Bishop's Lodge wastewater permit process on hold until further action from state Supreme Court
A community group called Protect Tesuque opposes a request by the luxury resort north of Santa Fe for a new permit for its wastewater treatment plant; the group petitioned the court in April to halt the permit process, arguing the Environment Department should apply a more stringent law when considering the request.
A two-day public hearing was held last month on the draft permit as part of the Environment Department's administrative process, drawing numerous people who presented arguments on both sides of the issue. A hearing officer is expected to make a recommendation to Environment Department Secretary James Kenney, who will have the final say.
Bishop's Lodge has built a new plant on its property to treat wastewater and an on-site leach field to discharge the treated effluent. But the plan has drawn sustained pushback from residents concerned about the proximity of the leach field to Little Tesuque Creek.
Protect Tesuque's petition argues the Environment Department should apply the state's liquid waste regulations rather than ground and surface water protections.
The legal argument from Protect Tesuque involves the testing of Bishop's Lodge's discharge for contaminants. The group's attorney, Thomas Hnasko, has argued the Environment Department is applying the 1967 New Mexico Water Quality Act to discharges greater than 5,000 gallons a day, rather than the 1971 Environmental Improvement Act.
Bishop's Lodge representatives argue the resort's plan to use the leach field is environmentally sound and will comply with state and federal environmental standards. Treated water will be used for irrigation on the property during parts of the year.
The state filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to dismiss Protect Tesuque's "request for stay."
Legal counsel for the Environment Department could not be immediately reached for comment Monday evening.
Jorge Armando Estrada, a spokesperson for the Environment Department, wrote in a previous email, 'The New Mexico Environment Department remains confident in its legal position that Bishop Lodge's wastewater treatment system is subject to state ground and surface water quality regulations. NMED has consistently found that the facility meets or exceeds all applicable state water quality standards."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27-06-2025
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to hear arguments on Tesque wastewater July 8
Mark DeCamp, with nonprofit Protect Tesuque, stands outside of the Roundhouse on Jan. 30, before a Senate Conservation Hearing. (Austin Fisher / Source NM) The state's highest court will hear arguments in early July over a legal challenge to sewage disposal in Tesuque Village, as residents contend that state regulators' permitting actions were unconstitutional. New Mexico Supreme Court asked to weigh in on Tesuque wastewater conflict In an order issued last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court set a date for arguments on July 8. The hearing allows the justices to ask questions of attorneys, said Tom Hnasko, an attorney representing residents, with a brief 20-minute window for arguments. At the center of the dustup is the New Mexico Environment Department's nod for a proposed permit for plans to dispose of treated wastewater from Bishop's Lodge, a luxury resort, and adjacent homes. The permit allows for the discharge up to 30,000 gallons per day of treated wastewater into a new low-dose disposal field using a treatment plant installed in 2024. The current state permit allows Bishop's Lodge to dispose of about half that across two disposal fields on the property. Residents objecting to the permit coalesced into the nonprofit Protect Tesuque, which claims the disposal method threatens to pollute drinking wells downstream. Tesuque Village, with a population of about 1,000 people, relies on private wells and septic tanks. In April, attorneys representing Project Tesuque submitted an emergency petition that claimed the state's process amounted to a constitutional violation by unequally enforcing limitations in liquid waste laws between smaller and larger permits. In court documents, The New Mexico Environment Department requested the court dismiss the proceedings, saying the claims did not meet the threshold of an emergency, needlessly interrupted the permitting process and that the water was treated to exceed state and federal quality standards. '[Bishop's Lodge] Santa Fe has the best available technology wastewater treatment facility on site that treats wastewater so thoroughly that the wastewater can be recycled and reused… to irrigate food crops,' the response stated. Administrative proceedings for the permit's approval started in May, but were delayed following an order from the New Mexico Supreme Court to pause the hearings until the court weighed in. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
E&E News
27-06-2025
- E&E News
The oil and gas industry has a water problem. EPA wants to help.
Oil and gas companies are running out of options for disposing of polluted water they generate every day, a problem for the Trump administration's 'energy dominance' agenda. EPA is offering the industry a hand by promoting reuse of that wastewater. The effort worries environmentalists, but it could draw crucial political allies in oil-producing states. The agency plans to update rules for what can be done with water that emerges from the ground during oil and gas extraction. The goal is to allow the chemical-laden, super-salty brine to be substantially cleaned and reused for power generation, water-guzzling data centers and irrigating rangeland. Advertisement Reusing the water could address a major industry challenge and help ease crippling drought in parts of Texas and New Mexico, two of the nation's most prolific oil-producing states. A growing body of research suggests that the water — which is three or more times saltier than seawater — can now be safely treated for certain applications, from industrial cooling to growing alfalfa and other non-food crops, proponents say. 'The short answer is New Mexico is supportive,' said James Kenney, secretary of the state's Environment Department. 'We want to be EPA's partner and thought leader on this.' But while treatment technologies for produced water have progressed, critics say they remain expensive and energy intensive. Environmentalists and some local officials also worry that EPA will not require testing for all potential pollutants lurking in the water, creating contamination risks. 'EPA [has been] very upfront by saying that there's a lack of data on the technology and its ability to effectively and reliably treat this fluid,' said Dan Mueller, a Texas-based water resources engineer who has worked with the Environmental Defense Fund. 'That is a struggle, and I continue to make that advocacy point.' Drilling in the Permian Basin, the oil field that straddles Texas and New Mexico, can generate three or more times as much wastewater as oil. During hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, water deep underground mixes with naturally occurring salt, radioactive materials, heavy metals and, potentially, chemicals used to fracture shale. For years, companies have reinjected the dirty brine underground in designated locations. But that can provoke earthquakes and risks polluting water supplies. With state regulators now tightening rules around deep well injection, companies are increasingly trying to recycle, treat and reuse the water. The push comes as reservoirs in the Rio Grande Basin are around a quarter percent full, and New Mexico's governor declared a drought emergency last month. If water supplies continue to dwindle, it could stifle clean energy and new industries such as data centers, experts say. 'I'm honestly really excited about the opportunity that this represents, because it's a significant volume of water, and the economics are now competitive with the cost of disposal by deep well injection,' said Shane Walker, director of the Texas Produced Water Consortium at Texas Tech University. Still, Mueller and other skeptics want to see the oil industry do more to reduce its own water footprint before companies can treat and sell their wastewater for other uses. Others worry that the oil-friendly Trump administration and states won't enact proper guardrails to ensure treated water is safe to reuse. 'While I do think there are some beneficial reuses of these waters, our concern is they will be loosely regulated and appropriate oversight will not occur,' said Dana Ames, an environmental crimes investigator in Johnson County, Texas. Treatment options The oil sector's wastewater problem has spawned an industry of its own specializing in disposing of and trying to treat the brine. An oil-and-water mixture is pooled at a wastewater disposal site serving the oil and gas industry outside Eunice, New Mexico, on March 8, 2016. | New Mexico State Land Office via AP One such company is Aquafortus, which has a produced water treatment project in Colorado City, Texas, said Earl Jones, chair of the board for the company. EPA officials toured the site last month, Jones said. The biggest challenge with produced water is its extremely high salt content, but other materials are largely 'not a big deal' to remove, he said. 'This is a pilot facility that's intended to demonstrate the technology, which it does, both in terms of the effectiveness of desalination — the clean water that comes out the backend — and the economics,' Jones said. Although it's not currently done on a large scale, treating 'produced water' at drilling sites is becoming cost competitive with other disposal options, said Mike Hightower, the former program director of the New Mexico Produced Water Consortium. That's because state regulators have cracked down on where the brine can be injected underground to quell the risk of earthquakes. 'They have to truck it out of the basins and into other areas,' Hightower said. 'Once you start trucking water, it gets to be very expensive.' As EPA moves to 'standardize' treatment and reuse of produced water, the practice could soon become common, he predicted. Texas and New Mexico have each invested millions of dollars into research on the topic. 'It's a big opportunity, and I think people need to acknowledge that EPA is trying to do the right thing,' Hightower said. But proponents of reusing produced water in New Mexico encountered a major setback last month. The state's Water Quality Control Commission adopted a rule prohibiting discharge of produced water to groundwater and surface waters, effectively shutting the door on widespread reuse for the next five years. The decision was a win for environmental groups, who say it's still unclear if regulators can ensure that treated produced water is safe to apply on land or in surface waters. One problem is the lack of comprehensive data on specific chemicals that oil and gas companies inject underground, said Colin Cox, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. While Colorado enacted a law in 2022 requiring companies to disclose fracking chemicals, that isn't mandated nationwide, Cox said. 'We don't know how to test for all the contaminants we are aware of, we don't know how to treat for all the contaminants potentially in there, and there haven't been demonstrations of how this would work,' he said. 'I'm proud of the Water Quality Control Commission in New Mexico doing the right thing and protecting us.' PFAS concerns In Texas, meanwhile, the Commission on Environmental Quality is evaluating four permit proposals to discharge treated produced water into creeks and reservoirs. A scarecrow floats on the surface of a tailings pond to keep birds from landing in the toxic wastewater from oil production near Fort McMurray, Canada, on Sep. 2, 2023. | Victor R. Caivano/AP The Legislature also enacted a law last month that could thrust reuse of produced water into the mainstream — while prompting fresh concerns about the safety of the material. The law shields oil and gas companies from lawsuits should contamination or other issues occur after produced water is sold, treated and reused. Supporters of the policy say it provides companies with the legal certainty they need to invest in treatment technologies. 'It's about offering regulatory certainty to the industry that's the backbone of this state,' Drew Darby, a Republican who chairs the Energy Resources Committee in the Texas House of Representatives, said during a hearing earlier this year. But the legal shield set off alarm bells for Ames, the Johnson County official. Located 20 miles south of Fort Worth, the county declared a state of emergency in February due to severe contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. The toxic, human-made forever chemicals were allegedly spread via sewage sludge fertilizer, spurring a cattle die-off and possibly sickening farmers, Ames said. Although it's not clear how much PFAS is used in fracking, the chemicals have been found in some produced water. With state and federal regulators taking a hands-off approach to PFAS in sewage sludge, Ames worries that testing for the chemicals — which include thousands of unique compounds — will not be mandated for produced water discharges. 'We are extremely concerned the EPA will not require PFAS testing be conducted before the waters are released for their reuse purpose,' Ames said. 'If they refuse to regulate PFAS in biosolids, what do you think the likelihood is they're going to do that in fracking water or produced water?' EPA declined requests for an interview on how it plans to advance treatment of produced water and regulate it. The agency's expert engineer on produced water, Jesse Pritts, also retired June 13, according to an automatic reply from his EPA email address. He's one of many career staffers heading for the exit amid agency restructuring and the looming threat of firings under President Donald Trump. By updating federal wastewater standards for produced water, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin plans to advance his top two priorities, protecting the environment and 'promoting energy dominance,' an agency spokesperson said. 'Current effluent regulations limit where and how wastewater from this industry, also known as produced water, can be discharged,' the spokesperson said. 'These regulations do not reflect advancement in treatment technology that have occurred.' In an April presentation to nonprofits, EPA officials indicated they were gathering feedback on what types of pollutants should be monitored and regulated in an upcoming rule. 'Are there concerns you have about pollutants in produced water generally, or in arid West, specifically? Are there specific pollutants that you would like to see limits for in an effluent guidelines revision?' one slide stated, according to a copy of the presentation obtained by POLITICO's E&E News. The presentation said the timing of a potential ruling was still uncertain. Walker, of the Texas Produced Water Consortium, said the agency seems to be trying to move quickly. As for safety concerns, he stressed that there are technologies to treat for and remove all potential contaminants in produced water, including heavy metals, ammonia and chemical compounds. Nonetheless, he noted that treatment itself — especially to remove all the salt — is energy-intensive, a potential barrier to widespread deployment. '[The energy] is not trivial, and in West Texas, the grid is not really set up to handle that level of energy demand,' Walker said. 'So we've actually received some funding to support research on that energy-water nexus.' For Mueller, the water resources engineer and consultant, there's another option for better managing produced water that must be pursued: recycling. The term refers to reusing produced water to frack for more oil and gas, which does not require expensive or energy-intensive treatment and reduces demands on freshwater. The practice is increasingly being employed by the oil industry. Still, non-industry data is limited on exactly how widely it is being done, Mueller said. 'The No. 1 step is to maximize recycled water first, and then see what's left for these other uses that could be used for this produced water,' he said. This story originally appeared in Greenwire.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Yahoo
Calls to release documents behind helicopter shooting of koalas in controversial plan dubbed 'medieval'
Three months after an Australian state authorised a plan to shoot over 1,000 koalas after a bushfire scorched their national park habitat, a fiery clash over what led to the decision has erupted. At Victoria's budget estimates late on Tuesday, the state government was grilled for seven minutes about the lethal program carried out at Budj Bim National Park. It was repeatedly asked when it would publicly release documents that led to the world-first decision to kill the marsupials using shooters in helicopters. John Bradley, the secretary of the Environment Department (DEECA), justified the aerial shooting plan, saying a veterinary expert plan that was peer reviewed judged it to be the most 'humane' response following a "rigorous process". But the Deputy Chair, the Liberal's Nick McGowan hit back, quipping that if being shot from a helicopter was doing the koalas a 'favour' then he wouldn't want any favours from the department. 'To be frank with you, it does sound like gobbledygook. And what's more, it sounds medieval,' McGowan said of DEECA's explanation of the so-called cull. 'How anyone with a shotgun from a helicopter can make these kinds of split-second assessments in killing and culling koalas seems to me somewhat barbaric.' Related: Fear for joeys as Australia guns down hundreds of koalas from helicopters During the session, Environment Minister Steve Dimopoulos explained that only 13 per cent of Budj Bim was accessible on foot due to the topography and the risk of falling trees. At this point McGowan chided him, saying, 'It's not Mount Everest we're talking about here.' Due to the extraordinary circumstances following the bushfire, Dimopoulos maintained it was better to complete health checks from helicopters than on the ground. 'The people who briefed me in the department over multiple meetings… [said] you could get a better view of a koala from a helicopter because they're at the top of the tree, than you could at the bottom of the undulating ground looking up at the tree canopy,' Dimopoulos said. 'So it was actually all done in the interest of actually assessing the koala better. And while it sounds interesting, the helicopter was flying very, very low to the canopy, and that way it was more effective.' During regular health assessments of koalas at Budj Bim, it's normal practice to bring them to the ground, according to a source who has worked on the program. But this year, DEECA took expert advice following the extraordinary situation which made access to the park difficult to stop koalas from suffering. Of the 2,219 koalas assessed, 1,091 were examined from the ground and 1,128 from the air. In total 1,061 (48 per cent) were euthanised. Of those shot from helicopters, the bodies of 14 were recovered. And during the operation, one was taken into care for treatment. Australia blasted for 'sniper shooting' hundreds of koalas Devastating photos captured after Australia gunned down koalas from helicopters Sad truth behind koala that was rescued from Aussie national park According to Bradley, an assessment of the "euthanasia" operation found DEECA "had been successful in humanely euthanising fire-impacted koalas in areas of the park that were not safely or readily accessible by foot and that would otherwise have been left to suffer unnecessarily." In ordinary circumstances, scientists usually release peer-reviewed research. But the killing of koalas at Budj Bim was conducted without public scrutiny until Yahoo News was given a tip-off and began asking questions of DEECA. Several wildlife agencies were aware of the program, but later said they were unaware of its scale. As the operation continued, DEECA responded to questions from Yahoo about how many koalas were being euthanised and what methods were being used with open, frank and detailed answers. But now politicians and critics of the program face a new challenge. Three months after the operation began, the government has dodged requests to publicly release documents relating to why it was necessary to shoot the koalas from helicopters in the first place. Another pressing argument for them to do so is that the Victorian state government claims the operation was a success. Because of this, many wildlife advocates are concerned DEECA could authorise aerial culling of wildlife again – something they oppose. During budget estimates, the government was asked on three occasions when the full veterinary reports and operational data from that aerial koala cull would be released for independent scrutiny. It did not commit to doing so during the session. Described as "euthanasia" by DEECA, and a "cull" by some ecologists and critics, the operation lasted from March 14 to April 25, and eventual publicity sparked fierce debate, making international headlines. While koalas are federally listed as endangered in Queensland, ACT and NSW, the populations in Victoria and South Australia are considered abundant. During budget estimates, Dimopoulos described Victoria's population as "healthy" but said there was "over-population" in locations including Budj Bim, which caused a "problem" for koalas as they were already "stressed". According to experts with knowledge of the region and koalas, the problem has been caused by the logging of eucalypt plantations that surround the national park. When trees are cut down, koalas that live in them have nowhere to go except for Budj Bim. After the government "euthanised" the 1,061 koalas, wildlife advocates called for it to halt timber harvesting in the surrounding area. It is yet to commit to doing so. More than 5,000 people have signed a petition calling for an inquiry into the bluegum industry and its impact on koalas. Love Australia's weird and wonderful environment? 🐊🦘😳 Get our new newsletter showcasing the week's best stories.
