Oil companies win protections from Texas Legislature ahead of selling fracking water
State Rep. Drew Darby's House Bill 49 — on its way to Gov. Greg Abbott — marks a step the oil and gas industry has said is a key barrier to expanding the treatment of the brine it generates, known as produced water, and making it available for reuse.
The bill protects landowners, oil, treatment and transportation companies from liability should consequences arise after they sell or treat the liquid.
In Texas, record oil and gas production is only outmatched by the backwash that surfaces with the fossil fuels. There are five barrels of produced water for every barrel of oil. Texas oil companies are increasingly using this liquid, which is trapped in the rock where drilling and fracking occur, to frack more.
Now, companies believe the water can help replenish the state's water supply, which is under strain due to a larger population, withering infrastructure and climate change. Four treatment companies applied for state permission to release the water into the state's waterways.
'I think this will really free up some water transactions to start happening, where people will more freely exchange water,' said Laura Capper, a produced water expert and oil and gas consultant.
[Can Texas clean up fracking water enough to use for farming? One company thinks so.]
Under Darby's bill, companies that sell the water can't be held responsible for the consequences if someone else uses the water. Treatment and transportation companies and landowners also qualify for protection, including in cases of personal injury, death, or property damage.
Companies and landowners can only be sued when they are grossly negligent, commit intentional, wrongful acts of omission, break state or federal laws, or fail to satisfy standards set by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which sets and enforces the state's environmental rules.
The bill directs the environmental quality commission to write rules around produced water research and reuse.
Darby's bill also prohibits courts from issuing what are known as exemplary damages, or additional punitive measures, to deter companies from committing the same mistake.
Cyrus Reed, a legislative and conservation director for the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy organization, said the state is moving too fast. He said scientists and regulators should continue experimenting with treatment methods until they can be sure the water can be treated continuously.
In 2021, lawmakers began to fund treatment research, putting $10 million toward the effort, called the Texas Produced Water Consortium. The environmental quality commission has said the consortium's findings will help decide whether to let companies release water into the environment.
But Reed said the consortium should spend more years on pilot projects, experimenting on soil, before laws are introduced, adding that the water, even when treated, could still contain contaminants the environmental quality commission has not accounted for.
'I understand why (lawmakers) want this,' Reed said. 'They're trying to make it work so that this water can be reused, but who's going to ultimately pay the price? It's going to be the public.'
Capper, the water consultant, said the law places the responsibility on the state's regulatory agencies to make sure the water is safe, which also gives the industry security to sell it. She said there is enough research through Texas and New Mexico, which has also funded produced water treatment research, to make the water safe to discharge.
'We've studied this water to death,' she said.
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
10 hours ago
- E&E News
Trump's Michigan coal order draws legal challenge
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and a coalition of environmental groups are calling on a federal appeals court to intervene in the Trump administration's first national order to keep an aging coal plant online, a move they argue is illegal and costly. Nessel (D) on Thursday filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asking the court to review the Energy Department's order for Consumers Energy to continue operating its J.H. Campbell coal-fired power plant in southwestern Michigan. The Sierra Club, Earthjustice and seven other groups also filed a petition with the same court Thursday. The requests target an order that Energy Secretary Chris Wright issued May using emergency authorities in the Federal Power Act to force the plant to keep operating. Wright argued that the plant is needed to keep sufficient electricity on the grid. The local utility Consumers Energy planned to shut down the plant at the end of May. Advertisement 'President Trump has declared under his authority a national energy emergency. The Energy Department and Secretary Wright are ensuring Americans have access to all forms of reliable energy,' said Ben Dietderich, a spokesperson for DOE.
New York Post
5 days ago
- New York Post
Democrats bow to nuclear-energy reality — but the left won't give up their delusions
The Biden-era climate-activist class may be the last to accept that there's no clean energy future without nuclear power. At least some politicians — even in the bluest corridors — are conceding. Reliably progressive New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has instructed the state's public power authority to build no less than one gigawatt of advanced nuclear power. Her announcement came just weeks after President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders to bring back America's nuclear-energy dominance. Site assessments, private-sector partnerships and labor support are already in motion. Hochul and Trump come from opposite political universes, but both understand that nuclear delivers what wind and solar never will. It's the only zero-emission energy source that can power today's energy requirements reliably at scale. Modern life depends on uninterrupted electricity — AI computing, chip manufacturing, electric vehicles and data centers can't run on 'weather permitting' power. Storage for excess energy from wind and solar resources is still too expensive. Sunlight and wind are still too unreliable. Nuclear is the only clean option that runs 24/7. Trump's directives reflect that reality: They speed up permitting timelines, reauthorize shuttered reactors, rebuild domestic uranium supply chains and fast-track next-generation reactors for military bases and AI infrastructure. The goal is 300 gigawatts of new capacity by 2050, ensuring that nuclear power is the center of American competitiveness and security. Hochul, for her part, recognizes that New York can't meet its electrification targets without nuclear, either. The state's phase-out of fossil fuels has created demand spikes the current grid can't handle, made worse by the premature shutdown of plants like Indian Point in Westchester. She may never admit it publicly, but her plan rests entirely on the foundation Trump laid over the past months. His leadership — combined with streamlined Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews, rebuilt supply chains and rising bipartisan support — cleared the way. But while some Democrats have begun to evolve, the institutional climate-activist left has not. Groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club and the Nuclear Threat Initiative have cycled millions of dollars through projects meant to thwart nuclear power. They reflexively oppose every new reactor proposal, every licensing reform and every effort to restore fuel production on American soil. UCS has spent years pushing climate litigation to 'hold bad actors accountable' for 'climate change,' recover 'damages' and 'limit future climate harms,' while taking money from far-left donors like the Tides Foundation and the Energy Foundation — which has longstanding links to the Chinese Communist Party. Edwin Lyman, a UCS director and frequent critic of nuclear power, has shockingly urged the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to disobey Trump's executive orders. The Sierra Club, once a conservationist group, now donates millions almost exclusively to Democratic campaigns, and supported President Joe Biden's push to ban gas stoves. NTI, co-founded by CNN's Ted Turner and run by former President Barack Obama's energy secretary, is bankrolled by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Arabella Advisors' dark-money network. These groups are increasingly out of sync with global science, public opinion — and now, even the Democratic officials they once helped elect. They portray themselves as scientific, civic-minded watchdogs, but their only function is to spend millions injecting a radical, unpopular left-wing agenda into American politics, one that benefits America's adversaries more than the environment. The rest of the world is advancing its nuclear energy capabilities: China is developing small, modular reactors to export globally, while Russia is financing nuclear plants across Africa and Eastern Europe. These countries are not paralyzed by activist lawsuits or donor-driven campaigns, so they are free to invest in the most powerful tool available to cut emissions and expand growth. Finally, thanks to an increasing groundswell of support, so is the United States. The future of energy is nuclear, whether the climate lobby likes it or not. America is fortunate to have a president who understands this fact and is willing to lead. The alternative is to let out-of-touch donor-backed litigators and left-wing dark money behemoths dictate US nuclear policy, just as they did in the Biden White House. The country can't afford that kind of nostalgia. Steve Forbes is chairman and editor -n- chief of Forbes Media.
E&E News
14-07-2025
- E&E News
Sierra Club boss is out after years of drama. What's next?
Ben Jealous is on leave from his job as Sierra Club's boss after a tumultuous stretch leading the organization. The green group informed staff in a cryptic message Friday that Jealous was on leave and that an acting boss would be filling in. But the group didn't provide details about the cause of Jealous' leave or how long it would last, raising questions internally and externally about the long-term leadership of the iconic environmental group as it faces off against the Trump administration. Jealous' leave follows years of discord within the Sierra Club as employees and volunteers grew increasingly frustrated with his leadership and repeated rounds of staff layoffs on his watch. Advertisement Longtime Sierra Club leader Loren Blackford, who has previously served as interim executive director, will serve as acting executive director while Jealous is out, Sierra Club Chief Operating Officer Michael Parrish told staff Friday in an email.
