill 4572 would introduce new requirements for pits where drillers bury oil and gas waste.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. This story is published in partnership with Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for the ICN newsletter here. A bill in the Texas Legislature would require oil and gas drillers to notify landowners before burying toxic waste on their property. In addition, House Bill 4572 would strengthen other regulations for reserve pits, where oil and gas companies permanently bury waste next to drilling sites. The Texas House Energy Resources Committee heard testimony on the bill Monday. The bill builds on rulemaking the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the oil and gas industry, completed late last year to update the state’s oilfield waste regulations. State Rep. Penny Morales Shaw, who filed the bill, said it would introduce “safeguards” for the state’s groundwater and property owners. Landowners, advocates and an oilfield waste professional spoke in favor of the bill this week at the Capitol. A representative of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association spoke in opposition to the bill. “Ranch owners can pour their life savings into their dream homestead, only later to find out that they bought a toxic waste reserve,” said Morales Shaw, a Democrat who represents parts of Houston and northern Harris County. “This bill will afford landowners the opportunity to make an informed decision and to know when their interests are at risk.” The waste streams from the oil and gas industry have evolved since the widespread adoption of fracking. Oil-based muds and lubricants are now used to frack wells. Waste from wells can be laced with carcinogens including benzene and arsenic. The bill is now pending in the Energy Resources Committee and faces several hurdles to passage by the full House, if it is voted out of committee. A companion bill, Senate Bill 3017, was introduced by state Sen. José Menéndez, a Democrat from San Antonio. The Senate bill has not yet received a hearing. The clock is ticking to June 2, the last day of the Texas legislative session. Morales Shaw said she has spoken with all the committee members about the importance of the bill and the “compelling testimony from lifelong industry members.” Bill seeks “balanced” approach to waste pits HB 4572 proposes new regulations for reserve pits, also referred to as Schedule A pits by the Railroad Commission. These earthen disposal pits are dug next to drilling rigs and are filled with oily waste, including mud and cuttings from the well. The pit is left open while the well is drilled. The waste is permanently buried underground once the well is complete. The bill would require the Railroad Commission to adopt standards for where reserve pits can be located and establish bonding and groundwater monitoring rules. The bill would also require standards for “providing notice to and receiving permission from” a landowner to permanently bury waste. Morales Shaw told the committee the bill “empowers landowners with the information and consent they deserve before toxic waste is buried beneath their property.” She referenced hundreds of violations of water protection rules the Railroad Commission has issued at waste pits. She also circulated photos of pollution caused by reserve pits and cows wading through drilling mud in a pit. State Rep. R.D. “Bobby” Guerra, a Democrat from McAllen, called the images “appalling.” “I have a ranch,” he said. “And I would be, excuse the expression, pissed off if I saw this kind of stuff going on on my place.” “It’s full of chemicals and lubricants and fluids and different emulsifiers and whatnot,” said state Rep. Jon Rosenthal, a Democrat from northern Harris County. “It’s poison, it smells bad and it’s probably not good for cows.” Texas revamped its oilfield waste rules last year for the first time since the 1980s. The updated rule on reserve pits, which goes into effect July 1, will require companies to register the location of these pits for the first time. The updated rule only requires reserve pits to be lined when groundwater is within 50 feet of the bottom of the pit. There is no groundwater monitoring required. Hundreds of people submitted public comments about reserve pits during the rule-making, many of them asking the Railroad Commission to require landowner notification. However, the Railroad Commission did not include a landowner notification requirement in the final rule. At the time, Commissioner Jim Wright’s spokesperson told Inside Climate News that it would be “up to the Texas Legislature” to determine how and whether landowners should be notified of pits on their property. Wright’s staff did not immediately comment on HB 4572. Morales Shaw said the existing rule does not go far enough. “It has been 40 years since these waste pits have been permitted, and they are just now trying to figure out where they all are,” she said. “The Railroad Commission’s rules do not take meaningful and necessary steps to protect land, water supply, and livelihoods of landowners.” Landowners speak in support Public comments, both delivered in person and submitted in writing, largely supported the bill. Comal County landowner Mark Friesenhahn, who spent his career in the oil and gas industry, said over time reserve pits have become larger and more toxic chemicals and additives have been used in drilling muds. Friesenhahn, who spoke in favor of the bill, said existing practices are “no longer practical given the toxicity and contamination concerns.” Laura Briggs, whose family ranch is in Pecos County in the Permian Basin, submitted written comments. She wrote that where waste pits have been dug on their property, “the land is dead ground that caves in, and belches half-buried black plastic.” “Landowner consent does not have to be burdensome to be effective,” she wrote. Commission Shift Action, the advocacy partner of the nonprofit organization Commission Shift, is also in support of the bill. Policy manager Julie Range said in an interview that expecting companies to be good stewards isn’t enough. “If we want best practices to be followed we should put them into our statutes,” she said. The sole public comment in opposition to the bill was registered by Michael Lozano on behalf of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association. Referencing the recent rulemaking at the Railroad Commission, he recommended lawmakers wait for the updated rule to be rolled out July 1 before passing legislation regarding waste pits. “What we’d like to see is how these new environmental protections … interact and engage with this,” he said. Lozano said the cases pointed out during the hearing were examples of companies breaking the existing rules. “Clearly there are problems that are happening,” he said. “I don’t think they’re indicative of every circumstance of these pits being built.” The committee adjourned without voting on the bill. Disclosure: The Permian Basin Petroleum Association has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

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.