The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is moving to let oil and gas companies spread treated produced water — the chemical-laden wastewater from fracking and drilling — on farmland, ranchland, and near waterways. Once this rule takes effect, there will be no reliable way to know whether oilfield chemicals are ending up in the food you eat, in runoff from nearby land, or in the air your kids breathe. Read our full comment to TCEQ.
65 of 70 commenters opposed or demanded major changes. Only 3 supported the rule outright.
What's going on? Read our FAQ · TCEQ's rule documents: Commission Approval Memo, Chapter 210 Proposal, Chapter 309 Proposal
65 oppose or want conditions, 3 support outright
61 hostile or concerned, 8 supportive
53 individuals, rest organizations
Diagonal = how many requested each action. Off-diagonal = how many requested both together. Brighter = more overlap.
Diagonal = how many requested each action. Off-diagonal = how many requested both together. Brighter = more overlap.
▸ Click any row to expand — headlines & summaries are AI-generated and may contain errors.
AI-generated summary:
Carmen Rumbaut opposes the proposed rule allowing produced water to be applied to land through sprinklers or irrigation systems. She says the wastewater may contain chemicals, salts, and metals that could harm Texas soil, groundwater, and public health. She argues that land application is dangerous without strong safeguards. She asks TCEQ to require strict cleanup standards, environmental testing, and transparency before approving any permits.
AI-generated summary:
Brian Pape is an individual commenter who supports produced-water land application only if strict safeguards are in place. He says produced water contains chemicals, salts, and metals that could affect Texas soil, groundwater, and public health. He argues that TCEQ should not approve permits without strict cleanup standards, environmental testing, and transparency. He asks the agency to strengthen standards, require testing, and be more transparent before any permits are approved.
AI-generated summary:
Paige Frederick-Pape supports produced-water land application only if TCEQ imposes strict safeguards. She says produced water contains chemicals, salts, and metals that could affect Texas soil, groundwater, and public health. She argues the agency should do a better job of protecting environmental quality and Texas citizens before approving permits. She asks TCEQ to adopt strict cleanup standards, environmental testing, and transparency requirements before any permits are approved.
AI-generated summary:
David Todd opposes proposals to apply produced water on the surface. He says the waters are known to be toxic and that there is too little knowledge and disclosure about their contents. He argues that any permitting should require full fluid and site testing, full transparency, public participation, strong compliance histories, bonding, and strict cleanup requirements. He asks TCEQ to ensure those safeguards before issuing any permits.
AI-generated summary:
Barbara Burton opposes the proposed rule. She says produced water should be tested for contaminants and filtered before it is sprayed on land. She warns that applying contaminated water could further contaminate soil, groundwater, and wildlife. She asks TCEQ to require testing and filtration before any land application.
AI-generated summary:
Edward Main opposes the proposed rule and says produced water should not be land applied. He argues that produced water contains known and unknown pollutants, with uncontrollable variation in concentrations that makes it unsuitable for land application. He compares land application to an uncontrolled spill of produced water. He asks TCEQ to prohibit land application of produced water.
AI-generated summary:
Earl Roberts opposes the proposed rule. He says allowing oil and gas wastewater to be used on properties would poison soil and vegetation and amounts to harming landowners. He also warns that hot weather could make contaminated soil combustible and lead to destruction of property, animals, and people. He asks TCEQ to reject the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Wendell Cathcart is an individual commenter who strongly opposes the proposed rule. He argues that authorizing land application of treated oil and gas produced water would create unacceptable and irreversible risks to Texas communities, agriculture, soil, ecosystems, and water resources. He says the proposal favors industry waste disposal convenience over TCEQ’s duty to protect public health and natural resources. He asks the Commission to withdraw the proposal and keep strict prohibitions on land application of produced water.
AI-generated summary:
Anita Valliani is concerned about the proposal to apply wastewater on the surface and supports it only with strong safeguards. She says the known toxicity and the lack of knowledge and disclosure about these waters make full fluid and site testing essential before any permits are issued. She also calls for full transparency, full public participation, good compliance histories for permit recipients, bonding, and strict cleanup requirements. She asks TCEQ to require testing, transparency, and strict cleanup conditions before approving any permits.
AI-generated summary:
Michelle Janssen opposes the proposed rule. She says TCEQ should not allow companies to spread treated oilfield wastewater on land. Her comment does not provide technical evidence or additional details. She asks TCEQ to reject the land-application approach.
AI-generated summary:
Will Andres opposes the proposed rule allowing treated produced water to be spread on land. He says oilfield wastewater contains dangerous heavy metals, radium, and salts that could create long-term health risks, especially for children. He also warns that land application could damage agricultural soil and contaminate downstream drinking water supplies while harming public health. He asks TCEQ to protect communities and vote no on the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Logan Hill supports moving oversight to TCEQ in principle, but only with stronger safeguards and more evidence. He says the proposal lacks adequate language explaining how TCEQ will ensure treated oil-field wastewater stays within recognized safe limits for reuse. He also argues that expanding the use of treated produced water on crops is premature because the practice remains unproven and experimental. He asks TCEQ to provide more work, evidence, and technical information before allowing that use.
AI-generated summary:
Kathryn Guerra supports produced-water land application only if the rules are made much more thorough and stringent to protect public health and agricultural safety. She warns that millions of gallons could be applied daily and that inadequate rules could allow harmful constituents to accumulate in the ecosystem. She also argues the rule relies on technologies unproven at scale for removing unknown chemicals with uncertain environmental exposure risks. She asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days and hold more in-person public meetings in the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford.
AI-generated summary:
Commission Shift, an advocacy organization, takes a neutral or mixed position on the proposed rule while expressing significant concerns about its impacts. The group says the regulations may not adequately protect agricultural resources or public health and argues that daily land application of millions of barrels of produced water requires rigorous standards to prevent toxic buildup in soil and water. It also says the current 30-day comment window is too short to evaluate unproven-at-scale technologies and chemicals with unknown exposure risks. Commission Shift asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days and hold additional in-person hearings in the Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, and East Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Hanna Mitchell, writing as a Texas policy advocate for Earthworks, supports additional review of the rule and asks TCEQ to extend the comment period. The comment says the proposed produced-water land application rule raises public health concerns and could trigger broad changes in how produced water is regulated and applied. It argues that the rule would rely on technologies unproven at scale to remove unknown chemicals with unknown environmental exposure risks. Earthworks asks for a 30-day extension, additional in-person hearings in impacted regions, and virtual options for those hearings.
AI-generated summary:
Sarah Elkins opposes the proposed rule. She says toxic wastewater should not be allowed into rivers, creeks, lakes, or farmland, and argues that oil and gas companies would destroy natural resources if the rule proceeds. She frames the issue as protecting Texas rather than allowing contamination of land and water. She asks TCEQ not to allow the rule to move forward.
AI-generated summary:
Vicki Wilson supports using produced water only under strict limits, not for rivers or farmland. She says there is no excuse to pollute land and identifies herself as someone who has worked in energy for 50 years and still supports the industry. She argues the tainted water should be directed to data centers instead of being spread on agricultural land or into waterways. She asks TCEQ to keep such water out of rivers and farmland and restrict its uses accordingly.
AI-generated summary:
Sharon Cozort supports produced-water land application only if TCEQ adds major safeguards. She warns that the rule could cause long-term agricultural and environmental damage and says setbacks should be based on documented spill distances from public water sources, schools, churches, residences and daycares. She also calls for independent lab testing for heavy metals, radium, PFAS and industrial solvents, along with public disclosure of chemical contents, application volumes, testing data and the science behind the rule. She asks TCEQ to allow more time for comments, hold hearings in affected regions, and require real transparency and testing before proceeding.
AI-generated summary:
Cara dos Santos-Becker opposes the proposed rule allowing produced water to be applied to land through sprinkler and irrigation systems. She says the practice is a bad idea without oversight and worries the water may still contain solvents, chemicals, salts, and metals from the refining process. She also raises concerns about where the water would be spread and whether it could affect neighborhoods, schools, watersheds, and the broader water cycle. She asks TCEQ to consider the long-term consequences, add accountability, and avoid leaving future generations with a bigger mess.
AI-generated summary:
Hayley Peterson opposes the proposed produced-water land application rule. She argues that companies should be held accountable by law and by the public for the waste they create. Her comment focuses on accountability for waste disposal rather than technical details of the rule. She asks TCEQ not to adopt the rule.
AI-generated summary:
David Olivares opposes the proposed rule allowing treated produced water to be spread on land. He says drinking water and farmland should never be negatively impacted and argues the state should not become a dumping ground. He frames the rule as a threat to agriculture, the environment, and public health. He asks TCEQ to vote no and reject the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Samuel Evans opposes the proposed rule. He says he does not want wastewater dumped into Texas farmland and argues that oil companies should manage their own byproducts. He frames the practice as unacceptable for operators that cannot handle their waste responsibly. He asks TCEQ not to allow the rule to proceed as proposed.
AI-generated summary:
Sarah K opposes the proposed rule. She says it would have devastating health, environmental, and economic impacts. She also accuses TCEQ of bowing to the oil and gas lobby and says this is not a future Texans want. She asks the agency to do the right thing and stop the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Miriam Cobb opposes the proposed rule and urges Texas to pause before expanding industrial chemical use and wastewater land application. She argues that the state needs stronger protections for agricultural production and for residents living near industrial facilities, and says recent reporting on arsenic-laced effluent from Tesla’s lithium operation shows a troubling oversight gap. She also says companies will not regulate themselves and that TCEQ has not responded adequately. She asks the agency to put up stronger guardrails, improve oversight and transparency, and consider the evidence she cites from reporting and Violation Tracker.
AI-generated summary:
Windie Shelton opposes the rule as written and asks TCEQ to pause action on it. She says residents at Cedar Creek Lake already live with TRWD wastewater compliance requirements and want time to research alternatives and the impacts of the decision. Her comment focuses on the need to evaluate consequences before moving forward. She asks TCEQ to pause all actions until the impact can be evaluated.
AI-generated summary:
Troy Fuller opposes the proposed rule allowing produced water to be applied to farmland. He argues that produced water raises risks similar to biosolids, especially PFAS contamination, and adds concerns about naturally occurring radioactive materials from deep geologic formations. He says these contaminants could enter the food chain through crops or livestock and pose serious public health risks. He asks TCEQ not to prioritize financial interests over safety and to reject or substantially strengthen the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Steve Conroy opposes the proposed rule. He says he does not want oilfield wastewater contaminating his land, crops, or water wells, and he argues that frack and drilling water contains substances that could poison his property. He also says landowners should retain the unfettered right to sue oil and drilling companies for any damage. He wants TCEQ to reject the rule and preserve landowners’ legal remedies.
AI-generated summary:
Luanne Langley opposes the proposed rule and wants TCEQ to stop fracking water from being used for land application anywhere. She argues that such water should not be spread on land because it may contain toxic chemicals. She also says data centers should not be built on land that has received biosolids, which she believes are likely contaminated with PFAS. She asks TCEQ to prohibit these uses and protect people and land from chemical exposure.
AI-generated summary:
Stephanie Kasper, a South Texas farmer, supports land application only if the rules are made strong enough to protect public health and agriculture. She says the proposed standards may not be sufficient to prevent harmful substances from building up in soil and water, especially given the scale of daily produced-water application. She also argues that the 30-day comment window is too short for the public to evaluate the draft rules and wants more local input in affected regions. She asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days and hold in-person hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford, and East Texas.
AI-generated summary:
The Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, a nonprofit focused on protecting the Edwards and Trinity aquifers, supports regulating produced-water land application only if TCEQ adopts much stricter safeguards. It argues the proposed rule goes beyond SB 1145, wrongly treats produced water like municipal wastewater, and lacks required pretreatment, verification, testing, and protective standards for contaminants. The group also says the proposed setbacks are too weak, that land application over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge and Contributing zones should be prohibited, and that TCEQ lacks the oversight capacity to manage the program. It asks TCEQ to strengthen the rule, require pretreatment and robust monitoring, restrict use in sensitive aquifer areas, and extend the comment period.
AI-generated summary:
Luke Shipp, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water. He says produced water contains chemicals and salts that could affect Texas soil, groundwater, and public health. His comment does not provide specific data or studies, but argues the risks are too great. He asks TCEQ not to move forward with the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Suzanne Bryant opposes the proposed rule and does not want fracking wastewater used on farms. She says the practice is unacceptable and raises concerns about contamination of farmland and food production. Her comment does not provide technical evidence or propose specific safeguards. She asks TCEQ to reject the rule and prevent this use of produced water.
AI-generated summary:
S. Lynn Carlson opposes the rule as written and argues that any use of treated water should be tightly constrained. They say the people responsible for the cleaning operation should have to drink the water or consume food grown or raised with it on a periodic basis, implying the water may still be unsafe. The comment focuses on the health and food-safety risks of using treated produced water for crops or livestock. Carlson asks TCEQ to limit or condition any permitted use of treated water so that decision-makers would personally consume it first.
AI-generated summary:
Cahill Anonymous opposes the proposed produced-water land application rule as currently written and says it does not adequately protect public health, water, soils, agriculture, or local communities. The commenter argues that Texas should require strict contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, public disclosure of testing data, and baseline soil and crop monitoring, with special concern about heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. They also say the science is not yet sufficient and that the rule is premature without stronger, independent evidence and a clearer permitting framework. They ask TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days, hold hearings in impacted regions, and strengthen the rule’s enforcement and transparency provisions.
AI-generated summary:
Naomi Smith, an individual commenter, supports the rule only if Texas imposes very strict safeguards. She says toxic chemicals must be removed and the water must be continually monitored for violations. She warns that without those protections, she would assume Texas-grown food is toxic and avoid buying it. She asks TCEQ to adopt very strict standards and ongoing monitoring.
AI-generated summary:
Dana Ames opposes the proposed rule and argues that produced water should not be introduced onto farmland. She says it poses risks similar to biosolids, especially PFAS contamination, and adds that shale-origin produced water may contain naturally occurring radioactive materials. Ames warns that these contaminants could enter crops, livestock, and the food chain, creating serious public health concerns. She asks TCEQ to reject the rule and not allow produced water to be applied to agricultural land.
AI-generated summary:
Sarah Harsdorff opposes the proposed rule and says treated oilfield produced water should not be approved for agricultural land or discharge into waterways. She argues that produced water can contain high salts, heavy metals, NORM/TENORM, BTEX compounds, PFAS, and undisclosed fracking chemicals that could harm soil, crops, livestock, groundwater, and aquatic ecosystems. She says current treatment technologies and monitoring are not proven to remove all contaminants or catch harm before it occurs, and calls for full public disclosure and independent long-term studies. She asks TCEQ to reject approval until effective treatment standards, comprehensive testing, and peer-reviewed safety evidence are in place.
AI-generated summary:
Matthew Roppolo opposes the proposed rule and urges TCEQ to stop considering the use of toxic fracking water on crops. He argues that using it on crops is unsafe and suggests data centers as a safer alternative because they are a major drain on water resources. He adds that the water would still need cleaning to avoid air pollution from evaporation. He asks TCEQ to reject crop application and limit any reuse to safer non-agricultural uses with treatment.
AI-generated summary:
Sally Beckner supports the idea of land application of produced water if it is cleaned enough for industrial reuse. She frames the proposal as a way to address both water scarcity and the growing demand from data centers. She says treated produced water should be reserved for data centers and other industrial cooling needs so that clean water can be saved for consumption and irrigation of food crops. She asks TCEQ to allow this kind of limited reuse rather than using freshwater for those industrial purposes.
AI-generated summary:
Julia Mickenberg opposes the proposed rule. She says it is unacceptable to use fracked water on farms without definitive information about the dangers to food grown on the land or to groundwater. She warns that Texans could be exposed to harmful chemicals and that the state could jeopardize a healthy food supply. She asks TCEQ to protect Texans by rejecting or strengthening the rule before allowing this practice.
AI-generated summary:
Ernest Edwards is unclear on the rule’s merits and asks about a possible use of produced water for data centers. The comment does not express support or opposition to the proposed rule. It does not raise technical concerns or cite evidence. He appears to be seeking clarification about permitted uses.
AI-generated summary:
Douglas Long opposes the proposed rule unless TCEQ can identify all chemicals used in fracking water. He argues that without that information, land application would risk poisoning people and the environment. He says produced water should be treated as hazardous to human life and the environment if the chemicals cannot be fully known. He asks TCEQ to extend the public comment period by 30 days.
AI-generated summary:
Joseph Alexander, on behalf of Circle Verde Water, supports produced-water land application if it is paired with advanced treatment and verification. He says his company has operated desalination systems in West Texas and New Mexico and that samples from the treated effluent exceeded EPA drinking water standards and were found suitable for irrigation. He also cites a recent study showing that distillation alone left residual toxicity and contaminants, while GAC and zeolite post-treatment reduced most analytes to non-detect and eliminated observed toxicity. He asks TCEQ to consider the company’s data and to schedule a virtual or in-person meeting to answer questions.
AI-generated summary:
Patricia Lambert supports produced-water land application only if it is thoroughly tested regularly and frequently. She says Texas needs a plan that protects water sources and farmlands, and she worries the water may contain heavy metals, salts, fracking chemicals, and other contaminants. She also says she has not been impressed with TCEQ's oversight and believes the agency is too industry friendly. She asks TCEQ to require frequent testing and stronger safeguards before allowing this water to be used on land.
AI-generated summary:
Meta Midstream LLC supports the proposed amendments to allow land application of produced water and says beneficial reuse is a practical response to Texas water stress. The company argues that public trust will depend on verified measurement because produced water quality varies across formations, wells, and time. It recommends continuous instrument-based monitoring, tamper-evident electronic recordkeeping, and performance-based standards that allow treatment innovation while ensuring consistent water-quality outcomes. Meta Midstream asks TCEQ to adopt the amendments and build the implementing framework around monitoring, transparency, and workable permitting for distributed treatment facilities.
AI-generated summary:
Becky Smith, on behalf of Clean Water Action, opposes TCEQ’s current approach to regulating produced water under existing Chapters 210 and 309. She argues that oil and gas wastewater is not similar enough to fit existing rules, policies, or technical standards and should instead be governed by a separate regulatory framework before any land disposal or integration into water systems. She also asks what requirements will apply to sludge or other waste removed during treatment and says the public process has been too limited. Clean Water Action requests that TCEQ not proceed with the current rulemaking approach, address residual waste disposal, and extend the comment period with more in-person and virtual hearings.
AI-generated summary:
Meta Midstream LLC supports the proposed amendments to allow land application of produced water and centralized waste treatment facility water under the rule. The company argues that beneficial reuse is practical in water-stressed South Texas, but says public trust will depend on verified measurement and reliable data. It recommends continuous instrument-based monitoring, tamper-evident electronic recordkeeping, and performance-based standards that are technology-neutral. Meta Midstream asks TCEQ to adopt the amendments and incorporate stronger monitoring, transparency, and standards in the implementing framework.
AI-generated summary:
Vivek Gani supports considering produced-water land application only with significant safeguards and asks for more time to review the rule. He questions what byproducts remain after treatment and whether testing and filtration can reliably remove heavy metals, radioactive materials, PFAS, VOCs, and other toxic contaminants. He also raises concerns about long-term monitoring, transparency, and setback distances from wells and creeks, especially in sensitive karst areas where groundwater can move quickly. He asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 to 60 days and to clarify or strengthen the standards for treatment, monitoring, and siting.
AI-generated summary:
Sandra Moore opposes the proposed rule and says TCEQ should bench the project until major concerns are resolved. She argues that research on produced water remains scant and warns that PFAS, arsenic, and other toxins may be present without a clear plan to remove them. She also says there is no accountability if contaminated water reaches aquifers, streams, or rivers, and that 150 feet is not a safe setback. She asks TCEQ to stop the project until these concerns about treatment, responsibility, and environmental protection are addressed.
AI-generated summary:
Robert Foss, a career energy executive, strongly supports the proposed rule and says Texas should add an expedited authorization track for produced-water reuse projects that recover critical minerals. He argues that these projects require advanced pretreatment and selective extraction, making them among the cleanest and lowest-risk applicants, while also reducing disposal-well injection and seismicity. He says the rule should keep all water-quality standards, sampling, reporting, and oversight intact, but move qualifying projects through review faster and consider a general-permit option for standardized systems. He asks TCEQ to create a tiered expedited pathway for qualified critical-material recovery projects and says he would welcome the chance to be a resource as permit mechanics are developed.
AI-generated summary:
Kim Paxson is an individual commenter who opposes the proposed rule. They say repurposing fracking wastewater for agricultural purposes is unacceptable because the lack of legal liability leaves no real mechanism to enforce compliance with standards. They argue that this makes land or agricultural use of the waste water a deal breaker. They urge the commission to oppose application of repurposed frack wastewater to land and agricultural uses.
AI-generated summary:
JD Kidwell opposes the proposed rule allowing treated frack water for agricultural use. He argues that produced water can contain salts, heavy metals, radioactive materials, PFAS, and other oilfield chemicals that vary widely from well to well. He says the rule does not require specific treatment technologies or testing for key contaminants and that it shifts liability without solving the underlying problem. He asks TCEQ not to proceed with the proposal and to require stronger testing, standards, and limits on permitted uses.
AI-generated summary:
Craig Eroh supports the transfer of oilfield wastewater oversight to TCEQ but only with separate regulations and standards. He argues that testing standards for oilfield wastewater should not be the same as those for municipal wastewater. He says the state should proceed slowly and do the process correctly so it becomes a win-win. He asks TCEQ to establish separate regulations and stronger, distinct testing standards for produced water.
AI-generated summary:
David Moore is an individual commenter who strongly opposes moving forward with the proposed rule. He says produced water should not enter the agricultural supply chain unless it can be proven 100% free of contaminants, and he worries consumers will reject Texas farm products if it does. He also says he does not trust tracing systems to identify whether produced water was used anywhere in the production chain, including livestock feed. He asks TCEQ not to proceed and to ensure any standards would fully protect agriculture and transparency.
AI-generated summary:
Kelly Moore opposes the proposed rule and does not want produced water land-applied. They argue there is not enough research to know whether repeated cleaning makes the water safe, and they worry about long-term medical effects and harm to plants and animals in the food chain. They also warn that runoff could reach streams and create broader environmental risks. They ask TCEQ not to use this water on land and instead keep it in non-consumptive uses such as cooling data centers or washing recycling off before processing.
AI-generated summary:
Marissa Zepeda opposes the proposed rule. She says water from oil and gas should not be used to water crops because it is common sense that this is inappropriate. She argues that Texas should instead reduce fresh drinking-water demand by stopping new data centers from being built. She wants TCEQ to avoid allowing produced water for crop irrigation and to consider the broader water demand problem.
AI-generated summary:
Corina Benitez opposes the proposed rule and says TCEQ should protect people rather than profits. She argues that land application would poison the land, cause leaching, and make water unusable for people, agriculture, and farming. She also warns that growth in overpopulated areas and data center water use should be curtailed. She asks TCEQ not to allow these measures in Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Anonymous Anonymous opposes the proposed rule. The commenter says applying produced water would contaminate the surrounding environment and the crops it waters, and would be unhealthy for people, land, soil, animals, and plants. They also warn that repeated use could make farmland too contaminated for future food production and reduce income for struggling farmers. They ask TCEQ not to adopt the rule.
AI-generated summary:
NGL Water Solutions Permian, LLC supports TCEQ’s effort to implement SB 1145 and create a clear permitting path for treated produced water reuse. It argues that treated produced water can help meet Texas water-supply needs if it is treated, managed, permitted, and monitored under protective standards. The company also warns TCEQ not to accidentally extend domestic wastewater requirements to industrial or produced-water systems and asks that the rule apply only to land application of treated produced water. NGL asks TCEQ to vet the revisions carefully, maintain stakeholder engagement, and continue working with operators and other stakeholders as implementation develops.
AI-generated summary:
Haseeb Abdullah opposes the proposed rule and wants TCEQ to prohibit produced water from being used on farmland or any land. He says no application should be allowed until at least three independent testing companies can warrant that a specific produced water will not cause long-term harm to humans, animals, or plants. His concern centers on potential health and environmental impacts from land application. He asks TCEQ to reject any use of produced water on land unless that level of assurance is provided.
AI-generated summary:
Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter opposes the proposed rule as written and argues that TCEQ should not fold produced water into an existing wastewater program without a separate, produced-water-specific framework. The group says the proposal lacks enforceable discharge standards, adequate monitoring for contaminants like PFAS, heavy metals, and radioactivity, and clear protections for groundwater, surface water, drinking water wells, soils, wildlife, and public health. It also criticizes the rule’s reliance on case-by-case permitting, short setback distances, weak transparency, and missing public notice and enforcement provisions, while noting that research and treatment technology are still developing. Sierra Club asks TCEQ to pause or reject the current approach, extend the comment period, and develop stronger, science-based rules with public input and clearer safeguards.
AI-generated summary:
Lauren Ross, submitting on behalf of the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance and Save Our Springs Alliance, opposes the proposed rule. She argues that produced water is far more saline and chemically complex than domestic wastewater, with high levels of dissolved solids, metals, organics, and potentially radioactive constituents that the proposed Chapter 210 and Chapter 309 changes do not adequately address. She cites Texas produced-water data and USGS database results to show that most samples would fail existing industrial reuse thresholds and that the rules lack sufficient testing, effluent limits, setbacks, groundwater protection, and enforcement. She asks TCEQ to reject or substantially revise the rule, require comprehensive pretreatment and testing, strengthen standards, restrict uses, and add transparency and monitoring requirements.
AI-generated summary:
The Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, a nonprofit focused on protecting the Edwards and Trinity aquifers, opposes the proposed rule as written. It argues the rule goes beyond SB 1145’s scope, relies on standards designed for domestic sewage rather than produced water, and lacks adequate pretreatment, verification, testing, monitoring, and enforcement provisions. The group also warns that land application could threaten surface water, groundwater, drinking water, soils, crops, and the sensitive Edwards Aquifer Recharge and Contributing zones, and says TCEQ is not equipped to oversee the added burden without more resources. It asks TCEQ to adopt much stronger standards, require pretreatment and testing, prohibit application over the Edwards Aquifer zones, extend the comment period, and add public notice and hearing protections.
AI-generated summary:
John Brymer, speaking for Brymer Contracting, supports freshwater land application in principle but wants TCEQ to justify the expanded requirements being imposed on his permit. He says the Carrizo Aquifer water has been used for decades without compliance problems, is processed to remove oil and sediment, and has tested as freshwater with no significant contamination. He argues the new analytical testing and cropping-plan requirements do not fit a site with no crops, only native vegetation and cattle grazing, and where water stays on private property. He asks TCEQ to explain the scientific basis for the added requirements and to work with producers to determine what compliance measures are actually necessary.
AI-generated summary:
The National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club-Lone Star Chapter, The Nature Conservancy in Texas, Hill Country Alliance, Galveston Bay Foundation, and Bayou City Waterkeeper oppose the proposed rule as written. They argue the draft simply extends domestic-wastewater standards to produced water without creating the new, quantitative protections SB 1145 requires, and that produced water may contain persistent, toxic contaminants not addressed by the current criteria. They call for stronger treatment, broader groundwater and surface-water monitoring, larger setbacks, clearer scope and use restrictions, and more protective standards for soils, crops, wells, and wildlife. They ask TCEQ to pause or reopen the rulemaking and extend the comment period so the agency can develop more protective rules.
AI-generated summary:
Kay Hill, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule. They argue that if produced water is truly clean, it should be used to cool data centers instead of being applied in ways that could poison food. They say that if it is not safe enough for computer cooling, it should not be considered safe for human consumption through the food supply. They want TCEQ to keep it out of food-related uses and limit its permitted applications.
AI-generated summary:
Kay Hill, an individual commenter, opposes the rule. They argue that if produced water is not clean enough to cool data centers, it should not be considered safe for human consumption through the food supply. The comment frames the proposed reuse as unsuitable for food-related applications and implies that only very limited non-food uses would be acceptable. They ask TCEQ to reject the rule or at least restrict its permitted uses away from the food supply.
AI-generated summary:
The Texas Oil & Gas Association supports the proposed changes to Chapter 210 and the overall framework for implementing SB 1145, but it wants major revisions to Chapter 309. TXOGA argues that Chapter 309 was written for domestic wastewater and could create unintended consequences and economic impacts if applied wholesale to industrial wastewater and produced water. It also asks TCEQ to clarify the produced-water definition, address jurisdiction over surface impoundments through an MOU, and confirm that spill reporting obligations are unchanged. TXOGA requests that TCEQ narrow the rule’s applicability, consider a separate produced-water chapter, and acknowledge the agency-jurisdiction and reporting clarifications it seeks.
AI-generated summary:
Future Heist opposes the proposed rule and says TCEQ should withdraw and re-propose it with stronger protections. The group argues the rule lacks required testing for contaminants such as radium, PFAS, heavy metals and salinity, sets inadequate setbacks, and fails to address residual waste disposal and cleanup. It also says the agency’s filings are internally contradictory, the process has been rushed, and the public lacks access to the underlying science and monitoring data. Future Heist asks TCEQ to extend the comment period, hold regional hearings, publish the supporting evidence, require independent testing and treatment, strengthen standards, and reject the proposal as written.
AI-generated summary:
The Nature Conservancy in Texas supports a cautious, science-based approach to produced-water land application, but only with strong safeguards. It says produced water is not yet fully characterized, may contain salts, heavy metals, radioactive materials, and other unknown contaminants, and current treatment methods may not reliably remove all pollutants. TNC also warns that land application or discharge could harm soils, groundwater, surface waters, wildlife, agriculture, and public health without long-term data and transparent oversight. It asks TCEQ to require comprehensive chemical characterization, independent evaluation of treatment technologies, robust toxicity testing, long-term monitoring, public reporting, and proof that reuse will not degrade water resources or habitat.