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.
436 of 448 commenters opposed or demanded major changes. Only 5 supported the rule outright.
Reference documents: Chapter 210 Proposal · Chapter 309 Proposal · Commission Approval Memo · Future Heist Comment
436 oppose or want conditions, 5 support outright
430 hostile or concerned, 10 supportive
419 individuals, rest organizations
Diagonal = how many raised each item. Off-diagonal = how many raised both. Brighter = more overlap.
Diagonal = how many raised each item. Off-diagonal = how many raised both. 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 for land application of produced water, calling it dangerous to the environment. She is concerned that water contaminated with chemicals, salts, and metals will affect Texas soil, groundwater, and public health. She emphasizes the need for strict clean-up standards, environmental testing, and transparency before any permits are approved. Rumbaut requests TCEQ to ensure these safeguards are in place.
AI-generated summary:
Brian Pape, a private citizen, comments on TCEQ's proposed rule for land application of produced water, expressing concern about chemicals, salts, and metals affecting soil, groundwater, and public health. He argues that strict clean-up standards, environmental testing, and transparency are essential before any permits are approved. Pape implies that without these safeguards, the rule could harm Texans and the environment. He calls on TCEQ to fulfill its mission of protecting environmental quality and public health.
AI-generated summary:
Paige Frederick-Pape opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it will harm Texas soil, groundwater, and public health. She insists that TCEQ must enforce strict clean-up standards, environmental testing, and transparency before any permits are approved. She criticizes TCEQ for not living up to its name and failing to protect environmental quality. She requests TCEQ to implement these safeguards before approving any permits.
AI-generated summary:
David Todd expresses concern over the proposed rule and supports it only with stringent conditions. He cites the known toxicity and lack of knowledge and disclosure about produced water. He insists on full fluid and site testing, transparency, public participation, and review of compliance history before permits are issued. He also requires bonding and strict cleanup requirements for permit recipients.
AI-generated summary:
Barbara Burton opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water. She insists that the water must be tested for contaminants and filtered before being sprayed on the ground. She argues that allowing untreated water to be applied will further contaminate soil, groundwater, and wildlife. She calls for required pretreatment and testing before any land application.
AI-generated summary:
Edward Main opposes the proposed rule allowing land application of produced water. He argues that produced water contains known and unknown pollutants with uncontrollable variation in concentrations. This variability, he claims, makes land application indistinguishable from an uncontrolled spill. Main requests that TCEQ prohibit land application of produced water altogether.
AI-generated summary:
Earl Roberts opposes the rule and argues it is a Republican scheme to murder landowners by poisoning the soil and making it combustible in high heat, endangering property, animals, and people.
AI-generated summary:
Wendell Cathcart opposes the proposed rule authorizing land application of treated oil and gas produced water. He argues that the rule poses unacceptable and irreversible risks to Texas communities, agricultural industries, and water resources. He states that the TCEQ's primary mission is to protect public health and natural resources, and that this rule prioritizes industry convenience over safety. He urges the Commission to withdraw the proposal and maintain strict prohibitions against land application of produced water.
AI-generated summary:
Anita Valliani, a private individual, expresses concern over the proposed rule for land application of produced water, supporting it only with stringent safeguards. She cites the known toxicity of the wastewater and the lack of disclosure about its contents as key reasons for caution. Valliani insists that full fluid and site testing must occur before any permits are issued, and that permits require transparency, public participation, and strong operator compliance and bonding. She calls on TCEQ to adopt these protective measures to ensure safety.
AI-generated summary:
Michelle Janssen opposes the rule and asks TCEQ to reject it.
AI-generated summary:
Will Andres opposes the proposed rule allowing land application of treated produced water. He argues that oilfield wastewater contains dangerous heavy metals, radium, and salts that pose severe health risks, especially to children. He warns that spreading this water threatens agricultural soil and could contaminate drinking water supplies. Andres requests that TCEQ reject the rule and not allow Texas to become a dumping ground for oil and gas wastewater.
AI-generated summary:
Logan Hill expresses concern that the proposal lacks adequate language to ensure treated oilfield wastewater meets internationally recognized safety limits for reuse. He notes that moving oversight to TCEQ is not inherently flawed. He argues that more work, evidence, and technical information are needed before expanding untested uses of treated wastewater on crops. He asks TCEQ to provide more evidence and technical information before proceeding.
AI-generated summary:
Kathryn Guerra opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, citing serious concerns about public health and agricultural safety. She argues that the rule may fail to protect against accumulation of harmful constituents due to unproven technologies and unknown chemicals. She also states that a 30-day comment period is inadequate for full public evaluation. Guerra requests a 30-day extension to the comment period and additional in-person public meetings in the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford regions.
AI-generated summary:
Dennis Schafer, likely a farmer or community member, supports the concept of land application of produced water only if the TCEQ rule includes extensive safeguards, and he finds the current draft insufficient. He raises concerns about permitting transparency, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking to protect water and soil for agriculture. He also requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions such as the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. Schafer urges TCEQ to base the rule on rigorous independent science and to incorporate specific protective measures before finalizing.
AI-generated summary:
Robin Gelston opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. They contend the rule is premature because the science is lacking and that 30 days is insufficient time for comprehensive comments. Gelston requests an extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in impacted regions. They also list a series of required safeguards, including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Kristy Mitchell opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient protections for public health, agriculture, and the environment. She lists numerous deficiencies including inadequate permitting transparency, lack of strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and insufficient monitoring and testing requirements. Mitchell stresses that the rulemaking is premature because the science does not exist to ensure safety, and that the 30-day comment period is too short for thorough analysis. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and a comprehensive set of mandatory safeguards including continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Paula Atkinson, a multi-generation Texas landowner, supports the concept of land application of treated produced water only with significant safeguards. She argues that the current draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, the environment, and agricultural livelihoods, and that the rulemaking is premature given the lack of independent science. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and a host of specific protections including permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, continuous monitoring, and open data access. Atkinson urges TCEQ to adopt rigorous, science-based standards that ensure accountability and protect Texas communities.
AI-generated summary:
Austin English, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect communities and businesses. He lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He contends the rule is premature because the science does not exist and calls for high barriers to permitting. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions like the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale.
AI-generated summary:
The commenter, likely a community member or farmer, opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water as currently written, arguing it fails to protect public health and the environment. They raise concerns about inadequate permitting transparency, lack of strict contaminant limits for toxins like PFAS and heavy metals, insufficient monitoring, and the need for independent audits and public data access. They also note that the science is insufficient to support the rulemaking at this time. The commenter requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the inclusion of numerous specific safeguards in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
E C, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. They argue the rule lacks sufficient protections for public health, the environment, agriculture, and communities, and is premature due to insufficient scientific basis. They emphasize the need for robust standards including contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and transparency. They request an extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and a strong regulatory framework with many specific safeguards.
AI-generated summary:
E C, likely a concerned citizen or farmer, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written, arguing it fails to provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. They contend the rule is premature because the science does not exist to support safe land application, and list numerous required safeguards including stricter contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous 24/7 testing, independent audits, and public data access. They emphasize the need to protect Texas communities, agricultural industries, and water and soil quality. They request that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in impacted regions, and ensure the final rule is based on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Joyce Levine, a private citizen, opposes the proposed TCEQ rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that the draft rules do not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes that the rule is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and that the 30-day comment period is insufficient for a comprehensive review. Levine lists numerous deficiencies including lack of permitting transparency, insufficient contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, inadequate continuous monitoring, and no independent audits or open data access. She requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and the inclusion of extensive safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Martha Gorak opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written. She argues it lacks sufficient safeguards for public health and the environment, including permitting transparency, health-protective contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. Gorak also contends the rule is premature because the necessary science does not exist. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted communities, and inclusion of detailed protective measures in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Robert Tomlinson opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, calling it insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He argues that the rule lacks robust standards, including permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, uniform contaminant limits, and continuous monitoring. He also notes that the rule is premature due to insufficient scientific evidence and that the 30-day comment period is too short. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the incorporation of numerous safeguards including independent audits and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Sabrina Eckles opposes the current draft rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She raises concerns about permitting transparency, setback distances, contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. Eckles emphasizes the need for rigorous, independent science and baseline soil and crop testing to track bioaccumulation. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted communities, and a rule that includes numerous specific safeguards.
AI-generated summary:
Dawn West opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She notes that Texas law limits operator liability, making robust standards essential, and that the current draft lacks adequate protections. She raises concerns about permitting transparency, setback distances, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data, and bioaccumulation tracking. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in impacted regions like the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.
AI-generated summary:
Avril Harville opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that the draft rules do not provide sufficient protection for Texas communities and businesses. She contends that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science is lacking, and that the current draft fails to include essential safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She also criticizes the 30-day comment period and the single public hearing as inadequate for meaningful public participation. She requests an extension of the comment period, additional hearings in affected communities, and the incorporation of specific protective measures including permitting transparency, setback distances, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Christopher Hathaway opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He argues that the draft rules lack a sufficient regulatory framework, including adequate contaminant limits, monitoring, and transparency, and that the science is not yet sufficient to proceed. He emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and community wellbeing. Hathaway requests an extension of the comment period by 30 days, additional public hearings in impacted regions, and incorporation of numerous specific safeguards such as permitting transparency, continuous testing, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Richard Stark, a private citizen, comments on the proposed land application rule for treated produced water, expressing opposition as written due to insufficient safeguards. He argues the rule lacks robust permitting transparency, uniform contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent oversight. Stark emphasizes risks to agriculture, livestock, and community health, and notes the science is incomplete. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and specific regulatory provisions to protect public health and the environment.
AI-generated summary:
Ken Smith, a Texas individual concerned about community and agricultural water safety, opposes the proposed rule as currently written but supports land application of treated produced water with stringent conditions. He argues the draft rules lack sufficient protections and that 30 days is too short for meaningful public comment. He requests extended deadlines, local public hearings, and a comprehensive set of safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and full public data access. Smith urges TCEQ to base the rule on independent science and ensure high permitting barriers until knowledge gaps are filled.
AI-generated summary:
George Baggs, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed TCEQ rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in key oil-producing regions, citing insufficient time and outreach. Baggs lists numerous required protections, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits on heavy metals and PFAS, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He concludes that the rulemaking is premature due to insufficient science and urges TCEQ to set high barriers for permits.
AI-generated summary:
Carol Crittenden, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed land application of produced water rule, arguing that the current draft does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes that clean water is vital for agriculture and community well-being, and that the 30-day comment period is inadequate for comprehensive review. Crittenden lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, public data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. She requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in impacted regions such as the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale.
AI-generated summary:
Taylor Samsel opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. They argue that the current draft lacks robust safeguards, including inadequate setback distances, contaminant limits, and independent monitoring. They also contend that the rulemaking is premature due to insufficient science and that the 30-day comment period is too short. They request a 30-day extension, public hearings in impacted regions, and a comprehensive set of protective measures before any permits are granted.
AI-generated summary:
Leigh Brown opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. They cite concerns about permitting transparency, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and the need for independent science. They note that the comment period is too short and that a single public hearing is inadequate. They request an extension of the comment period, additional public hearings, and numerous specific safeguards before the rule can proceed.
AI-generated summary:
Sandra Woodall, a private citizen, supports the concept of land application of produced water only if extensive safeguards are included in the final rule. She argues the current draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, citing concerns over permitting transparency, contaminant limits, and monitoring. She also criticizes the 30-day comment period as inadequate and requests an extension, as well as additional public hearings in affected regions. Woodall asks TCEQ to adopt a robust set of requirements including mandatory testing, independent audits, and open data access before allowing any permits.
AI-generated summary:
Robert Milton opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is premature and lacks sufficient regulatory framework. He raises concerns about potential contamination of water, soil, crops, and livestock, and calls for strict limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. He emphasizes the need for transparency, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public participation. He requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the inclusion of comprehensive safeguards before the rule proceeds.
AI-generated summary:
Carson Mike, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule as currently written and supports land application only with extensive safeguards. He emphasizes that clean water is essential for agriculture, livestock, and community health, and that the draft rules are insufficient to protect these. He calls for stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, public data access, and soil and crop testing to track bioaccumulation. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.
AI-generated summary:
Martha Duke, voicing concerns as a community member and likely agricultural stakeholder, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is premature and lacks sufficient safeguards. She emphasizes the need to protect water and soil for farming and livestock, and criticizes the current draft for lacking transparency, strict limits on toxins, and continuous monitoring. She also calls for independent audits, open data, and bioaccumulation tracking to ensure safety. Duke requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, hold local public hearings, and incorporate her listed safeguards into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Irvin Lindsey opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that it does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities and the environment. He contends that the rule is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and that the barriers to obtaining a permit should be high. He lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. Lindsey requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, schedule public hearings in impacted regions, and significantly strengthen the rule to ensure protection of water, soil, and agricultural interests.
AI-generated summary:
Robert Milton opposes the proposed rule as insufficient and calls for significant improvements. He argues that the current rule lacks robust standards to protect water, soil, and agriculture, and that the science on produced water treatment is not yet established. He requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and a long list of safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He urges TCEQ to ensure that the final rule is based on independent science and includes a strong regulatory framework to protect communities.
AI-generated summary:
Cheri Cowart, a Texas resident, supports the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water only with significant safeguards. She argues the current draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment, and she requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions. She lists numerous required protections, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She asks TCEQ to base the final rule on independent science and ensure high barriers for permits.
AI-generated summary:
Donald Cadenhead opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that the current draft does not provide sufficient public health and environmental protections. He lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, mandatory testing, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. He states that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions. Cadenhead emphasizes the importance of protecting clean water for communities and agriculture, and calls for rules based on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Sheila Collins, an individual, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She raises concerns about permitting transparency, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking, among other safeguards. She also criticizes the 30-day comment period and single public hearing as inadequate for comprehensive community input. She requests an extension of the comment period, additional public hearings, and a suite of specific regulatory requirements before the rule proceeds.
AI-generated summary:
Adrian Figueroa opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient protections for public health and the environment. He contends the rulemaking is premature because the science does not exist, and the current draft does not provide a robust regulatory framework. He also criticizes the insufficient 30-day comment period and the single public hearing, calling for broader community engagement. Figueroa requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the inclusion of specific safeguards such as permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits.
AI-generated summary:
Nicole Punday opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written, arguing it lacks sufficient protection for public health and the environment. She contends that the 30-day comment period is inadequate and calls for an extension and additional public hearings in affected regions. Punday emphasizes the need for robust permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She requests that TCEQ base the rule on independent science and implement comprehensive safeguards to protect communities, agriculture, and water quality.
AI-generated summary:
Nancy Saibara, a Texas resident, opposes the current draft of the produced water land application rule but would support it if strong conditions are met. She argues the rule is insufficient and premature due to a lack of independent science, and she lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She also requests an extended comment period and additional public hearings in impacted regions. Her overarching demand is that the final rule protect communities, agriculture, and the environment.
AI-generated summary:
Nancy Saibara, an individual commenting on the proposed rule for land application of treated produced water, supports the concept only if the rule includes extensive safeguards. She argues the current draft does not protect public health, water, soils, and agriculture, and points to deficiencies in public participation and scientific basis. She requests numerous specific protections including permitting transparency, setback distances, contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. She asks the TCEQ to extend the comment period, hold local public hearings, and ensure the rules are based on rigorous science.
AI-generated summary:
Valerie Howell supports the proposed rule only with significant conditions. She argues the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment, listing many required safeguards including public transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She also states the science is incomplete and the comment period is too short. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and adoption of her listed protections in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Virleen Strahan opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that the draft rules do not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities and businesses. She emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and community health, and criticizes the 30-day comment period as inadequate. Strahan lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She requests TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in impacted regions, and strengthen the rule with rigorous science-based protections.
AI-generated summary:
John Riecker opposes the proposed rule as currently written but conditionally supports land application if extensive safeguards are implemented. He argues the rule is insufficient to protect public health and the environment, citing risks to agriculture and communities. He lists numerous required safeguards including stricter limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. He requests an extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected areas.
AI-generated summary:
Jana Harter opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not provide sufficient protection for public health and the environment. She highlights concerns about contamination from heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and stresses the need for continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She argues that the science is lacking and that permitting should have high barriers. She requests an extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions, and asks TCEQ to incorporate numerous safeguards into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Mark Bedgood, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, communities, and agriculture. He emphasizes that the rulemaking is premature because the science does not exist and lists numerous deficiencies, including lack of permitting transparency, insufficient contaminant limits, and inadequate monitoring. He requests an extension of the comment period by 30 days and public hearings in impacted regions such as the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. He calls for the final rule to include strict safeguards like continuous testing, independent audits, open data, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Kate Bremer opposes the current draft of the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, but indicates she could support it with extensive safeguards. She argues the rule is premature due to insufficient science and must include strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data. She emphasizes risks to agriculture and livestock, and the need for bioaccumulation tracking to protect the food chain. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected communities.
AI-generated summary:
William Forbes opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, stating that the current draft does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities and businesses. He raises concerns about impacts on water quality, agriculture, and community health, arguing that the science is not yet robust enough to justify the rule. He outlines specific requirements including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous 24/7 testing, independent audits, and public data access. He requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and that the final rule be based on independent science with high barriers to permitting.
AI-generated summary:
Joshua Swatosh expresses conditional support for the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water but argues the current draft is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and community health and lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, stricter setbacks, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He requests an extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. He urges TCEQ to base the rule on rigorous science and set high barriers for permits to ensure public trust and safety.
AI-generated summary:
Chris Mendoza opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water. He argues that current rules are insufficient to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. He lists numerous necessary safeguards including stricter permitting, monitoring, and contaminant limits. He requests an extended comment period and public hearings in impacted regions.
AI-generated summary:
Carroll Dartez opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not adequately protect public health and the environment. He emphasizes that Texas communities rely on clean water for agriculture and livestock, and the rule must include stringent safeguards such as stricter setbacks, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. He also notes that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and the current 30-day comment period is insufficient. Dartez requests an extended comment period, additional public hearings in affected regions, and a final rule with robust transparency, testing, and liability provisions.
AI-generated summary:
Mary Cato opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities and businesses. She calls the rulemaking premature because the science does not exist to support it. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and a comprehensive set of safeguards including mandatory contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She emphasizes that the final rule must be based on rigorous, independent science and include strong accountability measures.
AI-generated summary:
Deann Darling, an individual commenter, conditionally supports land application of produced water but argues the draft rules are inadequate for protecting public health and the environment. She lists numerous required safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She stresses that the rules must be based on independent science and that the current comment period is insufficient. She asks TCEQ to extend the comment period, hold local hearings, and incorporate her recommended safeguards.
AI-generated summary:
Marcia Curry, a Texas resident concerned about her community's water and agricultural livelihoods, opposes the current draft of the land application rule as insufficiently protective. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in oil-producing regions. She lists extensive required safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. She argues the rule is premature without adequate science and asks TCEQ to raise permit barriers and ensure rigorous testing.
AI-generated summary:
Greg Kay, an individual commenter, supports the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water only if it includes extensive safeguards. He argues the current draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, listing requirements such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He also criticizes the 30-day comment period as too short and requests an extension, as well as public hearings in oil- and gas-producing regions. Kay asks TCEQ to adopt a rule based on independent science and to ensure a high bar for permitting.
AI-generated summary:
Carolyn Croom, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it fails to provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She contends that the 30-day comment period is insufficient and that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not yet exist. Croom requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in affected communities. She also demands that the final rule include multiple safeguards such as permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Kim Bigley, a Texas resident, conditionally supports the proposed rule but argues it must include stronger safeguards to protect public health and the environment. She criticizes the draft rules as insufficient, noting that the 30-day comment period is too short and that a single virtual hearing does not adequately engage affected communities. She calls for specific measures such as permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. Bigley requests an extension of the comment period and scheduling of public hearings in oil-producing regions, and urges TCEQ to base final rules on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Lori Rosas opposes the proposed rule as currently written, arguing it does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities and businesses. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in oil and gas regions. She lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She asks TCEQ to ensure rules are based on rigorous independent science and to update the docket with her requests.
AI-generated summary:
Rudy Villarreal opposes the proposed rule as currently written, arguing it does not provide sufficient protection for public health and the environment. He highlights that the rules are premature because the science on produced water safety is lacking, and that liability limitations make robust standards essential. He lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions, and urges TCEQ to base final rules on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Sarah Hesterlee opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, stating it fails to provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the rule lacks transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent auditing. Hesterlee emphasizes the need for safeguards such as setback distances, public testing disclosure, and bioaccumulation tracking to ensure safety. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in affected communities.
AI-generated summary:
Genie Mims, an individual commenter, supports the rule only if substantial safeguards are added. She argues that the current draft rules lack sufficient protections for public health and the environment, citing concerns about contaminants, monitoring, and transparency. She requests an extended comment period and public hearings in affected communities. She demands specific measures including strict contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Caroline Cruz opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written, calling it insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the science does not yet exist to support the rule and that it is premature. She raises concerns about lack of transparency, inadequate contaminant limits, and insufficient public input. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted communities, and numerous specific safeguards including strict limits on PFAS, heavy metals, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Karen Winnubst opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written, arguing it fails to provide sufficient protection for public health and the environment. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions like the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale. She lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. Winnubst urges TCEQ to base the final rule on rigorous independent science rather than limited industry data.
AI-generated summary:
Mark Brown opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health and the environment. He emphasizes that clean water is vital for agriculture, livestock, and community well-being, and that the current draft rules are inadequate. He requests an extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions, and lists numerous required safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. Brown urges TCEQ to base the final rule on independent science and ensure high barriers for permitting.
AI-generated summary:
Ronald Carmon, an individual, opposes the proposed TCEQ rule on land application of produced water as currently written, arguing it does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. He contends that the rulemaking is premature because the science does not exist to support it, and the 30-day comment period is inadequate. He voices concerns about contamination of water, soil, crops, and livestock from heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and calls for strict safeguards including continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. Carmon requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and a list of specific requirements such as minimum setback distances, contaminant limits, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Norma Longoria opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water. She argues that the draft rules lack sufficient protections for public health, the environment, and agricultural industries. She raises concerns about liability limits, insufficient time for comment, and inadequate public outreach. She requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the inclusion of specific safeguards such as contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and public data access.
AI-generated summary:
Mary Boone, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written. She argues that the rule lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that the science is premature. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in impacted regions. She also demands specific protections including stricter setback distances, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Mark Boone opposes the proposed rule as currently written and requests TCEQ to extend the comment period and strengthen the regulations. He argues that the rule lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, water resources, and agricultural industries, particularly in communities near oil and gas production. He emphasizes the need for permitting transparency, stricter design standards, uniform contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data, and bioaccumulation tracking. He asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in affected regions, and ensure the final rule is based on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Loisann Sciarrillo, a private citizen concerned about water quality, argues that the draft rules for land application of treated produced water are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She states that the 30-day comment period is too short and that the rule is premature because the necessary science does not exist. She requests specific safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. Sciarrillo asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in communities across the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.
AI-generated summary:
George Baum, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it is insufficient and premature. He raises concerns about the lack of scientific basis and the need for robust protections for water, soil, and agricultural industries. He requests specific safeguards including permitting transparency, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in affected communities.
AI-generated summary:
Shannon Friske opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water. She argues the draft rules lack sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment, especially given limited liability for operators. She raises specific concerns about permitting transparency, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted communities, and adoption of numerous protective measures before the rule proceeds.
AI-generated summary:
Donna Hoffman opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, stating that it is premature and lacks sufficient safeguards. She argues that the draft rules fail to protect public health, agricultural industries, and the environment, and lists numerous required protections including contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. Hoffman asserts that the science to support such a rule does not exist and that the 30-day comment period is inadequate. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and the incorporation of her specified safeguards into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Brenda Franco, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment, arguing that the current draft lacks critical safeguards. She emphasizes the need for permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She also criticizes the 30-day comment period as too short and the single public hearing as inadequate for impacted communities across the state. Franco requests an extension of the comment period, additional public hearings in affected regions, and the inclusion of comprehensive protective measures before any permits are granted.
AI-generated summary:
Dale Bronstein opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written and calls for significant strengthening. They argue that the draft rules lack sufficient protections for public health and the environment, including permitting transparency, stricter contaminant limits, and continuous monitoring. They also note that the 30-day comment period and single hearing are insufficient for meaningful public input. They request an extension of the comment period, additional public hearings in affected regions, and the inclusion of multiple safeguards such as independent audits and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
KarenSue Zoeller opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is premature and lacks a sufficient scientific basis. She raises concerns about inadequate public participation and calls for an extended comment period and additional hearings in impacted regions. She insists that the rule must include strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access to protect health and the environment. She requests that TCEQ strengthen the rule with mandatory safeguards and delay finalization until comprehensive science is available.
AI-generated summary:
Jacqueline Heidorn, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes that communities depend on clean water for agriculture and livestock, and the current draft fails to provide a paper trail for accountability. Heidorn requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions like the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. She demands permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access, stating the rulemaking is premature without rigorous science.
AI-generated summary:
Annie Baker, an individual, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is premature and lacks sufficient safeguards. She raises concerns about contamination from heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and calls for continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She also requests an extended comment period and public hearings in impacted regions. Baker asks TCEQ to adopt strict limits, high permitting barriers, and a robust framework based on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Matthew Lilyquist, an individual commenter, supports the concept of land application of treated produced water but only with significant safeguards and conditions, calling the current draft rule insufficient. He argues the rule must protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, citing concerns about liability limits and the need for a robust paper trail. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions, along with specific safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, and open data access. He urges TCEQ to base the final rule on rigorous independent science and to ensure high barriers for permits.
AI-generated summary:
Lyndal Bullock opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water, arguing the draft rules do not adequately protect public health and the environment. They list numerous required safeguards including stricter setback distances, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and limits on contaminants like PFAS and radionuclides. They contend the rulemaking is premature due to lack of scientific evidence. They request a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected communities.
AI-generated summary:
Tracey Bonner opposes the draft rule as insufficient and requests an extended comment period and additional public hearings. They argue that the rule must include numerous safeguards such as permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, and continuous monitoring to protect public health and the environment. They emphasize the need for independent science and high permit barriers due to insufficient scientific knowledge. They specifically request the TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days and hold hearings in impacted communities across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Catherine Allen, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water. She argues the current draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, the environment, and agricultural livelihoods. Allen contends that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not yet exist, and she requests an extended comment period and public hearings in impacted regions. She demands the inclusion of numerous safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits.
AI-generated summary:
William Stone opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He argues that the rule lacks sufficient regulatory framework, including transparency, contaminant limits, and continuous monitoring. He states that the science on safety does not exist and the public needs robust protections to ensure clean water for agriculture and communities. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and numerous specific safeguards in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Nicole Ray opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is premature and lacks sufficient scientific basis. She contends the draft rules fail to protect public health, water quality, and agricultural livelihoods. She lists numerous required safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions.
AI-generated summary:
Jane Leatherman accepts the concept of land application of treated produced water only if a long list of stringent safeguards are included in the rule. She argues the current draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. She emphasizes the need for strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public transparency, and notes that the rulemaking is premature due to lack of scientific evidence. She requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and inclusion of specific protective measures in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Carol Munn, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect communities and the environment. She argues that the rules lack adequate safeguards such as permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, and continuous monitoring. She notes that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, additional public hearings in affected regions, and the inclusion of numerous protective measures in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Michael Dunson opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, the environment, and agricultural industries. He criticizes the draft rules for lacking basic safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He also notes that the 30-day comment period is insufficient and that only one public hearing in Austin does not allow adequate community input. Dunson requests an extension of the comment period, additional hearings in impacted regions, and the incorporation of numerous safety measures before the rule is finalized.
AI-generated summary:
R. Kevin, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He argues the draft rules lack adequate safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. He also contends the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist and that the 30-day comment period is inadequate. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and a comprehensive rewrite of the rule to include robust protections and scientific rigor.
AI-generated summary:
James Burrough opposes the proposed rule as currently written and requests an extended comment period and stronger safeguards. He argues that the rule lacks sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment, and that the science is premature. He lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. He requests TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in impacted regions, and adopt the specific safeguards he outlined.
AI-generated summary:
Lindsey McNeny opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written. She argues that the rule does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, the environment, and agricultural industries, and that it is premature because the necessary science does not exist. She requests an extension of the comment period by 30 days and public hearings in impacted communities, and lists numerous safeguards that must be included, such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. She asks TCEQ to ensure the final rule is based on rigorous independent science and to raise the barriers for obtaining permits.
AI-generated summary:
Roy Morey, a Texas resident concerned about water and soil safety, supports the land application of treated produced water only if robust protections are included. He argues the current draft rules are insufficient and that the rulemaking is premature due to a lack of independent science. Morey lists numerous required safeguards, including continuous monitoring, independent audits, strict contaminant limits, and public data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions.
AI-generated summary:
Jose Corpus opposes the proposed rule as currently written, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards for public health and the environment. He emphasizes the need for a robust regulatory framework to protect water, soil, and agricultural industries. Corpus requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and a wide range of specific requirements including permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He urges TCEQ to base the final rule on independent science and ensure strong protections.
AI-generated summary:
Robert Knoll opposes the TCEQ's proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it fails to protect public health and the environment. He contends that the draft rules lack sufficient regulatory framework, including inadequate setback distances, contaminant limits, and testing requirements. Knoll emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and community well-being, and warns that the rule is premature given insufficient scientific data. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and demands TCEQ incorporate permitting transparency, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Jared Burns opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He states that the draft rules lack robust standards for contaminant limits, monitoring, and transparency. He highlights concerns about heavy metals, PFAS, radionuclides, and bioaccumulation in the food chain. He requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected areas, and numerous specific safeguards such as continuous monitoring and independent audits.
AI-generated summary:
Neil Sullivan opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing the current draft does not provide sufficient protection for public health, agriculture, and the environment. He contends the science is not yet established and the rule is premature, emphasizing the need for strict safeguards including contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He also criticizes the 30-day comment period and single public hearing as inadequate. He requests an extension of the comment period, additional public hearings in producing regions, and a comprehensive set of protective measures in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Georgena Askew opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water. She argues the draft rules lack sufficient protections for public health and the environment, and that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist. She calls for a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions. Askew requests that the final rule include strict permitting transparency, setback requirements, continuous testing, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Margaret Hill, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the rule lacks adequate safeguards, including permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. Hill contends that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and she emphasizes the importance of protecting water and soil for communities, crops, and livestock. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the incorporation of comprehensive safeguards before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Beth Kenyon opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the current draft lacks adequate safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent testing. She emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and community well-being. She requests an extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions, and calls for the rule to include robust protections and rigorous science.
AI-generated summary:
Gary Blanchard, an individual citizen, opposes the proposed rule as written but would support it with extensive safeguards. He argues the rule does not adequately protect public health and the environment, and that the science is insufficient to support the rulemaking. He lists numerous required safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data. He requests an extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected communities.
AI-generated summary:
Chantal Eldridge opposes the proposed TCEQ rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing the draft rules do not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She states that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and therefore barriers to obtaining permits should be high. Eldridge requests an extension of the comment period by 30 days and additional public hearings in impacted regions such as the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. She also lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, mandatory testing, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Luke Shipp, a private citizen likely involved in agriculture, opposes the current draft rule as insufficient and requests an extended comment period and public hearings in affected regions. He argues the rule must include strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous 24/7 testing, independent audits, and open data access. He emphasizes that the rule is premature because the science is lacking and that high permitting barriers and rigorous testing are needed to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. Shipp asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days, schedule local hearings, and adopt comprehensive safeguards before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Deanna Bowling, an individual citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written, arguing it fails to protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes that clean water is essential for agriculture, livestock, and community vitality, and that current draft rules lack sufficient safeguards. Bowling requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, additional public hearings in impacted regions, and a comprehensive set of safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. She argues the rulemaking is premature due to insufficient independent science and urges TCEQ to reject the current proposal.
AI-generated summary:
Dean Blackmor opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient protections for public health, the environment, and agriculture. He states the 30-day comment period is too short and requests an extension, along with public hearings in oil-producing regions. He demands a comprehensive set of safeguards including permitting transparency, uniform contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He concludes by urging that the rule be based on rigorous independent science rather than industry data.
AI-generated summary:
Janis Hendrick, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She contends the rule is premature because the necessary science does not exist and that current standards are inadequate. She lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected communities across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Mark Goodman opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He emphasizes that clean water is essential for agriculture, livestock, and community well-being, and that the current framework lacks adequate safeguards. Goodman lists numerous required protections, including increased setbacks, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions like the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale.
AI-generated summary:
Evangelina Quintana opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, calling the draft framework insufficient to protect Texas communities and agriculture. She argues the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and that liability limitations make robust standards essential. Quintana details numerous required safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access, as well as baseline soil and crop testing to prevent bioaccumulation. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in oil-and-gas producing regions.
AI-generated summary:
Donna Sims, an individual, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water. She argues the draft rules lack sufficient safeguards to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, particularly citing concerns about contaminants like heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. She also contends the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist. She requests a 30-day comment extension, public hearings in affected regions, and a range of specific regulatory improvements including stricter limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits.
AI-generated summary:
Lee Ann, a private citizen, comments on the proposed rule for land application of treated produced water, expressing that the current draft does not provide sufficient protection for public health and the environment. She argues that the regulations must include robust safeguards such as permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, mandatory contaminant limits for toxins like PFAS and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She also stresses the need for the rule to be based on independent science and that the comment period is too short for thorough evaluation. Lee Ann requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions, and she urges TCEQ to implement strong protective measures before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Evelyn Dorsey opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not adequately protect public health and the environment. She highlights that clean water is essential for agriculture, livestock, and community well-being, and asserts the draft rules lack sufficient safeguards. Dorsey points to specific deficiencies such as inadequate contaminant limits, lack of continuous monitoring, and insufficient permitting transparency. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and a final rule that includes strict health-protective measures, independent testing, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Kristi H opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, stating that the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the rules lack necessary safeguards such as permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She also contends that the comment period is too short and that more public hearings are needed in affected regions. She requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, schedule additional public hearings, and incorporate the listed protections into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Elaine Laisure, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She contends the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist and calls for a high bar for permits. She lists numerous required safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected communities across major oil and gas basins.
AI-generated summary:
Edward Rasmussen opposes the proposed rule as written and requests significant changes. He argues that the rule lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health and the environment, particularly for communities reliant on clean water for agriculture. He lists numerous requirements including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He requests an extension of the comment period, additional public hearings in impacted areas, and that the rule be based on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Joanne Groshardt, an individual, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not provide sufficient protection for public health and the environment. She highlights numerous deficiencies including lack of permitting transparency, inadequate setbacks, and absence of strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. She emphasizes the need for continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. She requests an extension of the comment period by 30 days and public hearings in affected communities, and calls for the rule to be based on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Sara VandenBosch, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She contends the rule is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and the barriers to obtaining a permit should be high. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted communities across the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. She also demands that the final rule include strict safeguards such as contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access.
AI-generated summary:
Brian Zygo expresses conditional support for the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that the current draft is insufficient and must be strengthened to protect public health and the environment. He emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and communities, noting that Texas law limits operator liability once rules are met. He calls for numerous specific safeguards, including permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions like the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.
AI-generated summary:
Genie Mitchell opposes the proposed rule as currently written and requests the TCEQ to extend the comment period and add numerous safeguards. She argues that the rule lacks sufficient protections for public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that the science is insufficient to proceed. She emphasizes the need for permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She requests that TCEQ hold public hearings in impacted regions and ensure the rule is based on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Dallas Windham, a Texas farmer or rancher, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written. He argues that the rule does not provide sufficient protection for water, soil, and agricultural industries, and that it is premature because the science is lacking. He lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted areas across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Katherine Homan opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently drafted, arguing it fails to provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities, agriculture, and the environment. She contends that 30 days is inadequate for comprehensive comments and requests a 30-day extension, as well as public hearings in affected regions like the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. Homan lists numerous required protections, including permitting transparency, setback distances, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. She asserts that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and she calls for high barriers to permitting and rigorous testing to fill scientific gaps.
AI-generated summary:
Patricia Phelps opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it is premature and insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes that the rule must safeguard clean water for agricultural and community well-being, and criticizes the lack of rigorous, independent science behind the draft. She lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in affected regions.
AI-generated summary:
Georgia Spears supports the proposed rule on land application of produced water only if it includes robust safeguards. She argues the draft rules lack sufficient protections for water, soil, and public health. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted areas, and specific requirements such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She urges TCEQ to ensure the rule is based on independent science and to set high barriers for permits.
AI-generated summary:
Richard Maddern opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He argues that the draft rules lack adequate safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. He emphasizes the need to protect agricultural industries and drinking water from toxic buildup. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions, along with multiple specific rule improvements.
AI-generated summary:
Cerelda De, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water. She argues the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, the environment, and agricultural livelihoods, and that the rulemaking is premature because adequate science is lacking. She requests an extension of the comment period by 30 days and public hearings in impacted communities across the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. She also demands that the final rule include stringent conditions such as permitting transparency, contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking with soil and crop testing.
AI-generated summary:
Mike Badzioch opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. He criticizes the 30-day comment period as inadequate and requests a 30-day extension, as well as public hearings in impacted regions like the Permian Basin. He lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, stricter setbacks, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access, and asserts the rulemaking is premature because the science is incomplete. He asks TCEQ to update the docket with his requests and to ensure the final rule includes high permitting barriers and rigorous testing.
AI-generated summary:
James Klein, an individual likely involved in agriculture, opposes the proposed land application rule for produced water, arguing it fails to protect public health and the environment. He contends the draft rules lack sufficient safeguards, transparency, and a scientific basis, calling the rulemaking premature. Klein emphasizes the importance of clean water for farming and livestock and fears contamination of soil and water. He requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the inclusion of strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access.
AI-generated summary:
Bruce Ross, an individual, expresses concern over the proposed rule for land application of treated produced water, stating it lacks sufficient protections. He argues the rule is premature due to insufficient science and requests multiple safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He emphasizes the importance of protecting water and soil for agriculture and community health. He asks TCEQ to extend the comment period, hold hearings in affected regions, and incorporate his listed requirements.
AI-generated summary:
James Klein opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water. He argues that the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that the rulemaking is premature due to lack of scientific basis. He requests numerous safeguards including permitting transparency, stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He asks TCEQ to extend the comment period and hold public hearings in affected regions, and to ensure the final rule is based on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Gayla Pearce, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She argues the draft rules lack adequate safeguards and are premature because the necessary science does not exist. She emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and community well-being. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and comprehensive safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Francis Blake, an individual, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards for public health and the environment. He contends the science is premature and the current draft fails to protect Texas communities and businesses. Blake calls for numerous measures including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions such as the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale.
AI-generated summary:
Pamela Meyer, an individual citizen, opposes the proposed rule for land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and the 30-day comment period is inadequate. Meyer lists numerous required safeguards, including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access to ensure accountability. She requests an extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions such as the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.
AI-generated summary:
Thomas Demore supports the concept of produced water land application only with robust safeguards and opposes the current draft as insufficient. He raises concerns about protecting water and soil for agriculture and communities, and lists numerous required safeguards including continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He argues the rule is premature because the science is lacking and permitting should be high-bar. He requests a 30-day comment extension and public hearings in impacted communities.
AI-generated summary:
Michael Solis opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. He emphasizes the need for clean water for farming and livestock and criticizes the lack of a robust regulatory framework. Solis requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in affected regions. He also demands multiple safeguards including permitting transparency, stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public access to data.
AI-generated summary:
Adrienne Lusk opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the draft rules lack adequate safeguards, including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access, and that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not yet exist. Lusk emphasizes that Texas communities and industries depend on clean water and that the current framework fails to ensure safety or public trust. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin, and calls for a comprehensive set of protective measures in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Charlie Burton opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that the draft rules lack a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, communities, and the environment. He contends that Texas law limits operator liability, making robust standards essential, and that the current 30-day comment period is too short for thorough review. He lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, uniform minimum standards, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking, and asserts that the rulemaking is premature due to insufficient science. Charlie requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, schedule public hearings in affected regions, and strengthen the rule to ensure rigorous, independent science and high barriers to permits.
AI-generated summary:
An individual commenter, Glenn Glenn, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards for public health, agriculture, and the environment. They contend that the rule is premature because the necessary science does not exist and that the existing draft does not provide a robust regulatory framework. They list numerous required elements, including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. The commenter requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and scheduling of public hearings in impacted communities across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Amber Abascal, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule as insufficient and requests it be strengthened with extensive safeguards. She argues that the current rules do not adequately protect public health, water quality, and agricultural livelihoods. She calls for uniform minimum standards, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access among other measures. Abascal requests TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in impacted communities.
AI-generated summary:
Doreen Smithwick supports the land application of produced water only with extensive additional safeguards, arguing the current draft rule is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture, livestock, and community well-being, and criticizes the rule for lacking transparency, strict limits, and continuous monitoring. She also calls for the rule to be based on rigorous independent science rather than limited industry data, and notes that the comment period and public hearing process are inadequate. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and a comprehensive set of regulatory requirements including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Wayne Stalsworth opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that the current draft lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health and the environment. Stalsworth emphasizes the importance of clean water for Texas communities, agriculture, and livestock. The comment requests an extension of the comment period by 30 days and public hearings in impacted regions such as the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale. Stalsworth urges TCEQ to include stronger protections such as permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access.
AI-generated summary:
Sharon Ivory, a Texas resident, opposes the current draft rule on land application of produced water as insufficient to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. She argues the rule lacks a formal permitting process, strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She also criticizes the 30-day comment period and single public hearing as inadequate for meaningful public input from affected communities. She requests an extended comment period, additional public hearings in impacted areas, and a rule based on rigorous independent science with high permitting barriers.
AI-generated summary:
Al Lopez opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment, particularly for agricultural communities. He argues the rule lacks adequate safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. He calls the rulemaking premature due to insufficient science and requests an extended comment period and multiple public hearings in affected regions. He demands that final rules include robust permitting transparency, uniform minimum standards, and full public access to data.
AI-generated summary:
Gregory Anderson opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently drafted. He argues that the rule lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, the environment, and agricultural livelihoods, including inadequate contaminant limits, testing, and transparency. He asserts that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist and that the 30-day comment period is too short. He requests TCEQ extend the comment period, hold public hearings in impacted areas, and incorporate numerous specific protections such as permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits.
AI-generated summary:
Barbara Burton, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient protections for public health and the environment. She emphasizes that the current draft does not provide a robust regulatory framework and that the science is not yet adequate to proceed safely. She calls for a range of safeguards including permitting transparency, continuous monitoring, independent testing, and strict contaminant limits on toxins like PFAS and radionuclides. Burton requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in oil-and-gas-producing regions to ensure community input.
AI-generated summary:
Lyndsi Lambert supports the concept of land application of treated produced water but insists that the draft rules are insufficient and must include comprehensive safeguards to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the rules must ensure permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access, among other measures. She emphasizes that the science is not yet complete and that the rulemaking is premature without rigorous independent studies. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin to allow for broader community input.
AI-generated summary:
Juvencia Donias opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not adequately protect public health and the environment. She states that the draft rules lack sufficient regulatory framework, are premature due to insufficient science, and provide only 30 days for comment. She emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture, livestock, and community well-being. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected areas, and specific safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Gary O'Connor, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as written, arguing it fails to protect public health and the environment. He emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and community well-being, and criticizes the draft rules for lacking sufficient regulatory safeguards. He calls for specific measures including permitting transparency, stricter contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He requests an extension of the comment period by 30 days and additional public hearings in impacted regions such as the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.
AI-generated summary:
Linda Whittredge opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health and the environment. She contends that the draft rules fail to include mandatory contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access, and that the science to support the rule is premature. She also criticizes the 30-day comment period and single public hearing as inadequate for meaningful community input. Whittredge requests an extended comment period, multiple hearings in oil-producing regions, and a stronger regulatory framework with strict safeguards before any permits are granted.
AI-generated summary:
Laura Long opposes the current draft rules and advocates for significant changes to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the rules lack sufficient safeguards, such as proper permitting transparency, setback distances, contaminant limits, and independent testing. She also contends that the rulemaking is premature because independent science does not yet exist. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted communities, and the inclusion of numerous specific safeguards in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Commission Shift, an advocacy organization, opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to safeguard agricultural resources and public health, citing concerns about toxic substance accumulation and unproven technology. They request a 30-day extension of the comment period to prepare detailed feedback. Additionally, they ask TCEQ to conduct in-person hearings in vulnerable communities near the Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, and East Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Hanna Mitchell of Earthworks opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, citing concerns about public health and environmental risks from unknown chemicals and unproven technologies. She argues that the rule could allow millions of barrels of produced water to be applied to land daily without adequate safeguards. Earthworks urges the commission to proceed with more meaningful public engagement opportunities. They request a 30-day extension to the comment period, additional hearings in the Eagle Ford and Permian Basin regions, and virtual components for those hearings.
AI-generated summary:
Sarah Elkins, an individual commenter, opposes the rule allowing land application of produced water. She argues that toxic wastewater should not be allowed into rivers, creeks, lakes, or onto farmland. She invokes the 'Don't Mess with Texas' slogan and emphasizes the need to protect natural resources from oil and gas companies. She asks TCEQ to reject the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Vicki Wilson, a 50-year energy industry veteran, opposes the proposed rule allowing land application of produced water. She argues it would pollute farmland and rivers, calling such pollution inexcusable. She suggests an alternative: using the treated water for data centers instead. Wilson asks TCEQ to keep produced water off agricultural land and out of rivers.
AI-generated summary:
Sharon Cozort opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water, citing potential long-term agricultural and environmental damage. She requests an extended comment period with hearings in affected regions. She calls for real setbacks from public water sources and sensitive locations, scaled to documented spill distances. She also demands independent testing for contaminants like heavy metals, radium, PFAS, and industrial solvents, and full transparency on chemical contents, volumes, testing data, and scientific basis.
AI-generated summary:
Cara dos Santos-Becker opposes the proposed rule allowing land application of produced water under SB 1145. She argues that the water is contaminated with solvents, chemicals, salts, and metals, and fears it will enter the water cycle without proper oversight. She raises concerns about its application near neighborhoods, schools, and communities, potentially harming future generations. She asks TCEQ to consider all aspects of the bill and reject the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Hayley Peterson opposes the proposed rule and emphasizes that companies should be held accountable for the waste they create.
AI-generated summary:
David Olivares opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water. He argues that drinking water and farmland should not be negatively impacted. He calls the rule a threat to public health and the environment. Olivares urges TCEQ to vote no and reject the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Terry Sailer opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. He argues it lacks sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. He lists numerous required safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in affected communities.
AI-generated summary:
Allene Helmick opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written, arguing it fails to provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, the environment, and Texas agriculture. She lists numerous required safeguards including stricter setback distances, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. She also requests that the public comment period be extended by 30 days and that public hearings be held in impacted communities across the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. Helmick emphasizes that the rulemaking is premature because the science does not exist, and she urges TCEQ to base final rules on rigorous, independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Emily Lipe, a farmer, opposes the proposed land application rule as currently written. She argues that the rule lacks sufficient protections for clean water, soil, and public health, and that the science on produced water safety is insufficient. She calls for numerous safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. Lipe requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and a high regulatory bar for permits.
AI-generated summary:
Don McCown, a Permian Basin mineral owner, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently drafted. He argues that the rule lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, water quality, and the agricultural industry, and that it is premature because the necessary science does not exist. He calls for numerous specific requirements including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits for heavy metals and PFAS, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in affected regions, and revise the rule to include the listed protections.
AI-generated summary:
Jennifer Murphy opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She raises concerns about liability limitations, insufficient public input, and the lack of a robust scientific basis. She lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted communities, and that the final rule include high barriers to permitting.
AI-generated summary:
James Goff, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient protections for public health and the environment. He raises concerns about an inadequate 30-day comment period, lack of public hearings in affected regions, and the need for strict safeguards including contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and transparency. He emphasizes the risks to agriculture, livestock, and community water supplies, and asserts that the rule is premature because the necessary science is not yet established. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin, and the inclusion of comprehensive protective measures in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Anthony McCradic opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, stating it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health and the environment. He emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture, livestock, and community wellbeing, and argues the science is not yet adequate to support the rule. He lists numerous requirements including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous 24/7 monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.
AI-generated summary:
Georgia Couch, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently drafted. She argues the rule lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, water quality, and agricultural communities. She calls for permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. Couch requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions before the rule is finalized.
AI-generated summary:
Adam Roberts, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing the current draft is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He emphasizes risks to clean water, soil, crops, and livestock, and criticizes the 30-day comment period and single public hearing as inadequate. Roberts requests an extension of the comment period and public hearings in oil and gas regions, and outlines extensive required safeguards including transparency, testing, and monitoring. He states that the rulemaking is premature due to lack of scientific evidence and calls for independent science to inform the standards.
AI-generated summary:
Chris DiGiulio opposes the current draft rule but supports land application of produced water only if strong safeguards are in place. He argues the rule is insufficient to protect public health and the environment, citing concerns about permitting transparency, contaminant limits, and testing requirements. He emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and community well-being. DiGiulio requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted areas, and multiple specific rule improvements including continuous monitoring and independent audits.
AI-generated summary:
Richard Wait opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health and the environment. He raises concerns about contamination of water, soil, crops, and livestock, and criticizes the lack of science supporting the rule. He states that the 30-day comment period is too short and that only one public hearing is inadequate. Wait requests TCEQ extend the comment period, hold hearings in impacted regions, and adopt comprehensive protective measures including transparency, strict limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits.
AI-generated summary:
Mari Hanley opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that it does not provide sufficient protections for public health and the environment. She states that the rule is premature because the science does not exist to support it, and that it fails to include essential safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She emphasizes that the current 30-day comment period is too short and that a single public hearing in Austin is inadequate to hear from affected communities. She requests that the TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, schedule public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin, and adopt comprehensive regulatory protections before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Judith Zwarun, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the draft rules lack a sufficient regulatory framework and that the science is premature, so barriers to permits should be high. She lists numerous required safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Lauren Tatarsky, an inheritor of oil and gas mineral rights, conditionally supports the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water but argues the current draft is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She raises concerns about permitting transparency, contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. Tatarsky contends the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science is lacking and calls for high permit barriers and rigorous testing. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the incorporation of numerous specific safeguards into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Mikel Morris, a Texas resident and likely rancher or farmer, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written. He argues the rule lacks a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, water quality, and agricultural industries, and that it is premature because the necessary science does not exist. He raises concerns about contaminants like heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and calls for requirements such as continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in affected regions, and incorporate a list of specific safeguards including stricter setbacks, comprehensive testing, and accountability measures.
AI-generated summary:
Daniel Dean, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule as drafted, arguing it does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. He highlights that Texas law limits operator liability, making robust standards essential, and states that current rules lack safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and public transparency. He also criticizes the 30-day comment period and single public hearing as inadequate for community input. Dean requests an extension of the comment period, additional hearings in affected regions, and a series of specific regulatory improvements before any final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Lisa Brenskelle opposes the proposed rule for land application of treated produced water, citing insufficient safeguards for public health and the environment. She argues that the rule lacks essential protections such as stricter setback distances, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and limits on toxins like heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. She requests an extended comment period and public hearings in affected regions, and lists numerous specific requirements for a strong regulatory framework. She states that the rulemaking is premature due to insufficient science and calls for high barriers to permitting.
AI-generated summary:
Gerardo Marin, an individual, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient protections for public health and the environment. He contends that the rule fails to include necessary safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and data transparency. Marin also asserts that the rulemaking is premature because the supporting science does not exist. He requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the incorporation of numerous protective measures before any permits are granted.
AI-generated summary:
J. De supports the proposed land application rule only with significant additional safeguards. They argue the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, citing concerns about contaminants like PFAS, heavy metals, and radionuclides. De emphasizes the need for rigorous science, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. They request a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions, along with specific regulatory improvements such as stricter setback distances and mandatory contaminant limits.
AI-generated summary:
Raymond Dougherty opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. He argues that the rule does not provide sufficient protection for public health and the environment, citing concerns about water quality, soil safety, and lack of scientific basis. He lists numerous required safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and significant strengthening of the rule's provisions.
AI-generated summary:
Giana Williams, a Texas resident, expresses conditional support for the proposed land-application rule, insisting that it must include strong safeguards to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the current draft is insufficient and premature, lacking adequate limits on heavy metals, PFAS, radionuclides, and mechanisms for transparency and accountability. She emphasizes that without clean water, agriculture and community health are at risk, and that operators should face a high bar for permits. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and that the final rule incorporate her listed conditions including continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data.
AI-generated summary:
LaQuisha Rogers, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. She argues the rule fails to provide sufficient protections for public health, water quality, and agriculture, and that the 30-day comment period and single hearing are inadequate. She emphasizes the need for robust safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She requests an extension of the comment period by 30 days and additional public hearings in impacted communities, and urges TCEQ to base the rule on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Susan DeRammelaere, an individual citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is premature and insufficient. She states the draft rules lack a sufficient regulatory framework to protect communities and that the science to support the rule does not exist. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions such as the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale. She calls for numerous safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access.
AI-generated summary:
Janette Zercher opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it fails to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. She contends the rule lacks adequate safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. Zercher requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions like the Permian Basin. She demands the final rule include robust permitting transparency, mandatory testing disclosure, and baseline soil and crop testing to ensure safety and accountability.
AI-generated summary:
Edward Main, an individual commenter, supports the land application of treated produced water only if the TCEQ imposes robust safeguards. He argues the current draft rule is inadequate and premature because the science on safety is lacking. Key concerns include insufficient testing, transparency, and public involvement, with specific demands for continuous monitoring, independent audits, and strict contaminant limits. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in oil-producing regions, and urges TCEQ to base final rules on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Jesus Paz opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He raises concerns about permitting transparency, contaminant limits for toxins like heavy metals and PFAS, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. He also notes that 30 days is too short for comprehensive comments and that the rulemaking lacks rigorous independent science. Paz requests TCEQ extend the comment period, hold public hearings in oil-and-gas-impacted regions, and incorporate strong safeguards before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Tai Moran opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, water, soil, and agriculture. They contend the rule is premature due to insufficient science and fails to include critical protections such as transparency, strict contaminant limits, and continuous monitoring. Moran emphasizes that without clean water, communities cannot thrive, and the current draft does not provide a robust regulatory framework. They request an extended comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the inclusion of specific protective measures before the rule is finalized.
AI-generated summary:
Joel Quaintance opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not provide a sufficient framework to protect public health and the environment. He raises concerns about potential contamination of water and soil, particularly from heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and emphasizes the need for robust permitting, testing, and monitoring. Quaintance asserts that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and he calls for high barriers to permits. He requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and specific safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Darla Logan, an individual commenter, supports the proposed rule only if extensive safeguards are included, and requests an extended comment period and public hearings. She argues that the current draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, the environment, and agricultural industries. She lists numerous required safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and transparency. She requests TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in impacted regions.
AI-generated summary:
Jack Kirfman opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and community well-being, and criticizes the limited 30-day comment period and single hearing. He calls for numerous safeguards including stricter setbacks, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He requests an extended comment period, additional public hearings in affected regions, and that the final rule be based on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Margaret Duran opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing that the draft rules are insufficient and premature. She emphasizes that without clean water, agricultural livelihoods and community health are at risk. She calls for numerous safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions.
AI-generated summary:
Rebecca Pederson, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the rule lacks essential safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public transparency, and that the science is insufficient to justify the rulemaking. She criticizes the 30-day comment period and single hearing as inadequate for meaningful public input. Pederson requests an extended comment period, additional public hearings in oil-producing regions, and a stronger regulatory framework with detailed protections.
AI-generated summary:
James OFlaherty opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient protections and is premature due to insufficient science. He emphasizes the critical importance of clean water for communities, agriculture, and livestock, and warns that current draft rules fail to ensure safety. He lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Stephanie Coates opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water and requests an extended comment period and stronger safeguards. She argues that the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment, particularly for communities, agriculture, and livestock. She lists numerous required protections, including stricter setback distances, contaminant limits on heavy metals and PFAS, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She asks TCEQ to extend the comment period, hold hearings in affected areas, and adopt a rule based on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Larry Hosek, an individual farmer, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He raises concerns about water contamination, soil safety, and impacts on agriculture and livestock. He asserts the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist. He requests the comment period be extended by 30 days, public hearings be held in affected regions, and the final rule include strict safeguards such as permitting transparency, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Noel Jennings opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it fails to protect public health and the environment. They contend the rule lacks essential safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data. Jennings also requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in affected communities like the Permian Basin. They urge TCEQ to adopt rigorous, science-based requirements and high barriers to permitting before allowing land application.
AI-generated summary:
Mary Schmidt opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water. She argues that the rule lacks sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment, especially given the limited liability for operators. She raises concerns about permitting transparency, contaminant limits, monitoring, and independent oversight, and notes that the science is not yet established. She requests TCEQ extend the comment period, hold public hearings in impacted regions, and incorporate numerous specific safeguards including strict limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits.
AI-generated summary:
Patricia Whiteside opposes the current draft of the proposed rule on land application of produced water, stating it does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and that barriers to permitting should be high. She lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. Whiteside requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected communities, and urges TCEQ to base the final rule on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Tom Wilbanks opposes the proposed rule as insufficient and premature. He argues that the rule lacks adequate safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, and continuous monitoring. He notes that the science on produced water land application is incomplete and that the comment period is too short. He requests an extension of the comment period, additional public hearings, and incorporation of numerous protective measures into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Judith Zwarun opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not provide sufficient protection for public health, the environment, or agriculture. She contends the rule is premature because the science is lacking and the draft lacks critical safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She emphasizes that Texas communities depend on clean water for farming and livestock, and that the current proposal would undermine trust and safety. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and a comprehensive set of regulatory measures including permitting transparency, uniform standards, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Kelly Davis, likely a rancher or farmer, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. She argues that the rule lacks sufficient safeguards to protect water, soil, and public health, and that the science is incomplete. She lists numerous required provisions including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and that the rule be strengthened with rigorous science.
AI-generated summary:
Kelly Davis, a Texas resident, comments on the proposed rule for land application of treated produced water, expressing conditional support if strict safeguards are included. They argue that the current draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, agriculture, and communities, and that the comment period is too short. They request an extended comment period and public hearings in impacted areas, and list numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data. They ask TCEQ to update the docket and ensure the final rule is based on rigorous science.
AI-generated summary:
Alan McRoberts opposes the draft rule as written and requests substantial safeguards. He argues that the rule lacks sufficient protections for public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that the science is incomplete. He calls for stricter standards including continuous monitoring, independent audits, and full data transparency. He asks TCEQ to extend the comment period and hold additional public hearings in affected regions.
AI-generated summary:
Christine Guldi opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it lacks a sufficient regulatory framework to protect communities and the environment. She states that the rule is premature because the science does not exist to support it, and that the 30-day comment period is inadequate. Guldi requests an extended comment period and public hearings in impacted areas, and lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. She asks TCEQ to ensure high barriers to permits and base the rule on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
DeDe Murton opposes the proposed rule, stating it does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. They argue that the comment period is too short and that communities need more input. They list required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data, and bioaccumulation tracking. They request an extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and adoption of robust safeguards before any rule is finalized.
AI-generated summary:
Judy Weinburger opposes the current draft rule but supports land application of treated produced water if comprehensive safeguards are adopted. She argues that the draft fails to protect public health, agricultural industries, and the environment, citing needs for transparency, monitoring, and accountability. She calls for uniform minimum standards, strict contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, and open data access. She also requests an extended comment period and public hearings in affected regions.
AI-generated summary:
John Hartzler, a Texas resident concerned about water quality, supports land application of treated produced water only with strict protections. He argues the draft rules are insufficient and lack transparency, citing risks to agriculture, livestock, and community health. He requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and a comprehensive set of safeguards including pretreatment, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. Hartzler urges TCEQ to base rules on independent science and ensure high permitting barriers.
AI-generated summary:
Ann Perez, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. She argues that the rule fails to provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, water quality, and agricultural livelihoods, and that the science is incomplete. She lists numerous required safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Grace Holman, a Texas resident concerned about water quality, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently drafted. She argues the rules lack sufficient safeguards to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, and notes that the science on safety is incomplete. Holman lists specific deficiencies including lax permitting, insufficient monitoring, and lack of contaminant limits for toxins like PFAS and radionuclides. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and a rule with mandatory protective standards based on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Ron Barrs, a Texas landowner concerned about agricultural impacts, comments that the proposed rule for land application of treated produced water is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He lists multiple deficiencies, including lack of permitting transparency, inadequate setback distances, and weak contaminant limits. He requests an extension of the comment period by 30 days and additional public hearings in affected regions. Barrs calls for the rule to include strict safeguards such as continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access before allowing land application.
AI-generated summary:
Stacey Francis opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. She argues the draft rules do not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities, agriculture, and environment. She emphasizes the need for rigorous safeguards including permitting transparency, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions, and urges the TCEQ to base the rules on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Pamela Hamilton, an individual commenter, supports the concept of treated produced water land application only with strong regulatory safeguards, but finds the current draft rule insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the rule lacks adequate permitting transparency, design safeguards, contaminant limits, and testing requirements. She emphasizes the need for continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access to ensure accountability and prevent bioaccumulation of toxins in the food chain. Hamilton requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions, and urges TCEQ to base the final rule on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Gerald Thiel, a Texas resident, conditionally supports the proposed rule on land application of produced water but argues it is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He emphasizes the need to safeguard water, soil, and agriculture, and lists several deficiencies in the draft rule, including lack of permitting transparency, weak contaminant limits, and insufficient monitoring. Thiel requests numerous safeguards, such as strict limits on heavy metals and PFAS, continuous 24/7 testing, independent audits, and public access to data. He also asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in oil- and gas-producing regions.
AI-generated summary:
Kelly Crunk, a retired environmental scientist and former TCEQ employee, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written. She argues that the rule lacks a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that the science behind it is incomplete. Crunk lists numerous required safeguards, including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions, and urges TCEQ to require high barriers for permits and robust testing.
AI-generated summary:
Erin Hazel, an individual commenter, supports the concept of produced water land application only if the rule includes robust safeguards to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the current draft lacks sufficient protective measures, such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits, and that the rulemaking is premature given scientific gaps. Hazel emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture, livestock, and community well-being. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and the adoption of a comprehensive set of protective standards before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Mitchell Kobus, an individual, opposes the current proposed rule but supports land application of produced water if extensive safeguards are implemented. He argues the draft rule is insufficient to protect clean water essential for agriculture and community health, citing risks to crops, livestock, and public health. Kobus lists numerous required safeguards including stricter permitting, contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected areas, and a rule based on rigorous independent science rather than industry data.
AI-generated summary:
Elaine Robbins opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect communities and is premature due to lack of science. She emphasizes the need for clean water for agriculture and community health. Robbins requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions. She demands comprehensive safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Dian Wright, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written. She argues the rule lacks sufficient protections for public health and the environment, and 30 days is insufficient for public comment. She raises concerns about permitting transparency, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and public data access. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and incorporation of numerous specific safeguards before the rule is finalized.
AI-generated summary:
Thomas Windberg opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He argues that the rule lacks permitting transparency, adequate safeguards, and robust contaminant limits, and that 30 days is too short for comprehensive comments. He emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and communities. He requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and numerous specific regulatory improvements.
AI-generated summary:
Sandra Lynn, an individual citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written, arguing it fails to provide sufficient protection for public health and the environment. She highlights the importance of clean water for agriculture and community well-being. Lynn requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and calls for public hearings in impacted regions such as the Permian Basin. She also demands numerous safeguards, including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access, and urges that the rule be based on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Patrick Gossett opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health and the environment. He believes the rule is premature because the science does not exist to ensure safety, and the 30-day comment period is too short for comprehensive analysis. Gossett requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and numerous regulatory requirements including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He asks TCEQ to reject the current rule and instead implement a high-bar permitting process with rigorous testing and community protections.
AI-generated summary:
Lauren Haby supports land application of produced water only if the rule includes many strict safeguards, and she finds the current draft insufficient. She requests an extended 30-day comment period and additional public hearings in impacted areas to allow more comprehensive community input. She emphasizes the need for permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, mandatory contaminant limits for heavy metals and PFAS, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She also calls for baseline soil and crop testing to track bioaccumulation and urges TCEQ to base the rule on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Dale Ryder opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently drafted. They argue the rule lacks sufficient protections for public health and the environment, including inadequate contaminant limits, monitoring, and transparency. They emphasize the importance of clean water for agriculture and community wellbeing, and state that the science is not yet sufficient to justify the rule. Ryder requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and a comprehensive set of safeguards including strict permitting, continuous testing, and independent audits before any land application proceeds.
AI-generated summary:
Dale Ryder opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, calling it premature and insufficient to protect Texas communities and agriculture. He requests a 30-day extension of the public comment period and public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. Ryder demands that the final rule include strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, as well as continuous monitoring, independent auditing, and open data access. He argues that the rule must be based on rigorous independent science and that barriers to obtaining a permit should be high.
AI-generated summary:
Belinda Howell, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, stating the draft rules lack sufficient safeguards to protect Texas communities, agriculture, and the environment. She argues the rulemaking is premature because the science is incomplete and the 30-day comment period is too short for thorough review. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and numerous regulatory improvements including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. Howell asks TCEQ to ensure the final rule is based on rigorous independent science and to adopt high barriers for permitting.
AI-generated summary:
Linda Thompson opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, stating the current draft does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the rulemaking is premature because the science does not exist, and that barriers to obtaining a permit should be high. She lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in impacted communities across the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.
AI-generated summary:
Stephen Crane supports land application of treated produced water only if extensive conditions are met, arguing the current draft rule is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He criticizes the 30-day comment period and single public hearing as inadequate for such a consequential rule. He lists specific required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. He requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in oil-and-gas-producing regions, and adoption of his listed conditions before the rule is finalized.
AI-generated summary:
Sara Irina opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water, calling it premature and insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the current draft lacks robust safeguards, including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She emphasizes that clean water is essential for agriculture and community well-being, and that the science base is inadequate. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and inclusion of numerous specific protections in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Mary Celaya, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule as currently written, arguing it does not provide sufficient protection for Texas communities, agriculture, and the environment. She states that the rule is premature because the necessary science does not yet exist and that the 30-day comment period is inadequate for thorough review. She requests an extended comment period and public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin to ensure community input. Celaya provides a detailed list of required safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and full public access to testing data.
AI-generated summary:
Mary Celaya is an individual concerned about the proposed rule on land application of produced water. She argues the draft rules do not adequately protect public health, agriculture, or the environment, and that the science is not yet sufficient to proceed. She emphasizes the need for strict safeguards including contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and a comprehensive set of protective measures in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Jay Gerring opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, stating that the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. They argue that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and that current safeguards are inadequate. Their concerns include permitting transparency, contaminants like PFAS and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. They request an extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and the inclusion of specific protective measures before any rule is finalized.
AI-generated summary:
Samuel Evans opposes the rule and asks TCEQ to reject it.
AI-generated summary:
Sarah K opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, calling it 'absolutely heinous' with devastating health, environmental, and economic impacts. She accuses TCEQ of bowing to the oil and gas lobby and demands they do the right thing. No evidence is cited. She asks TCEQ to reject the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Miriam Cobb, a private citizen, expresses concern about industrial chemical use and inadequate oversight. She references arsenic contamination from Tesla's lithium operation as an example of regulatory gaps. She urges TCEQ to implement guard rails to protect agriculture and residents. She recommends using the Good Jobs Violation Tracker to monitor compliance.
AI-generated summary:
Windie Shelton, a resident concerned about Cedar Creek Lake's water quality, requests a pause on the proposed rule to allow time for impact evaluation and consideration of alternatives.
AI-generated summary:
Jeremy Smith opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. He points out that the 30-day comment period is too short and requests a 30-day extension, along with public hearings in affected regions like the Permian Basin. Smith lists numerous required protections, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He concludes that the rulemaking is premature because the science is incomplete, and urges TCEQ to set high barriers for permits and ensure rigorous testing.
AI-generated summary:
Tommy King opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it is insufficient and premature. He asserts the draft rules lack adequate protections for public health and the environment, and the science to support safe land application does not exist. He raises concerns about contamination from heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and potential impacts on agriculture and the food chain. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in oil-producing regions, and inclusion of specific safeguards including permitting transparency, stricter setbacks, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access.
AI-generated summary:
James Lentz, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule for land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards for public health and the environment. He criticizes the 30-day comment period as inadequate and the single hearing in Austin as insufficient, requesting an extension and hearings in impacted regions. Lentz lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, uniform minimum standards, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He concludes that the rulemaking is premature because the science does not exist, and the barriers to obtaining permits should be high.
AI-generated summary:
Beth Bontley opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the 30-day comment period is too short and that there has been insufficient public involvement. She lists numerous specific safeguards that must be included in the final rule, such as permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She requests an extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected communities.
AI-generated summary:
Sid Parsons, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule as insufficient and requests major safeguards. He argues the rule does not protect public health, agriculture, or the environment, and that the science is not yet available. He lists numerous required protections including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions.
AI-generated summary:
Amelia Looper opposes the proposed rule, stating it fails to provide a sufficient regulatory framework. She argues that the science is lacking and the rulemaking is premature, risking public health, agriculture, and the environment. She emphasizes the need for robust safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. Looper requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected communities, and urges TCEQ to strengthen the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Helena Dobay, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not sufficiently protect public health and the environment. She raises concerns about soil and water contamination, agricultural impacts, and the presence of toxins like PFAS and heavy metals. She criticizes the lack of permitting transparency, insufficient public input opportunities, and inadequate testing requirements. She requests TCEQ extend the comment period, hold more public hearings, and include strict safeguards such as continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access.
AI-generated summary:
Margaret Walden opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently drafted. She argues the rule lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, communities, and agricultural industries, citing concerns about contaminants like PFAS, heavy metals, and radionuclides. She emphasizes the need for permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access, and considers the rulemaking premature due to insufficient science. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and a stronger regulatory framework with high barriers for permits.
AI-generated summary:
Norma Feagin, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, stating it lacks sufficient regulatory framework and is premature given the absence of scientific data. She argues that without clean water, agriculture and livestock will suffer, and communities cannot attract investment. Feagin demands numerous specific safeguards, including stricter setbacks, continuous testing, independent audits, and public data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in affected regions.
AI-generated summary:
Nancy Saibara, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water as currently written, arguing it lacks sufficient protections for public health and the environment. She emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and community well-being. She lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, mandatory contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, and open data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions, and urges TCEQ to base the rule on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Blayne Stansberry opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written, arguing it lacks sufficient protections for public health and the environment. They emphasize that Texas communities and agriculture depend on clean water, and the current 30-day comment period is insufficient to address all deficiencies. Stansberry requests a 30-day extension and public hearings in affected regions, and lists numerous required safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. They conclude that the rulemaking is premature due to a lack of scientific evidence and urges TCEQ to set high permitting barriers and rigorous testing requirements.
AI-generated summary:
Troy Fuller opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water, arguing it poses risks similar to biosolids, particularly from PFAS, and presents additional concerns like radioactive materials. He notes that produced water from deep geological formations can contain naturally occurring radioactive materials that could enter the food chain and harm human health. He also cites studies showing significant levels of PFAS chemicals in produced water, which are persistent and linked to serious health issues. Fuller concludes that the rule prioritizes financial interests over public health and safety, though he does not explicitly request a specific action.
AI-generated summary:
Mark Dirnberger opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. He raises concerns about the insufficient 30-day comment period, lack of public hearings in impacted communities, and the need for robust safeguards including permitting transparency, setback distances, strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He emphasizes that the rulemaking is premature because the underlying science is lacking, and that Texas law's liability protections for operators necessitate high standards. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin, and the inclusion of numerous specific provisions to ensure safety and accountability.
AI-generated summary:
Sonya Loyer, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it fails to provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She contends that the science is not yet established, making the rulemaking premature, and that the current draft lacks critical safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and data transparency. She highlights risks to water, soils, crops, and livestock, and emphasizes the need for community involvement and a robust permitting process. Loyer requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in major oil and gas basins, and the inclusion of comprehensive protective measures in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Blaire McPherson opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, agricultural industries, and the environment. They assert that the science on produced water land application is lacking and that the rulemaking is premature. McPherson lists numerous required safeguards, including stricter contaminant limits, continuous 24/7 testing, independent audits, public data access, and baseline soil and crop testing. They request a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and that the rule be based on independent science with high barriers to permits.
AI-generated summary:
Meredith Clarage, an individual commenter, conditionally supports the proposed rule on land application of produced water, but argues the draft rules are currently insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes that the rulemaking is premature because the science does not exist and that barriers to obtaining a permit should be high. She requests numerous specific safeguards, including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in impacted communities across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Irene Smith, an individual, supports the land application of produced water only with strict regulatory safeguards. She argues that the current draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that the science is incomplete. She emphasizes the need for permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, and public data access. She requests an extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted communities.
AI-generated summary:
Julian Rodriguez opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, stating that the current draft does not provide sufficient protection for public health and the environment. He raises concerns about potential contamination of water and soil, including from heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and emphasizes the need for robust testing and transparency. He argues that the science is not yet fully developed and that the rulemaking is premature. Rodriguez requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, additional public hearings in affected regions, and numerous specific safeguards including continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access.
AI-generated summary:
Micki McLaughlin opposes the draft rule as insufficient and requests stronger safeguards and an extended comment period. She argues that the rule must protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that Texas law limits operator liability, making robust standards essential. She lists numerous required safeguards including stricter setback distances, contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, and public data access. She requests TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in impacted regions.
AI-generated summary:
Victoria Shih opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not provide sufficient protection for public health and the environment. She asserts that the rule is premature because the science to support it does not exist, and that a 30-day comment period is inadequate. Shih raises concerns about contaminants such as heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and insists on safeguards including strict limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She requests TCEQ to extend the comment period, hold hearings in affected regions, and incorporate comprehensive protective measures before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Steve Conroy, an individual and former oilfield worker, opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water. He argues that fracking and drilling water contains harmful chemicals that could contaminate his land, crops, and water wells. He claims to have firsthand knowledge of these chemicals from his industry experience. Conroy requests that TCEQ reject the rule and preserve landowners' right to sue operators for damages.
AI-generated summary:
Luanne Langley, an individual commenter, strongly opposes the proposed rule allowing land application of produced water from oil and gas operations. She argues that this practice should not be permitted anywhere due to the presence of toxic chemicals such as PFAS. She also raises concerns about data centers being built on land previously treated with biosolids. She requests that TCEQ reject the rule and not allow such applications.
AI-generated summary:
Stephanie Kasper, a south Texas farmer, expresses concern that the proposed regulations may not adequately protect public health and agricultural safety. She highlights the large volume of produced water to be applied daily and the risk of harmful substances accumulating in soil and water. She argues that the 30-day comment period is insufficient for public evaluation. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and in-person hearings in the most impacted regions.
AI-generated summary:
Linda Griffith, representing the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, conditionally supports the rule but argues its current standards are too weak to protect water and food safety. She raises concerns that the proposed rule inappropriately equates produced water with domestic sewage, ignores unique constituents like metals, and lacks pretreatment requirements. She also criticizes the lack of adequate monitoring, insufficient setbacks from water wells, and the failure to prohibit application over sensitive Edwards Aquifer zones. Griffith requests that TCEQ extend the comment period, adopt stricter treatment standards, require larger setbacks, and prohibit land application over the Edwards Aquifer recharge and contributing zones.
AI-generated summary:
Barbara Burton opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, stating it does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities and businesses. She argues that the rule lacks robust standards and that the comment period is too short for thorough analysis. Burton requests an extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted communities across the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. She provides a detailed list of required safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Lourdes Rodriguez opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written, arguing it does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. She lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. Rodriguez states that the rulemaking is premature because the science does not exist and that barriers to obtaining a permit should be high. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted communities, and that the final rule be based on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Nicholas Pence opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water. He argues that the draft rules lack sufficient protections for public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist. He calls for a wide range of safeguards including continuous monitoring, independent audits, contaminant limits, and public data transparency. He requests an extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in affected regions.
AI-generated summary:
Judy Castillo, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written. She argues the rule lacks sufficient protections for public health, water quality, and agriculture, and is premature given insufficient scientific basis. She requests numerous specific safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days and to hold public hearings in impacted regions such as the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.
AI-generated summary:
Cahill Ordones opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently drafted, arguing it is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. They raise numerous concerns including lack of permitting transparency, inadequate setbacks, insufficient contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and absence of continuous monitoring and independent audits. They also note that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist to ensure safety. Ordones requests that TCEQ extend the comment period, hold public hearings in affected communities, and incorporate a comprehensive set of safeguards before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Norma Feagin, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it is premature and does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and community well-being and lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, mandatory continuous testing, and independent audits. She also notes that the current 30-day comment period and single public hearing are insufficient. She requests an extension of the comment period, additional public hearings in impacted regions, and stronger rule enforcement based on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Anittra Adkison, a private citizen, opposes the current draft rule on land application of produced water but supports the concept with significant safeguards. She argues the draft rule is insufficient to protect public health, the environment, and agricultural industries, and that a 30-day comment period is inadequate for thorough review. She emphasizes the need for permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She requests the TCEQ extend the comment period, hold public hearings in impacted areas, and incorporate the listed safeguards into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Cj Howes, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule as currently written and requests significant safeguards before finalization. They argue that the rule lacks sufficient protections for public health, agriculture, and the environment, including inadequate testing and transparency. They specifically call for mandatory contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. Howes requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected communities, and urges TCEQ to base the rule on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Luke Shipp opposes the rule and asks TCEQ to reject it.
AI-generated summary:
Suzanne Bryant opposes the proposed rule and asks TCEQ to reject it.
AI-generated summary:
S. Lynn Carlson, an individual, opposes the rule. They argue that if treated produced water is safe, applicants should be willing to consume it or the food grown with it. This framing implies deep skepticism about the water's safety. They request that TCEQ require applicants to periodically drink the water or eat the resulting agricultural products.
AI-generated summary:
Cahill Anonymous, an individual commenter, argues that the proposed rule for land application of produced water is premature and does not provide sufficient protection for public health, the environment, and agriculture. They emphasize the importance of clean water for farming and livestock and note that operator liability is limited under the rule. The commenter calls for numerous safeguards, including a formal permitting process, stricter setbacks, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. They request an extension of the comment period by 30 days and public hearings in oil-and-gas-producing regions.
AI-generated summary:
Naomi Smith supports the rule only if very strict rules are enacted to remove toxic chemicals and provide continuous monitoring. She expresses concern that without such safeguards, food grown in Texas would be presumed toxic. She warns she will only buy food produced outside the state if her conditions are not met. She requests TCEQ to require stringent treatment and ongoing monitoring.
AI-generated summary:
Dana Ames opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water, arguing it poses risks similar to biosolids, particularly PFAS contamination, along with additional concerns about naturally occurring radioactive materials. She states that these contaminants could enter the food chain through crops and livestock, leading to serious health effects like cancer and reproductive problems. Ames emphasizes that the potential health impacts should not be ignored and criticizes the rule for prioritizing financial interests over public health and safety. She implicitly calls on TCEQ to reject the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Sarah Harsdorff opposes proposals to allow land application of treated produced water, arguing it contains salts, heavy metals, radioactive materials, and undisclosed chemicals like PFAS that threaten soil fertility, crop safety, and drinking water. She contends current treatment technologies are not proven to reliably remove all contaminants, especially persistent PFAS. She expresses concern that applying this water to farmland could contaminate the food supply and that discharging it into waterways threatens aquatic ecosystems. She calls for comprehensive independent studies, full chemical disclosure, and proven treatment standards before any such reuse is permitted, and urges that the rule be rejected until those conditions are met.
AI-generated summary:
Matthew Roppolo, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water on crops. He describes the water as toxic and unsafe for agricultural use. He suggests that produced water could instead be used in data centers after treatment to avoid air pollution from evaporation. He asks TCEQ to stop considering land application on crops.
AI-generated summary:
Sally Beckner supports the proposed rule with conditions, seeing it as a partial solution to water scarcity and overabundance of produced water. She argues that produced water could be treated and used for cooling by data centers and other industries. This would reserve clean water for consumption and irrigation. She endorses the concept but implies it should be limited to non-potable industrial uses.
AI-generated summary:
Julia Mickenberg opposes the proposed rule allowing land application of produced water. She argues that using fracked water on farms is unacceptable without definitive information about the dangers to food grown on that land or the groundwater it will combine with. She expresses concern that harmful chemicals in the water could compromise the food supply and contaminate groundwater. She requests that TCEQ protect Texans from these chemicals and maintain a healthy food supply.
AI-generated summary:
Kellie Chewning, an individual, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, calling it premature and insufficient. She argues the draft rules lack adequate protections for water, soil, and public health, and that the science does not exist to support the rule. She specifically calls for stronger contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in affected regions across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Ernest Edwards asks a question about the proposed rule, inquiring whether produced water can be used for data centers, without expressing a clear stance on the rule itself.
AI-generated summary:
Douglas Long opposes the rule. He argues that without knowing all chemicals used in fracking water, land application will poison people and the environment. He insists that if the information is not available, produced water should be classified as hazardous. He requests a 30-day extension of the public comment period.
AI-generated summary:
Joseph Alexander of Circle Verde Water supports the proposed rule by presenting evidence from their successful operation of a produced water desalination system. He notes that their system produced freshwater that exceeded EPA drinking water standards and was suitable for irrigation. He provides links to videos and a peer-reviewed journal article documenting the chemical and toxicological safety of the treated water. He offers to meet with TCEQ to address any questions about their technology.
AI-generated summary:
Erin Butler, a family member of a mineral rights owner, comments in support of robust standards for land application of produced water but opposes the current draft rules as insufficient. She argues that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist and that the barriers to obtaining a permit should be high. Butler requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and a suite of specific safeguards including contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She emphasizes that clean water is vital for communities, agriculture, and the public trust, and urges TCEQ to base the final rule on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Jacklyn Alford, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written. She argues that the draft rules lack sufficient safeguards to protect water, soil, and agricultural interests, and that the science is not yet established. She emphasizes the need for transparency, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and strict contaminant limits including for PFAS and radionuclides. She requests TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in affected regions, and incorporate her listed conditions into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Sandra Abmayr opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She argues the rule lacks permitting transparency, uniform minimum standards, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data, and bioaccumulation tracking. She states the rulemaking is premature because the science does not exist and the comment period is too short. She requests a 30-day extension, public hearings in impacted regions, and for the final rule to include strong safeguards.
AI-generated summary:
Patricia Lambert expresses conditional support for the proposed rule, emphasizing the need for regular testing and a plan to protect water sources and farmland. She notes that Texas produces the most produced water and requires strong oversight. She criticizes TCEQ's past environmental oversight as too industry-friendly. She requests that produced water be thoroughly tested and that safeguards are implemented.
AI-generated summary:
Herbert Boone, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule as currently drafted due to insufficient safeguards. He argues that the rule must protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, and lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He also contends that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist and that barriers to permits should be high. He requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in impacted regions, and incorporate his recommended safeguards into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Tracy Musgrove opposes the rule as currently written and insists on major safeguards before land application of produced water is allowed. They argue that the rule lacks sufficient protections for public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that the science is insufficient. They call for specific safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public access to data. They request an extended comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and a rule based on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
EC Marullo opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient protections for public health and the environment. They express concerns about contamination of water, soil, and agricultural products, and emphasize that the current science is inadequate. Marullo requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions. They call for strict permitting, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access.
AI-generated summary:
Paul Radde, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, calling it insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He argues that the 30-day comment period is too short and that the rule lacks adequate safeguards, including permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, and limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. He emphasizes the need for continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access, as well as bioaccumulation tracking to protect agriculture. Radde requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and a rule based on rigorous independent science rather than industry data.
AI-generated summary:
Gunnar Schade opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing the current draft does not protect public health and the environment and is premature due to insufficient science. He raises concerns about contamination risks from heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and the need for continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data. He also stresses the importance of soil and crop testing to track bioaccumulation and protect agriculture and livestock. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and that the final rule include multiple stringent safeguards.
AI-generated summary:
Rachel Fickey, a private citizen, opposes the current draft rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes the need for clean water for agriculture and community well-being, and lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and continuous monitoring. She also contends that the rulemaking is premature because the science does not exist to support safe land application. Fickey requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and asks TCEQ to schedule public hearings in impacted regions across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Sarah Jordan-Stout opposes the draft rule as insufficient and requests an extended comment period and stronger protections. She argues that the current rule lacks adequate safeguards for public health and the environment, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She emphasizes the need to protect water quality for agriculture and community wellbeing. She asks TCEQ to extend the comment period, hold public hearings in affected areas, and incorporate a comprehensive list of safeguards before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Samantha Reza argues that the draft rule is insufficient and must be strengthened with numerous safeguards before land application of produced water can proceed. She raises concerns about inadequate protections for water, soil, and public health, citing risks from heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. She calls for rigorous permitting, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She also requests an extended comment period and public hearings in affected regions.
AI-generated summary:
Sandy Hardwick-Pettis, a Texas individual concerned about agriculture and community water safety, opposes the proposed rule as currently written, arguing it lacks sufficient protections. She requests an extended comment period and public hearings in impacted regions. She insists the rule must include strict permitting transparency, contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access with baseline soil and crop testing. She urges TCEQ to ensure the rule is based on rigorous science and to set high barriers for permits.
AI-generated summary:
Nara Wood opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, communities, and agriculture. She expresses concern that the rule does not provide a robust regulatory framework and that the comment period is too short. Wood requests an extension of the comment period by 30 days, public hearings in impacted regions, and a range of protective measures including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She also calls for the rule to be based on independent science and for high barriers to permitting until scientific gaps are filled.
AI-generated summary:
Greg Sells opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written, arguing it does not provide sufficient protection for public health, water, and soil. He emphasizes that the rule is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and he lists numerous specific requirements such as permitting transparency, setback distances, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. He also notes that the 30-day comment period and single public hearing are inadequate for community input. Sells requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in impacted regions across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Marie Hogue opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is insufficient and premature. She states the draft rules do not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities and businesses, and that the science to support such a rule does not yet exist. She raises numerous concerns including permitting transparency, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. She requests that TCEQ extend the public comment period, hold public hearings in impacted regions, and strengthen the rule with specific safeguards and independent science requirements.
AI-generated summary:
Carrie Schweitzer, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently drafted. She argues that the rule lacks sufficient protections for public health and the environment, particularly in areas like contaminant limits, monitoring, and transparency. She emphasizes the importance of clean water for communities, agriculture, and livestock, and notes that the science is insufficient to justify the rule. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and numerous specific safeguards including permitting transparency, continuous testing, and independent audits.
AI-generated summary:
Ross Pumfrey, an individual commenter, supports the rule only with substantial safeguards, arguing that the current draft is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He emphasizes the importance of clean water for communities, agriculture, and livestock, and lists numerous needed protections including stricter setback distances, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He contends that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science is lacking, and that permit barriers should be high. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected areas, and adoption of all the listed safeguards.
AI-generated summary:
Linda Fielder, a private citizen, supports the land application of produced water only if strict conditions are met. She argues that the current draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment, and she lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She emphasizes the need for a paper trail and accountability to ensure operators meet high standards. She requests an extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected communities, and urges TCEQ to adopt a precautionary approach until scientific gaps are filled.
AI-generated summary:
Janet Groth opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She states the rulemaking is premature because the science does not exist and that 30 days is insufficient for comprehensive review. Groth requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and a long list of specific safeguards including permitting transparency, stricter setbacks, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She emphasizes the need for rules based on rigorous independent science rather than limited industry data.
AI-generated summary:
Danielle Greenup opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water, stating that the draft rules do not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities and businesses. She argues that the 30-day comment period is insufficient and requests a 30-day extension, as well as public hearings in impacted regions like the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. Greenup lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, stricter setbacks, mandatory contaminant limits for toxins like PFAS and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She requests that TCEQ strengthen the rule with these protections and ensure the rulemaking is based on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Tom Brandes opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He argues that the draft rules lack adequate safeguards and that the rulemaking is premature because necessary science is not available. He calls for stronger requirements including continuous monitoring, independent audits, strict contaminant limits, and public data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in oil and gas producing regions.
AI-generated summary:
Francine Dellinger opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water and requests a 30-day extension of the comment period. She argues the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that the rulemaking is premature without rigorous science. Dellinger lists numerous required safeguards, including strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous 24/7 testing, independent audits, and open data access. She also requests TCEQ schedule public hearings in impacted regions and ensure rules are based on independent science rather than industry data.
AI-generated summary:
Karen Dittlinger opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that the draft rules do not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She contends that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and that the barriers to obtaining a permit should be high. She lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, uniform minimum standards, strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and baseline soil and crop testing. She requests a 30-day extension of the public comment period and that TCEQ schedule public hearings in impacted communities across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Ellen Custer, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written, stating it fails to adequately protect communities and the environment. She argues that the 30-day comment period is insufficient and that the rules lack necessary safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She emphasizes that clean water is vital for agriculture, livestock, and community health. She requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, schedule public hearings in affected regions, and strengthen the rule with comprehensive protective measures.
AI-generated summary:
Suzanne Livesey, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water as currently drafted, stating it fails to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the rule lacks sufficient regulatory framework, including transparent permitting, uniform standards, and strict contaminant limits. Livesey emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture, livestock, and community well-being, and calls for safeguards such as continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions like the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale.
AI-generated summary:
Paulette Kretlow opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it fails to adequately protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes the importance of clean water for communities, agriculture, and livestock, and lists numerous deficiencies in the draft rules including lack of permitting transparency, insufficient contaminant limits, and inadequate monitoring. She asserts that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary scientific basis is lacking. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and that the final rule include stringent safeguards such as mandatory testing, independent audits, and full data transparency.
AI-generated summary:
Erin Mulholland opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing that it is premature and insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She highlights the need for robust safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She also notes that the science is lacking and that the comment period and public hearing schedule are inadequate. She requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the incorporation of her listed safeguards into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Thomas Moore, an individual, opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He argues that the rule lacks robust safeguards, including permit transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. He emphasizes that the science is incomplete and that the rule is premature. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and that TCEQ hold public hearings in affected regions and incorporate strong protective measures.
AI-generated summary:
Daniel Luby, a Texas resident concerned about water and soil safety, supports the land application of treated produced water only with extensive safeguards. He argues the current draft rules are insufficient to protect communities and agriculture, citing the need for strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He also emphasizes that the rulemaking is premature due to lack of scientific data and urges TCEQ to base rules on independent science. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.
AI-generated summary:
María-Alicia Galarce opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She contends that the rule lacks necessary safeguards and is premature given the lack of scientific data. She lists numerous requirements, including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She requests an extended comment period and public hearings in impacted communities.
AI-generated summary:
Suzanne Stoltz conditionally supports the rule but argues it is currently insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She requests an extended comment period and public hearings in affected regions. She lists numerous required safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data. She calls for the rule to be based on independent science rather than industry data.
AI-generated summary:
Annalisa Peace, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written, arguing it does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She lists numerous required safeguards, including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. Peace requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in impacted communities across the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. She calls for the rule to be based on rigorous independent science and maintains that barriers to obtaining a permit should remain high until scientific gaps are filled.
AI-generated summary:
Arthur Fellows opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, stating it lacks sufficient protections for public health and the environment. He argues that the 30-day comment period is too short and requests an extension, along with public hearings in affected regions. Fellows lists numerous required safeguards, including stricter setback distances, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He asks TCEQ to base the rule on rigorous independent science and to set high barriers for permitting.
AI-generated summary:
Toni Snidow opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is premature and scientifically unsupported. She states that the draft rules do not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities, agriculture, and the environment. Snidow emphasizes the need for permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and incorporation of numerous safeguards into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Joan West opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water, arguing it is premature and lacks sufficient scientific basis. She raises concerns about public health, water quality, and agricultural impacts, and lists numerous required safeguards including contaminant limits for toxins like PFAS and heavy metals, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. She also requests that the comment period be extended by 30 days and that public hearings be held in impacted communities. She urges TCEQ to adopt strong, science-based rules that protect communities and ensure accountability.
AI-generated summary:
Dallas Johnson-MD, a commenter identifying as a medical doctor, opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water as currently written. He argues that the rule lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, soil, water, and agriculture, and that the science is not yet sufficient to support this rulemaking. He highlights the need for strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He requests that the TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in affected regions, and incorporate a comprehensive set of safeguard requirements into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Chloe C opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient regulatory framework to protect communities, agriculture, and the environment. She contends the rule is premature because the necessary science does not exist and requests an extended comment period and public hearings in impacted regions. She lists numerous required protections, including permitting transparency, stricter setbacks, contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She asks TCEQ to adopt these conditions and ensure the rule is based on rigorous independent science before any permits are granted.
AI-generated summary:
Mark Uzee, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently drafted. He argues the rule lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that the science is premature. Uzee lists numerous required safeguards including stricter setbacks, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions.
AI-generated summary:
Rita Berry supports the rule only if significant conditions are met. She argues the draft rules lack a strong scientific basis and are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She raises concerns about contamination risks to water, soil, crops, and livestock. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings, and a comprehensive list of safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits.
AI-generated summary:
Linda Cabral opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes that clean water is vital for agriculture, livestock, and community well-being, and that current rules lack necessary safeguards. Cabral requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in impacted regions. She calls for numerous protections including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Lisa Johnson, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written. She argues the rule does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment, and states that the science does not exist to support the rulemaking. She lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. Johnson requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and schedule public hearings in impacted oil and gas regions.
AI-generated summary:
William Stanton, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. He argues the rule lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, agricultural industries, and the environment, citing deficiencies in permitting, contaminant limits, monitoring, and public access to data. He contends the rulemaking is premature due to insufficient independent science on produced water safety. He requests TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in impacted regions, and incorporate robust protective measures including strict contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Virginia Garcia opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water. She argues that the current draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment, and that the rulemaking is premature because the science does not exist. She lists numerous required safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and high barriers for permits.
AI-generated summary:
Ernest Braun, an individual from a community that depends on clean water, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water. He argues that the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment, citing the lack of robust standards, transparent permitting, and mandatory testing. Braun contends that the rule is premature because the necessary independent science does not exist, and he criticizes the short comment period and limited public hearings. He requests an extension of the comment period by 30 days, additional hearings in affected regions, and the inclusion of numerous specific safeguards such as stricter setback distances, continuous monitoring, and independent audits.
AI-generated summary:
Patty Peebles opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that the draft rules lack sufficient protections for public health and the environment. She emphasizes that clean water is essential for agriculture, community well-being, and economic investment. Peebles lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access, and asserts that the rulemaking is premature due to insufficient science. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and scheduling of public hearings in impacted regions such as the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.
AI-generated summary:
Lynn Yinger, an individual, supports the rule only with significant safeguards, expressing concern that the current draft does not adequately protect communities or the environment. They argue that robust standards are needed for permitting transparency, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits to ensure safety and public trust. They also highlight that the science is insufficient and that the comment period and public hearings are inadequate. Yinger requests an extension of the comment period, scheduling of local hearings, and adoption of a comprehensive set of protective requirements.
AI-generated summary:
Patrick Hammes supports the concept of land application of treated produced water only with strong safeguards, expressing concern that the current draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. He argues that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and calls for a higher permitting bar and rigorous testing to fill scientific gaps. Hammes lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in impacted regions to ensure community input.
AI-generated summary:
Patricia Gardiner, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water. She argues the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment, and that the rulemaking is premature due to a lack of science. She lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, and open data access. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected areas, and stronger rule enforcement.
AI-generated summary:
Frances Ross, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is premature and lacks a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She lists numerous necessary safeguards including permitting transparency, uniform minimum standards, strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. She requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and schedule public hearings in impacted regions such as the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. She urges TCEQ to base the final rule on rigorous independent science and to ensure high barriers for obtaining permits.
AI-generated summary:
Kay Hollenbeck criticizes the draft rule for failing to protect public health and the environment, and requests an extension of the comment period. She argues that the rule lacks essential safeguards such as permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, and continuous monitoring. She emphasizes that clean water is vital for agriculture and community well-being. She asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in affected regions, and incorporate multiple specific safeguards into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Sid Parsons opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. He argues the rule lacks sufficient protections for public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that the science is premature. He requests numerous specific safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He also asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in impacted regions.
AI-generated summary:
Joseph Chase opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. He raises concerns about liability limitations, lack of permitting transparency, and inadequate contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. He calls for continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking to ensure safety. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted regions, and urges TCEQ to base the rule on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Michael Martin opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He argues the rule lacks robust standards for contaminant limits, monitoring, and transparency, and is premature given gaps in scientific knowledge. He emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and community well-being. He requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and inclusion of specific safeguards such as continuous testing, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Marilyn Yanke, a private citizen, opposes the current draft of the land application rule but would accept it if stringent conditions are met. She argues that the draft lacks sufficient protections for public health, water quality, and agricultural viability, listing requirements such as permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, contaminant limits on heavy metals and PFAS, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She emphasizes that the rulemaking is premature without independent science and that current liability limits demand robust standards. Yanke requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.
AI-generated summary:
Edmund Frost opposes the proposed TCEQ rule on land application of produced water, arguing the current draft lacks sufficient protections. He criticizes the 30-day comment period as too short and the single public hearing as inadequate for affected communities. He lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and baseline soil and crop testing. Frost requests TCEQ extend the comment period, hold hearings in impacted areas, and base the final rule on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Anna Loera opposes the proposed rule as currently written and requests TCEQ to extend the comment period and hold additional public hearings. She argues that the draft rules lack sufficient protections for water and soil, including inadequate setbacks, contaminant limits, and transparency. She emphasizes the need for continuous monitoring, independent audits, and tracking of bioaccumulation to protect agriculture and community health. She requests that the final rule incorporate these safeguards and be based on rigorous independent science before proceeding.
AI-generated summary:
Betty Ferrero submits comments on the proposed rule for land application of treated produced water, supporting the concept only if robust safeguards are included. She argues the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, the environment, and agricultural industries, citing the need for stricter permitting, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and transparency. Ferrero emphasizes that the rulemaking is premature because independent science is lacking, and she calls for high barriers to permitting. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions, along with specific protective measures in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Dorothy Kraemer submits comments opposing the proposed TCEQ rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it does not sufficiently protect public health and the environment. She contends that the rule lacks adequate safeguards and that the 30-day comment period is too short for meaningful input. Kraemer outlines a series of required protections including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She requests that TCEQ extend the comment period and hold public hearings in affected regions such as the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale.
AI-generated summary:
Melani Gibson opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. She contends the draft rules provide an insufficient regulatory framework and that 30 days is too short for comprehensive analysis. Gibson requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in impacted regions. She also demands specific protections including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Claudia Machell, a concerned citizen, opposes the current draft rules for land application of produced water, arguing they lack sufficient safeguards to protect public health and the environment. She contends the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science is not yet available, and the rules must be based on rigorous independent science. Machell lists specific required measures, including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected communities across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Joyce Overton, a Texas private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. She raises concerns about the lack of permitting transparency, inadequate setback distances, missing contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and insufficient monitoring and testing requirements. Overton also criticizes the 30-day comment period as too short and the single public hearing as insufficient. She requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected communities, and the inclusion of multiple specific safeguards including continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Stephen Ball, a Texas resident, supports land application of produced water only if the rule includes strong protective measures. He argues the current draft lacks sufficient safeguards for public health and the environment, citing the need for permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. He also states that the rule is premature because the science does not exist to set adequate standards. Ball requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and adoption of numerous specific conditions to ensure safety.
AI-generated summary:
Bo Baggs, an individual citizen, expresses concern that the proposed rule on land application of produced water is insufficient and requests significant strengthening. He argues the draft rules fail to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that the underlying science is inadequate. Baggs lists numerous required safeguards including strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and full data transparency. He asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in affected regions before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
George Baggs, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written. He argues that the rule lacks sufficient protections for public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that 30 days is insufficient for comprehensive review. Baggs emphasizes the need for rigorous, independent science and greater community input through public hearings. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and the inclusion of specific safeguards such as continuous monitoring, independent audits, and contaminant limits.
AI-generated summary:
Elizabeth Waller opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and environment. She argues that the rules lack essential safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She also notes that the science is premature and that the comment period and public hearings are inadequate. She requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and inclusion of multiple protective measures in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Debra Atlas opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. She argues the rules are insufficient to protect public health, the environment, and agricultural industries. She expresses concerns about inadequate time for public comment and insufficient public hearings. She requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted communities, and a comprehensive set of safeguards including stricter limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
L C, an individual commenter, supports the land application of produced water only with significant safeguards, criticizing the current draft rule as insufficient. They argue that the rule is premature because the science is lacking and that stronger protections are needed to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. Specific concerns include contamination from heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, as well as the need for transparency, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. They request a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected areas, and the inclusion of numerous specific safeguards in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Debbie Hollis opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it does not sufficiently protect public health and the environment. She cites concerns about permitting transparency, contaminant limits, continuous testing, and independent audits. She also states that the rulemaking is premature due to lack of scientific basis and that the 30-day comment period and single hearing are insufficient. Hollis requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the inclusion of numerous specific safeguards in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Beth Christopherson opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, the environment, and agricultural livelihoods. She contends that the current framework lacks adequate safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She also asserts that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and that the 30-day comment period is too short for thorough analysis. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and the incorporation of robust protective measures such as mandatory setbacks, third-party testing, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Helena Dobay opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water as currently written. She argues the rule does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities and agricultural industries. She lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent auditing. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions.
AI-generated summary:
Lesley Horner opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written, arguing it lacks sufficient protections for public health, agriculture, and the environment. She emphasizes the need for clean water for communities, crops, and livestock, and criticizes the 30-day comment period as inadequate for thorough review. She requests an extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in affected regions like the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. Horner demands the final rule include permitting transparency, stricter safeguards, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Kate Mathis, a Texas resident, supports the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water only with extensive additional safeguards. She argues that the current draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, water, and soil, and that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist. She emphasizes the need for transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. Mathis requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions, and urges TCEQ to include robust permitting, testing, and accountability measures.
AI-generated summary:
Gyla Fowler, an individual from Texas, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health and the environment. She contends that the draft rules are premature because independent science is insufficient, and the current framework fails to ensure accountability and transparency. Fowler raises concerns about contaminants like heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and calls for continuous monitoring, independent audits, and baseline soil testing. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and stronger regulatory standards before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Daton Dodson, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule as written. He argues the draft rules lack sufficient safeguards to protect public health and the environment, citing needs for permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. He also contends the science is incomplete and that 30 days is insufficient to prepare comments. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and the inclusion of numerous safeguards in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Catherine Faver, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written. She argues that the rule lacks sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, the environment, and agricultural industries. She highlights the need for permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. Faver requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and stronger rule enforcement.
AI-generated summary:
Kim Attayi comments on the proposed rule for land application of treated produced water, expressing conditional support with extensive required safeguards. They argue the draft rules lack a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, and list numerous specific requirements such as permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. They note that Texas law limits operator liability if rules are met, making it critical that the rules be robust and based on independent science rather than limited industry data. Attayi requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and that the final rule include all the specified safeguards.
AI-generated summary:
Jimmy Kosclski opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it fails to provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, water, soil, and agriculture. He asserts that the rule is premature because the necessary science does not exist and that existing draft standards lack essential safeguards. Kosclski lists numerous required protections, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking. He requests the TCEQ extend the comment period, hold public hearings in affected communities, and base the final rule on rigorous, independent science rather than limited industry data.
AI-generated summary:
Francis Blake opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water, arguing it does not provide sufficient protections for public health and the environment. He raises concerns about potential pollution of soils, waterways, and agricultural resources, and criticizes the limited comment period and single public hearing. He calls for numerous safeguards including stricter setback distances, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and hold additional hearings in impacted regions before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Ben Schnapp, an individual concerned about water quality and agriculture, opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He argues that the rule is premature because the science does not exist and that it lacks essential safeguards such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and public data access. He emphasizes that clean water is vital for agriculture and community wellbeing. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and adoption of a comprehensive set of protective measures.
AI-generated summary:
Rachel Behnke, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. She argues that the rule lacks sufficient protections for public health and the environment, and that the science is not yet established to safely proceed. She raises concerns about contaminants, transparency, and accountability. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected communities, and numerous specific safeguards including stricter standards and independent monitoring.
AI-generated summary:
Janice Young opposes the proposed rule as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the rules lack basic safeguards and the science is not yet established to permit land application. She lists numerous required protections, including stricter contaminant limits, continuous testing, and independent audits. She requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in affected regions.
AI-generated summary:
Maxine Rebeles supports the concept of land application of produced water but argues the current draft rules are insufficient and premature. She emphasizes the need for robust safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and transparent data access to protect water, soil, and agriculture. She also requests an extended comment period and public hearings in impacted regions like the Permian Basin. She asks TCEQ to base the rule on independent science and require high permit barriers to fill scientific gaps.
AI-generated summary:
Anne Guenzel opposes the draft rules as insufficient and supports produced water land application only with stringent safeguards. She argues that the rules lack permitting transparency, uniform standards, and strict contaminant limits for heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. She also criticizes the 30-day comment period and single public hearing as inadequate for such an impactful rule. She requests an extended comment period, additional public hearings, and a comprehensive set of protective measures including continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Lesa Sowell, a Texas resident, conditionally supports the proposed rule on land application of produced water but requests an extended comment period and many additional safeguards. She argues that the draft rules lack a sufficient regulatory framework to protect communities and agriculture, citing concerns about contaminants like PFAS and radionuclides. She calls for specific requirements including mandatory permitting, public notice, stricter setbacks, continuous testing, independent audits, and open data access. Sowell asks TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in affected regions, and incorporate all listed safeguards before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Beki Halpin comments as an individual, supporting the land application of produced water only if strong safeguards are included. They argue that the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment and that the 30-day comment period is too short. They request numerous specific protections, including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and transparent public data. Halpin asks TCEQ to extend the comment period, hold public hearings in affected areas, and incorporate all listed safeguards before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Rodolfo Regojo comments on the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, expressing strong concerns and requesting major changes. He argues the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment, particularly for communities and agriculture that depend on clean water. He lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected areas.
AI-generated summary:
Tara Lulla supports the concept of produced water land application only if strict conditions are met, but argues the current draft rule is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes that the rulemaking is premature because the science is lacking and that the barriers to obtaining a permit should be high. She lists numerous required safeguards including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions, and urges TCEQ to incorporate a comprehensive set of protective measures before finalizing the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Jane Leatherman opposes the proposed rule as insufficient and premature. She argues that the science is not yet established and that the current draft lacks necessary safeguards for public health and the environment. She lists numerous required protections including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. She requests an extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and a significantly strengthened rule.
AI-generated summary:
Barbara Freeman opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities and businesses. She contends that 30 days is insufficient time for public comment and requests an extension, as well as public hearings in impacted regions such as the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale. She lists numerous required safeguards, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She asks TCEQ to base the rules on rigorous independent science and ensure that the barriers to obtaining a permit are high.
AI-generated summary:
Mark Storozyszyn opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water and requests a 30-day extension of the comment period. He argues that the draft rules lack sufficient safeguards to protect public health, water quality, and agricultural livelihoods, and are premature because the necessary science does not exist. He lists numerous specific requirements, including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits on PFAS and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. He asks TCEQ to extend the comment period, hold additional public hearings in affected regions, and ensure the final rule is based on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Jay Silver opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health and the environment. He emphasizes that Texas communities rely on clean water for drinking, agriculture, and livestock, and that the current rules lack transparency, adequate safeguards, and scientific basis. He requests an extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions. Silver outlines numerous specific requirements for the final rule, including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access.
AI-generated summary:
Jaynell Nicholson comments on the proposed rule for land application of treated produced water, supporting the concept but only with robust safeguards. They argue the current draft rules lack sufficient protections for public health, agriculture, and the environment, and note that the science is premature. Key concerns include inadequate permitting transparency, lack of strict contaminant limits on toxins like heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, insufficient monitoring, and absence of independent audits. They request a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and adoption of specific requirements such as continuous 24/7 testing, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
AnaLisa Crandall, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it does not adequately protect public health, agriculture, or the environment. She contends that the science is insufficient to support the rule and that existing draft standards lack transparency, strict contaminant limits, and continuous monitoring. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions. She demands that the final rule include robust safeguards such as permitting transparency, strict setbacks, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
R.K. and Linda Entrekin oppose the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is premature and insufficient to protect public health and the environment. They express concerns about risks to agriculture, livestock, and community water supplies. They list numerous required safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. They request an extended comment period, additional public hearings in impacted areas, and a regulatory framework based on independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Pat Smart, an individual, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing the draft rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment. They contend the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist and that barriers to permits should be high. They emphasize the need for strict safeguards including permitting transparency, contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. They request a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected communities across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Phillip Dallek opposes the current draft rule and asks for significant safeguards before land application of produced water proceeds. He argues the proposed rules are insufficient to protect public health and the environment, noting that liability limits make robust standards essential. He emphasizes the need for strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access, as well as bioaccumulation tracking through soil and crop testing. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions, and urges the TCEQ to base rules on independent science rather than industry data.
AI-generated summary:
Helen Fanick opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently written, stating it does not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities and businesses. She argues that robust standards are essential for public health, environmental safety, and the trust of agricultural and community stakeholders. Fanick requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in impacted regions like the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin. She demands TCEQ include specific safeguards such as permitting transparency, stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Randy Thomas, a Texas farmer and community member, opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment. He contends the draft rules fail to provide a robust regulatory framework, citing the need for permitting transparency, stricter setback distances, and explicit contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. He also emphasizes the importance of continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access to ensure accountability and prevent toxic buildup in the food chain. Thomas requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and that TCEQ set high barriers to permitting until rigorous, independent science is established.
AI-generated summary:
Edgar Ceballos supports the concept of land application of produced water only with stringent safeguards, but opposes the current draft rules as insufficient. He argues that the rules fail to protect public health and agriculture, citing needs for contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He says the rulemaking is premature due to scientific gaps and that barriers to permitting should be high. He requests a 30-day comment extension and public hearings in affected regions.
AI-generated summary:
Vince Mendieta opposes the proposed rule as insufficient and premature. He argues that the draft rules lack adequate protections for public health, the environment, and agricultural industries, and that the science on produced water treatment is incomplete. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in oil-producing regions. He urges TCEQ to include stringent requirements such as permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits before allowing land application.
AI-generated summary:
Jennifer Quick, a Texas resident, opposes the proposed rules for land application of produced water as insufficient to protect public health and the environment, but supports the concept if rigorous conditions are met. She argues that the current draft lacks adequate safeguards, including strict contaminant limits on PFAS, heavy metals, and radionuclides, transparent permitting, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. Quick emphasizes the risks to agriculture, livestock, and community drinking water, and insists that the rules be based on independent science rather than industry data. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the incorporation of specific protective measures into the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
The commenter, a full-guest producer and landowner in South Texas, opposes the proposed rule as it applies to his operations in the Carrizo aquifer. He argues that the produced water from his wells is pristine, with low chlorides (200 PPM), and has been safely land-applied for decades without environmental harm. He believes he is unfairly lumped with other produced water that may contain higher levels of contaminants, and that the rule's requirements are overly burdensome and unnecessary for his situation. He asks TCEQ to consider a different regulatory framework for Carrizo aquifer produced water or to exempt it from the blanket rules.
AI-generated summary:
Ronnie Andrews, on behalf of Meta Midstream LLC, supports the proposed amendments for land application of produced water but recommends additional monitoring and verification measures. The comment emphasizes that trust in beneficial reuse depends on verified measurement and continuous, instrument-based monitoring rather than periodic grab sampling. They also recommend electronic, tamper-evident recordkeeping and performance-based, technology-neutral standards to allow innovation while ensuring water quality. Meta Midstream urges TCEQ to adopt the rule with these safeguards to protect soil and groundwater and build public confidence.
AI-generated summary:
Clean Water Action, representing its Texas members, opposes the current proposed rule for land application of produced water, arguing it is not appropriate to fit this wastewater into existing regulations. The group requests that TCEQ not proceed with Chapters 210 and 309 and instead create a separate rulemaking specific to oil and gas produced water. They also ask for clarification on disposal requirements for sludge or waste byproducts from treatment. Additionally, they call for an extended public comment period and at least five regional public hearings to increase engagement.
AI-generated summary:
Meta Midstream LLC, a Houston-based energy infrastructure company, supports the proposed amendments to allow land application of produced water. The commenter argues that beneficial reuse is critical for water-stressed regions and that public trust depends on verified measurement. They recommend continuous, instrument-based monitoring, electronic recordkeeping, and performance-based standards to ensure protective and practical rules. Meta Midstream requests adoption of the amendments and participation in future rulemakings.
AI-generated summary:
Vivek Gani, an individual, expresses concerns and requests an extension of the comment period by 30-60 days for the proposed rule on land application of produced water. They raise multiple questions about treatment byproducts, testing methodologies, and the removal of contaminants such as heavy metals, radioactive materials, PFAS, and VOCs. They also question filtration standards, long-term monitoring transparency, and geographic limits, particularly near wells and karst ecosystems. Gani asks TCEQ to provide more time for public understanding and input.
AI-generated summary:
Sandra Moore, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water. She is concerned that research on water content is insufficient and that toxins like PFAS and arsenic are present without a clear removal plan. Moore also argues there is no accountability if problems arise, and that produced water could contaminate aquifers and surface water. She requests that the project be halted until these concerns are addressed.
AI-generated summary:
Robert Foss, an energy executive and founder of Hinds Feat Advisors, writes in strong support of the TCEQ's proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, but asks the Commission to create an expedited authorization track for projects that recover critical minerals like lithium. He argues that such projects inherently employ the most rigorous treatment processes, resulting in cleaner effluent and reducing the volume of water sent to disposal wells that can cause induced seismicity. Foss also highlights national security and economic benefits, citing the potential for significant domestic lithium production and job creation. He recommends a tiered, expedited permitting pathway that maintains full water-quality monitoring while providing faster review for qualifying projects.
AI-generated summary:
Kim Paxson opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water. She argues that repurposing fracking wastewater for agricultural purposes is unacceptable. She cites the lack of legal liability as a fundamental flaw that removes any mechanism for enforcement. She urges TCEQ to oppose the rule.
AI-generated summary:
JD Kidwell opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water. They argue that produced water contains a complex mix of contaminants including salts, heavy metals, radioactive materials, and chemicals that vary by well. They criticize the rule for not prescribing specific treatment technologies and testing for harmful substances like radionuclides and PFAS, and for lacking legal liability. Kidwell calls the proposal an off-loading of the problem and requests TCEQ to reject the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Craig Eroh supports the rule with conditions, applauding the transfer of jurisdiction but disagreeing that oilfield wastewater should be tested like municipal wastewater. He argues that separate regulations need to be established. He emphasizes the need to go slow to ensure a win-win outcome. He requests that TCEQ establish separate standards and proceed cautiously.
AI-generated summary:
David Moore opposes the proposed rule allowing land application of produced water. He argues that without a guarantee of 100% contaminant-free water, it will damage Texas's agriculture economy and erode consumer trust. Moore believes no consumer will purchase Texas agricultural products if produced water is used in the production chain. He requests that TCEQ reject the rule entirely.
AI-generated summary:
Kelly Moore opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water. They express concern that long-term medical issues from consuming water through the food chain cannot be tested for years. Moore argues that insufficient research on plants and animals means the practice could cause severe abnormalities or death. They urge TCEQ not to use this water for land application, suggesting alternative uses that keep it away from consumption.
AI-generated summary:
Carson-Mike Harreld opposes the proposed rulemaking on land application of treated produced water, arguing the draft rules do not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect Texas communities and agricultural industries. They emphasize that clean water is essential for their livelihood and community health, and that the current rules fail to ensure safety. Harreld contends the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist and requests that the TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in impacted regions. They also call for a comprehensive set of safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access.
AI-generated summary:
Geoffrey Reeder comments on the proposed rule for land application of treated produced water. He argues that the water should be held to at least the same standards as treated water from municipal sewer systems. This condition is presented as a minimum requirement for the rule to be acceptable. He asks TCEQ to ensure the rule incorporates these standards.
AI-generated summary:
Susan Gates, a private citizen, opposes the proposed land application rule as currently written, stating it lacks sufficient protections for public health and the environment. She argues that the comment period is too short and that the TCEQ should hold public hearings in affected regions like the Permian Basin. She lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, stricter setbacks, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. She requests an extension of the comment period and that the final rule incorporate these safeguards, emphasizing that the rulemaking is premature without a strong scientific foundation.
AI-generated summary:
Isaias Aguilar opposes the proposed rule as currently written and calls for significant strengthening with multiple safeguards before land application of produced water can proceed. He argues that the draft rules do not adequately protect public health, the environment, and agricultural industries, and that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist. He requests an extended 30-day comment period and public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin to allow affected communities to weigh in. He demands that the final rule include permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Dana Ames, a concerned individual, submits comments expressing that the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water is insufficient and calls for strong safeguards. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and additional public hearings in oil-producing regions like the Permian Basin. She lists numerous required protections including permitting transparency, strict limits on heavy metals and PFAS, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. She asks TCEQ to base the rule on independent science, raise permitting barriers until scientific gaps are filled, and update the docket with her requests.
AI-generated summary:
Dana Ames, a Texas resident, expresses strong concern about the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that the current draft is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. She emphasizes the importance of clean water for agriculture and community well-being, and contends that the 30-day comment period is too short for thorough analysis. Ames requests an extended comment period, public hearings in impacted regions, and a comprehensive list of safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking. She urges TCEQ to base the final rule on rigorous independent science and to ensure strong liability protections for operators who meet the standards.
AI-generated summary:
Rafael Cano opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it does not provide a sufficient regulatory framework and is premature because the science does not exist. He raises concerns about clean water for communities, agriculture, and livestock, and highlights deficiencies in the draft rules such as lack of transparency, inadequate contaminant limits, and insufficient testing. He lists necessary safeguards including permitting transparency, uniform minimum standards, strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data, and bioaccumulation tracking. He requests TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in affected regions, and base the rule on rigorous independent science with high permit barriers.
AI-generated summary:
Larry Mitchell, a Texas farmer, opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water as insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He argues that the rule lacks necessary safeguards including strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. He also criticizes the 30-day comment period as too short and the single public hearing as inadequate for affected communities. He requests TCEQ extend the comment period, hold hearings in impacted regions, and adopt a robust permitting process with strict standards.
AI-generated summary:
Hilary Deweerd, a Texas resident, opposes the current draft rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing it lacks sufficient protections for public health, the environment, and agriculture. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected oil and gas regions. She lists numerous required safeguards, including a formal permitting process, stricter setback distances, continuous monitoring, independent audits, open data access, and baseline soil and crop testing. She also argues the rule is premature due to insufficient science and asks TCEQ to base standards on independent research.
AI-generated summary:
Jerry Khoury opposes the proposed rulemaking as insufficient to protect public health and environment. He argues that the current draft lacks sufficient regulatory framework and that the science does not yet exist to support the rule. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions. He outlines numerous specific safeguards that must be included in any final rule, including permitting transparency, uniform standards, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and bioaccumulation tracking.
AI-generated summary:
Clara Boyer opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing that it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health and the environment. She contends that the 30-day comment period is too short and that the draft rules fail to include essential requirements such as contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and public data access. She emphasizes the risks to agriculture, livestock, and community water supplies, and states that the rulemaking is premature because the science on produced water safety does not yet exist. She requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in affected regions, and incorporate a comprehensive set of protective measures in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Rudy Villarreal, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently drafted. He argues the rule lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, citing concerns about heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. He states that the science is premature and that the comment period is too short. He requests an extended comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and a comprehensive set of safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, and open data access.
AI-generated summary:
Mona Goodpasture opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, stating the current draft fails to protect public health and the environment. She argues that the 30-day comment period is too short and that a single hearing is inadequate, requesting an extension and hearings in impacted areas. She lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, and open data access. Goodpasture asks TCEQ to strengthen the rule and ensure it is based on rigorous science, and requests that her comments be added to the docket.
AI-generated summary:
Marissa Zepeda opposes the proposed rule to land-apply produced water, arguing that using oil and gas wastewater on crops defies common sense. She suggests an alternative solution to conserve fresh water: stop the construction of data centers in Texas. Her comment expresses concern about food safety and water resource management. She requests TCEQ to reject the rule and instead address water consumption by data centers.
AI-generated summary:
Corina Benitez opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it prioritizes profits over people and will poison the land. She contends that leaching from produced water will make water unusable for people, agriculture, and farming. She also criticizes overpopulation and data centers' water consumption. She calls on TCEQ to reject the rule and protect the public.
AI-generated summary:
An anonymous individual opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, calling it a bad idea. They argue it will contaminate the environment, crops, and pose health risks to people, animals, and plants. They also warn that frequent use could render farmland unusable for future food production, harming farmers' income and livelihoods. They ask TCEQ to reject the rule.
AI-generated summary:
NGL Water Solutions Permian, LLC supports TCEQ's proposed rule for land application of treated produced water, viewing it as a key step to develop new water supplies. They emphasize the need for clear, protective, and practical permitting standards. NGL requests that TCEQ ensure the revisions do not inadvertently apply to domestic wastewater systems or direct industrial dischargers. They look forward to continued stakeholder engagement to support responsible reuse.
AI-generated summary:
Haseeb Abdullah opposes the proposed rule unless strict safety guarantees are met. He argues that produced water should not be applied on farmland until three independent testing companies can warrant and guarantee no long-term health effects to humans, animals, and plants. He emphasizes the need for independent verification of safety. He requests TCEQ to prohibit land application until such guarantees are provided.
AI-generated summary:
The Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water, arguing that it fails to fulfill the intent of SB 1145 by not establishing specific discharge standards, monitoring requirements, or public notice provisions. The comment warns that the rule treats produced water as ordinary industrial wastewater despite its unique contaminants such as NORMs, PFAS, heavy metals, and undisclosed trade-secret chemicals. It criticizes the insufficient setback distances of 100-150 feet and the lack of standards for constituent accumulation over time. The Sierra Club requests that TCEQ pause the rulemaking, create a stakeholder group to develop a separate regulatory framework, extend the comment period by 30 days, and hold public hearings in affected regions.
AI-generated summary:
Dr. Lauren Ross, speaking for the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance and Save Our Springs Alliance, opposes the proposed rule as inadequate. She argues that produced water has vastly different chemical characteristics from domestic wastewater, with high levels of salts, metals, and organic compounds that pose risks to groundwater, soils, and human health. She points out that existing regulations under Chapters 210, 309, and 213 do not provide sufficient effluent limitations, monitoring, or setbacks for produced water. She recommends that TCEQ amend the rule to include specific effluent standards, prohibit land application in sensitive areas like the Edwards Aquifer, and require robust monitoring and reporting.
AI-generated summary:
Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water. They argue the rule inappropriately treats produced water like domestic sewage, ignoring its different contaminants and the need for stricter pretreatment and monitoring. They express concern that the rule does not protect sensitive aquifers like the Edwards and relies on inadequate soil remediation. They request TCEQ to extend the comment period, prohibit application over the Edwards Aquifer, and significantly strengthen treatment and monitoring standards.
AI-generated summary:
John Brymer, a contractor who has operated Carrizo Aquifer wells for decades without compliance issues, questions why TCEQ's new testing requirements are necessary for his freshwater produced water that contains no significant contaminants. He emphasizes that the water is the same freshwater resource used regionally and that his land application has been safe for over 74 years. He acknowledges the state's efforts to encourage beneficial use but requests clarification on the scientific and regulatory basis for the expanded requirements. Brymer asks TCEQ to work with producers to better understand what is actually necessary for compliance.
AI-generated summary:
The National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, and other environmental groups oppose the proposed rule on land application of produced water. They argue that the rules merely extend existing domestic wastewater standards to industrial wastewater without adequate safeguards, failing to comply with SB 1145's requirement to prevent water pollution. They highlight risks from persistent toxic contaminants in produced water, noting insufficient treatment criteria, monitoring, and setback distances. They urge TCEQ to pause the rulemaking, extend the comment period, and develop more protective standards including pretreatment, mandatory monitoring wells, and larger setbacks.
AI-generated summary:
Kay Hill opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water. They question the safety of using treated produced water on food crops, suggesting that if it is not suitable for cooling data centers, it should not be applied to food. The commenter implies that the rule could lead to poisoning the food supply. Kay Hill asks TCEQ to reject the rule and consider alternative beneficial uses like data center cooling.
AI-generated summary:
Kay Hill, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water. She questions the safety of using produced water on food crops, suggesting that if it is not clean enough to cool data centers, it is not safe for agriculture. She argues that the water may not be as clean as claimed and proposes data center cooling as a win-win alternative. Hill asks TCEQ to reconsider the rule or restrict land application to non-food uses.
AI-generated summary:
The Texas Oil & Gas Association (TXOGA) supports the proposed rule but with conditions. They commend TCEQ for implementing SB 1145 but caution that revisions to Chapter 309 could create unintended consequences for industrial wastewater treatment. They request that the rule be limited to land application only and ensure no domestic wastewater requirements apply, and suggest creating a separate chapter for produced water. TXOGA also asks for clarification on definitions, surface impoundment jurisdiction, and spill reporting.
AI-generated summary:
The Texas Independent Produced Water Association (TIPWA) supports TCEQ's proposed rulemaking to establish standards for land application of treated produced water. TIPWA commends TCEQ for implementing Senate Bill 1145 and consolidating permitting authority from the Railroad Commission to TCEQ, which they say eliminates regulatory uncertainty. They argue that clear, codified standards provide predictability for the regulated community and ensure consistent environmental protections. TIPWA urges the Commission to proceed to adoption of the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Future Heist, an investigative nonprofit, opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water, arguing it fails to protect Texas land and water. They identify five substantive failures: insufficient contaminant testing (especially radium and PFAS), inadequate setbacks, limited public access to data, lack of financial assurance, and contradictions in agency filings that undermine transparency. The commenters emphasize that the rule was rushed without proper scientific evidence and does not meet the mandate of SB 1145 to prevent pollution. They request TCEQ to withdraw the proposal, extend the comment period, hold hearings in affected regions, publish supporting science, and re-propose a rule with stronger protective standards.
AI-generated summary:
The Nature Conservancy in Texas (TNC) supports land application of produced water only if strict safeguards are met. TNC argues that the current science is insufficient to ensure safety due to unknown contaminants and treatment limitations. They also caution that over-treatment could harm soil health by removing nutrients. TNC requests TCEQ to require comprehensive characterization, testing, monitoring, and public engagement before any permits are issued.
AI-generated summary:
The Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, a large industry trade group, expresses support for the proposed amendments to Chapter 309. They argue the rule provides regulatory certainty, a clear permitting pathway, and appropriate environmental safeguards. The Alliance states that the rule encourages investment in treatment technologies and helps address Texas' water challenges. They respectfully request that TCEQ adopt the proposed amendments.
AI-generated summary:
WildEarth Guardians, a nonprofit conservation organization, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water and requests that TCEQ not finalize it as drafted. The comment argues that the rule lacks produced-water-specific standards, fails to account for the limits of the RCRA exploration and production exemption, and ignores foreseeable risks such as spills, treatment failures, and contamination from treatment residuals. It cites evidence from peer-reviewed studies and New Mexico spill data to support concerns about PFAS, radionuclides, heavy metals, and cumulative impacts. The commenter requests that TCEQ either prohibit land application of treated produced water or revise the rule to include comprehensive safeguards including contaminant characterization, monitoring, spill prevention, financial assurance, and public reporting.
AI-generated summary:
Earthjustice, on behalf of Texas Permian Future Generations, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is insufficiently protective. The comment contends that the rule fails to establish numeric standards, relies on an inadequate TLAP program, and ignores the reality that land-applied water will reach groundwater. It cites extensive evidence of toxic constituents in produced water, unproven treatment technologies, and risks to aquifers, soils, and livestock. The comment requests that TCEQ reject the rule and instead require TPDES permits with strict numeric limits, groundwater monitoring, and increased setbacks.
AI-generated summary:
Earthjustice, on behalf of Texas Permian Future Generations, opposes the proposed rule and requests an extension of the comment period due to insufficient public information. The comment includes expert reports from a toxicologist and a geologist that raise concerns about incomplete analysis of treated produced water, missing contaminants, and potential risks to aquifers and air quality. The commenters argue that the pilot studies were limited in scope and that the rule lacks adequate monitoring and buffer distance justification. They ask TCEQ to extend the comment period, conduct additional studies, and strengthen the rule's protective measures before finalization.
AI-generated summary:
Paulina Williams, on behalf of the Texas Industry Project, supports TCEQ's proposed rule implementing SB 1145 but recommends several revisions. TIP argues that proposed changes to Chapter 309 could have unintended consequences for industrial wastewater treatment, particularly the new 100-foot distance limit from water in the state. TIP also suggests clarifying the definition of produced water to distinguish treated water and adding a nondisturbance provision to preserve RRC jurisdiction. TIP asks TCEQ to remove or modify the distance limit, clarify definitions, and further engage with stakeholders.
AI-generated summary:
Grant Hensarling opposes the proposed rule authorizing land application of produced water. He argues that TCEQ lacks a complete understanding of produced water's toxic constituents and that treatment technology is unproven at scale. He notes that Texas generates enormous volumes of produced water daily, posing unacceptable risks to soil, groundwater, and public health. He urges TCEQ to withdraw the rulemaking and first establish comprehensive water quality standards, require full chemical disclosure, conduct a risk assessment, and ensure independent monitoring.
AI-generated summary:
Lisa Griggs, a private citizen living in a county already polluted with PFAS, opposes the proposed rule. She argues that oil and gas companies can afford proper waste storage and remediation instead of spraying produced water on land. She contends that this practice would harm both humans and wildlife, including pollinators essential to civilization, and would turn the Barnett Shale into a disposal site. Griggs finds the proposal wholly unacceptable and does not support it.
AI-generated summary:
Greg Bolton, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule allowing land application of produced water. He argues that it would permit for-profit companies to pollute the land with potentially toxic wastewater, drawing an analogy to littering. He asserts that companies should bear the responsibility of properly disposing of their waste rather than being allowed to contaminate the environment. He asks TCEQ to reject the rule and prevent such pollution.
AI-generated summary:
Jeffery Hayes opposes the proposed rule for land application of produced water. He argues that harmful chemicals such as heavy metals, microplastics, and PFAS cannot be fully removed and pose risks to food crops. He worries about insufficient oversight and the use of trade secrets to avoid disclosure. He recommends that produced water only be used for non-food crops or industrial purposes, and calls for full chemical disclosure and stricter oversight.
AI-generated summary:
Clayton Tucker, a Texas rancher and candidate for Agriculture Commissioner, opposes the proposed rule allowing land application of produced water. He argues that the rule does not specify which contaminants will be tested and that fracking wastewater contains a hazardous mix of salts, heavy metals, radioactive materials, and PFAS. He expresses distrust in the government's ability to protect farmers and points out that there is no fund for damages if contamination occurs. Tucker requests that TCEQ extend the comment period, hold hearings around the state in the evenings, and require a contingency fund funded by oil and gas companies.
AI-generated summary:
James Buchanan asks why TCEQ does not require data centers to use produced water for cooling instead of using fresh water. He suggests that data centers should bear the cost of cleaning up the contaminated water. This alternative approach would conserve good water resources. His comment does not directly address the proposed land application rule.
AI-generated summary:
CMV Consulting LLC, representing South Texas independent oil producers, conditionally supports the proposed rule for land application of produced water. They argue that their produced water from conventional Carrizo water-drive wells is naturally fresh, with chloride levels around 100 ppm, vastly different from the highly saline Permian Basin water that the rule primarily addresses. CMV emphasizes the water's long history of safe, permitted use under the Railroad Commission and its agricultural benefits for drought-prone areas. They request TCEQ to create a simplified, low-burden permitting path that leverages existing historical data and recognizes the distinct characteristics of their operations.
AI-generated summary:
Marlene Plua, a community advocate, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water. She argues that produced water is highly saline and contains hazardous contaminants, and that applying it to land could worsen salinity in the already stressed Rio Grande Basin, harming agriculture and water quality. She also criticizes the lack of adequate monitoring, proper waste classification, and public notification, especially for Spanish-speaking communities. She requests that TCEQ pause the rulemaking and hold public regional meetings to gather more input.
AI-generated summary:
Healthy Gulf, an environmental advocacy organization, opposes the proposed TCEQ rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is premature and lacks sufficient scientific evidence to ensure safety. The comment highlights the complex and hazardous constituents of produced water, including heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, and notes that the Texas Produced Water Consortium found insufficient evidence of safety. Healthy Gulf raises concerns about risks to groundwater, soil health, crop safety, and rural communities, which bear disproportionate exposure. The organization requests that TCEQ not finalize the rule until adequate science exists, and asks for extended public participation, impact assessments, and stronger protections such as strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits.
AI-generated summary:
John Reese opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water as currently drafted. He argues the rule lacks sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, water quality, and agricultural industries. He lists numerous required safeguards including transparent permitting, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted communities across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Wayne Coltrane, an individual, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. He argues the rules do not provide sufficient regulatory framework to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, and that the science is premature. He insists on a range of safeguards including stricter setback distances, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted communities.
AI-generated summary:
Wayne Coltrane, a Texas farmer, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. He argues the rule lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health, water quality, and agricultural operations, and that the science supporting the rule is insufficient. He calls for stricter permitting, testing, monitoring, and public data access, including limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides. He requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in impacted communities across Texas.
AI-generated summary:
Leslie Dare, an individual commenter, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently written. They argue that the rule lacks sufficient protections for public health, agriculture, and the environment, and is premature because the necessary science does not yet exist. They request numerous specific safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. They ask TCEQ to extend the comment period by 30 days, hold public hearings in affected regions, and ensure the final rule is based on rigorous independent science.
AI-generated summary:
Jennifer Green, a concerned citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water as currently drafted. She argues the rule fails to protect public health, agriculture, and the environment, and lacks sufficient scientific basis. She highlights numerous deficiencies, including inadequate contaminant limits, lack of transparency, and insufficient public participation. She requests a 30-day extension of the comment period, public hearings in affected regions, and the inclusion of strict safeguards such as continuous monitoring and independent audits.
AI-generated summary:
Neal Spackman, representing SusTeco, supports the rulemaking but urges the Commission to prioritize technologies with proven field performance and facilitate technology transfer from international solutions. He cites SusTeco's integrated biological treatment system in Oman that processes 300,000 barrels per day via constructed saline wetlands, which has attracted migratory birds and demonstrates beneficial ecological impact without desalination. He argues that mandating desalination would make reuse economically prohibitive and that excluding foreign-validated technologies would limit effective solutions. He requests that TCEQ define reuse standards by outcomes rather than specific technologies, explicitly allow foreign commercial-scale technologies to qualify, and reduce permitting friction for technology transfer.
AI-generated summary:
Betty-Sue Dunn, a private citizen, opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, stating it does not provide sufficient protection for public health and the environment. She argues that the current rules lack adequate safeguards such as permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, and independent audits. She also notes that 30 days is insufficient for comment and that a single hearing is inadequate. She requests an extended comment period, additional public hearings in impacted areas, and the inclusion of numerous specific protective measures in the final rule.
AI-generated summary:
Steven Smith opposes the proposed rule on land application of produced water, arguing it is insufficient to protect public health and the environment. He contends the rule lacks a sufficient regulatory framework and is premature because the science on safety does not exist. He lists numerous required safeguards including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous testing, independent audits, and open data access. He requests an extension of the comment period and public hearings in affected regions, and urges TCEQ to strengthen the rule.
AI-generated summary:
Jessica Clay opposes the proposed rule on land application of treated produced water, arguing that the draft rules do not provide sufficient protection for public health and the environment. She contends that the rulemaking is premature because the necessary science does not exist, and that the barriers to obtaining a permit should be high. She calls for numerous specific safeguards, including strict contaminant limits on heavy metals, PFAS, and radionuclides, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. Clay requests that TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and hold public hearings in impacted communities across the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.
AI-generated summary:
Edward Kern opposes the current draft rule as insufficient and argues it is premature because the science does not exist to support safe land application of produced water. He expresses concerns that the rule lacks robust protections for public health and the environment, particularly for agricultural communities. He lists numerous required safeguards, including stricter contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and public data access. Kern requests a 30-day extension of the comment period and public hearings in oil-producing regions to ensure community input.
AI-generated summary:
Sarah Sudheer opposes the proposed rule as currently written, arguing it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect public health and the environment. She expresses concerns about inadequate comment period and lack of public hearings in impacted communities. She lists numerous required provisions including permitting transparency, strict contaminant limits, continuous monitoring, independent audits, and open data access. She requests TCEQ extend the comment period by 30 days and schedule public hearings in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, and East Texas Basin.